as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on the subject of the Referendums Bill [B. 115—’83], submitting an amended Bill [B. 115—’83 (Select Committee)].

Report and proceedings to be printed.

as Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Select Committee on Co-operation and Development.

Report and proceedings to be printed and considered in Committee of the Whole House.

as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Select Committee on Co-operation and Development.

Report and proceedings to be printed and considered.

QUESTIONS (see “QUESTIONS AND REPLIES”)

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, this perhaps is one of the most crucial clauses in the whole Bill. The fundamental issue which needs to be put here, as I see it, is that if people are categorized in accordance with a Government decision as opposed to their own decision, one is actually creating groups as opposed to groups which exist naturally in a community. Perhaps there is no better example of this than a community which historically has decided to be a community on its own—where it has decided that it wants to be a community—where in days gone by some authorities elsewhere have sought to say that if a person’s grandfather belonged to that particular community he must also, against his will, be part of that community. The reality is that if one has pride in being part of a community and if one wants to be part of a community, there is no need to have a law to force one into that community.

Secondly, if one takes the real situation in regard to groups and communities, people automatically know to what group or community they belong. In regard to race relations perhaps nothing has done the image of South Africa more harm than actually forcing people to be part of a community to which they do not want to belong. I would suggest that, if the law in South Africa were changed to allow people to decide where they belong, to allow them to belong to the group for which they have a natural affinity or with which they have a natural association, one would have virtually the same groups in South Africa as we have today because there is no argument about, for example, whether a Hindu is a Hindu, whether a Muslim is a Muslim, whether a Jew is a Jew and whether a Black is a Black. That applies to any category one cares to mention. As regards the question whether one is a White person or not, one knows oneself whether one is White and no one has to make one a White person by law and thus put one in that category.

One of the problems which I think is going to arise from a practical point of view in regard to the implementation of this particular clause relates to the following wording—

I want to analyse that. There must, in the first place, be a special or differential effect. How is one affected “specially” and how is one affected “differentially”? If one is affected “differentially”, one can be affected in such a way that one will be separate but equal, but one can also be affected in a way that one will be separate but not equal. One can actually be affected “differentially” without in fact there being any degree of separation at all. If we deal with the appropriation of money—the matter that concerns me particularly is finance—under a general law which treats population groups differently, there will actually be a differential in regard to the application of the money.

Let us take as an example the appropriation for education in terms of this. That appropriation may be differential in that, by reason of the amount of money voted, it will affect one community and its culture differently to another community and its culture. If that is so, what is in reality happening here is that it is actually an own matter which is being affected while there is actually a general law under which that takes place. In terms of this constitution one cannot have a group raising its own taxation for its own education. One actually has to have the taxation raised by means of a general law and then one has to have an appropriation law in terms of which different amounts of money are made available to different groups in South Africa.

So much for self-determination.

What is one then doing in fact? In terms of this law one is not allowing a group to spend on its own education the money it raises within the group by means of taxation. Yet, when we look at the real situation, we see that the appropriation of money must be dealt with under a general law and that we now must artificially apply clause 14 and clause 16 to deal with this problem. With great respect, Sir, what is happening is that something which is in reality an own matter …

Did you say clause 16?

Yes. I cannot talk about clause 16; I can only refer to it. I am being very careful, as the hon. the Minister can see. I want the hon. the Minister to look at clause 16 without my having to read or explain it to him. The powers in terms of clause 16 must therefore be used in order artificially to create a new situation in respect of the allocation that takes place. When you deal with matters which “specially affect” a group and further see that it actually has to affect its way of life, I want to suggest that virtually everything specially affects the life of the people of South Africa. There is hardly anything you can pass by way of a law and in particular as far as a financial appropriation is concerned, which does not specially affect the way of life of every group in South Africa. The problem is that while you can have separate facilities—whether it is right or wrong to have separate facilities is irrelevant—the creation of the separate facility for the one group affects the other so that in reality almost everything which affects one group affects the other group. This is particularly true in the financial field. Where the appropriation to one group is made, there is nou doubt that affects the other groups, because the degree of financial appropriation made must affect the position of other groups in South Africa. Where appropriation is made for the particular use of a facility and that a facility is created for a particular group, that, of necessity, involves the exclusion of the other groups from that facility. You are therefore again operating in the general field. That is why in terms of clause 16(1)(a), which I quote but which I will not read because we are familiar with it even though we have not yet reached it, the State President can act in a particular manner. While it is clear that people may choose to follow their own way and to use their own facilities for themselves because of their religion, their language or because of their culture, the moment public money and public facilities are involved, there is no doubt that this whole concept of own affairs becomes unrealistic, because it has to be dealt with in terms of a general law. Nothing can be clearer than that. Without discussing it, I want to refer to the Schedule 1. The most remarkable thing about this schedule, is that you can go through it and find that in almost every case, it is subject to what the general law provides. Remarkably, the only time it does not apply, is in the case of art and culture and for some reason agriculture.

Order!

I am not discussing it. I am only referring to it to illustrate that the question of own affairs does not really apply. I have to show the hon. the Minister that you cannot actually deal with own affairs without dealing with general affairs, because in every single case, with three exceptions, under the schedule it also has to be under general affairs. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, clause 14 is the serpent in the bosom of this legislation. I want to approach the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s argument from another angle. It is correct to say that the NP has abandoned the concept of a people or a people-in-the-making as far as the Coloureds are concerned. The CP adheres to the standpoint that the Coloureds are a people.

What do they themselves say?

The inconsistency of the NP standpoint lies in the fact that it does nevertheless single out the Coloureds as an identifiable unit. It does so by allocating to them a separate House and a separate Ministers’ Council. What is also of importance, however, is whether a people wants to be incorporated in another people and wants to have jointly governed by another people or population group. We in the CP find it strange that a people does not want to govern its own people, yet nevertheless insists on jointly governing my people with me. I find that quite incomprehensible. This clause is the serpent in the bosom of the Bill. It is the clause in regard to which the Government says, from the platforms of South Africa: “We are the people who are ensuring your right to self-determination.” It is very interesting, of course, to see what the hon. the Prime Minister himself said two years ago about the right to self-determination. Let me refer to Hansard (25 August 1981, col. 1953)—

He says this is universally acknowledged. It is acknowledged in the UN and also in the Soviet Union. The hon. the Prime Minister goes on to say—

Then the hon. the Prime Minister states—

Sir, this is what now remains of those winged words of the hon. the Prime Minister, a right to self-determination that we must share, in one geographic area, with two other population groups. Then, as the hon. member for Yeoville said, the right to self-determination must be exercised with money from the general State coffers. The right to self-determination is subject to a general law about which everyone has something to say and in which everyone has a say. This makes a farce of self-determination. The right to self-determination, which we have fought for since the Afrikaner people, the White people, established themselves, is being given away, in clause 14(1), with a scrawling and scrabbling that has no meaning whatsoever. Clause 14(1) means nothing at all. The hon. the Minister must tell us what are general affairs, because each item mentioned in clause 14(1) is an own affair. After all is said and done, after all these fine-sounding words, this is still subject to a general law and to the fact that taxation is a general affair. One cannot even impose one’s own taxes. Moreover, one person is being given the right to determine whether an affair is an own affair or a general affair, one fallible human being. This is a contemptible mockery of self-determination. Then that one man must, as far as a guideline is concerned…

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that the decision about whether matters are own affairs or general affairs comes up for discussion under clause 16. The hon. member may not discuss that aspect now.

Mr. Chairman, I am not discussing it now. I am merely referring to it.

Order! The hon. member may simply refer to it. He may not comment on it.

Very well, Mr. Chairman. The object of clause 14 is to bluff the general public. It is a tremendous bluff to say that self-determination, individual cultural affairs, identity and so on are embodied in this provision. The definition of clause 14(1) is as wide open as the Heavens. “Behold, there is your self-determination! What are you worried about? The NP will look after your self-determination.” Under those circumstances I therefore move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. 1. On page 12, in line 55, after “customs” to insert:
   and which are entrusted to the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, respectively, by the House of Assembly
2. 2. On page 12, in lines 57 to 59, to omit subsection (2).

I am doing so in order to confirm that the White Parliament is the institution that will determine what matters are to be transferred to each other body that governs its people and that right to self-determination is exercized in that way—each in its own geographic area. [Interjections.]

Order! I am sorry, but I am unable to accept the amendments moved by the hon. member as they are in conflict with a principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: In the first place I want to point out that clause 14(1) is a new principle introduced into this Bill by the Select Committee.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, please just allow me to address you briefly on this aspect. Clause 14(1) actually contains the almost identical verbal provision to that in the old clause 18(1). This was inserted in the Bill by the Select Committee. It is therefore a completely new provision.

Secondly I want to point out, very respectfully, that the principle about what are own affairs and what are general affairs gives rise to a problem of definition. How does one define own affairs? By means of the proposed amendments we are specifically furnishing a method for defining own affairs. I therefore want to ask you, with all due respect, to reconsider your ruling in this connection.

Order! I have considered this matter very carefully and unfortunately I cannot concede that the hon. member is right. The principle in connection with own and general affairs was accepted during the Second Reading stage of the Bill. I therefore cannot allow the hon. member’s amendments.

Mr. Chairman, may I also briefly address you on this aspect?

Order! I shall allow the hon. member to address me briefly on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, in the Constitution Bill, as discussed during the Second Reading stage, an attempt was made to define so-called own affairs.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to argue further about this matter.

Mr. Chairman, please just allow me to briefly complete my argument. [Interjections.]

Order! Very well, I shall listen to what the hon. member has to say. He must not, however, digress too much.

Mr. Chairman, in the old clause 18 guidelines were laid down that had to be taken into account by the State President in determining whether an affair would be an own affair or not. In the new clause 14, as inserted in the legislation by the Select Committee, own affairs are being given a completely new definition. It is a new definition that was not accepted at Second Reading. That is our argument. Sir, to allege now that the principle contained in clause 14 was accepted at Second Reading does not, in my view, hold water at all.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member once again that I considered the matter very carefully and came to the conclusion that the principle in connection with own and general affairs was finally accepted at Second Reading. The amendments of the hon. member for Brakpan go further, specifically in the sense that they want to make the other two Houses, the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives, subordinate to the House of Assembly. They also clash with the principle adopted at Second Reading. That is my final ruling, and I ask hon. members to abide by it.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: We are still going to be debating clause 14 for quite some time. In view of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Barberton, and in view of the arguments I put to you, I therefore want to ask you please to reconsider the matter and give a final ruling at a later stage.

Order! I am sorry, but my ruling on this issue is final.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I tried to rise earlier with a view to bringing to your attention a few matters in regard to which I just think that you should reflect …

Order! My ruling on this matter is final.

Mr. Chairman, may I not even put my case to you? [Interjections.]

Order! I shall not allow any further argument about this.

Mr. Chairman, the previous few speakers on the provisions of the clause under discussion tried to cover a fairly wide field. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, for example, even ventured into the philosophic field. So without trying to make life difficult for you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask your permission to reply briefly to the philosophic argument raised yesterday evening by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Order! I shall allow the hon. member to do so briefly.

I shall be brief, Sir. The argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was basically that in its whole approach the Government has based its ethnic policy on a view of ethnicity. Secondly he argued that one could not identify the Coloureds as an ethnic group, on the one hand because their language and religion showed a general similarity to the language and religion of the Whites and, on the other hand, because there is a lack of cohesion amongst them. He also said that because the Government now accepted that the Coloureds could not be regarded as an ethnic group, its whole argument crumbled. If the notes I have made are correct, he did in fact say that the moment the Government did this, it deprived itself of the logic of ethnic minorities.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said that the way in which the Coloured group was now being defined was therefore not based on ethnicity, but merely on racial considerations. Consequently it was mere racism to identify this group as a group. [Interjections.] If one were to investigate the goal being pursued here, one would see that the goal in the overall ethnic policy was that of identifying group interests with a view to being able to deal with those group interests in the process of government. For that reason one must group together homogeneous group interests, because in the normal course of events those group interests would largely correspond with ethnicity. There are, however, dividing lines cutting across a society other than considerations of a merely ethnic nature. Let me refer here to matters such as language differences amongst the various elements. It is interesting, by the way, to focus the attention of the Committee, for just a moment, on the fact that in the early stages of Statehood the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking groups were referred to as two different races. It is interesting just to note that. Apart from language, there are, in the narrower sense, also religious differences. One finds, for example, that one group that would normally be an ethnic group, like the Irish, fight tremendously amongst themselves because of religious differences. Then there are also socio-economic status and development differences, there are historic factors and, last but not least, there are also racial factors which cause divisions and which cut across the social fabric. So in the structuring of South African society we have identified specific ethnic groups such as the Zulu, the Xhosa and so on, and we have built our Government structure around that. When one reviews the situation of the Whites on the one hand and the Coloureds on the other hand, however, with regard to the normal concept of ethnicity which, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said, basically revolves around language, religion and culture, there are also other problems that one encounters. Let me refer here to three basic and extensive problems, i.e. socio-economic development, historic development and the racial problem. For these reasons there is also the problem that here one is basically dealing with a group which, from an ethnic point of view, bears a strong similarity to the White group. Therefore one has a community of interests, a community of values, between these two groups, but as a result of the differences that nevertheless do exist, differences which are based on the socio-economic status, on historical factors and the bedevilling factor of race that is present, and not only in South Africa …

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

Sir, I am busy developing my argument, and when I have fully developed my train of thought, the hon. member may perhaps ask a question.

The point I was making was that it is not only in South Africa that race plays a bedevilling role when it comes to applying the concept of ethnicity. If, for example, one has a look at the USA where, in regard to language, culture, religion and so on, no distinction is made between Whites and non-Whites, one nevertheless finds Black people being referred to as an ethnic group. Even there the theory is not quite applied—in the true sense of the word—as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to apply it to South Africa yesterday. To sum up, the truth of the matter is that between the Whites on the one hand and the Coloureds on the other, as far as ethnic factors are concerned, there is a great similarity, but within that overall ethnic similarity there are again divisive factors.

And as far as the Indians are concerned?

For what reason …

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

Order! Let me point out to hon. members that the hon. member has indicated that he will reply to a question as soon as he has developed his argument. Let me, in all fairness, point out to hon. members that we must not take up the Committee’s time, nor that of the hon. member, by continually asking whether he will answer questions. The hon. member for Helderkruin may proceed.

That is pure wilfulness.

For that reason we have specifically settled on this structure …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Kimberley South say that the hon. member for Pietersburg was being wilful? It was the hon. member for Pietersburg’s first attempt at asking a question and there is no wilfulness involved.

Order! Let me call hon. members’ attention to the fact that raising unnecessary points of order is also a method of wasting the Committee’s valuable time. The hon. member for Rissik stood up earlier and asked whether he could put a question to the hon. member for Helderkruin. The hon. member for Helderkruin thereupon pointed out that he would be prepared to answer questions after he had developed his argument. That settles the matter. The hon. member for Helderkruin may proceed.

Sir, the point I want to make is that as a result of the specific set of circumstances of ethnic similarity, combined with other divisive factors, we eventually settled on this specific structure in which we drew a clear distinction between this group on the one hand and the various Black ethnic groups on the other. Within this group there is a similarity and close co-operation, and yet also still separate structures. If one had more time, one could elaborate on the argument that it is specifically a structure such as this that gives expression to this particular composition of the South African population, and that within the present circumstances this is the only feasible way of settling or handling this problem as a basis for a future process in which these mutually divisive factors could perhaps be decreased. If we handle this well, the effect of the divisive factors could possibly be reduced. That, however, is something for the future. Provisionally it is a feasible system. From that one can logically conclude that here we have a system of own affairs for those groups which are, geographically speaking, fairly settled. That leads the CP into the temptation of thinking along the lines of a homeland. One can give substance to diversity, while at the same time retaining the great similarity. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I find it difficult to understand the objection of the CP to this clause, because this is the clause which identifies own affairs and identifies the right of self-determination of groups over own affairs. They can argue on other clauses in regard to the methodology, the system and the procedures. That is why we also disagree with the official Opposition, the PFP, on their attitude, but this is fundamental. It is the fundamental difference between the PFP and the NRP. Our basic political philosophy is built upon the recognition of the fact of group identities, the plural nature of South African society. Whether it is good or bad, we believe that it is a fact that we have a plural society in South Africa, that there are identified groups—some self-identified and other identifiable—which exist today. Mr. Chairman, with due respect, I think the existence of those groups—and the argument whether there should be a Coloured group or not—is not relevant to this clause because one has to start with what exists. One cannot start with something that does not exist. What exists today is the fact that there are groups. There are three groups involved in this Bill, White, Coloured and Indian. Whether it is right or not is not for debate now.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether it is necessary in order to establish what he says is a factual existence, one needs an Act to tell one that one is, for example. White. Would one not know that one is White? Is that not a fact for which one does not need legislation?

My point is that is something which one must argue during the discussion of the clause which defines the groups. What one is dealing with here is that there are own affairs which are applicable to a group. Our philosophy as a party … [Interjections.] … whether it is right or wrong is not at issue now but I will debate that with the hon. member for Yeoville on a later clause where I believe it is pertinent—whether it is a good thing or a bad thing is that there are three groups defined by law, is not at issue. What I am saying is that it is a reality of life in South Africa that there are three groups defined by law. I—and this party—believe that in future some groups may merge and those differences will disappear. However, whatever one would like to see and whatever one’s philosophy may be—and I am not disputing the theory in the arguments of the hon. Leader of the official Opposition or the hon. member for Yeoville that the Coloured group is not a group in the sense that the White and the Indian groups are self-identified—the fact is that they are there and they exist. If one is therefore going to create a constitution one must take what exists and build to accommodate it. The philosophy of this party is fundamentally different to that of the PFP and that is why we could not …

That is no lie.

That is correct. That is why we could not find common ground on a united front or in a common party because this party accepts the fact of pluralism in our society and it accommodation—and this is the question involved in this clause—in the constitutional structure of the party. It is becoming more and more clear that the PFP totally rejects any statutory recognition of group identity and it rejects any statutory accommodation of groups in it constitution.

We are against race classification, yes.

That party is against any group identification accommodated statutorily in any law.

I misunderstood you. I thought you were against race classification by law.

We have another system. [Interjections.] I am trying to debate this clause. I am prepared to deal with the question relating to the population register under the definition where the method of establishing the group is at stake. Here I am dealing with the fact of own affairs. We believe that groups—this is another basic difference between this party and the PFP—should control, manage and administer their own intimate affairs as groups, and that they should then work together on matters of common concern affecting all the groups.

Like water affairs.

No, we have moved to delete water affairs from the schedule. We will argue that.

When?

If we get to the schedule.

I think water is colourless.

It seems that the official Opposition is hypersensitive about the fact that what is emerging from this debate clearly is that party stands for one totally integrated society in which group rights are not recognized. This clause provides for the protection of groups and the rights of groups.

I do have problems with subsection (1). I would like to have seen it differently structured. The principle of this clause is the fact that there are own affairs. We will deal with general affairs later. The NRP believes that there are intimate affairs of a group which a group should have for itself … [Interjections] … such as for example primary schools. We believe within the cultural framework of a group the group should be able to control its own affairs. We believe that if a group wants to have open schools, it should be allowed to do so. On the other hand, we also believe that if a group wants to have exclusive schools, it should also be allowed to do so. We believe a group should have the right to maintain an exclusive residential area for itself if it so wishes. However, there must also be open areas for those who do not want to live exclusively. The official Opposition denies that right of a community to control and administer its own primary and secondary schools. It denies the right of a community to have a residential area exclusive to members of that group. That applies to any group, Indian, Coloured, White or Black. This is therefore a philosophic difference and this is what the voters must decide on. Do they want to reject and ignore all race group rights and have a compulsorily open common society, or do groups have the right to run their own affairs? We accept the principle of groups administering their own intimate affairs, their own marriage laws and customs, the things intimate to that group. We support this principle of own affairs, of the right to decide on own affairs, and of joint decision-making on general or common affairs.

This is not a matter of discrimination. This is the right of a group. The right a person has as an individual must also be pertinent to the group. Therefore we will vote in favour of this clause because it is a principle enshrined in the political philosophy of this party. We reject “one man, one vote” majority rule or majority control, whether it be called majority rule or not. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I was for a very brief moment hoping the hon. member for Durban Point was going to take the debate seriously by coming to grips with the problem of plurality and groups in a society. Unfortunately, however, he disintegrated into the usual vacuous drivel and sloganizing that one has come to associate with that party whenever one tries to engage in a responsible debate.

I should like to come to the hon. member for Helderkruin.

*This hon. member tried to explain the standpoint of the governing party with refreshing logic, and I think he gave an absolutely correct account of the argument I advanced yesterday. The cardinal point which the hon. member identified is: How can we ascertain what are own affairs and what are general affairs in a society such as we have in South-Africa? The hon. member concedes that the ethnic argument does not hold water with regard to the Coloureds. He tried to ascertain what the circumstances were which had made it possible for us nevertheless to identify them as such. He mentioned three factors, namely historic circumstances, socioeconomic development and the bedevilling question of race.

I think the hon. member will concede to me that in the historic course of events these three factors have become very closely intertwined, so that one cannot really differentiate between them. As a result of the bedevilling question of race, we have the particular socio-economic circumstances of this particular group, and these circumstances are bound up with the historic course of events as we have come to know it. Race is the aspect with which we are faced, therefore. This racial aspect has been singled out by the political process which has taken place in Parliament, by way of legislation concerning population classification, the Group Areas Act, the legislation on separate facilities, section 16 of the Immorality Act, the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, etc. All these statutory measure which refer specifically to race have been used to create an identifiable racial category, namely the Coloureds of South Africa.

We are now engaged in the whole argument surrounding own affairs, the argument about what can be considered the own affairs of a particular group. In this connection I just want to point out to the hon. member for Durban Point once again that I do not wish to get involved in an academic and philosophical argument. We are dealing here with the philosophy which underlies clause 14. This is one of the cornerstones of this whole tricameral system. One has only to examine the concept of own affairs as defined is the literature on the subject. In this connection I may refer to Moynihan and Nathaniel Glazer, to whom our ambassador in Australia always used to refer in this House. When one reads what Moynihan, Glazer, Daalders, Lijphart and all those people have written, one finds that the outstanding characteristic by which own affairs are identified is the voluntary identification of these affairs by the members of a particular group. They want to make them their own affairs.

Now it is a fact that under these particular circumstances, the Coloured person, even the Asian, is saying: “But the way in which our own affairs are being identified is unacceptable; we do not believe that what you describe to us as own affairs really are our own affairs, and we say that this is creating a dilemma for us.” However, there are specific groups. Among the Coloureds there are various religious groups. Among the Coloureds there are the Cape Malays. As far as religion is concerned, the Cape Malay does not differ in any way from the Moslems in the Indian community. The Cape Coloured who belongs to the Catholic Church attends a school which is run by the Catholics on a private basis, if he has the necessary funds or if he has a bursary, and he becomes a part of that school. This his religion. Members of the Dutch Reformed church of the Coloureds, such as Boesak, specifically say that their religion is no different from the Prostestant religions which we have in South Africa.

The point I am trying to make, therefore, is that if we try to weld this category of people into a political entity, the only real basis on which we can do so is a racial one. Precisely because we are doing it on that basis, it has a potential for conflict. Why do I say this? The hon. member for Yeoville effectively illustrated it. I am saying this with specific reference to those aspects with regard to which we are differentiating. In the field of education, for example, the hon. member for Durban Point referred to primary schools. However, there is no difference in the structure of primary school education for Coloureds and Whites. In fact, the boast is made that the same standards are maintained and that attempts are being made to make it equal with regard to content as well as form. All these differences are differences which have resulted from the operation of the statutory measures over which the Coloureds themselves have had no say. For this reason, the differential dispensation which we have is the result of statutory measures introduced by the White Parliament. That is the source of the conflict. I have conceded this to the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning from the start because I believe that we all want to escape from that conflict. I do not question the serious intention to do so. All I want to say is that the actual source of that conflict is now being built into the legislation. It seems to me that in spite of the good intentions in wanting to resolve that conflict, we are in fact going to aggravate it. Why am I saying this?

May I ask you a question?

No, I am afraid I do not have time for that now.

Why am I saying this? The political leaders of those communities that are going to participate in the system will inevitably have to plead for the improvement of their socioeconomic circumstances. They will have to do so in terms of the allocation which they are going to get from the same budget, the same Treasury. The Treasury will have to allow differential expenditure for facilities, not on the basis of own affairs, where ethnic groups want to be in charge of their own particular communities, but on the basis of races competing for differential benefits. This is the dilemma in which we shall find ourselves. This is why it is a different matter when they say that we should allow the Moslems, the Hindus, the Jews, the Protestants and the Catholics to practise their own religions and to mould their own communities if they wish to. This is something quite different. What we are doing here is to establish racial categories, namely the Whites and the Coloureds. When we draw a distinction as far as Blacks are concerned, which is not relevant now, we are doing exactly the same. As far as Blacks are concerned, we use the argument of ethnicity ad nauseam, but then we allow it to disintegrate when we come to the Whites. We are doing exactly the same in respect of the Coloureds, because we are not allowing the true diversity which exists in South African society to be expressed. We are using racial categories which we are unilaterally imposing on this society as a basis for our political accommodation. That is the source of conflict. In the light of this I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that we really must get away from this oversimplified stereotyping. The PFP is just as aware of the plural character of South African society. The fundamental difference between the PFP and the NRP is that we say that the plurality of South African society can be maintained only on the basis of people’s voluntary commitment to their own identity, and not by the statutory enforcement of that identity by one particular Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, I believe it is necessary to point out once again, with reference to the contributions which have already been made to the debate and with particular reference to the point which was so strongly emphasized by the hon. member for Durban Point, that we are continuing to build here on realities, on facts. We are continuing to build on what the NP has repeatedly emphasized as being its point of departure in its approach to constitutional reform, namely the fact of the diversity of peoples in this country. Regardless of whether we like it, and regardless of how we define it, it is an indisputable fact and almost a natural phenomenan in the circumstances with which we are dealing here. Although we live together in the same State and share the same citizenship as Coloureds, Whites and Asians, it is a fact that we are clearly identifiable population groups. I believe that no one in this country would have any difficulty in identifying a person as belonging to the White, the Coloured or the Asian population group. There may be a few borderline cases which are problematical, but basically this is a fact which is clear to all and which cannot be denied. Although there is a large measure of heterogeneity within each of these three population groups, we cannot deny that these three population groups can be distinguished from one another. Within the White population group there are clearly identifiable sub-groups. These even include the great Afrikaner people which forms a unique cultural entity in the basic meaning of the word “people”. In this way, the White population group, which we call a White nation because its members are participants in the same political system, is an identifiable entity in spite of the fact that it also includes a people.

May I ask you a question?

No, I should like to complete my argument. Then I may allow the hon. member to ask questions. In the same way, the Coloured population group, which cannot be called a people because it simply does not have the characteristics which would provide the particular solidarity which a people normally requires, is nevertheless a population group. The previous Prime Minister even called them a nation in the making; in other words, a group of people which forms an entity because of the fact that they share the same political system. The same goes for the Indian population group. There are considerable differences within that group, just as there are differences within the White population group, but in spite of that there is no doubt as to who are members of the Indian population group. In other words, these groups are clearly identifiable. And it cannot be denied, as the Leader of the Opposition said, that the element of race also plays a role, even a major role. However, race is a fact; it is part of reality and it cannot be denied. In the South African reality it is no use pretending that racial differences do not exist. One must take them into consideration. One must bring about the fairest and most equitable system that is possible in order to accommodate the differences between the population groups, including the racial component, without increasing the tension which is inherent in this situation, which would give rise to mutual suspicion and a lack of co-operation.

The fact which was stated by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and by other hon. members, I believe, namely that these three population groups, the Whites, the Coloureds and the Asians, are linked to one another by components such as the fact that they speak the same language or practise the same religion, is also true. These population groups are not separated from one another in watertight compartments. They share certain cultural elements. There are certain bridging connections between them. In spite of this, they do differ from one another as clearly distinguishable population groups which can, I repeat, be identified and perceived without any difficulty in practical reality. One may take the simple example—which is frequently mentioned in debates on this matter—of the various German-speaking groups in Central Europe which speak the same language and generally share the same religion, namely Roman Catholicism, and in spite of this, each group very strongly distinguishes itself from the others as being Austrian, Swiss German and, shall I say, German.

Each in its own territory.

To distinguish population groups from one another, therefore, it is not necessary to be able to separate them into absolutely watertight compartments in which each is identified as a specific people. In the same way, in the South African practical reality, there are those population groups which distinguish themselves from one another, as we have already spelt out and as should be quite clear to any observer.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a very valid point, and that is that according to social scientists, voluntary identification is an important element of ethnic identification. I willingly concede to him that the voluntary element is extremely important in the identification of various population groups, just as it is in the case of peoples or nations. However, I submit that the course of reform on which this Government has embarked in respect of the new political dispensation recognizes the fact that an element is lacking in our system and that this has the effect of confusing and delaying identification. This is the fact that for many years, the Coloured population group in particular has de facto enjoyed no meaningful political rights. This fact of political deprivation has undermined and corroded and destroyed the natural voluntary identification with that population group by members of the group, because identification with that group meant that people were identifying themselves with a group which had extremely limited or no political rights in South Africa. It is for that reason, I believe, because of lack of political rights on the part of the Coloured population group, that they have on the one hand denied that they are Coloureds or denied that they form a group of their own, precisely because that group had no political rights, and have on the other hand insisted on joining and being integrated into that population group which did have political rights. So this inadequate self-identification is bound up with a situation of inadequate political rights. It is this very situation which the NP wishes to rectify by means of its new constitutional dispensation in order to give the Coloureds, as co-inhabitants and fellow citizens of the same State as the Whites, the right to participate in political self-determination with regard to their own affairs and co-responsibility with regard to decision-making on matters of common concern.

It is our conviction on this side of the House that this political reform will in fact make a material contribution to that voluntary identification in future, and will help the Coloured person, who will then be a member of a community which will enjoy a meaningful right of political co-determination under a new dispensation, to overcome the hesitation which has prevented him from identifying with that group. In that way, his voluntary identification, which at the moment is still largely lacking, will be rectified.

This is another example of a courageous process of thinking ahead, something which has often characterized the NP in the past—its realistic approach to facts in this country and the search for solutions based on the recognition of the diversity of peoples in South Africa, while also recognizing the problems that have to be solved. In this way, the coloureds can also be encouraged to adopt an attitude of voluntary association, voluntary identification and proud and full integration into this group. In order fully to resolve this problem, this is also being done by way of political reform. That is why we on this side of the House are convinced that by means of the reform which it is bringing about, the Government is in fact laying a strong foundation for that proposed and desired identification of the members of the respective population groups with one another. This will also bring about a more meaningful situation and provide a sounder basis for the association of own affairs with each particular population group, and the sharing of responsibility with regard to those matters which remain as shared or general affairs.

The hon. member for Brakpan moved an amendment in terms of which own affairs were defined as being those affairs which the White House of Assembly allocates to the Coloured and Indian Houses. Own affairs are therefore …

Order! The hon. the Minister may not discuss that matter because the amendments of the hon. member for Brakpan have been ruled out of order. In any event, the hon. the Minister’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, in the motivation given by hon. members on the Government side for distinguishing the individual population groups there is quite a lot that we agree with. We can find no fault with their being identified as Whites, Coloureds and Indians. That is simply a fact of history; a fact of the present-day situation.

I also see no reason at all why race as such should be scoffed at, as if it were an iniquity that has crept into the fabric of human society. It would indeed make a difference if one were to take racial differences as the point of departure, or even accept them as a justification for unjustly or abnormally discriminating against or prejudicing people, merely on the grounds of their belonging to another race. We do not, however, see any reason why one should make a fuss about the distinctions drawn between races in South Africa as such, as if this were an iniquity that had crept into the fabric of human society.

Thirdly, when one speaks about the question of voluntary association—in this case the voluntary association between Whites, Coloureds, Indians, etc.—attempts are made to create the impression that Coloureds, Indians, Whites and others should be given the freedom of associating exclusively with Coloureds, or not exclusively with Coloureds, but also with Whites. To a certain extent one can accept this view as the right of voluntary association. There is, however, another factor involved as well. Here I am referring to the right of a specific community, which I call the White community, to decide for itself whether, in regard to members of other communities—people who, on the basis of race, colour and other factors do not belong to its own group—it can act exclusively, i.e. in regard to the inclusion or exclusion of those people. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. member need disagree with me about this. That is a right the Whites also have, and on that right we stand firm. I therefore want to contend that as development takes place, for example within the Coloured community, as their leaders come to the fore, their socio-economic position improves, leaders in all spheres emerge from their ranks, the average Brown person himself will increasingly identify himself with the leaders of his community and his pride in his community will develop even further. I agree, to a significant degree, with the argument raised by the hon. member for Helderkruin. I do just want to say, however, that his expression “a bedevilling factor” in connection with race was, in my view, an unfortunate choice, because I do not think that we should link that characteristic to race as such.

Secondly I think that over the years the NP has, in this connection, adopted a standpoint in terms of which it has identified the Brown people as a group distinguishable from the White group. In this connection I want to go back a few years to an argument raised in 1968, because I think the standpoint expressed then was a sensible one. I want to quote from a publication on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary celebrations of National government in 1968. This was an argument about Afrikaners and Coloureds. In this publication it is set out in the following terms—

Then the following argument is advanced—

I want to associate myself with that and also say that I think the argument is sound.

I also want to make a further remark, i.e. that according to my observations and from what I have read of the remarks and standpoints of Coloured leaders, there is growing Coloured awareness. No less a personage than the Leader of the Labour Party, the Rev. Hendrickse, made the statement, in a speech at Somerset East, that the Coloureds have reached the point of self-discovery. I did find it slightly strange, of course, that a man who does not call himself Brown, but rather Black, should say that at this time the Coloureds have reached a point of self-discovery.

This relates to the identification of the groups to which reference is made in clause 14. I also want to state that a prominent Coloured writer alleges that the language of the Brown people is not actually Afrikaans, but rather a language unique to the Cape. [Interjections.] Here I am referring to a document written by a Brown person. Those hon. members must not profess to speak on behalf of the Brown people. Let them speak for themselves. Here we have a Brown writer. [Interjections.] I am referring here to the writer Adam Small, who speaks of the language of the Brown people as a language unique to the Cape. What I wish to imply is that leading Brown people are busy establishing their identity. [Interjections.] In conjunction with that I also want to say that these Brown people interpret what is in the hearts of their people, and not the hon. member for Parktown, who is now being so vociferous.

I think that hon. members on the Government side will agree with me when I say that our standpoint in regard to the Brown people is that they are no adjunct of any group in South Africa. They are no adjunct of the Whites, nor an adjunct of any Black group in South Africa, I have had the privilege of reading a bulky manuscript at the request of a publisher. It was written by a prominent Coloured. It is a 1 500-page manuscript that was submitted for publication. What was the title of the manuscript? it was “A Social and Political History of the Cape Coloured People”. It is a 1 500-page manuscript, by a Coloured writer, devoted to the social and political history of “the Cape Coloured People”. I do not think we need to debate the validity of identifying the Brown people as a specific group. We do not, of course, merely regard them as a minority group. Nor do we regard them as part of the White nation. I do not regard myself, together with the Brown people, the Indians and the urban Black people, as one nation merely because we share the same machinery of Government. I do not regard us as part of the same nation.

What is a nation?

My advice to the hon. member for Pretoria Central is to go and read the speech the hon. the Prime Minister made in 1965, here in the House of Assembly, in which he said that the Brown people were not part of the White nation. Interjections.] We can argue at great length about what a nation, a people and so on are, but the point I want to make is that we are ad idem with the Government’s identification of Whites, Coloureds and Indians as groups that each lay claim to an individual right to self-determination.

The second point I want to make is that when it comes to own affairs—this has a bearing on clause 14—I agree with the hon. member for Brakpan. When it comes to own affairs and the meaning of own affairs, we actually find them to be a farce. I have said this on a previous occasion; I am now repeating it. The essence of own affairs, what we regard as own affairs—are given no substance, or very little substance, in the Constitution Bill.

Order! I realize that this is a very important matter and I would not want to interrupt the hon. member, but the principle of the existence of own affairs has been accepted. I have already allowed one CP speaker to put that standpoint…

But it is now the leader of the party who is speaking.

Order! The custom is that one speaker from each of the various parties has an opportunity to state the respective party’s basic principles. The hon. member for Waterberg may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I spoke about clause 14, and at the moment my hon. leader is speaking about own affairs which are dealt with in clause 14. How could you have interrupted him like that? I cannot understand it.

Order! The hon. member for Waterberg referred to the speech of the hon. member for Brakpan. The hon. member for Brakpan said own affairs were a farce …

Sir, but …

Order! The hon. member has put his standpoint as far as the principle is concerned; I gave him the opportunity to do so. That settles the matter. In any event, the time of the hon. member for Waterberg has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the contribution of the hon. member for Waterberg and found it interesting that he, unlike the hon. member for Brakpan, very circumspectly avoided referring to the concept “people”. The hon. member for Brakpan is unfortunately not here at the moment. I would have liked to ask him whether he is a member of more than one people. In his absence let me ask—I think the hon. member for Waterberg heard the hon. member for Brakpan speaking, in one and the same breath, of the Afrikaner people and the White people—whether there are indeed two peoples: The Afrikaner people and the White people, of which all of us sitting here who are Afrikaners, are members.

There is a woolliness surrounding these concepts. They are employed for political expediency, if it is true that, historically speaking, these concepts have perhaps been used without due care, it is important for us to begin defining them more accurately in terms of clause 14 of the Bill.

The hon. member for Waterberg’s argument that the Coloureds constitute an identifiable population group lends support to what is contained in clause 14. The NP, which initiated this Bill, had it inserted. We therefore do not differ with him about that, as long as he refrains from implying that we do not see the distinguishing factors and the deep-lying differences which exist between the various population groups with which this clause deals, and that the CP is the advocate in maintaining a distinction between population groups, whilst we are the integrationists. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: It is virtually impossible for us to follow the debate owing to the discussions being conducted by hon. members of the governing party all round us.

Order! I am making a final appeal to hon. members not to talk so loudly and not to make such a constant stream of interjections.

Secondly, the hon. member for Waterberg neglected, in dealing with the subject of group differences and the existence of groups, to acknowledge the fact that alongside characteristics which are unique to various groups, there can also be those which are common to various groups. That is what we miss in the contributions of the hon. members of the CP to this debate, because as you rightly pointed out, Mr. Chairman, the principle that was accepted was that there are own affairs and common interests amongst the various groups. That side of the House hints at the absolutely non-viable, trying to give the impression that it would be possible to completely destroy or wipe out those aspects which are common to various elements in South African society, or that it would be possible fully to characterize, as own affairs, the overall complexities of each group’s circumstances and decision-making processes, as if there could be watertight compartments, in spite of the historically intertwining nature of interests that have developed in South Africa. It is therefore no use for the hon. member for Waterberg to speak about the unity of the Afrikaner and the Coloured. No mention is made here of unity; here it is stated that there are differences. In the Bill, however, mention is also made of the fact that there are common interests. That is the realistic basis on which this clause rests.

It will not help those hon. members to label own affairs, as dealt with in this clause, as being a farce. The fact of the matter is that the Bill, as referred to the Select Committee, did not give full expression, in this connection, to the Government’s guidelines, not in the full sense of the word. With the acceptance of clause 14 in its present form, proper expression is now being given to the inherent legislative powers of each House in regard to its own affairs, the inherent legislative powers in regard to matters within the framework of this definition, separate from, and over and above, those matters mentioned in schedule 1. With the new clause 14, which we are now discussing, we have brought about a complete tightening up of the concept of own affairs. [Interjections.] By inserting the definition as a substantive definition, we have ensured that each group will be able to determine for itself and identify those matters affecting its own group, that it will have authority over its own group and that it will be able to take decisions for its own group. That is what we have now inserted here. What really happened was that the CP planned a propaganda campaign to discredit own affairs, but clause 14, in its new form, whipped out the carpet from under their feet. [Interjections.] In the course of this debate we shall still be hearing a great deal about there being so many references to general laws. The hon. member for Yeoville has already done so, as if those laws were made by a power or authority totally divorced from the group. The general law to which reference is made is surely a law made as a result of joint responsibility as far as the various groups are concerned. The input of each group is part of the process of placing a general law on the Statute Book. That is why one does not merely act in a self-determining manner when on one’s own; one acts in a self-determining manner whilst, at the same time, interacting with other groups. One makes one’s mark in one’s interaction with other groups. Built into that interaction there is an opportunity for each population group, through its elected leaders, to put its standpoint and exercise its influence in the formulation of that general law. That general law, when it is promulgated, becomes part of the result of the self-determining participation of the Whites, Coloureds or Indians in the process according to which the general law was placed on the Statute Book.

I am filled with consternation at the terminology used by the hon. member for Brakpan. He described the clause about the preservation of identity, the right of a group to maintain itself, to maintain its identity, to preserve its character, to uphold its traditions, as the serpent in the bosom of this Bill. [Interjections.] That is the height of political opportunism in this debate as a whole. For a party that adopts the standpoint that this right should be absolute, to the exclusion of others, that it should be so absolute that others should be forced out of their country and forced into accepting a nationhood they do not want merely so that this can fit in with pure theory, and for a party to say that an effort to tighten things up, to bring about clarity, to give greater substance to the right to self-determination of the various groups, is the serpent in the bosom of this Bill, shows that in this debate, as far as they are concerned it is not a matter of getting to the truth, but rather of draping a cloak of falsity round the shoulders of the governing party.

Mr. Chairman, the debate has evidently taken a new turn. One should not be surprised, when one comes to this clause, that the old fire, the history between the NP and the CP begins to come to the fore. I hope we are not going to lapse into another series of history lessons.

Let me say to the hon. member for Waterberg that he is probably correct—I do not know—when he quotes from documents of years ago that there was a time when the present hon. Prime Minister had different views. It is to the hon. the Prime Minister’s credit that he can actually change. Why should people not change their views? Why should they not grow more enlightened? I hope the hon. member for Waterberg will take the same course and become more enlightened too.

Where the NP falls down—it becomes clear when one listens to the contributions from various hon. Ministers and members—is that it is trying to have the best of both worlds, and one cannot do that in life. On the one hand the NP is acknowledging that one cannot ignore the Coloured people in South Africa, that they must have a right to the normal political process in South Africa. I think the hon. Minister who has just sat down will concede that. However, the NP then says that in order to blunt the criticism from the right and in order to safeguard the “selfbeskikkingsreg van die Witman” a number of clauses have to be included in the Bill to make quite sure that on the one hand the Coloureds are included but on the other hand they are so hidebound by laws made by this Parliament and this Government that they cannot really exercise their normal rights as free politicians and free people in South Africa.

The fundamental differences which exist between the parties all come out under this clause. I think the hon. member for Durban Point is right to stress these fundamental differences. It is true that this clause is one of the heartbeats of the entire constitution. I can understand why the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs is concerned. We all know that he is very worried about this constitution. The hon. member for Sea Point will perhaps tell us later exactly what took place in the Select Committee as far as this clause is concerned. Whoever wants to talk about it, one thing is clear and that is that the hon. the Minister is on record as saying that this clause, clause 14, has actually been strengthened. More apartheid. That is what he means. It is made absolutely clear that there are rigid distinctions and differences between the three groups to be accommodated in the new Parliament. That is the fundamental difference. As my hon. leader made clear, both last night and again today, the fundamental issue is whether we are going to continue discriminating against and distinguishing between people on the grounds of race and race alone or whether we are going to work together as the people of South Africa. I believe that the strengthening of this clause, which will lead to a more rigid apartheid in terms of own affairs, is only going to cause more division in South Africa, which is the one thing we cannot afford. The one thing we ought to be striving for in this Parliament at all times—some of us say we are—is more unity and less division.

let me give just one example. Sir, I accept without any qualification that you will not allow me to refer to Schedule 1. All I can say is that, if one looks at the list in Schedule 1 and one bears in mind the amendments introduced by the hon. Minister of National Education to that schedule, one sees there a classic example of the direction in which the NP is moving in terms of own and general affairs.

Clause 14 refers to “way of life, culture, traditions and customs”. I defy anyone in the House to tell me that the culture, traditions, customs and way of life of Dr. Dick van der Ross differ from those of the hon. Minister in charge of this Bill. There is no difference. They both share a “huistaal”. They both share a common commitment to worship. I mean, whether the hon. the Minister speaks “Kaaps” or Afrikaans, as far as I am concerned I cannot see any difference.

You mean between “Afri-Kaaps” and Afrikaans.

No, between you and Dick. It is for the hon. the Minister to decide whether he speaks “Kaaps” or Afrikaans.

How about the difference between yourself and Dick?

There is very little difference.

Order! I do not believe this kind of dialogue will get us anywhere.

Well, Sir, I am talking about the exact words in the clause, namely “way of life, culture, traditions and customs”.

I was referring to the comparison between the Minister and Dick.

I shall leave it at that.

†Let me say that, as regards the money that is going to be spent on the grounds of the distinction between own affairs, there is going to be enormous duplication. That is not going to assist anybody at all. The maintenance of identity is a pure euphemism for the maintaining of racism and discrimination in South Africa, and that we cannot support. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs defends that, but, when one takes away all the nice words, the philosophy and the history, all that is being said is that we are going to give the Coloured people, and also the Asians, a Chamber in the new Parliament but there is going to be a rigid distinction in terms of almost every single matter which affects the daily lives of those very groups. There is going to be no freedom of association whatsoever. The hon. the Minister argues under clause 14 that groups are going to have their own opportunities to preserve their identity. That is not true. The Coloured leaders are on record already before the dispensation even comes into being, that they are going to fight against, for example, the Population Registration Act and the Group Areas Act, but the hon. the Minister argues—and he is supported by the hon. member for Durban Point—that there should be the right to distinguish not on the basis of culture really, but on the basis of race, on the basis of colour. Therefore one group should be allowed to preserve their own residential area. Who makes decisions when there is an open area whether that is a general affair or an own affair? That hon. member has not explained that to us. As far as we are concerned, we oppose this clause strongly, because we believe it is nothing more than the entrenchment of apartheid, once again the entrenchment of racism. Hon. ministers could argue between themselves and with the CP, but it is transparent for anyone who has eyes to see that either you stand for racism or you stand for an open society which allows freedom of association. It is clear what decision they have made.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to conclude the argument I was advancing when my time ran out. I think the hon. member for Pinelands is quite right when he says that this is a fundamental difference. It is the fundamental difference between the philosophy of pluralism and the philosophy of a unitary State. It is a basic difference and we must simply agree to differ on it whether you believe in pluralism and its accommodation or not. I wanted to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a question, but he is not here now. I will therefore ask the hon. member for Pinelands. If you believe in voluntary association and a group of one colour says that it wants a residential area exclusively for that group, would this group be able to have it in terms of PFP policy? Would they be able to deny anyone else who wanted to come and live there that right? [Interjections.]

Thank you. As usual the hon. member for Yeoville is straight and honest. He says: “No, they could not.” In other words, there would be no group right to say that this is an exclusive area for a certain group. If another person wanted to and could buy property there, he would be entitled to do so.

That is not what I said.

I welcome the hon. member’s clarity …

You are misconstruing what I said.

Order! I ask hon. members to afford the hon. member the opportunity to state his case.

He should stop asking questions.

Order! Did the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South not hear me call the Committee to order?

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: This hon. member keeps on asking questions …

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

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to point out to the hon. member that I did not ask him a question, but that I asked the hon. member for Pinelands a question for the sake of clarification. I think it is important that we should be clear on this point. The hon. member for Yeoville answered and it is clear to me that a group can say that they want their own residential area and that they could have it, but that they could not keep it for themselves if somebody else wanted to go and live there. Is that not right? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Sea Point says it is right. [Interjections.] Well, he nodded his head. If you believe in pluralism, you believe in group rights. All I am trying to establish is whether a group which voluntarily, under PFP policy, wants an exclusive residential area, wants a town hall in their suburb to be exclusive to themselves, would be allowed to have it.

Mr. Chairman, for the sake of clarity may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, not from that hon. member, Mr. Chairman. I am used to his nonsense. I am talking about the right to an exclusive group area and the right to control the facilities or amenities in that area. That is what I am trying to establish. The PFP obviously does not allow that right.

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

Order! Surely the hon. member has indicated that he does not wish to reply to any questions.

No, he has not.

I have no time anyway, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member may proceed.

Before I get side-tracked again I want to say that I do not believe that the items in Schedule 1 and which are listed in this clause are the final picture. I believe that when the new system gets going the division of own powers and general powers will have to be renegotiated between the three Houses on an equal footing. Here we as a White Parliament have set them out. Obviously when the new system gets going there will be further negotiations and I believe that some of them will by agreement be changed. I believe that some of them are ridiculous anyway. But there will be renegotiation on an equal footing between the three Houses. Therefore I can accept this as a starting point from which the three Houses will then talk together. The three Houses will talk together on possible changes. Therefore I believe that one must have the power to make those changes if one is going to negotiate.

Therefore we are prepared to accept this clause as the clause that creates the own affairs which are defined in the Bill now, but which at the same time allows that to be changed. [Interjections.] I think that the noise that one has just heard shows that I have touched the official Opposition on the raw by stating the clear distinction of what we see as a group right compared with what that party sees as a group right. Their group right is the right to do what one wants to do as an individual, but not the right of the group to do what it wants to do collectively. Theirs is the right of an individual to do voluntarily, what he wants, but they deny the right to a group collectively to exclude others from doing what they want to do. That highlights and clarifies the difference between the official Opposition and this party.

Mr. Chairman, let me refer to the hon. the Minister of National Education’s contribution and also to that of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. I have never seen any better example of the somersault the NP has done by relinquishing its principles. If one reads the statements made by the hon. the Minister of National Education in the past, one realizes that it must be a bitter pill that he had to swallow as he stood up here today trying to do an egg-dance, because his past statements were CP policy. I feel sorry for him.

I now want to come to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. His panic is best illustrated by his completely wrong interpretation of what the hon. member for Brakpan said. What the hon. member for Brakpan said, I want to endorse. [Interjections.] The hon. member said that what is provided by this clause is the serpent in the bosom of the legislation under discussion. In no way did he mean that own affairs were a serpent in the bosom of the legislation. [Interjections.] What he meant was that the way in which own affairs were being dealt with in the clause, the way in which the self-determination of the Whites was being handled, was the serpent in the bosom of the legislation. [Interjections.] Let me tell the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs what the hon. member for Brakpan’s argument really comes down to. The principle of the existence of own affairs has already been confirmed. Clause 14(1) has indeed, as the hon. member for Brakpan rightly commented, been left as wide open as the Heavens. Because clause 14 is subject to the provisions of clause 16, this means that own affairs are being done away with. This consequently brings us to our standpoint, which the hon. member for Brakpan also put forward, i.e. that with the present wording of the Bill there is no such thing as own affairs. Hence there is no right to self-determination either …

Order! I am not going to permit the hon. member for Jeppe to speak once more about the question of whether there are own or general affairs.

That has already been approved in principle.

Mr. Chairman, I accept your ruling. I just want to tell the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, however, that when he began to speak “volk” (people), asking us whether we regarded ourselves as members of the Afrikaner people—he also raised the question of whether a person could be a member of more than one people—he was venturing into a minefield. Surely he is a member of the Afrikaner people. The present constitution of the Republic of South Africa—Act No. 32 of 1961—makes mention of the “volk” (people)of South Africa who voted. Was the 1961 constitution therefore only drawn up for Afrikaners? [Interjections.]

Secondly I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the Afrikaans prayer read here in the House of Assembly by the Speaker contains, inter alia, the words “ons wat hier as verteenwoordigers van die volk vergader is”. Now there is just one thing I should like to tell the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, and there I shall leave the matter be.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member cannot argue that point any further. The prayer has already been read.

Mr. Chairman, I am merely reacting to what the hon. the Minister said.

Order! The prayer has already been dealt with and I cannot allow hon. members to elaborate on that aspect any further.

Very well, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a thing or two about the question of “people”. I think that in our arguments we are politically trying to steal a march on one another, trying to score debating points in connection with matters such as “people” and small things like that, actions not worthy of someone like the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs.

What do you mean by “small things like that”? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs also said that the NP did indeed perceive the deep-lying differences between the three population groups. In this respect we therefore agree with one another. We agree with him about this. Let me ask him, however, to explain to us where own affairs are to be found. We want to know where the own affairs are that are mentioned in clause 14. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs that own affairs are the source of self-determination. I think he would concede as much.

Here we accepted a principle of self-determination in regard to own affairs and joint responsibility in regard to general affairs. So where does self-determination come in? It is, after all, related to own affairs, the source of self-determination being own affairs. We want the hon. the Minister to indicate to us where that self-determination is to be found and how much self-determination there really is. This does not, of course, only apply to the Whites, because what is self-determination for the Whites, is also self-determination for the Coloureds and for the Indians. The own affairs of the Whites are therefore own affairs as far as the Coloureds and the Indians are concerned. Now my problem is therefore …

This is indeed a question of self-determination, not so?

It is a question of self-determination, yes. The hon. the Minister therefore concedes as much. I do, however, in all honesty, want to put it to the hon. the Minister that when I read clause 14(1)…

You must always be honest.

Yes, I am—unlike the hon. member for Pretoria Central [Interjections.] When I read clause 14(1) and try to identify own affairs on that basis, it is clear that clause 14(1) would have met with my concept of own affairs, if it had not referred to clause 16 and to schedule 1. Let me also motivate why I am saying this.

Mr. Chairman, let me tell you what my test is for self-determination in regard to own affairs. If I really do have self-determination, I must be able to give expression to that self-determination, and I must indeed be able to do so in various ways. When I have self-determination I must be able to draw up my own constitution. When I have self-determination I must be able to manage my own finances.

No.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Springs says no. [Interjections.] I want to point out to the hon. member for Springs that France has self-determination and also manages its own finances. [Interjections.] A people or a group has the untrammelled right to decide on its own affairs. [Interjections.] There is a German proverb that says: “Ohne Heimat, ohne Boden—keine Nation”.

No.

Sir, there is apparently a man of very much greater learning here in our midst.

Is the Afrikaner people entitled to a right to self-determination?

Sir, the Afrikaner people form part of the Whites in South Africa. [Interjections.] Let me suggest to the hon. member that if he ever asks that question again, he should put on his gum-boots. If he carries on about “people”, as the hon. member has done here in the past, all I can say is that traditionally the Whites in this country are a group, and that applies in this legislation as well, and as far as they are concerned there is a right to self-determination, built up around the Afrikaner, who makes up a central part of it. [Interjections.]

Is the Afrikaner people entitled to its own right to self-determination?

Within the grouping of the Whites the Afrikaner will make his own input to the self-determination of the Whites. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, may I please put a further question?

No, I have only 10 minutes. If the hon. member would, however, make arrangements with his Whips to relinquish the guillotine motion, he could put questions to me all afternoon. They do not answer our questions either. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister asked why we did not speak about general affairs. Provision is made for that in the next clause. I just want to say, however, that we do of course acknowledge that there are affairs of common concern, and not only as far as the Coloureds and Indians are concerned. We also have common interests with Blacks and with the UN and with various countries in the world.

Order! The hon. member can discuss general affairs or affairs of common concern under another clause.

The hon. the Minister discussed it, Sir.

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

Then I shall discuss it under the next clause, Sir. [Interjections.] I told the hon. the Minister that it was our standpoint that clause 14(1) was purposely inserted by the NP, after Second Reading, merely as a propaganda instrument, because they found themselves in difficulties in regard to this question of own affairs. It looked as if there would be no own affairs, and so they inserted this clause which we regard as the clause that is as wide open as the Heavens. On political platforms they want to tell people: “Just read this. Everything is an own affair.”

This is, however, subject to the provisions of clause 16, in connection with which I just want to say in passing—because we shall be discussing it under clause 16, if the guillotine motion has not caught up with us—that clause 16 reduces the wide open Heavens to nothing at all. I am saying this, because no identification of own affairs in terms of clause 14 can pass the test set by clause 16. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may not anticipate the discussion of clause 16.

Mr. Chairman, I am just mentioning this in passing. [Interjections.]

You are a political “wildewragtig” (hell-raiser).

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Innesdal say I am a political “wildewragtig”?[Interjections.]

Order! That sort of remark does not, in any way, enhance the quality of the debate. The hon. member for Innesdal must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr. Chairman, I therefore want to formulate my standpoint for the hon. the Minister in the following terms. What I am saying is that clause 14 is the deception clause, and that is why it has been called the serpent in the bosom of this effort. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish to reply to some of the arguments that have been advanced. I thank the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for having opened the debate, because his contribution gives us the opportunity of debating, under this clause, the fundamental points on which we differ with one another.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, before business was suspended, I was saying that I agreed with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the discussion of this clause would probably constitute one of the crucial stages of the debate which we are conducting on the proposed constitutional changes. I also agree that the clause which we are discussing now, as well as the clauses immediately following it, are fundamental, not only with regard to the Government’s standpoints on how participation in decision-making processes can be ensured for the Whites, the Coloureds and the Asians, but also with regard to the difference in attitude between the Government and the Opposition parties.

This clause, as I interpret it, contains three fundamental propositions which I believe we should discuss. The first is the acceptance of the existence of the various population groups as groups for which provision must be made in the clause and in the Constitution Bill. The second is the acceptance of the fact that the recognition of the existence of the population groups to which I have referred also implies that there are aspects or matters which can be identified as being of specific interest to the groups concerned. The third proposition—in this connection I am referring to subsection (2) of the clause—is that it goes without saying, as appears from the proviso, that there are identifiable matters which affect the lives and circumstances of all the population groups.

Naturally, these propositions give rise to certain consequences. The first one is that there are spheres which are defined as own affairs concerning which the respective population groups have self-determination or final decision-making, but at the same time it implies a second consequence, and that is that there are spheres of common concern to the various population groups. The recognition of those particular areas of common concern means that there must also be co-responsibility in respect of decision-making with regard to those particular aspects.

Sir, I wish to point out to you that in this particular connection I am arguing in response to the reply of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as well as the remarks made by the hon. members of the CP.

I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would not discuss this in too much detail, in view of the fact that we shall be coming to general affairs at a later stage.

Sir, I am merely saying what the inferences are that can be drawn in connection with subsection (2) of the clause which we are dealing with at the moment. With great respect, the hon. member for Brakpan was the first speaker of the CP and you allowed him to quote what the hon. the Prime Minister had said in 1981 with specific reference to this subject. Without making matters difficult for you, I want to quote what the hon. member for Brakpan said in this connection, something which calls for a reply from the Government, I believe.

I shall quote the hon. member for Brakpan from his unrevised Hansard, since I assume that he has not had time yet to go through it. He quoted what the hon. the Prime Minister had said about the self-determination of peoples. After quoting him approvingly, the hon. member said—

I just want to make the point that the hon. member for Brakpan, to whom I am now replying in this particular connection, confined himself to the concept of own affairs and that which flows from it, namely that there will be self-determination in this regard. Sir, I think you will concede that one could hardly conduct a meaningful debate on the subject without replying to hon. members on this.

It is fundamental to the standpoint, as argued by the hon. member for Brakpan, as well as by the hon. member for Waterberg, to which I want to come back. This particular clause implies something else as well, and that is the acceptance of the fact that in any event, Whites, Coloureds and Asians want to utilize opportunities to express themselves in the political sphere and that they want to participate in decision-making processes, in whatever way, within the geo-political system. On this matter there are fundamental differences between our standpoints in this particular connection. The concept of own affairs is not a foreign concept to hon. members of the CP. Not only is the concept of decision-making with regard to own affairs, as referred to in clause 14, not a foreign concept to the hon. members; these hon. members have accepted the control over own affairs referred to in this clause within a wider geo-political system. This is confirmed by the fact that up to 1982, the hon. members of the CP consistently accepted certain things, such as the fact that the right to decision-making with regard to own affairs, as described here, cannot be exercised in another or separate State, but that such decisions must be taken within the same State, geographically speaking. Secondly, not one of the hon. members of the CP adopted an absolutist standpoint to the effect that there are only own affairs. On the contrary, hon. members accepted that in addition to the concept of own affairs, as identified in this clause, there were also spheres which were not own affairs. The hon. member need not take my word for this. He has only to go and read the publications signed by the hon. member for Waterberg after 1981. I concede at once that hon. members can move away from the standpoint. They have every right to do so, but then they must not accuse other people of having deviated in this way, as they have done during this debate.

The hon. member for Brakpan asked what had become of this self-determination. His remarks were endorsed by the hon. member for Waterberg, and I want to congratulate both these hon. members on at least having quoted good and authoritative standpoints, namely those of the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Waterberg also quoted the hon. the Prime Minister, but he did not quote him correctly. I want to concede at once that it was not a deliberate inaccuracy. However, what did the hon. member for Waterberg say in this particular connection? He said that the hon. the Prime Minister had said in 1965 that the Coloured people did not form part of the White nation, and I accept that the hon. member is referring to the same speech by the hon. the Prime Minister, the one reported in Hansard—I believe it was in column 7227. However, the hon. the Prime Minister did not say that the Coloured people did not belong to the South African nation; he said they did not belong to the White nation. “White nation” was used in that context as a reference to the White people, and in saying this, I concede at once that we do not all interpret the concepts of “People” and “nation” in the same way. What I do accuse the hon. member for Waterberg of doing, however, is that he quoted the words of the hon. the Prime Minister in order to achieve a specific objective, and that is to say that the hon. the Prime Minister had alleged that constitutionally defined, the Coloured people did not form part of the South African nation. All I want to tell the hon. member is that when he quotes people, he should please do quote them for the sake of the record.

I come to the hon. member for Jeppe. Sir, I do not wish to discuss the parliamentary prayer, and I shall refer only to the fact that hon. members are using the terms “people” and “nation” without defining them. In this particular connection, the reference by the hon. member for Jeppe to the prayer has a specific historical significance. What is it? It is the fact that the parliamentary prayer …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: With all due respect, you ruled that I would be out of order and for that reason I was not afforded the opportunity of stating my standpoint on the parliamentary prayer. If the hon. the Minister is going to do so now, I must have the right to reply to him.

The hon. the Minister will not be allowed to discuss the parliamentary prayer. The hon. the Minister is only referring to arguments put forward by hon. members about the question of “people” and “nation”, which I have allowed hon. members to discuss. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a further point of order: When I referred to the parliamentary prayer, you ruled that it was out of order.

I said I would not allow the hon. member to discuss the parliamentary prayer per se. The same ruling applies to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

The fact is that I am talking about the inferences that are drawn from the use of specific words. I just want to refer to the parliamentary prayer in this particular connection in order to make my point. The parliamentary prayer was originally drafted in English and there is no reference whatsoever in the English text to “people” or “nation”. The 1924 translation is not an exact translation of the English and the word “volk” is used in it. The hon. member referred in his speech to the connotation of “volk”. The words which are used in the prayer are that we are the representatives of the “volk”—I shall not refer to this any further—but at that stage, the Coloured people were part of the electorate of the country, and the representatives in this House who had committed themselves …

What about the Indians?

I am now dealing with the Coloureds. I shall come to the Indians. The point I want to make is that the Coloured people were on the common voters’ roll at that time. In terms of the definition applicable at the time, therefore, they were included among the people represented in this House. That is all I want to say in this particular connection.

And the Indians?

With all due respect, I am replying to statements made by hon. members in which they used words indiscriminately without defining them in any way, and drew certain inferences from them as to what other people’s standpoints were.

You said that you would come to the Indians. [Interjections.]

I want to proceed and to come to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I want to begin by stating that it is true that the concept of own affairs—and, by the same token, its counterpart, namely general affairs, which I do not wish to discuss now—is one of the most important aspects of the Bill and of this clause. Incidentally, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot get away from the fact that he himself recognizes the existence, not only of population groups, but also of rights, identifiable rights, for those groups. I want to refer again in passing to the fact that the hon. member for Sandton introduced an instruction in which he recognized the rights of population groups. This means only one thing, namely that there are matters which are the own affairs of a particular population group and which must receive recognition. Those hon. members are free to disagree with it or to argue about it. I say that it is fundamental to the legislation, but also to the standpoint of the Government, that if we are to promote their rights and their interests, this must be done within the group context of clause 14, and the second element, the element of own affairs, which is referred to in clause 14, must be recognized. There is absolutely no doubt about that. It arises from the Government’s belief that the constitutional development is intended to promote the democratic form of government, and that in order to do so, it is necessary to recognize the fact that there are different communities with identifiable interests or affairs of their own in this country.

Yes, according to you.

I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at once, and we agree on this, that this is probably the greatest problem with which we are faced in this country. Moreover, it is probably the greatest challenge we shall be faced with in future in this connection. I have said that it is our greatest problem, for just as we find everywhere in the world where different groups inhabit the same area—I am referring to the geographical territory of the country and not to residential areas—it naturally happens that the various groups often have interests of their own which conflict with those of other groups. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has conceded this to me. No one is denying it. In fact, it is the subject of research and of scientific writings.

However, the question arises why there should be a conflict between the specific interests of the various population groups. I submit that this is firstly due to the fact that the groups inevitably differ from one another to a greater or lesser degree and that because of this difference, there are certain facets of the existence of each group over which that group wishes to exercise independent control. I submit that those facets refer to clause 14 and those matters over which they want to exercise control themselves. It will serve no purpose for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to deny this. It may be true that certain groups do not want this, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot deny that there are groups which do want it. Own affairs are—

I am not alleging that there is no common area. On the contrary. I submit that this definition is not an artificial one. In fact, I suggest that it has developed historically, not only in our country, but also in the legislation of the country.

That does not make it legitimate. Legislation may be wrong.

I am not saying that it makes it legitimate. I am simply saying that if confirms its existence. I am arguing about the factual situation. I shall come to the point raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He must just give me a chance.

As far as the governing party is concerned, it has recognized this particular fact since 1920, and until today the various groups in the country have had a modus vivendi on that basis. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot deny that either. I submit that it does not hold a potential for conflict when one group—we are dealing with the groups at the moment—regulates or wishes to regulate the identifiable own affairs for another group. I submit that the acceptance of this clause and the other consequential clauses of the Bill will for the first time in the history of this country, as I see it, clearly identify the matters affecting Whites, Asians and Coloureds, and that as a result, structures are being created through which decision-making, or self-determination if you like, with regard to own affairs is being made possible for the groups. This matter is dealt with in this Bill, and specifically in this clause, and its implementation will consequently be an improvement on the status quo in respect of participation by the groups as it exists today. There is a second reason as well—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will not dispute this—why the diverse groups which we are talking about and which inhabit the same territory may have conflicting interests. This is a problem with which the Conservative Party is also wrestling. They just want to solve it in a different way. Apart from their own interests, they also share certain common interests. Surely we cannot deny that under such circumstances, there is a natural tendency to obtain an exclusive say or power of decision-making with regard to those interests as well, to the exclusion of other groups. I do not approve of this, but we cannot deny the tendency.

That is the dilemma.

Of course. I am dealing with it. Surely we cannot deny it; we cannot pretend that it does not exist. I believe that this is the basic problem in this society, which we describe as plural, and in other similar societies. So there are these common interests. With great respect, it is simply no use arguing, as the hon. member for Brakpan and other hon. members have quite absurdly argued today, that all affairs, including defence, transport and economy, are White affairs. Surely this is not true. Surely it is no use creating a structure to make it true either. Surely is it at variance with the facts. Surely it militates against the reality with which we are all wrestling. Surely it is no use arguing on the basis of wild fantasies in this House, as though it were possible to disentangle the interests which these people have in common. Therefore the Constitution Bill and this clause simultaneously recognize the interests or affairs peculiar to each particular group and the existence of the others. That is why I make the general statement that what we have before us represents progress in this particular connection.

Now I come to the other statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I should like to quote from his Hansard. For the sake of the argument I have to quote him verbatim. He said (Hansard, 25 August)—

These are extremely important words which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is using here. In the first place, he is saying that the identification of the various population groups in this country is a “compulsive” identification.

Specifically the Coloureds. You asked me how we identified the Coloureds.

I asked you that afterwards.

No, before, and then I said it was a compulsive identification.

Let me simply quote the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I do not want to quarrel with him about the matter now. He said—

As though they had not been identified before—

For the third time, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is saying the same thing.

And on top of that it is not true.

Of course it is not true. But I am coming to that. He says that when that category of persons is set aside “as it were, for specific purposes of government”, what happens then is “that on the basis of race—and no other criterion applies here—a distinction is drawn by the Government as regards the provision of certain facilities”. In other words, he is saying that the identification is based on race alone. He is saying that the identification arises only from an Act of Parliament. These are the two fundamental statements which the hon. member is making. In this connection I want to agree with the hon. member for Waterberg, and there are certain people who would be surprised to hear that I agree with him …

You have to accept words of wisdom.

The hon. member also has his lucid moments now and then. The fact of the existence of race groups is a factor of identification and does not necessarily have a negative implication. The most important point is that one does not have the identification in order to benefit some people and to prejudice others. I submit that both statements made by the hon. member are fundamentally untrue. I am not accusing the hon. member of being malicious. I am simply talking about standpoints.

The hon. member went on to say—

This is an extremely interesting statement which the hon. member is making here. He went on to say—

When has the Government ever argued that the definition of “people” is the absolute criterion for identifying minority groups?

Connie Mulder said so.

I am not talking about Connie Mulder, but about the Government of today. The hon. member went on to say—

For the Coloureds.

It does not matter for whom. The hon. member was formulating his fundamental standpoints. He went on to say—

What is the hon. member doing here? He is saying that the Coloured people are not an ethnic group. He says—

He is now speaking of the Coloured people as a group and saying that in our perception they are simply a racial definition of that group. I submit that the insinuation or statement that the Government has invented a racial or group identification in South Africa and has enforced it by law is not true. We must remember what the hon. member said. He said that it had been brought about by the Population Registration Act. Surely this is not true. Society itself had identified the various groups, and it had done so long before this party came into power. Surely these are historical facts. I shall prove it. Over the years, society had structured itself socially, economically and politically on the basis of race groups. Surely this was not started by the Government. What the Government did in the interests of orderly and peaceful coexistence and of development—and I concede this at once to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—was to define that identification. The Government defined it in legislation. However, the Government did not define it because it had created the identification. It defined it because it existed. I just want to take the hon. the leader of the opposition a little further in this particular connection, if I may.

That was how they appeared on the common voters’ roll.

Yes, as Coloured people.

[Inaudible.]

Of course! But if this is so, surely the hon. the leader of the Opposition is not right in saying that the Government initiated the process of identification by means of the Population Registration Act. I submit that the Population Registration Act was de jure confirmation of the de facto position which already existed in society. The third mistake which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made, in my opinion, was to say that we had identified them for purposes of government structures. Sir, this is not true. What we did in fact do was to use the existence of the population diversity as a foundation on which to build the constitutional structures. That is why it was done, not the other way round.

What was the position before 1948? The Theron report says on page 23, paragraph 2.1—

When we speak of the Coloured people, the history of their political rights confirms this fact. Let me admit today that it is true that many people, in this House as well, rejoiced at apartheid and whispered about development. I concede that. As a result—and I willingly concede this as well—the concept of separate development acquired a negative connotation.

It still has that connotation, and it will always have it.

As long as the hon. member for Greytown lives in this country, that will be so. The hon. member is quite right. The circumstances of life of the Coloured people have changed dramatically in every sphere as a result of the development component of this Government’s policy.

Yes? What about group areas?

Remember what Windermere looked like under you policy. Remember what Cato Manor looked like under you policy. There was exploitation by the rich, and the hon. member should know that better than I. [Interjections.] I am referring now to the hon. member for Houghton.

And now you are getting rid of it…

The hon. members of the CP laugh at the own affairs, as though education as an own affair were of no importance to communities.

No. It is precisely because it is so important.

Since the eighteenth century there have been mission schools—not only belonging to our church—which have specifically provided education for the Coloureds on a group basis. The Cape School Board Act of 1905 provided, for the first time, for the establishment of unsectarian public schools for non-Whites in the Cape Province. In Education Ordinance No. 26 of 1920, in the Cape Province, and in Education Ordinance No. 11 of 1945, also in the Cape Province, this matter was taken further. What am I trying to say? Surely this Government did not suddenly initiate a process of identification by means of a law passed in 1948.

Colin knows that.

He knows it, after all. He also knows who was in power in the Cape Province at the time. Therefore he must not lay these things at my door.

At that time Nic was still a Nationalist.

However, I now want to say something else to the hon. member, Mr. Chairman. Let us forget what the Government did. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I do not know where the hon. member for Houghton lives, but I think it is somewhere around Bishops court.

No. [Interjections.]

Not there?

No. [Interjections.]

Very well. It does not matter. The hon. member for Constantia represents the voters of Bishops court in this House, anyway. [Interjections.] Let us examine the record of the pre-1948 Government, specifically with regard to community identification. In the first half of this century, it was standard practice in residential areas such as Bishops court, Claremont, Plum-stead, and in residential areas of Port Elizabeth, to insert the following condition into documents relating to township development, and I should like to read it to you—

After this, hon. members of the PFP must no longer tell me that the provisions of this Government are so dreadful. [Interjections.] No, I am simply drawing their attention to the absurdity of their arguments. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton should not try to participate in this discussion. She should rather give me a chance to speak.

She seems to have forgotten about the Union Hotel.

Yes, she should know about the Union Hotel. The list of achievements of the hon. member for Houghton with regard to the fair treatment of people is the last thing which should be discussed in this hon. House. [Interjections.]

This identification, which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition alleges …

if you accept my Bill of Rights, there will be no further problem of this nature. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Yeoville wants a turn to speak, I shall resume my seat so that he may speak. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in this House that legislation of this Parliament, legislation of this Government, was the cause of the group identification of the population groups in this country. Surely this is not true. [Interjections.] Very well, let us see whether it is true now. Since 1910 …

[Inaudible.]

Oh, please! I am not talking to the hon. member for Sea Point.

Why are you so offensive about these matters? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I am now replying to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with regard to an obviously untrue statement which he made and to which I have already referred. I believe that I am entitled to do so. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, allow me to reply immediately to the hon. member for Sea Point. I am not arguing the question of whether history was wrong or not. What I am trying to do is to rectify some of the mistakes of history by introducing this Bill. Hon. members of the PFP, however, are on principle not prepared to support this Bill.

If you want to rectify the mistakes of history, why do you not resign then? [Interjections.]

What I am trying to say … [Interjections.]

Order! I now want to appeal to hon. members to stop their continual interjections. The hon. the Minister is replying to their arguments.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. Leader of the Opposition will concede that I am indeed correct. I am merely dealing with the statement he made to the effect that an Act of Parliament, passed by this Government, was responsible for the identification of the various population groups in the country. I state that that is patently not true or correct.

*Since 1910, the political participation of Coloured people as Coloured people has been reduced. A distinction has been drawn, therefore, between Coloured people and other people. Hon. members may consult the report of the Erika Theron Commission in this connection. I refer them to page 343 of that report. Furthermore, the First Commission of Inquiry into Coloured Affairs—they were therefore identified as the Coloured group—was appointed as far back as 1936, at a time when there was no Population Registration Act, to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred as the dreadful evil which had been brought into being by this Government. In 1943 … yes, the hon. member for Sea Point should remember this, because the party which was in power at that time was the one to which he belonged.

I was not there at that time.

Of course the hon. member was not there. Actually it was a good thing that he was not. [Interjections.]

In 1943, a Government other than this one—and I do not mean this as a reproach—appointed an Advisory Coloured Council and dealt with Coloured people on a differentiated basis. What grounds does the hon. member have for making this misrepresentation? Group identification or differentiation is not the invention of this Government. Nor is this Government the only one which recognizes group diversity. Every party in this Committee does so. I want to refer to the policy of the hon. Leader’s own party, and specifically to paragraph 4.7.1, which reads as follows—

Not on the legislation which he has laid at my door—this is the statement of his party—but—

[Interjections.] I am not dealing with the hon. member for Durban Point now. I am dealing with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I shall come to the hon. member for Sea Point at a later stage. [Interjections.] No, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must listen now, because he himself chose this as the basis for the debate, and I am simply following him. In paragraph 4.3.1, it is explicitly stated—

This can have only one meaning, and that is that it must be recognized in the government institutions, and if that party wishes to recognize it, then it must identify the people. There is no other way of doing it. [Interjections.] I am coming to the hon. member for Sea Point. If I were he, I would rather keep quiet.

I have not even spoken yet.

Sir, the hon. member says he has not even spoken yet. I was under the impression that he spoke all day. [Interjections.] I want to put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Hillbrow says he is not going to give it to us. He is waiting for a convention. The hon. member for Hillbrow says he is not going to give the particulars. Of course he is not going to give them, because he cannot decide on them alone.

He said he did not want to guillotine them.

Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wishes to suggest that because the Government has given statutory recognition to this plurality which has existed since our country came into being, it is engaged in the compulsory or coercive identification of people, and I say that this is not true. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not replied to the question I asked yesterday, namely how he wants to identify minority groups in order to give them proportional representation under his constitutional dispensation.

That is an easy question.

The hon. leader says it is an easy question. He is going to say that the answer is voluntary association.

Correct.

And what about the group which refuses to accept this? [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must tell me how he wants that principle to be embodied in his constitutional structure without group identification.

I come now to the hon. member for Sea point. Let us first get this matter straight, because I just want to make sure that I do not proceed from the wrong premise in arguing with those hon. members. It is the standpoint of the hon. members that there must not be any group identification on a statutory basis in this country. The hon. member for Sea Point admits this. He says it is his standpoint. This is interesting. The hon. members of his party serve on the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs and they participate. I want to say at once that they often participate in a very positive way.

Do you want us to vote against those Bills?

I do not want anything. I am just dealing with that party’s own policy statement. The hon. member should not seek that revenue of escape.

*The hon. member for Sea Point knows what it is about. We dealt with the Black Local Authorities Bill. The hon. member for Sea Point was a member of the Select Committee at the time. I say that a positive contribution was made. He supported the definitions clause in which Blacks are defined. He supported it while the definition of Blacks referred to the population registration legislation.

It was in the Bill.

That is not the point. The point is that the hon. member participated in legislation relating to the identification of population groups in terms of a statute.

On which clause of the Bill are you now? Own affairs?

I am dealing with own affairs and group identification, to which the hon. member’s leader referred. Perhaps the hon. member for Pinelands was not listening. In fact, I think he usually does not listen to what his leader says.

But you are talking about Blacks.

I am talking about statutory group identification. The hon. member for Pinelands knows what I am talking about; he is not quite so ignorant.

With this I conclude my remarks on this subject. It is no use paying lip service to particular groups and their interests while everything we say in this House militates against our standpoint.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps the first promise with which I should like to deal—it is not the main impact of what I intend to say—relates to this whole argument of identification. I want to get it quite clear. I do not believe that we who sit in these benches want laws to identify people. I do not think it is necessary to have laws to identify people. People know who they are, what they are and others know what they are without any necessity for any law to tell them what they are. The hon. the Minister himself does not require any law to tell him that he is White. He does not require any law to tell him that he is an Afrikaner. He does not require any law to ascribe that to any other person in South Africa.

Fundamentally, the whole issue is that it is no use reading back for decades and saying: Oh, we had group identification before. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the reality of South Africa is that there is nobody in South Africa, whether historically or otherwise, who can say that he is without sin in regard to the aspect of discrimination in regard to any of these things. I make no apology for the fact that people in the past made mistakes, that people in the past did things. The whole issue is that we are now dealing with a law in 1983.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he does not understand that the argument which I have advanced about the historic development, relates to the statement of his hon. leader that the law had identified the people?

That is the whole point. We keep saying to the Government that we do not believe that there needs to be a law in South Africa to identify anybody. We do not need such a law and we do not want such a law. I say that nobody wants such a law. That is the reality. We are dealing with a constitution in 1983. I cannot change history, but I can say today that I do not need a law. I cannot say what should have taken place yesterday, but the reality is that we do not need it today.

One of the problems which I think exist—this arises from the whole of the hon. the Minister’s argument—is that he speaks of self-determination. The whole debate is about self-determination. These hon. members on my right left—if I may use such a term—speak about nothing except self-determination. Self-determination is one thing when it is carried out with due regard for the interest of others. It is another thing when it is carried out within the parameters which others prescribe for people. It is not self-determination when one group says that one can have self-determination within these parameters. That is not self-determination. This is precisely what these hon. gentlemen in the CP want to be enshrined in the legislation. They want to enshrine in the legislation that the Whites are going to determine the limit of self-determination of other people. That is the issue. They will determine where the lines are to be drawn. They will determine where people will have rights which are going to develop. Well, I want to say that South Africa is not going to be like that. Whether anybody wants it or does not want it, there is no prospect of South Africa taking that particular course. [Interjections.]

The main matters which I want to talk about, are the implications of this clause from a financial point of view. The reality is that there is nothing here or anywhere else to allow people to tax themselves for their own affairs. Taxation is going to be a general matter. Allocations are going to come from taxation not by Parliament acting in respect of own affairs, but they are going to be general affairs. The issue that I want to raise—and I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Finance has disappeared, because he should take part in this debate—is that if one deals with an allocation one can equate it to a cake. The cake will have to be sliced. The size of the slices of the cake is going to be the determining feature in respect of this whole matter. Which of the groups that we keep on talking about, is going to get what size slice of cake and who is going to hold the knife that cuts the cake?

We are going to have three separate cakes. [Interjections.]

People may joke about there being a White, Black and Coloured cake, but the reality is that the South African economy is one cake. There is only one cake for South Africa, and the hon. the Minister knows it. That is why taxation and appropriation of funds is a general matter and not an own matter.

But the Bill confirms that.

Correct. How will the hon. the Minister decide this matter when it comes to a justification of the different levels of social services in respect of the individual items of own affairs. At the present moment this Parliament votes in order to have different forms of social services, for example education to which is allocated a certain amount per capita and pensions, to which is allocated a certain amount per capita.

We can deal with that later.

No, we are going to deal with it now, because it is under “own affairs”. Let us find time to deal with it. The hon. the Minister of Finance should be here. The reality is that it is Whites who now decide that it should be this kind of discriminatory situation. We are now going to have a situation in South Africa where one will have Coloured and Indians who will either have to agree that all social services should be on the same level, or one will ask them to vote for discriminatory social services in respect of their own people. I want to see the Coloured MP who goes back and tells his voters that he voted for a lower social service for his people than for another group. I want to see the man who goes back and says to his own people: “I supported a lower pension for you than I did for somebody else”. [Interjections.] This is the real issue in respect of own affairs. The real potential for conflict lies in the question as to how this cake is going to be cut and who is going to cut it. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if one has a situation in South Africa in terms of which one no longer has this based on race or colour but on need, irrespective of the colour of the person, then one will be able to avoid conflict, because need is the question when it comes to provision of social services and not colour or race. When we talk about race, colour and groups … The hon. member for Helderkruin I think spoke about the fact that there was talk at one stage of the English being a “volk”, but the reality is that even though the English-speaking South Africans may have differences in language, cultural background, even religion—the hon. member for Pretoria Central drew attention to it—nobody today talks about a “self-beskikkingsreg vir die Afrikaner”. Now it is the Whites’ right of self-determination.

[Inaudible.]

No. I agree with him. When one talks about merging, why should it be restricted only to people who are English-and Afrikaans-speaking? It may well be that there is so much in common for example between people other than those two groups so that eventually the interests of all those people can be merged. However, by having a law in which people are categorized, as is done now, that bridge is actually made impossible. The bridge is actually broken down whereas before, before there was a law, there was a bridge that one could cross. Whether one crossed it in daylight, at night, surreptitiously or openly, was another matter, but there was a bridge. Now, with the Population Registration Act, the Government has broken down that bridge and made it impossible to be crossed, whether by day or night or openly or surreptitiously. That is one of the reasons why one cannot have a law of this nature.

Everybody find themselves, their own identity and their group with which they want to associate. What we are doing here is that we are making a law in which we decide what a person is. A person himself no longer has the right to decide who he is, nor has anyone else the right to regard him as he wants to be regarded. He has to look at a Statute Book to be told what the person is. It is the concept of statutory discrimination which has been one of the evils of South Africa and which has brought us into disrepute.

Mr. Chairman, when we look at this clause, we see that it does not deal with the allocation of finances per House. It deals with matters affecting a population group. The hon. member for Yeoville argued as if we were considering the finances allocated per House. The fact of the matter is, however, that this relates to population groups.

I want to go further and tell the hon. member for Yeoville that we have already argued that financial legislation is still to be drafted. One does not spell out all the financial matters in a constitution. That is not the correct place for them. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has already argued this point very clearly, and I am therefore not going to pursue this matter

That is a revelation.

If it only strikes him as a revelation now, that hon. member has not been listening to what has been going on in the House. [Interjections.]

Order!

That hon. member talks and shouts such a lot. [Interjections.]

Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to put his case.

Him or me? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pretoria West is speaking and not the hon. member for Langlaagte.

I now want to come to the clause. It has already been said that financial matters will be dealt with at a later stage and that here we are dealing with population groups and not the financial allocations per House. The fact of the matter is that we are not dealing here with a serpent in the bosom of any population group’s survival. There is no serpent in the bosom as far as this is concerned. In actual fact, here we have a process of giving effect to, of determining, own affairs which will, in fact, establish self-determination for every population group. The hon. member for Brakpan was totally wrong and completely wide of the mark. An serpent is poisonous and injects its venom. When listening to that hon. member’s speech, one wondered who has been bitten by the adder. That hon. member’s speech was so far removed from friendly nationalism as to be unrecognizable.

That is an “adder” story. [Interjections.]

With further reference to clause 14, I want to ask the hon. member since when maintaining the identity of a population group is a serpent in one’s bosom. Since when is the fact that one states in a clause that the identity of a specific population group is to be maintained a serpent in one’s bosom?

He went further and said, by implication, that maintaining the culture of a population group is a serpent in one’s bosom.

That is not what he said.

With reference to clause 14, he referred to a serpent in the bosom. He spoke with venom coursing through his system. He did not realize what he was saying. The hon. member spoke from the point of view of political opportunism. I now want to refer to the separate maintenance of individual traditions and customs. I want to point out that here there is absolutely no question of any serpent in any bosom. What we are dealing with here is White self-determination.

There is indeed a serpent in the bosom as far as other matters are concerned. I am referring, for example, to what the hon. member for Lichtenburg said. There are other adders in the bosom, and one of them relates to the statement that members of the AWB are patriots.

Order! There is nothing about the AWB in this clause. [Interjections.]

Sir, as an hon. member said here, there is very little difference between AWB affairs and “adder” affairs. In fact, the trouble with the CP is that they say there can only be own affairs for each population group. They refer to the Afrikaner population group and say there can only be own affairs for each population group. Merely making that statement proves how ludicrous it is. There is no question of that. They are in a quandary as to what a population group is, what a people is and what a nation is.

You tell us.

I want to say that the ludicrousness of the CP’s arguments lies in the fact that they say each population group must eventually have a homeland.

What did the hon. the Leader of the CP say? Firstly he said that he could not find any fault of distinguishing identifiable groups. Good grief, Sir, that is axiomatic. He was not really saying anything at all. We have known that for a long time now. He said absolutely nothing. He heard that from the NP. Secondly he said there has to be voluntary association and everyone must decide for himself, every group must be able to act exclusively. That is what he said. The tact of the matter is that we agree with this, and that is precisely what clause 14 is all about. [Interjections.] The point is that the hon. member makes a speech but does not state his party’s policy. He speaks in generalities. Thirdly the hon. the leader of the CP referred to a growing Coloured awareness. To whom do we owe that growing awareness? We owe it to the policy of the NP which tries to shape this country’s future by means of friendly nationalism? That is the whole point.

With regard to clause 14, which must actually form the basis of own affairs, it is significant that the CP did not suggest an improvement to the possible definition or content on regard to own affairs. That is very interesting. The CP has kicked up a fuss—if I may put it like that—about clause 14. They are opposed to it but did not move amendments. If they are really champions of group interests and the interests involving the own affairs of population groups, why do they not improve the clause? No attempt was made to do this. To tell the truth—and now we must all be perfectly clear about this—the NP is initiating a process. We are not saying that this will be the alpha and the omega for all times; we are initiating a process by means of which friendly nationalism can triumph in this country, but we are getting absolutely no assistance from the CP. If they are so concerned about clause 14, why do they not suggest an improvement?

I should like to come back to a standpoint on clause 14 which was adopted by an hon. member of the official Opposition, in fact the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself. I want to refer very briefly to this, because the hon. the Minister has already replied to it fully. I just want to say that as far as they are concerned, own affairs do not, in any event, exist at all. As far as they are concerned, there are only affairs of common concern, and in principle we differ as much as day differs from night.

When one looks at clause 14, one sees that it deals with own affairs. We consider these matters to be unique to population groups—we do not, therefore, refer to peoples, but rather to population groups—and of importance in the maintenance of the identity, culture and traditions of each group.

I do not want to dwell at any length on the arguments of the hon. member for Jeppe. He is not here. He said that a constitution should be drawn up by the people. The fact of the matter is that as I understand the word “people”, it has a cultural connotation.

Order! I have to tell the hon. member that the argument about people and nation has been raised here repeatedly. I do not want to talk the hon. member out of a good argument, but I think he must cut short his discussion of this matter.

Sir, I have not yet started with my argument. I am still getting to the point. I just want to raise a point that has not yet been raised. The point is that a people cannot draw up a constitution. That is the point. I maintain that only a nation or peoples and population groups moving towards nationhood can draw up a constitution. What we are, in actual fact, doing is establishing a nation-in-the-making. [Interjections.] But I am quite right … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before I come to the details of the clause I should just like to say to the hon. the Minister that I consider his comments about the participation by myself, the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. Prof. N. J. J. Olivier in the Select Committee on the Constitution dealing with Black local government and Black community development as unworthy of him as the Chairman of that committee. It will make it extremely difficult for opposition members to make a construction contribution if he is going to place the interpretation on our activities as he did here. He knows that what were referred to that Select Committee were Bills dealing with Black local government and Black community development. We were bound by the blackness of those Bills. There was no way in which we could escape from the concept of a Black local government and Black community development. We argued that everybody should belong to the same local government and that instead of there being Black community development we should operate according to the normal provincial system. We were therefore limited as to what we could achieve. It was within those parameters that we were bound to act.

I do not know why the hon. the Minister is trying to justify the present constitutional proposals on the ground of historical circumstances. We are quite prepared to meet those historical circumstances. Let me make it clear that I do not believe there is any party in this Committee that does not acknowledge that South Africa is a plural society which is riddled, if I may use the word, with groups of various kinds.

[Inaudible.]

What is important is how we define the groups and how we deal with those groups in the political and constitutional fields. That is what is the issue. We have made it quite clear that we believe that one does not define those groups by statutes based on race. We believe that those groups will manifest…

May I put a question to you?

No. I only have 10 minutes now. But I shall speak again. These groups will manifest themselves around the issues of the day. It may well be that at times in history they may group themselves around race, at other times around ethnicity, at other times around language, at other times around religion, at other times around culture and at other times around economic interests. That is what has happened. What did the hon. the Prime Minister say? He said that he has more in common with the Coloured poet Petersen than with the White Van Zyl Slabbert. What was he actually saying? he was saying that in that context what is more important than our political divisions or our Whiteness is our Afrikanerism. Time and time again throughout history one finds that people have grouped together on a religious basis, cutting across other affiliations. What we are saying, is that there is a variety of factors which determine groups and that you have to allow for those groups to manifest themselves by the mobilization of people on a particular issue. That is what we believe it should be, and that is how we would deal with it in our constitution and society.

Do you not have to start with what exists?

What exists in sport? Are we now going to go back to multi-national sport? What exists in sport are athletes, and let us get on with it. What exists in economics are workers, management and labour. Are we going to separate them?

Once upon a time the Afrikaners were a volk. They were an identifiable political group in South Africa. At that time it was necessary to mobilize around that concept, but now that mobilization is around Whiteness. That is the transformation that has taken place. There was a time when the Coloureds were taken off the common roll, because the Nationalists said that the Coloureds were voting for the English against the Afrikaners. That was the reality of the time. All I am saying, is that groups will manifest themselves in the political society. What we cannot dare do in 1983 is to base the entrenchment of groups in the future on our racial perception of what groups are today, because those groups are not going to remain like that. It is not as though the NP does not recognize groups, but that they tie the concept of groups around race. Instead of allowing a certain amount of fluidity for its movement, they have cast it in a formal, legislative and rigid mould. Secondly, instead of trying to get away from group prejudice, they have actually exploited group prejudice and have placed it right in the forefront of their constitutional proposals. That is what this clause is about. This clause actually provides the ideological foundation for the whole new constitutional system. Clause 14, if you want me to use a simple phrase for it, is the apartheid clause of the new constitution of South Africa. It is this clause in which the apartheid structures, which are an essential feature of this government’s constitutional plan, are founded. This is the apartheid corner stone. To quote David Curry, the national chairman of the Labour Party: “This is the apartheid base of the new constitution”. We must see it in that perspective.

It is this clause which will provide a basis for the pretext of having apartheid in Parliament, in the Cabinet, in legislation, in administration and in institutions right throughout the South African society, even where they do not exist today. This is the clause which not only entrenches apartheid, but which extends apartheid. It does so not only between Whites and what hon. members will call non-Whites, but between Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks whether they like it or not. This is the clause which is absolutizing apartheid in every field of activity in South Africa. The hon. member for Durban Point should realize that this “apartheidization” of South Africa does not allow for apartheid or separation on the basis of local option. It does not allow for it on the basis of voluntary association. It does not allow for it on the basis of the desire or the decision of the group concerned. Who is going to decide? This is the essence. It provides for apartheid being decided, not by the community concerned, not by the leaders concerned, but by a White person who is responsible to a White Parliament which is elected by a White NP who will have the final decision as to what is own affairs for Coloured, Indian, White and Black. It is in fact the antithesis of self-determination. Not even in the grave can people decide for themselves. Even in the grave of apartheid it is going to be the White NP that is going to decide what are own affairs for the various other communities in South Africa.

This clause is dangerous; it is apartheid-laden and is even worse than it was when it went to the Select Committee. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs will know this full well because he is in fact the originator, together with the hon. the Minister of National Education, of the extension of apartheid in this Bill. For them the concept of a schedule giving the outer parameters of apartheid was not good enough.

*According to them this Bill should merely be the point of departure, because as this system evolves its scope must also increase and self-determination and apartheid must increase.

†Before this Bill went to the Select Committee, the parameters were determined by the schedule. The President in applying that schedule had to take certain factors into account. Now, however, the starting point is the schedule, because the schedule is still contained in clause 14(2), but clause 14(1) is completely open-ended. It puts no limit on what can be decided to be own or group affairs. The hon. the Minister of constitutional Development and Planning has time and again stated—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, clause 14 is probably one of the most important clauses in this Constitution Bill. This clause purports to contain a definition of own affairs. Own affairs and their existence are merely the peg on which the Government wants to hang the acceptability of this Bill for the whites, and specifically the Afrikaners. If there are no own affairs, we are dealing with a totally integrated legislative system. If own affairs fall away, the basis of this Bill falls away too. This basis is the co-operation of the three groups, namely the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians, within the same constitutional and geographical area. If there are no own affairs for each group, if the culture of each group is not clearly protected, we are dealing here with a racist constitution purely and simply, because we shall have a constitution, a tricameral dispensation, based on race, without any recognition of each group’s unique culture and needs. We therefore have to ascertain whether clause 14 actually does define own affairs. The purpose of clause 14 is a very limited one. All it sets out to do is to give a definition of own affairs. So one can say, even if clause 14 clearly defines what own affairs are and no further functions are attached to own affairs in the rest of the Bill, that own affairs will not exist constitutionally. The point is, however, that clause 14 does not define or embody own affairs. The first part of clause 14(1) does, in fact, contain a definition of own affairs. It purports to define what is unique to a ethnic group. However, clause 14(1) is subject to the provisions of clause 16, and this means that whatever is stated in clause 14 is constitutionally and judicially of absolutely no value at all. This provision was merely added for the sake of its political propaganda value. [Interjections.] This provision is to be used to mislead the uninformed and the native. It has to lead them to believe in something which does not, in actual fact, exist at all. [Interjections.] The clause provides that an own affair is a matter which affects the way of life and customs of a population group. The culture and way of life of a population group also includes the way in which it builds its houses and lays out its cities. It is astounding that a people’s individual characteristics can be defined in this way without also stating where it has to lead its own way of life.

That is a very good point.

Mr. Chairman, this brings one to the totally illogical standpoint, on the part of the Government, that they want to work with a people which is, in actual fact, without a territory of its own. The people and the group are recognized in terms of clause 14, but because a people has to have a place where it can carry out and rectify its own affairs in its own way, and the Government does not want to admit to this, it is therefore necessary for own affairs to be subject to the provisions of clause 16, and therefore to be made subject to the decision of a single human being.

Does what you have just said also apply to the Afrikaner people?

Clause 14(1) is meaningless in the absence of an individual geographic area for certain relevant population groups.

I dare you to tell me whether this also applies to the Afrikaner people.

Mr. Chairman, this statement I have just made is, as a matter of fact, confirmed by what is contained in the clause itself. The absence of an own area … [Interjections.] I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that what is contained in clause 14 is completely meaningless in the absence of an own territory. This is, after all, confirmed in the clause itself.

In terms of clause 14(2), the schedule defining own affairs is also subject to the provisions of clause 16. Usually the function of a schedule is to specify matters clearly, and the fact that this …

Order! The hon. member may discuss the schedule when it is put. He may not discuss it now.

Mr. Chairman, I am merely referring to the function of a schedule, and that is to give a clear specification, and clause 14(2) provides that the schedule dealing with own affairs is subject to the provisions of clause 16. This just goes to show that even the Government is aware that there is no such thing as own affairs and never can be.

One therefore wonders how a clause like this could be improved. I believe that to do so as constructively as possible would, in fact, be very difficult. The basis on which clause 14 must rest has been rejected by the Government as unacceptable politics.

Yes, that is quite correct.

Mr. Chairman, there is only one way in which own affairs could be defined in the light of the present Constitution Bill, and that is by the gradual transfer of powers from the House of Assembly to the Government body of a group which is in the process of obtaining its own territory. Because clause 14 contains no independent definition of own affairs, this is an obvious admission, not only of the racist nature of the Constitution Bill, but also its inability to be true to its very foundations, i.e. the recognition of the self-determination of separate peoples.

Mr. Chairman, I am well aware of the fact that this is my last chance to participate in the discussion of this clause, and of the fact that the hon. the Minister will be in a position to react to my speech for the next 50 minutes. [Interjections.] I shall therefore not have an opportunity to refute his arguments. I have tremendous admiration for the powers of reasoning of the hon. the Minister, but I must honestly say that as far as this clause is concerned, he does not feel at all comfortable about the arguments he is using here. That is the impression I gained. I shall tell you why I think so. I want to grant to the hon. the Minister at once that the existence of population groups in a multinational or a multiracial society cannot be ascribed to the policy of any particular party. They are part of the political reality that exists there. I have never said that the Government is responsible for the existence of the Coloureds as such. In my opinion that is a task beyond the capability of any Government. The existence of a specific population group is part of the political reality. The question is: What is the Government doing in the face of that reality? What I am trying to say is that the existence of the Coloureds as a category has been seized on by the Government and perpetuated in legislation for the purposes of a specific constitutional structure. The hon. the Minister has himself said that the existence of population groups has been used to build constitutional structures. This need not be the case. This is the point I am trying to make. The hon. the Minister cannot have recourse to history and say: Well, this is what has happened and we are now simply going to make use of it in this way and perpetuate it. [Interjections.] That is the impression I gained. The hon. the Minister will have every opportunity to set me right. The hon. the Minister will accept, however, that in Lebanon or Sri Lanka or Malaysia or Nigeria or even the USA, the constitutional structure of which is said to be liberal, there is a multinational society, a multiracial society, where differences exist between the people on a voluntary basis. Take the city of New York as an example. There is no law which determines that Chinatown has to be situated in a certain spot; that Black Harlem has to be in a certain spot or that the Puerto Ricans have to live in a certain area. There is voluntary sifting out process as Moynihan and Glazer mentioned in Beyond the Melting Pot. That is part of the political reality and has to be taken into consideration.

For the purposes of socio-economic development, one can say, the State has to make special provision to uplift those people socioeconomically. This is quite different, however, from saying that the nature of their socio-economic backwardness has to be included in the constitution by telling them: These are now your own affairs, and as regards these socio-economically unequal own affairs you have to compete with the Whites and the other groups in order to improve your circumstances. This is differentiation on the basis of race, and that is the point I am trying to make. What we are doing here—and in my opinion this is the dilemma which the hon. the Minister himself perceives—is trying to deal with two arguments at once. One cannot say: These are your own affairs, but I am going to decide what your own affairs are. If they do not voluntarily say: These are the own affairs we really see as being separate from those of the other groups, then one is in trouble, but this is exactly what is happening at this stage. Both the Coloureds and the Asians have repeatedly stated that they do not consider education to be an own affair. This is something they feel should be made available to everyone on an equal basis. [Interjections.]

You cannot make an own affair equal.

It is precisely in that connection that I want to get around to the hon. the leader of the CP. The hon. the leader of the CP has tried to adopt a morally defensible standpoint in stating that it is no sin to distinguish races from one another, provided this is not done in such a way as to be at the expense of, or to the benefit of, one of the races—if I understood the argument of the hon. the leader of the CP correctly. It is therefore the old “separate but equal” argument which Hoernlé made popular in the ’thirties. It was said this would be a morally or ethically defensible standpoint for South Africa. I concede that it would be morally and ethically defensible, but unfortunately it cannot be implemented in practice. That is the counter-argument the Government always uses against the CP. They say: Given the availability of resources—and resources include land, capital, managerial ability and infrastructure—and the relationship of the population to these resources, it is simply impossible to adopt a policy of “separate but equal”. We have to proceed in another way to solve that dilemma. As far as I am concerned that is where the CP is altogether on the wrong track, because in adopting that course the CP cannot realize that ideal.

I want to interrupt my train of thought to tell the hon. the leader of the CP, with all due respect, that I know Mr. Adam Small. I know him well. He is a personal friend of mine. I can give the hon. the leader of the CP the assurance that the last thing Adam Small had in mind was to create the impression through the so-called language of the Cape Malays, the so-called language of the young Cape Coloureds is the language of the Coloured which he has developed in the same way that Afrikaans has been developed. In all honesty that is ridiculous.

I read what he himself wrote.

I accept that the hon. the leader interpreted it in that way, but I can give him the assurance that if he were to discuss this with Adam Small, Mr. Small would no doubt refute the interpretation of the hon. the leader. What Adam Small is clearly saying is that there is, in actual fact, a language unique to the Cape, and that language is a regional phenomenon, as one finds among the southern Blacks in the USA who speak the so-called “soul” language. In my opinion it is certainly incorrect to elevate this to an overall civilized Coloured language. That has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

For that reason I want to get back to this by making this final point: As long as the Government is going to use the objective category of race to assign the subjective meaning of group interests to the Coloureds, the Government is going to build conflict into this new body politic. It is for this reason, and no other, that we believe clause 14 to be one of the building blocks in the dispensation which will lead to the policy of a specific political party, the NP, being constitutionalized and it is being constitutionalized on a racial basis. The very fact that it is going to be constitutionalized on a racial basis, means that there will be competition in the search for the scarce resources and opportunities existing in South Africa. It therefore seems to me that instead of reducing conflict by means of a process of negotiation and consensus, as the philosophy supported by the government puts it, we are in fact going to increase conflict and competition on the basis of race.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning spoke at length and quoted from an earlier speech by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Leader has just tried hard to explain what he said then. Among other things, he also said—the hon. the Minister did not quote this—that own affairs were the creation of this White Parliament.

That is correct.

That is not so. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also knows that this is not the case. He tried to explain what he said, but I do not believe that the hon. leader succeeded in doing so, because the fact is that it has been history and circumstances that have made of own affairs a reality.

The determining factor in who sits on this side of the House or forms the Government, relates to the question: Which party is able to weigh up the concept of own affairs and the concept of general affairs in a unitary context and devise a plan that will work?

Nor is it as easy as the hon. member for Pinelands intimated when he said that it was merely a question of choosing between the policy of racism on the one hand or the open society on the other. In this setup it is just not that simple. Because the hon. member for Pinelands and his party argue along these lines, they will never enjoy the privilege of sitting on this side of the House.

I now come to the hon. member for De Aar who discussed a few matters relating to own affairs and so on. Among other things, he complained about the definition of own affairs. After all, the party that wants to take everything for itself does not need to define own affairs. It is unnecessary for them to seek a definition for that because, after all, they take everything for themselves. Times really have changed. It is interesting that those hon. members who, some time ago, were still members of the NP, spelled “own” in capitals, as the NP still does today. Now, however, they speak, in the person of the hon. member for Jeppe, of “crumbs” when they speak about own affairs. They talk about them as if nothing will come of them. I agree with the hon. member for Durban Point that this should really have been the clause concerning which they should have been most positive and supported most strongly because this is the “own” of which they sanctimoniously claim to be the only advocates. They should have tried to retain it.

The hon. member for Brakpan said that there was a general element in every own affair. That is true, but the hon. member for Brakpan forgets to approach it from the other side as well and say that every general affair has an own element. This is what makes the Government’s proposals very positive. The party opposite need not tell us how difficult it is going to be to define own affairs, because the determining factor will be whether we are still going to use the criteria we used in the past to define own affairs. Those criteria are what we have spelt out clearly here, viz. the way of life, culture, traditions and customs of people.

Subject to clause 16.

Subject to clause 16. That ought to apply to any amendment that could be proposed to extend additional criteria to make it easier for the President to decide whether a matter is an own affair or not. If the CP had come forward with additional criteria we should have welcomed them, because we do realize that in certain circumstances it will not be an easy matter to decide whether the matter is an own affair or not. This will not only apply to the NP; if this legislation comes into effect in future and is implemented, then we believe that it will sometimes not be easy for the CP to decide on own or general affairs. On the one hand we have the fact that the issue is identity and its acknowledgement, and on the other, it is a matter of the upholding and furtherance of what makes a specific community, group or people special. As we move into the new dispensation there is nothing wrong with our seeking to cherish jealously what is ours and also set other people the example that it ought to be cherished.

May I ask the hon. member a very easy question?

No, Sir. We must cherish what is ours and, in addition, recognize that there are other people who also may have, and want to have, the right to decide for themselves on their own affairs. Then there will be the exciting possibility—or probability—that others besides the White people will begin to estimate what is theirs at its true value and seek to cherish it. Once we have managed to bring this home to people, we shall have made it. Then we shall decide on general affairs by creating a milieu in which own affairs will be preserved more willingly and with greater ease. The guarantee and success will depend on the attitude of the planners. The approach of the planners must bear the stamp of honesty. If we wish to identify own affairs, we must be honest. If hon. members of the Opposition say that we are not playing the game of justice correctly, then we can reply at once that there are other people, too, apart from Whites, who fit into the picture. The NP is honestly moving away from discrimination at the expense of people. Once we have put across the concept of own affairs and people understand it, then they will also understand that there is such a thing as differentiation for the sake of other people. The approach of the planners cannot be allowed to bear the stamp of arrogance, superiority and an attitude of baasskap or intolerance. We cannot discuss the amendment of the CP because it has been ruled out of order, but the CP’s motion bore that stamp. The NP believes that there is evidence that responsible Coloured and Asians will bear with responsibility this joint responsibility and decision-making power which will rest on their shoulders in the future and will play their part.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rustenburg made the statement that the party that could devise an acceptable plan in regard to the concept of own affairs, which could do it justice in the circumstances of South Africa, would govern this country.

I said own and general affairs as seen in context.

Quite right. I want to say to the hon. member that if the NP thinks that it is doing justice to the own affairs of the Whites in terms of clause 14, he is making a big mistake and will find it out later.

Sir, I request you to permit me to react briefly to what the hon. the Minister of National Education said in his contribution in this regard. The hon. the Minister said repeatedly in this House that there was no such thing as a Coloured people or a Coloured people in the making, after he had supported the former hon. Prime Minister with acclamation in a book that he wrote. In it he stated that it was in fact true that the Coloureds were a people in the making.

I said they were a nation in the making.

No, the hon. the Minister specifically said that they were a people in the making. [Interjections.] When we encounter among the Coloured population political parties with names such as the “Volksparty” and the Freedom Party, what is meant thereby? What is the under-lying motive for those names? Is there not an underlying striving or growing consciousness …

Yes.

The hon. the Minister says “yes”. Does this not express an underlying aspiration or a growing consciousness of themselves as a people?

Let me come to clause 14. The first subdivision of clause 14 deals with—

The second subdivision deals with—

Now let us consider how these provisions contained in clause 14 are going to work in practice. Let us try to determine this on the basis of debates conducted in this House in the first part of this session, viz. from February to June. What is the situation? I went into this and found that approximately 220 debates took place here concerning matters such as legislation, including appropriations and the discussion of the various Votes, motions introduced here, matters of public interest, etc.

I then tried to determine which of these matters that we discussed this year would be regarded as own affairs in terms of clause 14, and which general affairs. What was the astonishing result? According to the definition in clause 14, viz. that own affairs must affect the “way of life, culture, traditions and customs” of a population group, only certain debates that took place in this House could really be regarded as own affairs. If I were to mention these, it would still not be entirely correct because the majority entailed financial implications, e.g. the education and cultural affairs of a specific ethnic group, and in accordance with the constitution, finance is a general affair. I wish to refer to the debates conducted in the House of Assembly this year which contained even an element of, say, the promotion of an own way of life, of culture, of traditions or customs. I also wish to refer to what is stated in the constitutional guidelines with regard to own affairs. In it the following question is asked: What matters will be dealt with by the various Chambers—at that stage they were still Chambers? Question 18 in the blue book reads—

The reply to that is—

Let us now look at debates on legislation which we could perhaps regard as legislation which is the exclusive domain of this House. There have been three debates on education for Coloureds, and these would be an own affair for the House of Representatives. There are three debates on the Child Care Bill which, in accordance with clause 14, ought to be an own affair. There were three debates on the Promotion of Culture Bill, which is described in clause 14 as an own affair. However, in one of the debates in question the hon. the Minister of National Education said (Hansard, 29 March 1983, col. 4176)—

Therefore culture, too, is not entirely an own affair. Then, too, various other matters were raised relating to own affairs of this future little House, as it stands today. They concerned personal explanations by hon. members, certain announcements and motions, motions of condolence, sitting hours and other statements that will be made in this future House. If one analyses the data relating to the no-confidence debate, one will see that even that does not exclusively concern own affairs. If one were to analyse it percentage-wise, then I say today that barely more than 10% of everything discussed in this House this year will be regarded as own affairs in terms of this clause. Even the matters that fall within that 10% have financial implications which would result in their no longer being own affairs.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Department of Constitutional and International Law of Unisa, ten of whom are lawyers, comment as follows on this clause—

which is now clause 14—

which are now clauses 16 and 17—

Mr. Chairman, it is not the CP that says this; the authors are ten lawyers from the University of South Africa. [Interjections.] They comment further on the Select Committee, as follows—

and then they go on—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietersburg ascribed to me a quotation to the effect that in the past I supposedly agreed with the former hon. Prime Minister that the Coloureds were a people in the making. This allegation has been made before, in a previous debate, and I have already pointed out very clearly that if at that stage—I think it was in 1969 or 1970—I used this expression, then I used it wrongly I pointed out that the wording I had used over the past decade or more, was nation in the making. It was used to mean that the Coloureds, as the then hon. Prime Minister saw it, were included, as a political group, in the same political dispensation and enjoyed political rights in the same setup. In other words, it was used in the sense of a unitary group of citizens of the State sharing the same political structure, for which the concept “nation” is the correct concept. The then hon. Prime Minister used the concept “nation in the making”, and I can refer to that quite specifically.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister, with reference to the fact that he spoke of a nation in the making, whether he agrees with what the hon. the Prime Minister said at Waterkloof, viz. that apart from the Whites, Coloureds and Indians, the South African-born Black citizens of South Africa also form part of that nation.

Mr. Chairman, purely as a result of the fact that they, too, possess South African citizenship, they fall under the same definition. The political rights in terms of that citizenship; on the one hand, those applying to the Black inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa and, on the other, those applying to the Whites—and in the new dispensation, for the Whites, Coloureds and Asians—are poles apart. In that sense it would not, in my opinion, be correct to apply the umbrella term of nation—in other words, people who fully share the same political structure—in such a way as to include the Blacks as well. In that sense it would be simply wrong.

I should like to proceed to point out that in the course of the whole debate on ethnic relations in South Africa there has been a clarification of insight which has led to our beginning to use certain concepts with greater precision. In the debate an hon. member on this side of the House pointed out that there was a time when the word “race”, and particularly the English use of the term “race”, “race relations” and “race hatred”, was used to refer to the relationship between Afrikaners and English speaking people. This is a concept which we certainly would not use in the same sense today, because nowadays the word “race” is used in a more specifically physical and anthropological sense. In the same way the word “people”, as hon. members on this side indicated, was in the past used with less accuracy and precision than is the case today. For example, the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning indicated that the word “people” was used with reference to the representatives who sat in this House at a stage when they also represented the Coloureds.

That is not true.

Of course it is true. The words “representatives of the people” were used when representatives here also represented the Coloureds. In that sense, therefore, it was an imprecise usage. In the same way the word “race”, for example, was initially used by an organization like Sabra, whose name is an acronym for the South African Bureau for Race Affairs. I know that in the course of its development Sabra often seriously considered dropping the word “race” in its name and emphasizing ethnic relations. In that case, too, at the beginning of the history of deliberation which took place in the ranks of Sabra, the terms was one that was used imprecisely, and accordingly there has been a move away from the emphasis on “race” to an emphasis on “people”. I recognize that I myself could also have used the word “people” less precisely and accurately on occasion, in the sense of, say, the White people or the Coloured people. At this point I wish to say that if I used it in that way, I have since qualified and corrected myself. For example, I stated very clearly in my speech before the ASB congress in 1971, from which the hon. member for Rissik has quoted at length, that it was a question of the White nation which included the Afrikaner people. [Interjections.] I am now replying to the argument of those hon. members. I did not interrupt them when they asked questions. When in due course the hon. member for Rissik has a chance to speak he can advance a counter argument. I have pointed out that when the Coloureds are referred to in a collective sense, then it is correct, as the hon. the Prime Minister said at the time, to use the term “nation in the making” and not “people in the making” because the Coloureds do not possess those characteristics that typify a people to a sufficient extent to allow one to use that term. Therefore I spelt this out very clearly as far back as 1971. In my opinion it is simply wrong and unscientific to speak as if the perspective in time has no significance in this debate we have been conducting for so long, in which there has been an increasing precision and clarification of insight in regard to the relations issues, and in which there has been an increasing precision and accuracy in the use of terminology, and to come and cast in someone’s teeth words he used 15 years ago, as if greater precision had not in the meantime been achieved with regard to that word usage.

It must be remembered that it is a scientist who is saying that.

I am astonished at the human arrogance that underlies the thinking of the hon. member for Rissik. This practice of seizing upon the past in order to create the impression, by way of statements made in the past and terminology used in the past, that someone has now become confused, is based on two points of departure which attest to human arrogance. The first is that there must be a rigid immovability in scientific human thinking. It is mistaken. Any group that battles with problems, particularly problems concerning ethnic relations such as those we are faced with in South Africa, is constantly achieving greater clarity and new insights. In 1977 the National Party, of which those hon. members formed part, moved away from a Coloured policy that only made provision for separation and parallelism. They decided to recognize that there were also matters of common concern, that one could not get away from this and that besides provision for self-determination and separate decision-making on own affairs, provision also had to be made for joint responsibility on matters of common concern. Indeed, this basic concept was spelt out very clearly to the Coloured Representative Council by the former Prime Minister in 1974 when he pointed out that there were governmental institutions in South Africa, like Parliament and the Government, that dealt solely with White affairs and that, on the other hand, there were governmental institutions that dealt solely with Coloured affairs and which, he said, would increasingly have to be given additional authority concerning purely Coloured affairs. However, he added—

He stated that as a fact. And to my knowledge not one of those hon. members has ever repudiated it.

Are you going to quote further?

Yes, I am going to quote further. He goes on to say—

This is the same aspect that at the time he broke away from the NP, the hon. member for Waterberg took up with the present hon. Prime Minister. At that time the then hon. Prime Minister went on to say—

He then said—

In 1977, on the basis of resolutions adopted by the congresses, it was made NP policy that as far as the Coloureds were concerned, it was impossible to work on the basis of the fantasy of a homeland in which they would eventually be able to achieve a fully separate political dispensation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose getting involved in the history of what has taken place in the past within the NP over questions of who said what and when and over the whole issue of disputes arising out of the terminology. However, as one listens to this debate and has listened to it today particularly, it does appear that there is common cause amongst hon. members on all sides of the House that this in fact is perhaps the key clause in this whole constitution in so much as through this clause the whole process of operation of the proposed three chamber Parliament and what it will do is going to be determined. I think in that sense it is important that one should analyse again the attitude of the various parties during this debate. Various hon. members have indicated that the speeches made have emphasized fundamental differences which appeared between the various parties. One has heard that from the Government benches and from the hon. the Minister himself who has said with a degree of candour that in fact this is the point of view of the Government and he has drawn a very clear distinction between his point of view and the point of view put by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Durban Point, when he spoke this morning, made the point that these speeches highlighted the fundamental differences between the parties. He referred in that case specifically to the fundamental differences between the NRP on the one hand and the PFP on the other hand. He was dealing there with the NRP’s commitment to what they have termed local option or forced ethnicity, or their definition of pluralism and what we would like to refer to as a policy of voluntary association and our definition of pluralism. I want to say to the hon. member for Durban Point, who has indicated that fundamental differences have been highlighted, that one thing that has not been highlighted is any semblance of difference in this issue between the hon. member for Durban Point and hon. members of the NP. I ask him: Is there any difference on the issue of own affairs, the issue that we are discussing at this stage, between the NRP and the Government on this vital issue?

If there is any difference indeed, I should be delighted if the hon. member would make it clear to us by telling us what that difference is. We would obviously also be interested to know whether the hon. member for Durban Point and his party are going to support the Government on this vital and fundamental clause. That is the one question I should ask the hon. member for Durban Point to clarify for us, Mr. Chairman. Firstly, he must tell us whether there is a difference between his party and the Government Party on this point. Secondly, if there is indeed a difference, he must tell us what the extent of that difference is.

It seems absolutely clear from the two sole contributions that have come from NRP benches during this debate that they are ad idem with the Government. I think the hon. member for Durban Point said things that were also echoed by hon. members on the Government side. It seems therefore that they are complete bedfellows in respect of this issue. I hope the hon. member will make that point quite clear.

Furthermore, I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point whether he agrees that the whole concept of own affairs has in fact been expanded in the clause which we have before us now, as opposed to the similar clause which appeared in the Bill which went to the Select Committee. That is a point which hon. members on the Government side—the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs in particular—indeed admitted. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, I believe, also indicated quite clearly in his speech that he felt that the amended clause that had come from the Select Committee emphasized and gave far greater strength to the possibility of the expansion of own affairs. It was therefore a considerable change from the previously conservative point of view if the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. It was indeed a racist point of view. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs indicated that we were going further now by entrenching the differences and by allowing for greater differences to be emphasized as time went on.

I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point whether he agrees that the amended clause is an expansion of the whole question of racial differences, an expansion of the whole operation in terms of what own affairs might be in future. The hon. member for Durban Point this morning was at pains to say to us that his party indeed recognized the fact of group identity. He talked about a plural society and said there were various groups in South Africa. Nobody disagrees with him on that, Mr. Chairman. The fact of groups is one of the facts of the history of this country. He added that we had to deal with what—as he stated—existed at the present time. He also said that what existed was the fact that there were groups. Accepting that argument, I should like to ask him whether he believes that if there are groups—an accident of history; a fact of history—it is necessary for people to be permanently condemned to belong to a particular group. Should people be condemned to belong to a particular group for all time? Can they never move from that group, merely because history has decreed that they belong to a specific group? Can there never be any movement from that group? Must their lives be determined and regulated specially and differentially, as the clause states, in every facet of their lives because of the fact that they happen to belong to a specific group? That is indeed what the effect of this clause is going to be. It is going to determine what is going to happen to them. It is going to determine their way of life, their culture, their tradition, their customs, etc. All these are going to be locked into the compartments which are going to be determined by the whole operation of the concept of own affairs in terms of this Constitution Bill. The same sentiments as expressed by the hon. member for Durban Point have been expressed time and time again by hon. members on the Government benches. It is quite clear that this is in fact the key apartheid provision of this Bill. It is the procedure which is going to be written into the constitution of South Africa in order to try to confine people to separate racial compartments in respect of matters which are specially and differentially seen to be concerns of their own group. It is in other words a perpetuation of group consciousness and of the whole policy of separate development.

Apart from the fact that that concept is in itself totally odious in a society such as our South African society, I believe indeed that in time to come it simply cannot work. The more one looks at the terminology used in this clause, the more one doubts whether this can be seen as a practical proposition. I do not believe it can possibly work without great conflict and without grave friction amongst the various racial groups. Basically, this concept is a racist concept, and it ought to be totally repugnant to a civilized community in this age and time. What we should be trying to get away from as we embark upon constitution-making at this time, looking at the problems confronting South Africa, looking at the potential for conflict in our society, is everything that is going to perpetuate racial differences in South Africa. What we should be doing is to create for ourselves internally a new climate, a new atmosphere for co-operation and working together, and externally we should be trying to create for ourselves an image away from the disastrous apartheid image with which this country has been afflicted for the past 35 years. However, this key clause and what it means, the concept contained in this clause, will be seen by all and sundry within and outside South Africa to give recognition to the fact that there is indeed no real movement away from apartheid, from the racial ideology with which this country has been beset over the past 35 years.

There has been a great deal of talk throughout the day in regard to the history of the existence of groups in South Africa. Certainly, there is no argument that there have been groups and that there were groups long before the NP came into power. However, the fact is that what we are doing in this clause is that we are not simply making voluntary associations of groups; we are recognizing groups that are determined by legislation and, what is more, legislation of the White Parliament. What we are doing is that we are putting people into groups as if they were in some sort of racial strait jacket and will never be able to move out of those groups. Any powers that they may have will be confined to being exercised only within their own groups. That is what this clause is all about. It is determining what are to be own affairs in South Africa. We believe that it enshrines the worst aspects of apartheid and separate development and that is why we reject this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think we can continue to conduct a meaningful debate with hon. members of the official Opposition because thus far they have become caught up in that ideology that are so quick to propagate in our country, the ideology of one man, one vote. They persist in advocating that principle in spite of our already having accepted the principle of own affairs at Second Reading. Moreover, they ignore the fact that we are revising the 1910 constitution. I think that this is where the hon. members of the CP, too, are encountering a degree of difficulty. In 1910, when consideration was given to own affairs, there were two population groups in this country that decided to become one nation in the future and as such, continue to govern this country. What is now happening with this clause is that we are recognizing the fact that in the interim, two other population groups have also come to the fore that must be given a political say somewhere in the dispensation. That is why we accepted it as a principle in the Second Reading that those two groups, too, would be given a Chamber to deal with their own affairs and everything that that involved. Later in the course of my speech I shall again deal with the hon. members of the CP and the official Opposition.

Is the hon. member aware that it is not a “Chamber” but a “House”?

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful that the hon. member for Jeppe is now reminding me that we now speak about a “House”. In this House he is the only member who regards himself as a member of the Afrikaner population group, while at the same time being the president of the Directorate of Portuguese Affairs. [Interjections.] How does he square that with the fact that he has even learnt the Portuguese language? He loudly and sanctimoniously claims to be a true Afrikaner. [Interjections] I should now prefer to come back to my speech because I think we can take it that the hon. member for Jeppe was trying to lead me astray.

In clause 14(1) an effort is made to define the scope of own affairs. In the course of this debate I found it interesting to listen to the debate that took place here concerning the definition of this concept. At that stage one realized that even in this House the official Opposition were confused about what constituted own affairs and what general affairs. It will be recalled that they attacked us vehemently for wanting to translate the words “eie sake” as “own affairs”. They tried to intimate to us that they were in a far better position to provide a correct English translation. They tried to intimate to us that we should not come and apply our standards at their level. They forgot that in this House of Assembly this is a general affair. This clearly indicates how confused these people are as far as own affairs are concerned, because hon. members on this side of the House have as much right to translate that word as “own affairs” as they have to dispute it. We have just as many Afrikaans-and English-speaking people here as are to be found in their ranks. The CP is the only party in this House with no English-speaking people in its ranks.

What about S. P.?

They do have a Portuguese-speaking member over there. I do not know whether he deals with their own affairs.

To come back to own affairs, I just want to say that the argument that took place at that stage between ourselves and the official Opposition confirms that in a Parliament there are matters that are regarded as own affairs. This Parliament will define “own affairs”, and it will demand the right to discuss those own affairs here.

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

No, I have conversed enough with the hon. member.

In the prelude to what is taking place here now we spoke for a long time about how we could reach this point so that we could consider own affairs. If the PFP wants to create an atmosphere about that specific translation in such an emotional way, then surely that indicates that this is such a serious matter that we could only discuss it here. It is not only they who get emotional about such things; the hon. members of the CP became just as emotional about the term “power-sharing” in February 1982. They waxed so emotional about it that they tried to split the Afrikaner people, whose guardians they so sanctimoniously claim to be. They are still trying to split it at present, and all this for the sake of an expression. [Interjections.] That gives some indication of how serious it is.

Surely, therefore, we in this Council Chamber must be able to debate own affairs, those things that we wish to preserve for ourselves as a nation and a people. For two to three days all kinds of calculations were being made as to how much time we would spend on the Committee Stage if every hon. member were to advance his points of dispute. Can one imagine how much time we would spend on legislation if we had to allow the affairs of all three of these population groups to be discussed in this one House of Assembly. It would be totally impossible to govern this country. It would be just as impossible as it would be to accede to the plea of the official Opposition that a national convention be held in order to have a constitution established. That is why what we have here is an evolution that is taking place in this Constitution Bill. We are now making provision for what we as the NP have propagated for a very long time.

I now return once again to the hon. members of the CP. They took part in the 1981 election with us when we submitted this NP manifesto to the electorate. The PFP could have come forward with their manifesto as well, but they sought to boycott. To come back to this manifesto, I say that at the time of that election we had already gone to the people and asked for a mandate on own affairs. I want to refer to point 4 of the manifesto in which we stated—

The Conservative Party members agreed with this. They said that we shared the same geographic area. Now the CP wants to tell us that those people must be given a different territory—

The hon. member for Waterberg went so far as to append his own signature to this document. He agreed with it to such an extent that he signed it. Let me proceed. The clause in that document goes on to read, and I quote—

The hon. member for Brakpan went to his voters with this document and asked them to support the NP. His amendment is not at issue, but it reflects the thinking of that party, viz. that this House of Assembly must decide what are own affairs for the Coloureds and what are own affairs for the Indians. However, when we went to the voters he told the voters of Brakpan—in the same way that each of them told their voters—that they were going to come up with a system in terms of which each of these three population groups would decide what constituted its own affairs and what each regarded as not negotiable. We were to incorporate that in this Constitution. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Boksburg has now, for the umpteenth time, held up that document and stated what we accepted and what we did not accept. However, not a single hon. member on that side has yet been able to show me where in that document any reference is made to power-sharing and political integration. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, kindly afford me this opportunity to react briefly to what the hon. the Minister of National Education said in connection with his conception, not only of “volk” and “nasie”, but also of “ruimtelike ordening”. Let me quote from a book entitled Ideale Werklikheid by G. van N. Viljoen, issued by Tafelberg Publishers. I have before me the revised edition of 1981. In other words, I take it that certain amendments were effected here in order to bring the ideas expressed in this book more into line with the new enlightened thinking of the hon. the Minister. I quote from page 86—

He then quotes journalists who react to this idea with sarcasm. He quotes a Stellenbosch professor who states that—

He then goes on as follows on page 87—

He states this bluntly. He goes on to list his objections to political integration with the Coloureds. He goes on to say on page 88—

He goes on to say—

He then asks—

Order! I think this argument has already been advanced. I also wish to point out that the clause clearly provides that matters affecting a population group are own affairs. Therefore it does not primarily concern this broad aspect that has already been discussed at length. At this stage I should like to request that the debate on this matter, which has now been going on since 11 o’clock this morning, reaches a conclusion. We must get to the point of the clause.

Sir, I should like to address you with reference to your ruling. The hon. member for Pietersburg made a speech which was quite in order and he was not reprimanded. He made certain allegations with regard to what the hon. the Minister of National Education was supposed to have said. After that the hon. the Minister stood up and said that what the hon. member for Pietersburg had said was not correct. All that my hon. colleague is doing now …

You are not correct now.

Rather be quiet. There is only one Chairman here. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

I am still dealing with my point of order.

Order! The hon. member for Rissik may proceed.

When my hon. colleague referred to the fact that the hon. the Minister was supposed to have said that the Coloureds were a people in the making, the hon. the Minister said that they were a nation in the making.

No, I did not say that. [Interjections.]

My hon. colleague is now merely replying to that.

Order! I did not prevent the hon. member for Pietersburg from replying to the statements of the hon. the Minister. I wish to draw attention to the fact that this point is far from being central to the clause and is not really of immediate relevance to the clause. The hon. member for Pietersburg may proceed, but he must kindly confine himself to the content of the clause.

This side of the House argues that there can be no such thing as own affairs if they are not linked to an own area of jurisdiction. [Interjections.] I just wish to indicate that in arguing about this problem the hon. the Minister also put forward the idea of own spatial ordering as a possible solution. At the time the hon. the Minister wrote in his book that the Coloureds would not always be satisfied with a Coloured Representative Council. He said that we could be sure of that. He went on to say—

The hon. the Minister says that this is the solution. He says—

On page 90 he says—

He also states that we must decentralize and, of course, provide factors that will attract these people. I now ask the hon. the Minister: What is the purpose of that?

Order! I realize that the hon. member is developing an argument, but I think he is digressing a little far. I think he must stay closer to the clause. The hon. member may proceed.

Very well, Sir. In 1981 the hon. the Minister revised this book of his and effected corrections. At the time he still, in his heart of hearts, felt the same way that this side of the House feels about the Coloureds.

I now come back to clause 14. I just wish to quote what the Department of Constitutional and International Law at Unisa also has to say about this clause—

They go on to say—

These are the own affairs at issue in clause 14.

Those comments applied to the legislation before it was amended.

It was comment that applied to the Bill before the Select Committee.

Yes, before it was amended.

Very well, Sir. In conclusion, these lawyers say—

Therefore, true power is here being reduced to less than the powers of the provincial council, that can generate its own funds. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister, as well as the hon. member for Boksburg and other hon. members, alleged that this was the first time in the history of South Africa that the entire philosophy that certain groups have own affairs was being put into practice. According to the NP, these matters are indispensable for the preservation of the way of life, culture, traditions and customs of a population group. For all these years until today Coloureds and Indians, for example, have had no say—the hon. the Minister, and other hon. members as well, said this—in their own affairs or in general affairs.

I never said that at any time.

We can therefore accept that up to now there has never in our history been such a thing as own affairs. The Whites did in fact have own affairs. They themselves dealt with their own affairs as well as with general affairs, while Indians and Coloureds, from their point of view, only had general affairs because Whites told them what those affairs were. [Interjections.]

If the philosophy of the NP is true in regard to the consequences if a population group has no control over the implementation of decisions or over decision-making, then I find there is a very strange phenomenon in South Africa. The Indian community, for example, has been here for more than 100 years and has had no say. Yet it has retained its traditions. One may still identify it as an Indian population group. It has never had a say in Indian education, for example, in Indian art and culture, in community development, in local government or in agriculture. Have you ever heard of the former Indian Department of Water Affairs?

Order! I just want to point out to the hon. member that the principle that there shall be own affairs, has already been accepted.

I accept that completely.

Then the hon. member must not argue about it.

Certainly communities have own affairs. I fully accept that. As I have said, we are trying to identify the own affairs of a group here. In the case of the Indians, who never had a say in this matter and whose own affairs were not defined, one can identify those matters which specifically distinguish them. I am thinking, for example, of their eating habits, their religion and certain of their family ties. That is more or less on the basis of which one can distinguish them as a group. As far as their religion is concerned, they are also subdivided into Christians, Moslems and Hindus, for example. I now want to know from any of the hon. members on that side of the House what the “special” or “differential” characteristics of the Indian population are in regard to the items contained in the Schedule. For example, how can they be identified as an Indian interest when it comes to water supplies?

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to develop that argument of his any further, because I cannot allow hon. members on this side of the House to discuss the schedule. The hon. member must return to the definition in clause 14.

No, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to discuss the Schedule. I am discussing an own affair of the Indians, something which is of great concern to them. Indians add water to their “cane”. The Afrikaners, on the other hand, drink brandy and water. Now I want to know what the difference is …

Order!

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on this? We are discussing a clause that deals with the way of life and culture of the groups. Own affairs must be applied in terms of this clause. The hon. member is in fact asking how it is going to be applied.

Order! I have appreciation for what the hon. member for Hill-brow is saying, but I really cannot see what the question of how much water one adds to one’s “cane” has to do with this matter. I do not think there is any hon. member in this House who is unable to understand that. Therefore I ask the hon. member not to take up the valuable time of the Committee with arguments of that kind. The hon. member must please address the Committee on the clause now.

Certainly, Mr. Chairman. It is as difficult for me as it is for you to understand what the provision of water has to do with own affairs. That is why I should like to illustrate this point. However, I shall leave water affairs at that. The same argument applies to every other so-called own affair. If one cannot, therefore, have an own department of water affairs, for example, for every population group, how is this matter then going to be dealt with? In Durban, for example, there is one river which has to provide almost 50% of all the Indians in Natal with water. At the same time that same river supplies almost 50% of all the Whites of Natal, as well as the Blacks of Natal, with water. As usually happens in South Africa, there are more Blacks here than Whites and Indians put together. Now, my question is this: Is the Government telling me now …

You have had too much “cane”.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that remark.

What the National Party is telling us is that what is unique to those people is in danger, that their culture and their continued existence is in danger. But of course this is not the case at all. The Government is foisting the idea of own affairs on other people. Government members keep on alleging that the PFP does not understand the concept of “own affairs”. They say we do not understand the concept of “own affairs” and that because there are own affairs now, there should be three Chambers of Parliament with three separate administrations. But, as the hon. the Minister would say, this flies in the face of the facts. All the organizations of all the population groups which are supposed to participate in the system say that they do not want own affairs. They say they do not need a law of this Government to ensure their continued existence.

Have you letters to that effect?

The hon. member wonders whether I have any letters. For example, there is the National Peoples Party of South Africa. If the hon. member does not know it, that is the only Indian group that is possibly going to be here. Let us hear now what they have to say about own affairs. They say they stand for the “repeal of the Group Areas Act and other discriminatory laws and statutes”. They also stand for the “removal of institutionalized discrimination”. What do they say about education, for example, which hon. members said was of such close concern to a person that he did not want to share it with anyone else? They say they stand for the “elimination of separate schools, universities and other education institutions”.

What do you say?

The hon. member asked what these people said. They said moreover that they would continue to work for the “attainment of a single educational system for all the peoples of South Africa”. That is only what one group of Indians has to say, namely the group which will possibly participate in this system. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to reply to what the hon. member for Greytown said. There were certain parts of his speech with which I was not all that familiar, particularly not in regard to those things which are liquid.

As far as the clause itself is concerned, I ask myself why we are dealing here with a definition of own affairs. It has been said already, but I want to repeat that we have three separate population groups. These are three distinguishable groups which, if various norms are applied, bring one to that realization. Because this is the case, one must inevitably, in regard to the structure, deal with the own affairs of the three respective groups, but also with a common area. Clause 14 deals mainly with own affairs. In clause 14(1) the norms are being laid down in terms of which the State President may make certain decisions in terms of clause 16. The hon. member for De Aar and the hon. member for Pietersburg had a great deal to say about the fact that it was provided in clause 14(2) that Schedule 1 was also part of this, but that it was subject to the decision of the State President. In clause 14(1) the words “subject to the provisions of section 16” are used. To my mind these words mean “having regard to” the provisions of section 16. To my mind there is a world of difference between the words “in regard to” and “subject to”. For that reason my point of departure is that the norms in relation to own affairs are defined and that the State President will ultimately, having regard to those norms, be able to define what an own affair is and what an own affair is not. Consequently I cannot go along with the hon. members for Pietersburg and De Aar when they argue as they do on this matter.

Can the hon. member mention an example to me of an own affair which a House such as this will itself be able to have control of in future?

I shall glady reply to that question. I have already tried to explain that clause 14(1) lays down the norms within which the State President ultimately has to decide. But in Schedule 1, which is not under discussion now, specific things are mentioned, for example education. [Interjections.] But of course there are few affairs which are solely an own affair, for if we talk about education here, there is a certain section of education which is absolutely unique to a specific population group. But it is also just as true—and this Bill makes provision for this—that there are elements of an own affair which can have a collective character, as we already have in Schedule 1. Consequently I do not know why the hon. member for Pietersburg or the hon. member for Jeppe have a problem. The hon. member for De Aar says that there is no definition in respect of own affairs in clause 14. However, in clause 1 already, an outline was given of own affairs, subject to and then, as I said a moment ago, having regard to clause 16.

I want to go further. If one examines clause 14(1) it reads—

What do we mean by “maintenance”? “Maintenance” means preservation and “identity” means “what you are or what you purport that you want to be”. The subsection refers further to “the upholding and furtherance”. When we are dealing with upholding and furtherance, we are in fact dealing with two concepts. Upholding is to preserve, and furtherance is to develop, to create. If we read further in that context, we find that the same definition of own affairs is not as narrow as the hon. members are trying to imply. The hon. member for Pietersburg likes to say that only 10% or 12% of all affairs are own affairs. That is not true, because if we talk about furtherance and we talk about the furtherance of a way of life, the furtherance of a culture and the furtherance of traditions, it embraces a whole world of matters, because culture, too, is not static. The hon. member must not think that the culture of a people is solely the culture of the people prior to 1948 or the culture in the 18th or 19th centuries. A culture is creative, from day to day. In other words, it extends further than merely being the culture as it has developed up to this moment. The same applies in respect of traditions. The hon. member must not tell me that the tradition of the Afrikaner people was only made prior to a specific time.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether it is his standpoint that the words in line 58 of the Afrikaans text—“behoudens die bepalings van”—are not the same as “onderhewig aan”?

Mr. Chairman, I have already replied to that question twice. If the hon. member for Jeppe cannot open his ears, I can do nothing about it. He will simply have to look it up in Hansard. The fact that we are dealing with furtherance as well means that we are dealing with something which can still be created. In that respect it has a wide meaning. If we think of the way of life of a people, i.e. that people’s own environment, its way of living, all the customs, all the activities which characterize an ethnic group, then we realize too that they change from time to time. In that respect there will constantly be specific concepts and specific actions which will be unique to a specific population group, and which one would be able to classify as being unique to that population group. It is also the right of each separate population group—in accordance with the legislation under discussion too—to have a sole say over these things.

When hon. members therefore argue now that the sovereignty of the Whites or of the Afrikaners is being destroyed in this way, surely that is not true.

The question is what is attainable and what is not. [Interjections.]

It is already the case that own affairs do exist in terms of the provisions of this Bill, and of the clause under discussion as well. Over those own affairs, that specific House has the sole say. Therefore the preservation of its sovereignty is already implicit in this.

In regard to general affairs there is in fact a general responsibility, which does not of course mean the loss of sovereignty.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Virginia had a tremendous struggle trying to evade the issue of whether this concept of own affairs, as it is mentioned in clause 14, can be defined as it stands here and still afford satisfaction. It has been stated repeatedly that something of this nature cannot be defined if it is not reduced to a territory. [Interjections.] That is already why the hon. member made the concession that in all own affairs there was also a general affair, and that in every general affair there was also an own affair present. Hence the tremendous struggle of the hon. member for Virginia. This is a struggle from which the NP cannot escape. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I now want to return briefly to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, who accused me today of woolliness in my arguments in respect of political issues. In his speech he said, inter alia, the following—

Then he went on to say—

That is not correct, of course. I contend that this is woolly thinking. The thinking of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs in this respect is woolly.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member for Brakpan that the principle of the Bill, as accepted at Second Reading, includes inter alia that there shall be own affairs. This is the principle that was accepted. Consequently I am not going to allow the hon. member to advance any arguments about that again.

Mr. Chairman, I am not arguing about that. I am arguing about what the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs said here earlier today. He said that in terms of clause 1-4 the Government, by inserting the definition as a substantive definition, was ensuring that every group would itself be able to determine and identify the matters affecting its own group. That is what the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs himself said here.

I said it within the framework of the definition.

The hon. the Minister will simply have to ascertain for himself whether it was stated in that way in his speech. [Interjections.]

Of course I said within the framework of the definition.

Be that as it may, Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned it simply demonstrates the woolly thinking of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. That is what I call woolly thinking. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs went further and, on the argument which we advanced in respect of a general law, said—

This is an argument of the same nature as those which we also encounter in the articles of Dr. Wimpie de Klerk, who speaks inter alia of joint determination (“medeskikking”). After all, he talks about self-determination and joint determination. I want to know from the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs whether it is true that Germany and Austria, when they exercise their right to self-determination, do the planning in that regard jointly. I can ask him the same question in regard to Belgium and Holland, for example, the Xhosas of Ciskei and the Xhosas of Transkei, etc. Do these people plan jointly as far as their self-determination is concerned? [Interjections.] Joint planning with preservation of sovereignty, yes, but does that hon. Minister not realize that when we are finished with this legislation, after we have finished discussing clause 14, and after we have voted on this Bill, our White Parliament will never again be able to insert one word, or one comma, or do anything in connection with clause 14 without the co-operation of the other two groups? Does he not also realize that this is the last word a White Parliament will be able to utter in respect of self-determination in this House? He must please take this very thoroughly into account.

I also wish to mention this one further point. These own affairs are basically a lesser right than those which the Provincial Councils exercise control over today. The Provincial Councils are still able to impose levies, but these rights are lesser rights, and then the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Pretoria West come here and say that I am referring to identity and traditions and these splendid words which are contained in this clause as though they are the adder in the bosom of this legislation. That is a total misrepresentation of what I said. It is in connection with statements of this kind that we accuse the Government of putting up and then knocking over their own straw dolls. That is the problem. What I said this morning, was …

That clause 14 was the adder in the bosom of the legislation.

I said, in the first place, that it was the condition to which this clause is being made subject in which the danger lurked. That was the first point. The second point was that it was a fact that the Government was trying in this way, with fine-sounding words, to enthrall the people of South Africa and to charm them with the mellifluous sound of the self-determination which is being brought into existence here, while the bite of this clause will come later. As soon as the Whites have swallowed this self-determination, the bite will come. I also want to return to what the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said. He said this was one of the principal aspects of this Bill; there are frequently conflicting interests. He pointed out the differences and he went back over the history. He then said that this was an improvement of the status quo for the Coloureds. This goes to the root of our argument in which we say that the Whites are being deprived of freedom and self-determination and that the Coloureds are not being given the same freedom and right to self-determination. The hon. the Minister said that the status quo of the Coloureds was being improved, but at the same time the status quo of the Whites is deteriorating. This one can only rectify by implementing separation, as we have always argued.

The position of the Whites is improving because everyone is becoming more secure.

The hon. the Minister went on to say that if the hon. member for Jeppe maintained that all affairs were own affairs, he was flying in the face of the facts. The hon. the Minister is probably going to reply again in a moment.

I did not say that.

Yes, the hon. the Minister said that when we maintained that all affairs were own affairs, then we were flying in the face of the facts, then we are speaking at variance with the true and factual position in South Africa.

Is the hon. member certain of his words?

Yes, Sir, the hon. member for Jeppe said that. Justice is an own affair, Defence is an own affair, Police is an own affair. In terms of this definition, there is no affair which is not an own affair. [Interjections.] I shall quote the definition. Clause 14(1) reads as follows—

The hon. the Minister must now tell us what “specially or differentially” means. [Interjections.] However, there is not one aspect of my existence which cannot be included under this definition. Then the hon. the Minister says that this files in the face of the facts. He must then tell us whether the Defence Force is not an own Defence Force. He must tell us whether our Police Force is not an own Police Force. Is the publications legislation to which my hon. friend has just referred not an own affair?

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether there are at present only White people in the Defence Force and the Police Force?

That is not what we are concerned with here. There are Xhosas and Sothos and other people in our Defence Force as well.

Order! In replying to the question, the hon. member is now going beyond the provisions of the clause.

It is a very simple question to reply to. The levying of income tax is an own affair. That is why we say that the way in which we are being charmed, are being mesmerised into thinking that these are own affairs, is what we are rebelling against.

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon we have listened to a number of speeches by the hon. member for Pietersburg and the hon. member or Brakpan. The argument of the hon. member for Pietersburg is that there are no own affairs. He tried to prove this statistically. The argument of the hon. member for Brakpan is that everything is an own affair. This is the confusion of tongues from which the hon. members suffer. No wonder the hon. member for Brakpan is pleased if a question is put to him—at least he then gets a chance to think of something further to say.

The hon. member for Brakpan omits something very important when he says that everything is an own affair, every facet of his life falls under this definition. He attaches no value and he gives no interpretation to the words “specially” or “differentially”. I put it to him that as a reasonably experienced and competent jurist he should quietly apply the sound rule of legal interpretation and ask what “differentially” or “specially” mean, because that is where the dividing line is drawn.

These provisions stem from something which the hon. members of the CP and we all accepted, namely that a division could be made between own affairs and common affairs.

It was never defined.

But the hon. member accepted, as we did, that a division could be made between own affairs and common affairs, and in the manifesto the hon. member sitting there attested to this—with his signature. Now it is being said that it is impossible to make such a division. That is the hon. member’s entire argument. From whatever angle one approaches it, what the argument of those hon. members boils down to is that it is impossible to draw a distinction—it is all or nothing. Everything is a common affair because there cannot be own affairs, or everything has to be an own affair so that there are no common affairs. They cannot have their cake and eat it. They must not talk to the hon. the Minister of National Education about making somersaults. They are still making a backward “flip-flop” away from their own past, from which they are trying to escape because what is stated here is what all of us professed for many years. The hon. member referred to my having said that in one’s participation in legislation on matters of common interest as well, one acted in a self-determinative way by means of one’s group participation. When the hon. member for Jeppe tried to explain that the Afrikaner people did not have full self-determination, he said that in their interaction with English-speaking Whites, who were represented with them in one system in the House of Assembly, the Afrikaner people still continued to act in a self-determinative way as a people. I am pleased the hon. member for Jeppe listened so well and pursued a good argument to escape from a dilemma in which all their woolly talk about “people” caused them to find themselves.

In his first speech today the hon. member for Brakpan spoke simultaneously of the Afrikaner people and of the White people. I asked him whether he was a member of two peoples or only one.

Read the Prime Minister’s speech.

I did not make the statement. The hon. member made the statement. I want to express my strongest opposition to the insinuation that section 14 was inserted in the Select Committee with a view to creating an election platform for the referendum. The hon. member has the guidelines with him there and he should go and read them. The guidelines of the Government had the following to say about own affairs: Firstly, that there were own affairs. They also stated that some own affairs, when it was possible to define these immediately, would be described in the constitution. This is being done and we shall come to that when we discuss Schedule I. However, it was also stated in the guidelines that there has to be a procedure, for when own affairs cannot immediately be identified, it is necessary in accordance with this procedure to define own affairs continuously, over and above those immediately written into the Constitution Act. Section 14 makes it possible for a House to ask to be allowed to make a law on a matter affecting its own group and which it did not think of and which was consequently not included in Schedule I, so that it may continue to exercise authority over its group to further its interests and traditions in terms of the power which it needs in order to do so. That is where the deficiency in the original Bill was and that deficiency has been met, so that the intention of the Government—and this was constantly the intention of the Government and was expressed in the guidelines—can be effectively implemented in practice.

What absurdity do we now have in respect of this clause? We are sitting here listening to two debates, as has been the case in regard to so many other clauses. On the one hand, it is being said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Berea that the reason why the other population groups ought not to participate in this dispensation is to be found here because this is the entrenchment and the absolutization of apartheid. It is blatant racism. On the other hand, however, we have on the same clause the argument that this clause has no significance. It is not worth the paper on which it is written, and in the words of the hon. member for Waterberg, it is a farce. I say that in this debate neither side is addressing the real intention of the legislature when they debate it. The hon. members are distorting the real intention of the legislature for mere party political gain. The real intention of the legislature is, in the first place, to create a basis, in the light of the realities with which we are struggling in South Africa, which will enable every population group participating in this dispensation to preserve what is its own, to maintain its own character, to decide for itself in regard to all the things which are dear to it and about which it is sensitive, and to have full self-determination. We shall deal with that when we come to Schedule I.

We will not come to it.

Order!

On the other hand, reality tells us that all aspects of the world we live in cannot be completely divided in this way, because interests have become intertwined and there is a large area of affairs which do not affect a specific group specially or differentially, but which simultaneously affect the interests of everyone. For this we need mechanisms and in this Bill the opportunity is being built in to secure in a group context and to have one’s own power base in regard to one’s own affairs and then to extend the hand of friendship to one another and to say: We shall work together, we shall deliberate together and we shall exercise a joint say over those matters which affect us simultaneously. This is the reality from which both sides are trying to escape by turning the NP policy in this connection into a caricature. The hon. member for Berea … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to state his case. From now on I am going to clamp down on those hon. members who keep on making interjections.

The hon. member for Berea demonstrated the real view of group existence, as contained in this clause, of the PFP. He said that one was “condemned to belong to a group”. That is how negative his view of reality, and of the admission of his leader that there are groups, is i.e. that he considers it to be a punishment to be associated with a group. As if there is no struggle to escape from the entire concept that it is detrimental to be a member of a group. As if the whole object, of this clause as well, is not to afford each group opportunities to have power bases of their own.

In his argument the hon. the Leader of the Opposition arrived at the basic conclusion that a group can look after its own interests and that legislation is not necessary for this purpose. That is true as far as customs, etc. are concerned. Is it true, however, when what we are dealing with is power? What does the history of Africa prove to us? It proves to us that when we are dealing with power there is an inclination in the hearts of all people and groups to acquire power, but after it has been acquired, there is the temptation—and frequently they give way to this temptation—to exercise power in such a way that it is to the detriment of other groups. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to reply to the hon. the Minister immediately on a number of matters which he has raised. In the first place he referred to the hon. member for Berea who stated that this clause dooms people to belong to a political group. The hon. the Minister said that he could not understand why we should look at it in such a negative light. So I ask the hon. the Minister to discuss this very proposal made by the hon. member for Berea with the large majority of people of colour in South Africa. They will agree with him. They will agree with him, and the hon. the Minister knows in his heart that it is so. The situation as determined by this White Parliament for so long—I am not suggesting only the NP—is …

This is what we are getting away from.

All right. I will come back to that. However, at this moment in time clause 14, which we are discussing now, actually entrenches that system. The hon. the Minister says we are incorrect. I am saying, and my hon. colleagues have stated repeatedly, that in the Select Committee the whole emphasis on own affairs was on a racial basis. The hon. the Minister must surely concede that there is no other factor involved. It is on a racial basis, just as there are three Chambers, White, Coloured and Indian, based on race. The White Parliament is definite dominant to the other two. The ratio makes it very clear. In terms of own affairs this only seeks to entrench that position.

Of course my hon. colleague from Berea is right when he says that this clause dooms certain people to belong to particular groups. I can also call other witnesses. I want the hon. the Minister or his colleagues to tell me and the House of any Black, Coloured or Indian group which actually supports this clause. If one reads the evidence of the South African Indian Council before the Select Committee, it is very clear. They actually sought to move an amendment. I quote from the report—

What happened instead of their listening to that evidence? From whom? From the South African Indian Council, hardly an enemy of this Government and certainly not of hon. members of the PFP. The hon. the Minister will know their viewpoint because he was on the Select Committee. Again and again the argument was raised. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs asked—

Mr. Rajbansi replied—

That is how people outside this House regard this. It is not a question of the official Opposition taking a stance for political reasons, but it is the fact of the matter. I challenge either the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs or the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to find any prominent Coloured or Indian with any significant following—those are the only two groups we can talk about under this clause—who is on record as saying that he believes that there should be own affairs and general affairs. The Labour Party itself, who also gave evidence and who made numerous statements outside the House, stated over and over again that they do not regard one of the fundamentals, namely education, to be an own affair. Honestly, the hon. the Minister has no foundation for his statement. He stands on ground that does not exist. That means he is in a big hole, and he cannot get out of it. The fact of the matter is that it was at his request and his instigation that this particular clause ensured that own affairs would be much more deliberately entrenched in this.

I go further. We cannot discuss Schedule l now and I have no intention of doing so, although, bearing in mind the hours we have spent on this clause, it may have been a good idea if through some negotiation between the whips Schedule 1 had included here, because goodness knows when we will ever get to that; probably next year some time. The fact of the matter is, however, that this clause refers to Schedule 1. The only point I want to make is that Schedule 1 is entrenched. It is the Whites who are entrenching this. The Coloureds out there say they do not like it, but, when they come in, there is no way on earth they can change it. That means only one thing: Conflict. The hon. Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has sincerely—and I accept his sincerity—told us in the House again and again that he wants to move away from conflict. I am saying, and my colleagues have said—and we say this with conviction and not to try to score political points—that this emphasis on own affairs where people have been told that certain affairs, for example education, must be their own affairs—if they try to make it a general affair by opening their schools, they cannot do it…

Order! I wish to point out to the hon. member that this argument has been used again and again.

Obviously I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman, although I think I put it better. [Interjections.]

It is tedious repetition.

There is a last point I want to raise with the hon. the Minister.

Do you want to do it again?

I want to ask: Why is it that my colleagues and myself year after year have people coming to us who ask us please to arrange for their reclassification from Coloured to White? It is not that they are ashamed of being Brown. That is an accident of birth. Nobody can chose his colour. So why do they come? It is because of the actions of the Whites in this country and in particular of this Government since 1948 which ought to be moving …

Order!

Sir, I am coming back to clause 14.

I would appreciate it.

The hon. the Minister’s claim is that he is now improving the situation. He concedes that there has been a problem. I do not want to deal with that problem. None of us can throw stones at one another. I am arguing that clause 14 does not really alter the situation because what is being done is that Coloured and Indian people are being brought into their Chambers but that they are then being told: “You cannot decide what are own affairs and general affairs; this House will decide”.

Order! That concerns another clause. The State President will decide on that in terms of another clause. The hon. member must come back to clause 14.

All right, I will come back to clause 14. Sir, and say that in terms of the definition in subsection (1)—it is written in there, Sir, but I do not know whether you have had a chance to look at it—

It is there. The difficulty the CP has is that it is terrified that we are going to have to talk in terms of clause 16 in relation to this, and therefore it does not trust this clause. I think that is their basic argument. They say this affords no protection. I am saying that notwithstanding clause 16 and the powers the State President will have here it is entrenched and written in. The hon. the Minister knows this better than anyone else, because it was his and the hon. the Minister of National Education’s actions which brought this about. It was a very clever trick.

With the full support of our whole side.

Well, that is even more distressing. We state again that this is an apartheid clause. It does not resolve the conflict and does not move away from race. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to react to the arguments of the hon. member for Pinelands and I shall try to confine myself to the clause.

The clause provides that matters which specially or differentially affect a population group in relation to the maintenance of its identity, are own affairs in relation to such a population group. In other words, all matters affecting the identity of that group are own affairs. I want to argue that as far as the Whites are concerned, the maintenance of a White identity is one of the most important components and requirements which the White section of the population in this country places first and foremost. For that reason I was rather astonished when the hon. member for Helderkruin—he is not present at the moment but I do not blame him for his absence—said earlier on in the debate that race was a factor bedevilling relations in our country at the moment. I hope the hon. member did not mean this, but it is possible to infer from that…

[Inaudible.]

No, I am not saying that he said it, but I hope that he did not mean it. I do not want to draw the inference that he wants to get away from the concept of race in regard to the composition of the population in this country.

The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said earlier on in the debate that the distinctions among the various peoples in South Africa had not arisen in consequence of legislation which had been passed, and I agree with him.

You are using a term which I did not use. I did not speak of peoples but…

Very well. I agree with him. Legislation introduced from time to time merely confirmed the factual situation. When the PFP argues that the various groups are the creations of legislation, they are not telling a factual truth. It is not true. What may in fact be argued is that certain pieces of legislation have been passed and are being utilized so as to perpetuate the distinctiveness of various groups in this country.

Earlier on today the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs said in his speech with reference to clause 14—and these are his exact words—

He went on to say—

With respect, in my opinion, the statement of the hon. the Minister is somewhat wide of the mark.

Within the framework of the definition.

I think it is somewhat wide of the mark, because in the future dispensation, the legislative power of each House to make laws concerning its own affairs is going to be derived not from clause 14, but from clauses 16 and 31. We shall discuss that when we reach those clauses.

I understand the dilemma of the Government. Even subsequent to 1977 the Government was still struggling with the problem of how to define the so-called own affairs in an objective way without rendering it possible to determine arbitrarily what they were and without having conflicting principles built into the Act in consequence of a wide interpretation being given thereto. Now we have a final definition of own affairs from the Select Committee. In the days when I was a student, we conducted a protracted debate on what was understood by the concept of “law”. Our professor said at the time, and I think the hon. the Minister of National Education will remember this, that a Dutch scholar tried to define the concept of “law” in a book of 208 pages. A critic said with reference to this definition—

Here I think we have exactly the same situation. We are being accused of woolliness, but if, for practical purposes, this new definition, is adequate for objective interpretation and implementation, I want to pose the question why it is necessary to make this definition subject to the provisions of clause 16 and not make clause 16 subject to the provisions of clause 14. I should like to have that answer from the Government side. Why is clause 14 being made subject to the provisions of clause 16, and not vice versa? We know what the answer is.

We are unable to answer, because we may not discuss clause 16.

We shall come to clause 16. The answer is a very simple one. It is because the Government and the Government’s law advisers, realized that endless problems would arise in practice if clause 14 contained no reference to clause 16, or if clause 16 were made subject to the provisions of clause 14. That is the major problem.

What is your objection to the practical solution we have here?

We are coming to that. In terms of a ruling from the Chair, we are not allowed to discuss that now. In terms of clause 14 the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs says that each group will be able to determine and identify the affairs affecting its own group. If the group itself may determine these affairs, surely there is only one way in which they can be determined in law, viz. by way of the legislative authority which the group chooses for itself as a group. In that case each House must surely have the right, in terms of clause 14, to determine its own affairs in respect of which it will have legislative power. So, if clause 14 means anything, why does the Government not give that inherent power to which the hon. the Minister referred, to each separate House to determine for itself on what affairs it may pass legislation?

This provision in clause 14 is nothing more than a piece of propaganda drafted by the hon. member for Brits. The effect in practice and the practicability of this clause amount to nothing. If one considers the practical effect which this legislation, and especially clause 14, read with other clauses, will have, the NP and the Government could have saved a great deal of time and debate had they merely inserted a simple clause stating that in future the State President will determine the affairs on which each separate House may pass legislation.

Mr. Chairman, just before I sat down the last time, I was trying to explain to the hon. member for Rustenburg, and to other hon. members who asked the question, that we are not the only people who see this whole crazy debate about so-called own affairs being there to protect people’s identity as a load of nonsense.

My hon. colleague has already referred to the evidence before the Select Committee and I will therefore not refer to that again. I just want to say that for six hours last Saturday at Mitchell’s Plain, I heard more sense spoken about the future of South Africa … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must confine his remarks to clause 14.

When one talks about own affairs, it is that that gives the whole philosophical base to South Africa’s future. At that meeting there were approximately 100 organizations … [Interjections.]

Order! I have already forbidden the hon. member to discuss a meeting held at Mitchell’s Plain. However, the hon. member does not heed my ruling. If the hon. member is unable to advance a new and relevant argument, he must resume his seat.

The other point that I want to raise is with regard to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs where he said that he had problems with the arguments of the PFP on the one hand and the CP on the other hand, namely that we are saying that this is the institutionalization of apartheid, the structuring of everything around own affairs, while the CP is saying that it is in fact the end of self-determination for Afrikanerdom. That problem, of course, is the problem of the NP. But we are both correct in that what the PFP is saying is that by entrenching own affairs and therefore building a whole structure on top of that there is an attémpt at entrenching apartheid. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not prepared to allow the hon. member to repeat that argument. It has already been repeated time and again and unless the hon. member comes up with a new argument he must resume his seat.

The point that I really wanted to make, without referring to the argument of the hon. the Minister, was the following.

*Within the process of governing and legislating, particularly with regard to a constitution which we are making here at the moment, legislating in connection with own affairs is an once-only process. We are now going to do it once, but subsequently a whole set of circumstances is going to be brought into effect. Firstly, there is a clause in the Bill stating that there are own affairs. This also gives effect to the establishment of a legislature for implementing the so-called own affairs, this legislature being the three Houses of Parliament. Secondly, there is a separate executive authority, this executive authority being the Ministers’ Councils … [Interjections.]

Order! It is quite clear to me that the hon. member wants to occupy the time of this Committee unnecessarily. I have already asked the hon. member three times to advance new and relevant arguments. Since the hon. member fails to do so, he must resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman, the use of the terms “own affairs” and “general affairs” originated at the time when the governing party, in solving the population issues, did not yet see its way clear to link affairs which could be linked to a specific population group, to a specific territory and to build political structures on that. The second statement I want to make is that one of the basic questions I put to the previous Prime Minister in 1977 was, in fact, to ask him for a specific, clear definition of what constituted own affairs and so-called general affairs. In the light of that this constitutes the grand attempt on the part of the Government to define these two things. Now I want to approach the matter from a different angle.

This particular clause deals with population groups, and if we refer to clause 100 for a moment, it appears that the population groups mentioned here, are the White population group, the Brown population group and the Indian population group.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member for Rissik that the argument with regard to population groups, as far as this clause is concerned, has already been debated here down to the minutest detail. However, I should not like to be unfair towards the hon. member. Therefore, if he wants to advance new arguments in this regard, he is very welcome to do so. I just want to point out to the hon. member, however, that I am no longer going to tolerate any repetition of arguments.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to you that one cannot speak without using the specific terms used here in the Bill.

The hon. member will concede, however, that the debate concerning the separate population groups, as applicable to the clause under discussion, has been conducted time and again. However, the hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, as I have already said, one cannot discuss this particular clause unless one proceeds form the particular points of departure in this regard. After all, one must commence one’s arguments somewhere. I am dealing with what is contained in this particular clause, and I say that as far as the term “population group” is concerned, reference is made in this clause to three particular population groups, viz. the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. Furthermore, I want to arrive at the first word used in the clause under discussion. It is the word “matters”.

Order! The hon. member for Rissik has convinced me that I should allow him to proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the one problem I have when the term “matters” is used—after we have had a protracted discussion in this regard—is that neither during the Second Reading nor during the committee Stage have hon. members on Government side given me any definition whatsoever of the meaning of the term “matters” in this particular clause. That is why this debate has continued for such a long time and why it will continue for an even longer time. It is because we touch here on the essential elements of a long historic struggle concerning what the matters are which affect certain population groups.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Heilbron knows preciously little about these things. If there is one hon. member in this House who realizes that he knows little about these things, it is I. [Interjections.]

Order! Now the hon. member for Rissik has to convince me that the remark he has just made does in fact have something to do with the clause under discussion.

Mr. Chairman, with great respect, I am asking …

Order! I request the hon. member for Heilborn to contain himself.

Mr. Chairman, may I know what I am supposed to have done? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Rissik may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, in dealing with the clause under discussion, I believe it to be imperative for the hon. the Minister to give us an indication, when he speaks here of “matters”, of the content or the meaning of the relevant term. The term “matters” in this clause refers to a particular population group. Consequently I want to ask the hon. the Minister, in all courtesy, since we are referring here to the matters concerning specific population groups, and since these include the maintenance of a particular identity, to clarify the meaning of this term for us. In all the debates up to now, as well as in this debate, I have not heard a single hon. member on the Government side giving me any indication whatsoever as to the content of this term with regard to the identity of a particular population group. Nowhere, as far as I am concerned, has a definition been given of the identity of the various population groups, viz. the White, Coloured and Indian population groups.

Consequently, when a definition or a description is given of the term “identity” and one proceeds on that basis by contending that one wants to maintain and further that identity, it is, I believe, of vital importance to the political debate we are conducting now, as well as to political debates in the future, that the governing party should tell us what matters concern the maintenance of the identity of each population group, as defined by them, and, in addition, as far as the furtherance of the particular matters affecting the identity of the particular population groups are concerned. Four other terms are also used to qualify the identity which is to be maintained and furthered. It is also interesting to note the use of the following concepts. Reference is made firstly, to a way of life, secondly, to culture, thirdly, to traditions and fourthly, to customs. Anyone who has tried to gain an elementary, scientific knowledge of the subject of culture and people and the subdivisions thereof, such as way of life, culture, traditions and customs, will know that this is a collection of words which are being used here which are not properly defined in the scientific language of the subject and concerning which there is no indication whatsoever in this legislation of what is involved when one speaks of a culture or an identity, way of life, traditions or customs. In this connection I want to refer to a very elementary scientific work dealing with this subject. As regards the study of culture, there are the following matters which one has to take into account. I refer here to the book by Prof. P. J. Coertze on this matter. With regard to general culture he specifies ten subdivisions as far as the study of culture is concerned. In addition to his introduction he speaks of the following—

And then there is the question—

The point which the CP is making, and the point we are going to continue making in the subsequent political debate in public, is that the terminology used by the hon. members of the Government as well as the provision inserted in this clause have only one purpose. I think the hon. the Minister of National Education is the behind-the-scenes author of this specific provision. In the political debate of today the major issue is whether the three various population groups are going to lose their identities—the matters with regard to the maintenance of those identities, the matters necessary for maintaining those identities, the matters necessary for furthering those identities. Historically the four terms which are used have been regarded in the party-political context solely as terms used on the basis of the struggle of a particular ethnic group in South Africa—the Afrikaner ethnic group, in its struggle for survival. In this connection the terms way of life, culture, traditions and customs are being used. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to commence with the hon. member for Yeoville and I should like to suggest that we conduct the debate on the question of taxes and the budgeting procedure as well as for formulas for the allocation of funds to the various Houses under the clauses concerned. This depends on the hon. member and his partners-in-opposition to this legislation.

We have no partners; we are on our own.

I want to make two observations in respect of the hon. member for Yeoville. He put a very apposite question. He wanted to know who was going to be responsible for apportioning the total financial means.

All three Houses.

The answer is in the first instance that the general appropriation of funds is a general affair. In this connection the hon. member proceeded in a very interesting way. He wanted to know how Coloured and Indian members were going to sit together and approve appropriations which were not only applicable to themselves.

That is the problem.

Of course it is a problem.

We must remember that the hon. member used this as an argument against the proposals of the Government. He wanted to know how this could possibly be an improvement. The hon. member for Sea Point, too, wanted to know how this could be an improvement. The fact of the matter is, in the first instance, that at the moment the Coloured people and the Asian people have no say whatsoever in the appropriation of funds. If we were to accept the standpoint of the hon. member for Yeoville with regard to the way in which it would be possible to obtain a say, we would be perpetuating ad infinitum the say we as Whites have in apportioning the financial cake.

That is not true.

Of course it is true. The standpoint of the hon. member’s party is very simple.

That is not what I said.

Surely the hon. member belongs to a party.

That is not what our party says.

The party of the hon. member says that until such time …

Do not be stupid.

Order! This kind of personal remark by the hon. member for Yeoville …

But the hon. the Minister …

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville must not say, “Do not be stupid” across the floor of the Committee. It has been agreed that this kind of personal remark will be avoided.

Sir, I withdraw it.

The hon. member is merely projecting his inability onto other people.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it, Sir, but while you were giving your ruling the hon. member said, “He is”. The hon. member is very sensitive when one talks about him.

The fact of the matter is that the standpoint of the hon. member’s party—I assume that he is a member of the party although this does not always seem to be the case—is that until such time as consensus has been achieved by a national convention, the status quo will remain. This also applies to the apportionment of the financial means of the country. The hon. member cannot contend that I am arguing this point with him incorrectly; surely this is a fact, because until such time the Whites will govern the country alone. He told me that I was mistaken. He went on to say that because there would be no Coloured people and Indians who would be prepared to participate in the new dispensation since it would be difficult for them to justify their participation to their people outside, the new dispensation should rather not come about. What is the implication of his argument in that respect? The implication is that we should rather retain the status quo in this particular connection since it is better than giving other people participation in the matter of taking decisions on own affairs as well as apportioning the country’s means.

Your interpretation is incorrect.

No, I am not giving an incorrect interpretation.

†I now come to the hon. member for Sea Point who made an allegation with which I should like to deal very briefly. He said the fact that I made an observation about him and his colleagues—if he can recall he will remember that I said that they made a constructive contribution—was unworthy.

That was because you argued that we voted in favour of population registration.

No, I did not say that.

What did you say?

Order! The hon. the Minister is replying to questions.

He is being very provocative.

Order!

What I did say was that in the Select Committee hon. members—and I do not want to reproach them—were party to the creation of legislation giving statutory substance to group identification. Surely this is factually true. I am not saying that the hon. member should keep away. The hon. member must not, on the one hand, accuse the Government of being responsible for group identification in terms of legislation while all of them were party to it. That is all I said. I am entitled to say this.

If we do not go we are boycotting and if we do go we should not be there.

I am not saying that. The hon. member for Sea Point went on to say—

That was not the basis of the argument whatsoever because, if the hon. member had been prepared to listen to other people and if he had been prepared to listen to his own leader, which he does not do very often, he would have known what the purport was of the argument of his leader. Let us go back to that for just one moment. I will read again what the argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was on the question of group identification. I am just going to refer to that also because the reaction of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was wrong.

*I asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition how he was going to distinguish between the minority groups. I shall be pleased if the hon. member for Sea Point would pay attention. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said: That is the cardinal aspect of the Bill. I agree with him in that respect. He went on to say: Identification of these minority groups is a compulsive identification. In other words, it is coercive identification. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also Said. It is the consequence: “Consequence”. Sir, means “the result”. In other words, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that it was the result of a Bill passed by the White Parliament, viz. the Population Registration Act. I argued that factually that was not true.

At this moment it is true.

I am not arguing about at what moment it is true. The fact of the matter is that I say that what was said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not true. I shall prove that it is not true. The insinuation and the allegation that race and group identification were discovered by the Government and that they are a result of an Act of Parliament … [Interjections.] I am not saying that the hon. member for Sea Point said so. I am talking about the Leader of the Opposition.

You are absolutizing it.

Order! Hon. members must not be so rowdy. I appeal to hon. members. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I say it is not true. The fact of the matter is … [Interjections.]

Order! I have requested hon. members in a very friendly manner to remain silent and if the hon. member does not want to be so kind as to heed my request, I can address him in a different manner. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Group identification was a fact in South Africa long before the NP came into power. Secondly, years before the passing of the Population Registration Act, South African society …

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I just want to help the discussion.

The hon. member need not help me in my discussion. I shall help myself.

*Long before the passing of the Population Registration Act South African society structured itself in the social, economic and political field on a group basis, which also was a racial group basis. I am not condoning or condemning it. What the Government did for the sake of orderly and peaceful co-existence and development, was to define identification. I am not denying this and I accept responsibility for it because I am a member of the Government. Hon. members may differ from me on the question as to whether or not it is necessary, but this is what the Government did. This is the point I tried to make in pursuance of the speech of the hon. the Leader—the Government’s Population Registration Act was not the cause of group identification; it was intended to stabilize and structure the group identification which had developed and the hon. member cannot argue with me about this. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said—he is not here at the moment—that he had not said what I am saying now, and surely that is not true, Sir.

I now come to the hon. member for Brakpan for I am able to pay him a compliment after all. Although we differ from him, one can understand him. What was the first statement the hon. member made? I shall quote what he said, as I wrote it down—perhaps these are not his exact words. He said own affairs could not be defined without linking them to an own area. This is what the hon. member said. Now I want to ask the hon. member: Since when has that been his point of view. There was a time when the hon. member held a different point of view.

Experience has proved it.

I am glad that the hon. member for Barberton at least is honest enough to say it. I am glad he is prepared to say it because the hon. member cannot deny that he accepted that there were own affairs in respect of which groups themselves could take decisions without there being a division of land into separate, independent States. That is why the hon. member accepted as a principle that a division of power in respect of own affairs had to be effected among South African Whites, Coloured people and Asians, without this being effected on a purely territorial basis and specifically without this implying an own, independent State. The hon. member adopted a further standpoint: Because Whites and Coloureds and Asians—because they are relevant now—had to share the same State with one another, there were areas which could not be identified as “own”—as is indeed stated in clause 14 and in respect of those matters which could not be defined as being “own”, systems of co-responsibility had to be developed. The hon. member specifically rejected the existence of separate States for Coloureds, Asians and Whites as being un-practicable. But now I am very grateful to the hon. member for Barberton. In this debate he has now made an admission we have been struggling for goodness knows how long to get from the Conservative Party, and I thank him for that admission, because I have great respect for the dilemma in which that hon. member finds himself.

Now I want to proceed, Sir. The hon. member said these proposals were not an improvement of the status quo for Coloured people.

No, I did not say that.

Sir, the hon. member should look at…

May I say on a point of explanation …

No, I accept it; I shall not pursue the argument.

It is the weakening of the position of the Whites.

The hon. member says it is a weakening of the position of the Whites. I want to ask him: Today the Whites are taking decisions in respect of Whites, Coloureds and Asians. Is that correct? [Interjections.] Yes, I did say “Whites”.

Now we go further the hon. member was prepared to transfer decision-making on own affairs in respect of Coloured people to Coloured people and in respect of Asians to Asians. Consequently he was prepared to reduce the decision-making power of the Whites. Secondly, the hon. member was prepared to share decision-taking on matters affecting Whites, Coloureds and Asians. So how is it possible for him to argue that these proposals reduce the freedom of White decision-making? The hon. member went on to say that provincial councils had more power than the Houses because they could levy imposts. Where in this new Bill does it state that this cannot happen? The hon. member’s statement is not true. We can argue this point when we come to it.

There is no time. The guillotine! [Interjections.]

Order! I want to make a very friendly appeal to the hon. members of the CP to afford the hon. the Minister an opportunity to reply to their questions and arguments in silence.

Sir, on a point of order: May I ask that you request the hon. members sitting round the Minister to remain silent? They talk to us and then we have to remain silent.

Order! I think the hon. member for Rissik has a very good point. The best example of that is on the benches to my right. While I am giving a ruling, hon. members are provoking the hon. members of the CP.

I can understand the natural limited resistance of the hon. member for Rissik to provocation.

Do not throw Koos a banana.

Order! The hon. member for Stilfontein must contain himself.

Oppenheimer is behind …

Order! The hon. member for Jeppe too.

I should like to reply to the question of the hon. member for Brakpan. I am trying my best. The hon. member spoke of Afrikaner self-determination. The concept of “Afrikaner self-determination” has a specific meaning. Where does Afrikaner self-determination exist institutionally? I want to ask the hon. member whether the Afrikaans-speaking person, or, if you like the Afrikaner, were the 40 percenters and not the 60 percenters in the White ranks, they would lose their self-determination.

I want to refer to the hon. member for Barberton. He said White identity was not a problem. This is very important. No one is arguing with the hon. member on that score. We share that conviction. However, we say to him that Afrikaner identity and White identity cannot be maintained at the expense of other people. The admission—as contained in this clause—that other people may take decisions on own and common affairs on a shared and joint basis, is made not only on the basis of justice towards others but also for the sake of the Whites themselves. Now, the hon. member for Rissik asked what the substance of clause 14 was. The substance of clause 14 is very clear. Mr. Chairman, that hon. member knows, however, that you will not allow a discussion of what constitutes own affairs, because the clause, in terms of your ruling—and I agree with your ruling—is concerned with the fact that there will be own affairs, that is why you are not allowing a discussion of the quantum of the clause. The guidelines against which this is tested are contained in the clause, however, and the hon. member can examine the way in which substance is given to the guidelines when we reach the discussion of the Schedule.

In conclusion I just want to make one important observation: We may argue as we like, but the draft legislation of 1979—it was not considered by this House—was referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution as the proposals of the NP to the Schlebusch Commission. At the time it was sent as evidence to the committee by the Department of the Interior. We may be ingenuous in arguing this point, but the fact of the matter is that in terms of that legislation, too, there would be own affairs within the same territory. Is that not true? That is how it would have been, and if it was possible then, what makes it impossible now? What is more, the proposals as to how these were to be transferred, were important, because if one looks at clause 26 of that draft legislation, one sees that it deals with the transfer of powers to the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. It deals with such transfer, but also in a dual way. It says that the House of Assembly shall do so first.

That is our first amendment.

Yes, but I go further. I wonder why the hon. member for Brakpan is reacting at this early stage in respect of his first amendment. In clause 26(1)(a)(ii) the draft legislation of 1979 states—

not the legislature—

I probably need not remind the hon. member for Brakpan of the constitution of the Council of Cabinets. He will remember it well. I give him credit for one thing: At least he understands the concepts; he also understands what the concepts of executive authority and executive powers involve. His proposal means that if an executive administrative body is of opinion that a certain matter within the same territory or the same State is an own affair for Coloureds or Asians, the legislative power is to be transferred to the House or Chamber concerned by means of a decision of the Council of Cabinets. Now hon. members are objecting to the possibility of obtaining certainty as to what constitutes own affairs on the basis of the guidelines stated in clause 14. When we argue with one another about these things, we should really not argue only on the basis of the fact that we happen to belong to a certain party. The hon. members of the CP and the hon. member for Pietersburg in particular, quoted long arguments and also quoted what the hon. the Minister of National Education had allegedly said or had allegedly not said. What we are concerned with here, however, is a situation dealing with the relevant subject. Hon. members of the CP adopted a standpoint in this regard. Not only did they adopt a standpoint in this regard, but at the time their leader was a member of the Cabinet. In view of this the standpoint of hon. members with regard to this particular subject is inexplicable and unacceptable.

Mr. Chairman, I must of necessity react to what has been said about this topic. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning bases his reasoning on the point of view that the 1979 draft constitution was accepted by the NP. That is the basic mistake in his reasoning. When that draft constitution was made available to the members of the party, I personally did two things. In the first place I went to the hon. the Prime Minister and told him that I was experiencing some problems with a few of the clauses in that Bill. I took up the point of the power granted to the Council of Cabinets, i.e. the question of the Council of Cabinets being able to decide which specific functions of the House of Assembly would be transferred to the other two Houses. I said that with that wording the Council of Cabinets would be placed in a position of greater authority than the House of Assembly and its Government. In that regard it was in conflict with the assurance which the NP had repeatedly given its supporters—that the National Party would retain all powers except those it decided to transfer. This is the assurance the NP gave at that stage. The Cabinet members serving on the Council of Cabinets would therefore negotiate as representatives of the people to which they belonged. They would retain their portfolios in their own Cabinets and no portfolios would be allocated to them on the basis of their membership of the Council of Cabinets. We also said that the Council of Cabinets was therefore not to be a super-Cabinet.

Would you do us a favour? Would you tell us on what basis you lodged your objection?

The hon. the Minister utilizes his own time to make his speech. He must also give me the opportunity to utilize my 10 minutes.

This means that the White Cabinet of 17 Ministers would continue to deal with portfolios, as is the case at present, with the possibility that the Ministries of Coloured Affairs and Indian Affairs would eventually fall away. This was a point I raised with the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister listened politely to what I had to say and gave me certain replies. He suggested however, that I consult the relevant Minister. I then went to the relevant Minister and told him what my problem was. I said that clause 26, if I remember correctly, provided that the legislative authority in the Republic of South Africa would vest in the House of Assembly. Then there were a few subsections, followed by the contentious subsection which provided that the Council of Cabinets could decide which functions would have to be transferred. I raised that point with the hon. the Minister. In the meantime—I am now reacting to an allegation made by the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—the NP internal affairs caucus group had a look at that Bill, studied it and voiced its doubts. I was not a member of that group, but I think they held more than one meeting on this issue. The matter came before the caucus and the relevant Minister explained the Bill there. The debate got underway, and in that debate one reservation after the other was expressed regarding certain facets of that measure. [Interjections.] I was not a member of the Cabinet at that stage. That was before the hon. the Prime Minister appointed me to the Cabinet. If Deputy Ministers are considered to be part of the Government, I just want to say that not a single Deputy Minister served on the Cabinet. The hon. the Prime Minister can make a technical issue of this, but if he says that I was a member of the Government and therefore jointly responsible for what took place, then I must shoulder that responsibility in absentia. Is it that funny?

I deny that you had any objection in principle to that Bill, and if you say you did, you are misleading the country.

Mr. Chairman, point No. 1: I was not a member of the Cabinet when that Bill went before the caucus. Point No. 2: When that Bill went before the caucus of the NP there were numerous colleagues who had reservations and who discussed that Bill, and did so critically too. After a number of speeches the hon. the Prime Minister stood up and said: Colleagues, there will still be plenty of time to discuss this matter.

And there was plenty of time.

Very well. What time was there? But then the matter was …

Be careful now.

Yes, never fear.

You have a habit of only partly telling the truth.

Order! I now appeal to hon. members to give the hon. member for Waterberg an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, may I address the hon. the Prime Minister on this point? Last year, as a result of certain things happening, the hon. the Prime Minister said that I, being an ex-clergyman, should not tell lies. I want to say, with all due respect that this also applies to the hon. the Prime Minister. He should not tell lies either.

I shall talk to you during the Third Reading stage.

Very well.

I hope you will be here for the whole of the Third Reading stage because I have a great deal to discuss with you.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, this may not be relevant now, but if the opportunity were to present itself we could, of course, say a great deal about this. I did not, however, tell an untruth. I did not say that Dr. Treurnicht did not vote against that motion in the caucus. Nor did I give the outside world the impression that Andries Treurnicht hardly ever spoke in the Cabinet, so much so that the impression was created that I never spoke there at all.

You were a taciturn member of the Cabinet.

Yes, I was taciturn. I was not as talkative as the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

He did more work.

Order!

Where was that great deal of time in which subsequently to discuss this matter? In the meantime that Bill was referred to the relevant commission. Then the President’s Council was established. The Bill, with the evidence and memorandums, was referred to the President’s Council and than we waited for the recommendations of the President’s Council. Once the President’s Council made its recommendations, there would be a focal point for debate because we would then have concrete proposals. In the meantime the matter was left hanging in the air. The hon. the Prime Minister was correct. We had the time to discuss it, but no one brought the matter up because the proposals of the President’s Council were only made known last year. In the meantime the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, at that stage the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, set his own parameters, which we then debated, and with which we did not agree. We did not agree with them. We disagreed about them. The hon. the Minister mentioned various points. He said that we had already accepted power-sharing, and we said that that was not true. It was not true. Another example was that of the chairman of the President’s Council saying that there was no single Minister, Deputy Minister or National MP who did not accept power-sharing in Mr. Vorster’s time. But what happened? One specific day the chairman of the President’s Council was sitting in the gallery when the hon. the Prime Minister stood up and said that the chairman of the President’s Council was right. There was not a single Minister, Deputy Minister or National MP who did not accept power-sharing. Mr. Chairman, that is an untruth.

Order! I just want to point out that this clause is not concerned with power-sharing. I think we should not pursue this matter any further. The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member has something of a guilty conscience.

Mr. Chairman, I am rising …

He stabbed me in the back.

… to react to the speech of the hon. member for Waterberg.

He is a backstabber.

The fact is that the hon. member himself …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. the Prime Minister say that the hon. member for Waterberg is a back-stabber? Is that parliamentary?

Order! I do not think it is unparliamentary, but I wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister would consider withdrawing it.

It is untrue in any case.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Waterberg left me in the lurch without having had the courage to put his case in the Cabinet.

That is also untrue.

Order! Would the hon. the Prime Minister not consider withdrawing the word “back-stabber”?

No, Mr. Chairman, I will not consider it.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I would just like to know whether the word the hon. the Prime Minister used is permissible, in view of the appeal you made to hon. members not to make personal attacks on each other in this House.

Order! My ruling was not that the hon. the Prime Minister had to withdraw those words, because they are not unparliamentary. I only made a friendly appeal to him. The hon. the Prime Minister has adopted a standpoint on this, and I accept it. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I must immediately confess that at Cabinet meetings I did speak more frequently than the hon. member for Waterberg, and that is why people knew what my standpoint was. The hon. member for Waterberg, however, kept his standpoints to himself and only discussed them at private meetings.

On the contrary.

Not “on the contrary” …

He did not have the courage to raise them in the Cabinet, or in the caucus.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. the Prime Minister accuse an hon. member of this House of not having had the courage to raise a certain matter … [Interjections.]

Order! That is not unparliamentary. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a further point of order: I maintain that the hon. the Prime Minister is insinuating that the hon. member for Waterberg was scared.

Order! The hon. the Prime Minister was not making that insinuation. What he said was not unparliamentary, and I have already given my ruling. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a further point of order: The hon. member for Kimberley South said that if that was my deduction, it was correct. Mr. Chairman, are you going to allow him to say that?

Order! Did the hon. member for Kimberley South pass that remark?

Mr. Chairman, I said that if that was his deduction, it was correct.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Brakpan waste this House’s time in this way?

Order!

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I want to know whether you are going to allow the hon. member for Kimberley South not to withdraw that remark he made.

Order! It is unparliamentary to say that an hon. member is scared. I therefore feel that the hon. member for Kimberley South should rather withdraw that remark.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I maintain that the hon. member for Kimberley South did not use an unparliamentary word. The most one can do is make an inference from what he said. Surely such an inference exists in the mind of the person who makes it. I humbly suggest that the hon. member for Kimberley South did not use an unparliamentary word and that there is therefore nothing he need withdraw.

Order! I still think the hon. member for Kimberley South should rather withdraw that remark.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it. The hon. member for Water-berg is fearless.

Order! The hon. member must unconditionally withdraw what he said.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it. The hon. member for Water-berg is not fearless.

Order! The hon. member for Kimberley South must withdraw those words unconditionally.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw them unconditionally. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, in spite of the hon. member for Barberton’s standpoint that we should not bring the previous State President into our debates, the hon. member for Water-berg has the peculiar notion of repeatedly referring to private conversations he alleges to have held with the previous Prime Minister or the State President as motivation for his standpoint. The hon. member for Water-berg cannot, however, continue to hide behind the former Prime Minister. He himself adopted certain standpoints, here in this House and elsewhere, on the same topic on which he now maintains that he had reservations. I want to remind the hon. member for Waterberg that words do have meaning. I want to quote from what the hon. member said on 3 February 1982 about the topic under discussion. Sir, you will remember that February was an important month in that hon. member’s life. What did the hon. member say? He was reacting to the hon. member for Yeoville. According to Hansard (Wednesday, 3 February 1982, col. 205), he said the following—

That is the hon. member for Yeoville—

Now along comes the oracle of wisdom to enlighten the hon. member for Yeoville. He went on to say—

The leader-in-chief being Mr. Vorster, with whom he had a private conversation.

Is that a sin?

No, it is not a sin, but I think it is a disgrace that the hon. member himself did not tell us what he said in this connection. [Interjections.] What did the hon. member say? He went on—

That includes the hon. member—

What did the Government submit to the Select Committee as evidence?

The legislation.

The Bill. The inference we now have to make is that the former Prime Minister acted in such a way as to have allowed his Ministers to make submissions which did not correspond to the undertakings he had given the hon. member for Waterberg, and I do not accept that as being what the former Prime Minister did. I am telling the hon. member that quite frankly.

I want to go a step further. No evidence was submitted to the Select Committee on behalf of this side of the House other than the Bill which was published in the Government Gazette in connection with the 1977 proposals. As a result the hon. member for Waterberg, in terms of his own statements in 1982, pledged himself to this but only after having approached the Prime Minister to give an exposition of what he really meant. For that reason I am saying that it is high time the hon. member saw his way clear to standing up and saying: I no longer feel myself bound by what I said. Then he would at least be adopting a course that one could value and respect. I maintain, however, that it is reprehensible to look for a scapegoat to help one out of a tight spot every time the past catches up with one. It is even worse to make the man who brought you into the Government that scapegoat.

What clause is the hon. the Minister dealing with now?

I am discussing the standpoints of the hon. member for Waterberg about what is contained in the 1977 proposals. [Interjections.] I want to confirm the fact that the evidence which the hon. member for Waterberg has said represents the standpoint of the NP is contained in this 1977 document. In spite of his post facto protestations, the hon. member for Waterberg thereby subscribed to a specific standpoint, namely that the Council of Cabinets could decide about legislative authority being transferred to specific Parliaments when it came to own affairs, i.e. if the hon. member’s version of the conversation with the former Prime Minister is correct.

No, he alleges that he had that discussion with me.

No, with the former Prime Minister.

That was in 1979, not so?

Yes, I held that discussion with you, with the present hon. Prime Minister.

No, you did not have such a discussion with me.

Then you are talking an untruth.

I say you are hallucinating.

But we discussed it in the caucus as well.

Order!

That makes it interesting and even more relevant. I apologize for having concluded that it was with the former Prime Minister.

No, it is supposedly with me.

He thought you were not here; that he could simply say that.

Order!

Behind my back they spread their gossip. [Interjections.]

Order! I request hon. members to give the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning an opportunity to complete his speech.

The hon. member will concede that if words have any meaning, and if the truth has any meaning, the following applies …

Then you do not use it.

No, I am not the hon. member for Barberton.

Order!

If words and the truth have any meaning, then firstly, as regards the matter of the transfer of authority over own affairs, the hon. member for Waterberg has said that his standpoint on this was contained in the evidence given by the governing party before the Select Committee and, secondly, that the evidence which he said represented his standpoint, stated that the Council of Cabinets could transfer authority over own affairs to the Parliaments of the Coloureds and Indians. The hon. member must therefore not accuse us now of deviating. The hon. member stands condemned by his own statements and his own actions.

Mr. Chairman, I shall try not to include a personal note in this debate. I made a statement and I stand by it. I consulted the hon. the Prime Minister on a certain point in the 1979 constitution that was worrying me. The hon. the Prime Minister received me politely and courteously. He discussed the matter with me and advised me to go to the relevant Minister. I am giving the factual version. Those are the facts of the matter.

The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning could, in my opinion, have been a little less personal in his reply …

I was not being personal.

If he was not being personal, I should like to see him when he really is being personal.

I want to point out something else to the hon. the Minister. While the 1979 draft constitution was still NP policy, the hon. the Prime Minister repeated, at a meeting in Ladysmith, that the 1979 proposals were the policy of the NP. In the interim there were whispered comments about this no longer being viable; the idea of three Parliaments was as dead as the dodo. Against that background the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Affairs, before the NP changed its policy on this issue, before it said that our policy is no longer one of three Parliaments, three Cabinets and three Prime Ministers …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member who the hon. Minister of Constitutional Affairs is to whom he is referring?

The present hon. Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, when he was still the Minister of Internal Affairs. The hon. the Prime Minister has said that I never spoke in the Cabinet. I do not want to call the hon. the Prime Minister …

When did I say that?

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I have allowed a general discussion on this matter, which is actually only peripherally affected by the 1977 proposals. For that reason I am requesting the hon. member to return to the matter of own affairs in his reply to what the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you have been patient with us, because we were generalizing quite a bit. I just want to reply in a single sentence, however, to the hon. the Prime Minister’s allegation that I never discussed these matters. These matters were debated on 26 January, and also a few weeks later in February. They were also debated on 22 February at the special…

But we are no longer in 1977.

No, I am now referring to 1982. The hon. the Prime Minister is referring to 1979, when I was not a member of his Cabinet. I do not know what the hon. the Prime Minister is talking about when he says that I never raised these points. We raised them when the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, who is now the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, set out his parameters and said that they would mean inter alia, one country, one common fatherland, power-sharing and one government for the same country. We are also, as it were, supposed to have accepted a fourth Cabinet in the 1977 proposals. This is briefly the historical background of what took place. It is therefore of no use for the hon. the Minister to talk to me about my lack of loyalty. I just want to tell him …

I never used the word.

Since when has the NP been like a parrot, with everyone saying exactly the same thing and no one feeling himself at liberty to tell another that we have problems with this or that? After all, that is what happened.

You are gossiping again.

There those hon. members heard the word “gossip”. Since when is it gossiping if one says, among one’s own people, that ons has a problem with something or when one goes to the highest authority in one’s party and says that one has a problem with something? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I had understood that if hon. members made personal remarks, you would ask them to withdraw them. Therefore, when the hon. member for Waterberg says that I made a personal remark about him, it means that you are not implementing the rules which you yourself laid down. However, I want to ask that hon. member who was the one to accuse others of grovelling before other people? He comes here with his sanctimonious and high-priestly attitude and accuses others of making personal attacks. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

The hon. member told an untruth.

Such as?

I shall tell the hon. member. He said that I came forward with the idea of power-sharing on 26 January. That is not true. In fact, the word power-sharing does not even appear either in the decisions, or in the exposition I gave, and he knows that.

Order! I am going to permit the hon. member to react to that only because the hon. member for Waterberg raised the question of power-sharing. However, I should be pleased if the hon. the Minister would come back to the provisions of this clause.

I shall do so, Mr. Chairman. However, you will have to permit us at least to try to identify the credibility of people when discussing the contents of these clauses.

There you go again.

The hon. member said that I had determined the parameters in respect of own affairs. He said that one of the parameters I had determined—this is interesting—was one fatherland for Whites, Coloureds and Asians. The hon. member for Waterberg said that there was one father-land for Whites, Coloureds and Asians. He signed that himself.

[Inaudible.]

I shall continue. Give me a chance.

I asked you whether the Free State was the homeland of the Indians.

The hon. member should have asked that in 1981 when he put his signature to a document, on the basis of which he got here. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Waterberg … [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Brakpan allowed to say that the hon. the Minister of Manpower is the buffalo of Soutpansberg?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it. He is the water-bailiff of Soutpansberg.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally, Sir.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

On that particular date, to which he himself referred, and in implementing what he had signed in 1981, the hon. member for Waterberg accepted that Whites, Coloureds and Asians occupy the same geographic area, although they have their own group areas in this country. He accepted that. Furthermore, he also accepted that because there can be no more than one Government in the same country, it is essential that the population groups concerned share in the decision-making processes in the country. I am speaking about the clause now, since clause 14 provides for sharing in the decision-making processes. Surely the hon. member accepted that.

No, I did not accept that.

The hon. member did accept that. He also accepted that the 1977 proposals, as signed by him in 1981, further implied that own affairs should be identified and that the population groups concerned must have a final say about own affairs in the same fatherland. The hon. member accepted that.

Now the hon. member is saying that the NP is not a parrot. It conducts meaningful discussions, but after the decisions have been taken, it demands loyal support from its members to support it, or else they must leave. The parameters of 23 January 1982 to which the hon. member referred, took place before the hon. member’s contribution to the same issue in February 1982. Despite the discussion on 24 January 1982, the hon. member participated in a debate on 3 February 1982, and what did he do? After this discussion, he associated himself with the Government’s standpoints with regard to own affairs, as they were formulated in 1979, while in debate with the hon. member for Sea Point. Now he is denying it.

Then they bade farewell to separate development.

You are lying, Daan.

Order! The hon. member for Bloemfontein East must with draw the word “lying”.

I withdraw it, Sir, but I did not bid farewell to …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally, Sir.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Waterberg that if the 1979 proposals were a departure from separate development, he was an accessory.

I said nothing about that.

I am not speaking about the hon. member for Jeppe. I was saying that the hon. member for Waterberg was an accessory. Therefore, let us not bluff one another about what our various standpoints on particular issues were.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! Before giving the hon. member for Langlaagte the opportunity to speak, I just want to point out to hon. members that I concede that there are very important points of principle at issue in clause 14. However, these have been debated at length for almost seven hours, and hon. members can debate these principles for a further 10 hours during the Third Reading. I should therefore be very pleased if hon. members would kindly come forward now with new and relevant arguments, otherwise I shall have no choice but to ask them to resume their seats. The hon. member for Langlaagte may address the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister for Constitutional Development and Planning: Be calm. We are dealing with very serious matters here. [Interjections.]

Is that a new argument?

After analysing clause 14 thoroughly, it is clear that this clause contains two things—the big lie and the big mistake. Subsection (1) provides that—

Who wrote that?

I am speaking about the clause now, and I just want to tell the hon. member that he must not divert my attention, since I am in a very good mood. As I was saying, subsection (1) provides that—

are an own affair in terms of the definition.

Order! The hon. member is reading the clause now. That has been done repeatedly. The hon. member must resume his seat.

Sir, I want to address you …

No, the hon. member must resume his seat. He may not address me. [Interjections.] My ruling was that hon. members should advance new and relevant arguments. Since the hon. member is unable to do so, he must resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister referred to me in one of his previous replies and asked when I had changed my standpoint.

That has got nothing to do with the clause.

The hon. the Minister of Community Development must tell us when he became chairman. Then I can address him, since …

Order! The hon. member for Brakpan must continue.

Very well, Sir. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning asked me when I had changed my standpoint.

Which clause is that?

Order!

Remember that we are speaking about 1979 and about own affairs. Clause 14 deals with own affairs. Clause 26 of the 1979 Bill also dealt with own affairs. Is that correct? I wrote a letter to the chairman of the President’s Council, who was the then Minister of Internal Affairs, on 26 March 1979. I told him that we had problems with the Bill.

When did you write that letter?

On 26 March 1979.

Order! After the hon. member for Waterberg had completed his speech, I indicated that I would permit only the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to react to it, and that that would be the end of that aspect of the debate.

Sir, I just want to indicate …

That is my ruling. Hon. members have accepted that, and the hon. member must advance a new argument.

Please, Sir …

That is my ruling, and I stand by that.

Sir, I just want to tell you that on 26 March 1979 … [Interjections.] We are comparing the provision in the 1979 Bill with the present clause.

Order! I have given my ruling. The hon. member may not address me any further on that score. I permitted the hon. member for Waterberg to react to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: This does not concern the debate between the hon. member for Waterberg and the hon. the Minister. This concerns the whole question of comparing the contents of the 1979 Bill and the Bill which is before this Committee now.

That is what the debate between the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Waterberg was about. I want to point out to the hon. member that if hon. members are not satisfied with that, they can take the matter further during the Third Reading. I cannot permit any further discussion of this issue under clause 14. That is my final ruling.

Mr. Chairman, please may I address you on this issue? The corresponding clause in the 1979 Bill was clause 26. Clause 26 of that Bill provides for certain methods of determining which matters are own affairs. The hon. the Minister asked me when I had changed my standpoint.

Order! I have just given my ruling that that matter cannot be discussed any further now.

If you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, I want to reply to a further question which arises out of clause 14 concerning self-determination. The hon. the Minister asked me whether I would have adopted the same attitude in respect of self-determination …

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that the self-determination aspect has been debated over and over again during the course of the debate thus far.

But you do not even know what I am going to say, Mr. Chairman.

Order! I am not going to permit the hon. member to raise the question of self-determination again.

But, Mr. Chairman, are you ruling me out of order even before you know what I am going to say?

Order! I said that the debate had already lasted for seven hours, and that new and relevant arguments must be advanced now. In terms of the rules, I am compelled to see that this is done. I said that hon. members who wanted to speak now would have to advance new and relevant arguments. If the hon. member for Brakpan wants to speak about self-determination, it is not a new and relevant argument.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, may I address you on that score? I commenced by saying only a few words on self-determination, and you inferred from that that I was going to say something, as though I had already said it.

Order! Am I correct in saying that the hon. member wants to speak about self-determination?

Mr. Chairman, in view of what the hon. the Minister challenged me about, I want to …

Order!

… viz a 40% to 60% ratio …

Order! The hon. member for Brakpan must resume his seat.

Can I therefore assume that I will not be permitted to reply to the hon. the Minister?

Order! The hon. member for Brakpan must resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to advance a new argument. It is a completely new argument, and it concerns an issue the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs raised. The argument the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs raised, was that we have interpreted clause 14 in two ways. That was the basis of his argument. He said that on the one hand, we say that all affairs are own affairs, and, on the other, that there are no own affairs. Now I want to illustrate by way of a few new arguments why we have said that. If one reads clause 14 carefully, one sees that it covers a wide field and that it makes provision for the following …

Order! The standpoint that the clause covers a very wide field, as well as all the other arguments, have been advanced repeatedly. The hon. member must resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! The hon. member for Langlaagte was asked to resume his seat. Therefore, he cannot speak about this clause again.

But, Mr. Chairman, this is my second turn to speak.

Order! The rules provide that if an hon. member has taken up the time of the Committee in this way, and that ruling has been given, he cannot participate in the discussion any further.

Mr. Chairman, I was honoured to …

That just goes to show the dictatorship of …

Order! I regard that remark of the hon. member for Langlaagte as being a reflection on the Chair. The hon. member must therefore withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member now has the opportunity to offer his apologies.

I apologize, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the debate, but it seems as if the other war has reached a lull.

The hon. member for Berea challenged me on specific questions and I believe I owe it to the Committee to reply to those questions. We have strange bedfellows in that in the debate we have just been listening to we heard that this clause is the end of “Blanke selfbeskikking”, while the official Opposition says that this clause is the extension of apartheid.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: When I discussed the exact question of the duality in the arguments, you ruled me out of order. Is the hon. member for Durban Point allowed to discuss this matter?

Order! The hon. member for Durban Point may proceed, but I shall be listening to him very carefully.

I am finished with this point, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to point out the strange bedfellowship that exists.

I see that the hon. member for Berea has returned. He asked me what the differences were between the NRP and the Government with regard to this particular clause and pluralism as it is reflected in the clause. I want to say that this party believes in a form of dynamic pluralism, which has as its elements local option and flexibility. If the option for exclusivity is exercised, in other words for an own affair in terms of this clause, then we believe that there should be an open alternative which does not fall under this clause. This is the essence of what we believe and I do not want to expand on it. The essence of our definition of dynamic pluralism is pluralism with flexibility and an option that where local option is exercised for an exclusive residential area or other right, another alternative or open facility should be offered to those who want to integrate, in other words the people who support the PFP.

The Government’s concept of pluralism is a static one, namely the inflexibility of rigid delineation of groups and all that applies to own affairs. The matters which the Government sees as own affairs are inflexible and absolute and there is no choice. Either you live within your own group and abide by its parameters, or you are subject to removal.

That is the basic difference between the concepts of pluralism of this party and the Government. This does not mean that we reject pluralism. Clause 14 is the essential element of accommodating pluralism in the constitutional structure.

May I ask you a question?

No, I do not want to delay the debate. I want to answer the question put to me by the hon. member for Berea so that we can get on with the job.

The second question was the definition of the group. We believe that the group should be identified by a process of natural registration, plus association and acceptance. The Government’s criterion is the historic classification by birth and ancestry and that acceptance and association only come into the picture if the other tests are in dispute.

The third question was whether we wanted everyone to be condemned for all times in every facet of life. This is of course a total misrepresentation of what this Bill envisages. The concept of own affairs, as we have it in this clause, is the concept that things which are intimate to the group should be controlled by the group. It is certainly not every facet of life. It is a very limited group of aspects—the aspects of own affairs that are intimate to the group. All the rest are general affairs. For instance, there is employment, opportunity for jobs and opportunity for tertiary education in technicons. All those, we believe, should not be own affairs but general affairs. We believe that own affairs should be limited to the things that are close to the family and close to the person and fitting into this definition in clause 14, i.e. “matters which specially or differentially affect a population group in relation to the maintenance of its identity and the upholding and furtherance of its way of life”. Those are the things we see as own affairs. It is a total misrepresentation of this clause to say that this clause is the extension of apartheid and that people will be condemned in every facet of life for the whole of their lives. The question that followed was: Has this clause been expanded from the original clause in the Bill? Yes, of course, it has. What has happened is that a subsection of clause 18, i.e. 18(1)(a)(i), has been transferred from the original clause 18 in the Bill and it has been inserted into what is now clause 14. It is verbatim. In clause 18 it was a norm for determining matters that were not contained in the schedule.

And only in the schedule.

Yes, matters in the schedule—for determining matters connected with them and whether they were related. By transferring that subsection to clause 14 it has expanded it. It has now made it operational instead of only standards to judge by. It can now be used to expand the held of own affairs.

What is the effect of that?

Please allow me to answer.

I did not think that you were going to.

That hon. member is so obsessed with a “one man, one vote” integrated society that he cannot even let a person deal with an alternative concept. Nobody can pretend that Schedule 1 is a perfect schedule. In fact I have amendments on the Order Paper and we shall oppose a series of aspects of Schedule 1. It cannot and nobody will pretend that it is a complete and adequate list and that it will not have to be negotiated and changed. I visualise that once the new system operates, the three groups through their Houses will discuss, consult and negotiate and there will be amendments. There will also be items that the Houses themselves will want to add to Schedule 1 of group affairs. My problem with that subsection is not subsection (1) of clause 14, but how it is going to be implemented. But that is not to be debated here. We shall debate that matter when we are discussing clauses 16 and 17. I accept the fact that one needs the flexibility to add other aspects to Schedule 1. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am merely rising to remind the hon. the Minister that in his reply to my speech—i.e. to two of the turns I had to speak—he said that it was not worth replying to me. Now I just want to ask the hon. the Minister a pertinent question. I indicated clearly in my speeches that the pattern that is developing in clause 14, and that is going to develop in the implementation of this clause, is going to display precisely the same characteristics that are evident in South West Africa at present, and that is that own affairs are being reduced and narrowed down to virtually nothing. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning whether, in terms of clause 14 of the present Bill, he can show me a single example of where these representatives in the House in question will have a full say in their own affairs in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Order! No discussion is permitted on the motion for closure. The presiding officer must decide whether the issue concerned has been thoroughly debated. I have repeatedly stated that I am of the opinion that this matter has been debated exhaustively, and that there will be an opportunity to discuss this further at a later stage. Consequently I now put the motion of the hon. member for Tygervallei.

I now put clause 14.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Do you not in terms of the Standing Rules and Orders have to ask the hon. the Minister whether he wishes to reply?

No. That only applies to the proceedings of the House. It does not apply to proceedings in Committee.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: During the course of the discussion of the previous clause you ruled that the word “backstabber” was parliamentary. I have gathered information to the best of my ability and the impression I gained was that it was in fact unparliamentary. In view of this I request you to reconsider your decision.

Order! For the present the matter has been settled. I shall go into it again and we can come back to it in due course.

Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, this clause is really the mirror of clause 14. Clause 14 states what are own affairs and this clause now states that everything that is not own affairs is general affairs. Firstly, let me state the point of view of this party quite clearly. We are opposed to the formalization of the concept of own affairs as stated in clause 14. In fact we voted against it only a few minutes ago. Therefore we are against the concept that general affairs should only be those matters which are left over once own affairs have been decided in terms of clause 14 and clause 16. For those reasons we shall be voting against this clause.

I assume that it would be possible in terms of the Rules of this House to have a repetition of the debate we had on clause 14 in order to determine what are general affairs. If it is important to argue that there are groups, I presume that it is also equally important to argue that in spite of the fact that there are groups in South Africa, it is necessary to have common areas. I do not intend doing that and I do not even intend encouraging the people to the left of me to follow this particular line.

I just want to react very briefly, if I may, to the comments of the hon. member for Durban Point, on behalf of the hon. member for Musgrave and to express appreciation that he responded immediately to the re quest that he defines his attitude. The hon. member—we are now dealing with general affairs which exclude own affairs—said that their attitude on these matters of whether it is general or not was that it should be a matter of local option, combined with dynamic pluralism. These were the two concepts. I can understand a degree of confusion and a problem on the part of the hon. member to define these terms exactly. I want to ask in specific terms, if one looks at, for example the beaches in Natal, are they now a general affair in terms of this clause. Would they have been described as a general affair or would they, subject to local option become an own affair and therefore be excluded from general affairs? That is what this clause deals with. I say this by no way in reproaching the hon. member.

The answer is simple. Durban owns its beaches. The other beaches all belong to the State and therefore they are general. [Interjections.]

On the question of local option, Mr. Ray Haslam, MEC, said at a conference last week, “The time has come for all race groups in Natal to share the facilities of all the beaches. Everyone has an inalienable right to a share in a place in the sun”. I am therefore assuming that there can be no … [Interjections.] There is no local option in this concern. This is saying that everyone has an inalienable right to a place in the sun. Therefore, all facilities must be shared by all people on all beaches. I am delighted. All I am saying is that I must assume that this is an illustration of dynamic pluralism and not an illustration of local option. [Interjections.] I think it is now clearer than light. However, I should like a further explanation … [Interjections.]

That second quotation was not from him. I do not know where you got that from.

I have it here. It is a quotation—

That is right. But you went on and said all facilities must be shared.

I did not. I quoted. Then we had a discussion. I am saying that I presume this means … [Interjections.] I said I presume it means that when it comes to beaches in Natal, all races must be able to share all…

All the beaches? That is not what he said.

Let me quote again. The gentleman said—

Order! I should like to point out that this clause reads that matters which are not own affairs of a population group in terms of section 14 are general affairs. The use of beaches, except in so far as it is in terms of legislation, does not form part of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I want to know whether in terms of an interpretation which the gentleman put on beaches, the use of beaches is a general affair. I thought that we are talking about…

Order! I should like to point out that this Bill deals with the method of legislation and how legislation shall be handled. Consequently the use of beaches is not in question in this clause.

Sir, may I address you on that ruling? This clause deals with general affairs—affairs which are not own affairs. Beaches are controlled in terms of legislation. Secondly, this Bill deals not only with legislation, but also with administration because the State President can assign administrations to Ministers either of own affairs or general affairs. So it deals with legislation to control own affairs and general affairs and administration to control own affairs and general affairs. All I am trying to find out is whether, in terms of this clause, in law and in administration, the beaches of Natal would be deemed to be general affairs. I had it from the hon. gentleman that they would be deemed to be general affairs. We have moved now from the question of local option to the concept that people have an inalienable right. [Interjections.]

It is so confusing, it is unbelievable. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with what constitutes general affairs. It deals with matters which are general affairs. [Interjections.]

It deals with general affairs from the point of view of legislation and Government administration. It therefore does not concern general political affairs. I want to make this very clear, so that there is no unpleasantness on that score.

To me—I should like to have your ruling on this, Sir—this concerns certain matters that are general affairs. That is very clear.

That is correct. General affairs must be seen in the light of the definition and its meaning in the legislation.

Sir, could you perhaps tell me where the definition of general affairs appears in the legislation?

In the list of definitions. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I want to ask you please to tell hon. members on the opposite side of the House to be quiet while the debate is in progress. [Interjections.]

Order!

You are turning Parliament into a circus. [Interjections.]

Order! When I call for order, I except hon. members to comply.

Mr. Chairman, I was addressing you on a point of order. I said that we on this side of the House cannot participate meaningfully in this debate if hon. members on the Government side are continually making remarks.

I have taken cognizance of that, and I shall do my best to maintain order on all sides. I want to make that very clear. The hon. member for Jeppe may proceed, but he must please confine himself to the clause.

I have not even begun yet.

I know, but I was just making that very clear.

That applies to you, too, Daan.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member for Turffontein is making interjections again. We cannot continue in this vein. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Jeppe may proceed.

Now I do not know where I was. [Interjections.] I shall begin at the beginning again. Clause 15 reads as follows—

Sir, before the noise began, you said that I must confine myself to the definition of “general affairs”, and if I remember correctly, I asked you where the definition appeared, whereupon you said that it appeared in the list of definitions. However, the definition puts us right back where we began. In terms of clause 100(1)(iv), general affairs are matters referred to in section 15. Therefore, this brings me back to the beginning. If I had to tell you what I should speak about, I think it means I should speak about matters which are general affairs.

In accordance with legislation, i.e. as envisaged in the Bill.

Yes, of course, Sir. I now want to speak about what constitutes general affairs. If one looks at clauses 15 and 100(1) and one reads the relevant parts, one is compelled to make a calculation. It seems to me that in order to determine what are general affairs, one must make a calculation by taking all affairs, and subtracting own affairs from them. I think that is logical. Therefore, if one excludes own affairs, what remains are general affairs. That is a simple calculation.

Our standpoint is that since, according to the formula that has been established, own affairs amount to nothing, all affairs are, in fact, general affairs.

Your calculation is incorrect.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says my calculation is incorrect. He will have a turn to speak and he can tell me then why I am wrong.

I shall speak when I wish.

Very well, the hon. the Deputy Minister can speak when he wishes.

Order! I ask hon. members kindly to give the hon. member for Jeppe the opportunity to speak.

Very briefly, our standpoint is: Because, in effect, all affairs are general affairs, it means that fully-fledged political power-sharing is being established in a fully integrated Constitution. The principle that has been approved here, is that there will be self-determination in respect of own affairs and co-responsibility in respect of general affairs. That is the principle I am basing my speech on.

Except that it is irrelevant now. How to deal with general affairs is contained in other clauses. This clause deals exclusively with the question of which matters are regarded as general affairs.

That is correct. Now I have to try to determine which matters are general affairs. I have looked at the plan of the House of Assembly and at the various ministries indicated on it. I did so on the basis of clause 15, concerning which matters are general affairs. I have no doubt—this is open to discussion, and we are conducting this debate so that we can argue with one another in a fitting manner to see whether or not our standpoints are correct—that all the matters mentioned on the plan of the House of Assembly, are therefore general affairs.

I have with me a quotation relating to general affairs, it is a quotation from Skietgoed van die Nasionale Party, 1975-’76. Reference is made on page 3453 to a speech made by the former hon. the Prime Minister at Heidelberg on 23 October 1975, and he is quoted as follows—

Those are general affairs—

“Gemeen” is perhaps not the right word, but it is the word he used. I read further—

I emphasize the word “konsulteer”—

The quotation goes on to say that the principle of government by the Cabinet means that there is no voting.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that although he has, in fact, made a point by quoting that passage, he is now quoting too much, since this clause is not concerned with how to deal with general affairs. It only deals with what constitutes general affairs.

There are only approximately three lines remaining, Sir, then I will have finished quoting.

But they are irrelevant.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the restrictions you are placing on me in discussing this clause, I have no choice but to tell you that, apparently, the only standpoint you will permit me to mention, is that we think all affairs are general affairs.

Mr. Chairman, on this clause, as you have ruled, we are going to discuss what are general affairs. The hon. member for Sea Point has raised quite an interesting example of the affect of clause 15 in particular in terms of present own affairs which will automatically become general affairs if this Bill is passed. In order to demonstrate that, I would like to refer to the present position and what would happen to it if this clause is in fact passed by Parliament.

The hon. member for Sea Point quite correctly identified that certain beaches in Natal fall under own affairs at the present moment, but will fall under general affairs if this clause is passed. For the record, I would like to just mention to the hon. members of the official Opposition that the beaches of Durban are owned by the Durban Corporation at present. They have total control, outside the laws of the province, to do whatever they like with those beaches. In the same vein, Richards Bay also owns its own beaches. The rest of the beaches in Natal belong to the various White local authorities all along the coast. However, I think we must differentiate between a beach and an amenity. I think this is where the hon. members of the official Opposition are making their mistake. The beaches in the rest of Natal, besides those of Richards Bay and Durban, belong to the State. The amenities belong to the local authorities and therefore a local authority only has a say about sharing or retaining exclusivity for any population group over the amenities. The amenities are situated 150 metres above the highwater mark. Local option, in terms of our policy, refers to a change in the present status of the use of amenities, if the majority of the burgesses of a particular local authority, through a fair referendum, decide that those amenities may be shared by other race groups. However, the question of the status of the beaches themselves, which are presently vested in the State and therefore in the White Parliament, will in terms of the context of this Bill actually become a general affair. I think this distinction is very important indeed. At present, it is impossible for a local authority outside Durban and Richards Bay, even if they do exercise local option, to actually change the character of the beach. I am not talking about the amenities now, but about the beach. This control of the beaches is actually vested in the State and the provincial council will finally determine what will happen to them.

Clause 15, which reads—

would now apply to the beaches outside of Durban and Richards Bay. Therefore my hon leader was quite correct when, in response to the hon. member for Sea Point, he said that the beaches will become general affairs if this Bill is passed. That will then be a matter which will have to be dealt with differently, as against the matter of the sharing of amenities, which will still remain a local option. I hope that the hon. members of the PFP have listened carefully and that they now have the message straight.

It is as clear as mud.

Well, then I cannot help that hon. member, because it is spelt out in the most simple terms possible. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, let me use a further example. When we come to the opening of the beaches and beach amenities in Durban, the hon. members will realize that, in terms of our policy, the opening of the beaches and amenities in Durban is vested in the lowest local authority. That local authority is the city council of Durban. The majority vote of that local authority, provided it is legal, will be the ultimate decision.

We presently have a problem in Durban. The local city council wish to open certain amenities and beaches to other population groups, which previously in terms of a bylaw of the local authority, were reserved for Whites. That decision of the city council which was passed by a majority is going to be referred to the Provincial Council of Natal, which is controlled by this party, for sanction.

I should like to point out that this clause does not permit a detailed discussion on that aspect. The hon. member has replied to the points raised by the hon. member for Sea Point, but he cannot continue to deal with this particular aspect in terms of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I respect your ruling. It was just because the hon. member for Groote Schuur said that he did not understand it that I was continuing the argument.

It is as clear as mud.

The effect of this clause in terms of the use of amenities has to be really carefully analyzed.

Does it mean that Blacks will be able to swim on a particular beach, but that they will not be able to use the fresh water showers?

That is quite correct. Outside Durban and Richards Bay that would be quite correct.

What do you think of it?

I think that is a legal right to have and that we must do everything possible …

Do you agree with it?

That is the de facto situation …

This is not relevant to the clause. The hon. member may proceed to speak on the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I am merely replying to the question of the hon. member for Groote Schuur. The de jure position regarding beaches and amenities on the rest of the Natal coast, excluding Durban and Richards Bay, will be effected by this clause. Quite correctly the beaches belong to the State and any member of any population group will therefore be able to use them. However, the amenities are the prerogative, the own affair, of a particular local authority. Our attitude in the NRP is that the town council only has the right to control those amenities, while the beaches belong to everybody. We think that is their God-given right, as was quoted by the hon. member for Sea Point. To resolve this problem is not only going to be a legal affair. If one group wished to reserve a beach and amenities for its own use, it is morally obliged to provide equal facilities and beaches for the use of other population groups. In fact, the Provincial Council of Natal has gone out of its way to offer financial assistance to local authorities who wish to develop amenities and beaches for other population groups.

I hope that this very simplistic explanation will help the official Opposition to understand our policy in Natal clearly.

Mr. Chairman, I think this party owes the hon. member for Durban North a reply.

An apology.

No, not an apology. A reply. The hon. member asked the hon. member for Sea Point, who is not in the House at the moment, by way of an interjection as to the exact quotation he used. I think it is his right to have that. Mr. Ray Haslam, M.P.C., said—

Is that clear?

Outside Durban and Richards Bay.

He did not say that.

Can I ask you a question?

All I wanted to do, was to set the record right. The hon. member for Durban North seemed to dispute the fact that the quotation originally offered by the hon. member for Sea Point was accurate. [Interjections.] If the hon. members of that party are saying that he has been misquoted, it is fair enough. I am not sure whether Mr. Haslam has actually taken this matter up or that he has disputed it, but it is normal practice that if you quote from a newspaper, you have the right to do that and that it is up to the person concerned to clear it up if he feels that he has been misquoted. I really find it very difficult to understand how the hon. member for Durban North can actually argue under general affairs and split the difference between the high-water mark, which is the height of absurdity—if you will allow me to use that phrase, Mr. Chairman—and the low-water mark. He has a god-given right to go into the water but he cannot go and use the toilet, and we complain about the mess.

That is the present law.

What we are arguing about and asking the hon. member for Durban North is what he thinks about that present situation. Does he think it is good or bad?

We think it is terrible.

That is fantastic. That is amazing. In other words, what the hon. member is saying is that they do not agree with local option in terms of facilities on beaches.

Through local option you can open them.

No, you cannot. You cannot have it both ways. If you think it is terrible, bad and wrong that they should open this …

Then you produce other separate amenities so that they will not open them.

Hon. members of the NRP are saying that they believe that they should be open. I rejoice with them. It is the first decent thing they have said for weeks. At long last they are coming into the light again. It really is great.

Are you arguing for White-only beaches in the Cape Peninsula?

We believe that all beaches should be open.

But you have Whites-only beaches in the Cape Peninsula.

I disagree with that fundamentally. We make no bones about it. We are arguing about it and we are fighting against it. However, to try and get an answer from that hon. member at the back and the hon. member in the front is like drawing teeth. The hon. member keeps saying: This is what it is like, this is not bad, this is how terrible it is, but they call it local option. It is a local option exercise and they say: Fine, let them sink in the water, but do not let them go into the toilet. We are arguing that you cannot have it both ways. That is the point. You cannot have a back-door and the NRP is forever looking for a back-door. We say you cannot have it. We say that if you are going to have general affairs and if a beach is a general affair matter, which those hon. members now seem to suggest it is, then it must be open and one cannot separate the beach from the facilities.

They are.

Legally they are separated.

It is no good trying to argue with the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. But perhaps I am wrong. Let me put it in the form of a question to that hon. member. I understand that the constituency that he represents has recently held a poll referring to some of the beaches, one of the beaches or more of the beaches.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I am dealing with general affairs.

Can we not just get the result of the poll?

No, hon. members must restrict their debate to the contents of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, that is very difficult, but I shall try.

You must start generalizing.

Mr. Chairman, my hon. colleague suggests that I start generalizing on this clause. I think the main thrust of our own argument—and I shall have to leave this for some other time—is that if one is going to argue on clause 14, as we have done, that there are certain matters which are own affairs, then, quite rightly, one must have the other side of the coin, namely that certain matters are general affairs. In order for us to be consistent, we believe that this is a false distinction, an unnecessary distinction and a very hurtful distinction. We shall be voting against this clause and because of that reason we do not believe that there ought to be a distinction between own affairs and general based on race.

Mr. Chairman, in terms of this clause and this concept, matters can either be an own affair of a single population group, or a general affair of all three population groups. I do not think it was envisaged that there would be affairs which would only affect two population groups, and not the third. Is that an own affair of those two groups, or is it a general affair? It cannot be a general affair, since it does not affect the third group. An example of this—to take one at random—is health services for Indians in the Free State. Of course, one could also refer to the right of Indians to own land and to occupy a home in the Free State; Surely this cannot be a general affair, since it only affects two population groups, i.e. the Whites and the Coloureds. Therefore, in terms of the present clause, one cannot speak of a general affair in this case. That is why there is confusion as to what precisely is an own affair. What is a general affair, and where does one find a specific definition of it? Where and how is one group excluded in terms of legislation in the case of a general affair? I believe these are questions the Government must answer. The problem that arises in discussing this clause, is that it is worded in such a way, that when one tries to obtain information on certain aspects of it, you are compelled to call one to order, Mr. Chairman. There are certain aspects of this clause—particularly when they have a bearing on provisions elsewhere in this legislation—one is simply not permitted to discuss. Therefore, the problem is that the information one wants is of such a nature that it must necessarily be sought elsewhere in the Bill. I believe that this is where the problem really lies. Consequently, it is difficult to say, for example, that a certain matter is a general affair, since perhaps it does not affect the Indians in the Free State.

No two people or legislators interpret the definition of general affairs in precisely the same way. Because this matter is extremely important, and because one has to know whether one is dealing with a general affair or an own affair as far as the new constitutional dispensation is concerned, I believe it is almost impossible not to refer to own affairs and general affairs simultaneously in order to point out the difference between the two.

If one were to take the cultural practices of the Indians as an example, one immediately has to contend with Certain specific problems. Supposing one of these is an Indian in the Free State. In terms of the legislation Of this Parliament, all 800 000 Indians in this country have a Veto right. On the other hand; two million Whites do not have that veto right.

4,5 million.

No, 2 million Afrikaans-Speaking people. In addition, 2,5 million English-speaking people do not have a veto right either. Only the provision of own affairs applies to them jointly even though there is a world of difference between their cultures. A general law makes provision for their own House in this Parliament. However, they are governed in the White House in view of the fact that there are own affairs for Whites, and although there are 2 million Afrikaners and 2,5 million English-speaking people, they do not have their own cultural rights, but the Indians do.

S. P., how can one person speak so much nonsense? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the hon. member for Johannesburg West that people who do not have the necessary intelligence, are unable to understand Einstein. [Interjections.] That is not Einstein’s fault, however. Those people only have their own inferior intellects to blame. It was not Einstein’s fault that people persecuted him because they could not understand him.

Order! I just want to point out to the hon. member for Langlaagte that this clause contains no provision with regard to Einstein.

Mr. Chairman, I shall now confine myself to the clause. In view of the arguments I have already raised, Mr. Chairman, every discussion of the present clause compels one to ask the question: Where does one begin and where does one end when general affairs are at issue? What precisely are general affairs? Mr. Chairman, in view of the wording of the clause, I simply cannot interpret the concept general affairs, mainly because I would have to refer to clause 16. If I should attempt to discuss another clause or schedule of this Bill, in order to try to interpret the definition of general affairs, you would certainly not permit me to do so, Mr. Chairman. However, the fact remains that we are in the dark about this. All three the population groups are very uncertain as to what their rights are in terms of the present legislation. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with consensus, Therefore, we would like those people to understand what this is all about. They must also be able to say whether they agree with what they can expect in the new dispensation. Consequently, I do not think hon. members on the Government side should become so obstreperous when the discussion centres around what an own affair and what a general affair entails. Therefore, when one considers general affairs, as they are defined in the present clause, they are apparently only restricted to financial capabilities and to judicial decisions. [Interjections.] No, these are important matters, Mr. Chairman. That is why we are concerned about the fact that the definitions in the present clause are not worded in such a way that they can provide absolute clarity on what own affairs and general affairs really entail.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interfere in the argument between the NRP and the PFP. I think that they are quite capable of sorting it out among themselves. [Interjections.]

You are a grass-bushman.

I may be a grass-bush-man hut I must honestly, say that I cannot describe what that hon. member is. [Interjections.] I think the hon. member for Langlaagte was really splitting hairs in connection with an argument which we have had over and over again in this Committee. One would not say that we have been debating for seven hours in order to help those hon. members to determine what own affairs are before we come to general affairs. For that reason I am not going to get involved in that argument again. I think the argument which the hon. member for Langlaagte raised here was an absolutely ridiculous one. The mechanisms are there. The President will determine what own affairs and general affairs are in terms of the guidelines laid down. [Interjections.] In terms of the guidelines laid down with regard to what own affairs are. The rest are general affairs. That is, after all, what has been laid down. Apparently the hon. member cannot understand it. What about 1977, for example, when he supported the NP’s proposed three Parliaments? Surely the arguments he is raising now would have been equally valid then in terms of the 1977 proposals. I also want to tell the hon. member for Langlaagte, with all due respect, that one cannot, in legislation, debate one clause in isolation in the Committee Stage, The principle is adopted at Second Reading, but in the Committee Stage only the detail of the clauses is debated.

For the record I just want to put one point straight, Sir. The hon. member for Jeppe said that in terms of your ruling he now has to accept that all affairs are general affairs,

I did not say that.

The hon. member did, in fact, say that. Let him go and read his Hansard. He went on to say that he now had to accept that this was full political integration.

But surely it is.

There is one thing I want to point out to the hon. member.

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

No, Sir. I do not want to answer any questions. There is this one point I want to put to the hon. member. How can this be full political integration after own affairs have been determined, after the guidelines have been laid down, after the mechanisms have been determined for reaching that point, and after this legislation has made provision for three Houses to decide separately on the question of own affairs and to consider affairs of common concern as well? How can that constitute full political integration? The hon. member for Jeppe presented us here with a statement by the former Prime Minister, stating that Mr. Vorster had said that decision-making in regard to own affairs—the hon. member must correct me if I am wrong—would be done by the Cabinet in consultation with people of colour, on the basis of a Cabinet-form of government. That is what the hon. member said. He said that Mr. Vorster had said that the Cabinet would consult with other Coloured groups on the basis of a Cabinet-form of government. The hon. member surely knows what government by the Cabinet means. The Cabinet meets, and the hon. member knows that a Cabinet does not vote. A Cabinet works on the principle of consensus, and the Prime Minister takes a decision after consensus has been achieved.

And if he does not achieve consensus?

Then the Minister who does not agree with him resigns.

Surely the proposed dispensation is being introduced on the same basis. On the advice of his Ministers’ Council and his Cabinet the State President decides on what own affairs are, and those matters which he decides are not own affairs, are general affairs. We on this side of the Committee are quite satisfied that both the arrangement contained in clause 15, that contained in the clause we have just finished debating, have been quite adequately dealt with. Clause 14 provides for own affairs, and the principle of co-responsibility is contained in clause 15.

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

No, the hon. member may not ask me any questions.

I should like to conclude. We on this side of the Committee are grateful for the Government’s approach in drafting the legislation in such a way that “own affairs” are determined first and clearly identified according to the guidelines laid down. The fact is that after own affairs have been determined, it is very clear what general affairs or affairs of common concern are.

We do not consider it necessary to have another marathon 7-hour debate when it comes to this clause, because we would then merely have to repeat what was said during the discussion of clause 14. If we had first determined what general affairs were and had then said that the rest were own affairs, it would have been most confusing. This side of the Committee is satisfied that co-responsibility on matters of general concern should be dealt with as is now the case. Hon. members can clarify the matter for themselves by re-reading the debate on clause 14, because there it is clearly highlighted. For that reason we have pleasure in supporting clause 15.

Mr. Chairman, after the debates we had today it was very clear that clause 14 was introduced to bluff the Whites of this country. Clause 15 was included in the legislation after the Government had gone to the Whites with clause 14 and the definition we find there, i.e. that such an absolutely wide interpretation is given to own affairs that they include not only the entire, total culture, but also the entire, total historical course of events leading up to it. That is why I say it is being done to bluff the Whites.

Clause 15 is a game of bluff which will begin if it ever happens that the Government party wins the White referendum, for then the Government will go to the Coloured people and the Indians and tell them that the definition of general affairs is more or less the sum total of all affairs discussed in this Parliament. We must have no uncertainty about that.

A second aspect I wish to point out is that at this stage of the debate it is very clear that the Government party has done its best to push the Bill through as quickly as possible. The proof of this statement I find in the rules of the House of Assembly being used in the discussion of the previous clause to terminate the debate on this matter.

Is that what clause 15 provides?

Order!

In the debate between the PFP and the NRP up to now a considerable time has been spent talking about the beaches of Durban and those elsewhere in the country and about the question of whether or not local option should be applied. In the discussion which the hon. member for Turffontein had—I made a note of this—no fewer than 12 matters were discussed under the clause which had nothing whatsoever to do with it. That is why the previous clause began by giving a definition of own affairs which included everything, and then on the other hand something was added to the clause which nullified it completely. Furthermore, the clause provided that matters which were not own affairs of a population group in terms of section 14 were general affairs. In the discussion of the previous clause, the hon. the Minister replied to very few of the material questions put to him by the CP. I wish to point out to the Minister that there is an unwillingness on his part of the House to conduct any debate with us whatsoever … [Interjections.] Let me finish my sentence. I welcome the attempt on the part of the hon. the Minister to participate in the debate, but his side of the House are not doing so.

What has that to do with the clause?

The hon. member for Turffontein probably touched upon 12 or more points during his speech on this matter. Consequently I am now replying in part to what the hon. member said. Let me repeat, therefore, that there is no debate on the part of the hon. members of the governing party in respect of this matter.

So what?

I know the hon. the Deputy Minister says “So what?”. The governing party must not think that the debate on clause 14 or 15 has ended when we are finished with it here today or tomorrow. From here the debate will continue in the country and I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he understands very little of these things.

Let us wait until 2 November.

Order!

The definition of general affairs in the Bill is vague and it becomes even vaguer because in the previous clause with the definition of own affairs, the governing party drew a line through it after it had been defined. I want the hon. the Minister to give us a very clear explanation during this debate and during the discussion of this clause, because we are not allowed, owing to your rulings, Mr. Chairman, to tabulate general affairs as members of the other two parties did when they debated this matter.

Surely I did not propose it. Surely I could not do more than this side of the House did.

No, I am not quarrelling with the Minister, nor am I threatening him. As far as this discussion is concerned, I have nothing against the hon. the Minister.

None of you did.

Having said now that everything which in terms of clause 14 is not an own affair is a general affair, we should very much like to know from the hon. the Minister how he as a responsible person—and I think there are very few hon. members on that side of the House, apart from the hon. the Minister, who understand this—arrives at the definition of general affairs in clause 15, in view of the definition in clause 14.

Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to the discussions on the previous clauses as well as on this clause. I find it really disturbing that hon. members of the CP said during the discussion of the previous clause that everything was a general affair while nothing could be categorized as an own affair. Now they come to this clause and allege, in the first place, that one cannot define general affairs in the broad sense without also being able to identify own affairs. I think there are two aspects one must clear up. I want to tax the CP with their own arguments of the past. They have always told Afrikaans-speaking Whites that what was their own was going to be sold out in the new dispensation. That was what they said.

We still do. [Interjections.]

They say that they still do and are going to continue to do so in future. In this debate, however, they are saying that there is no such thing as an own affair. [Interjections.] If they say that there is nothing that can be identified as an own affair, surely they are denying the own affairs of White Afrikaners in this country. How ambiguously they are arguing in this process! [Interjections.] It is true. In their own arguments those hon. members proceeded from the standpoint that one was unable to define own affairs in respect of this legislation.

According to your formula.

Let us argue another matter. Until recently we were still agreed on self-determination and co-responsibility. I assume that those hon. members continue to accept this, although they do not say so.

For a short while, you did not agree either.

I came to my senses. It is a good thing if one comes to one’s senses in time. If one accepts the principle of self-determination and co-responsibility, one accepts that there are own affairs as well as general affairs. Per definition one must first accept that one is either going to define own affairs, or general affairs, and that what cannot be defined in one way will per definition be considered to be the other. Do hon. members of the CP accept in this argument that it is easier to define own affairs or that it is easier to define general affairs? Or are they unable to define either of the two? Let met ask the hon. member for Rissik. Would it be easier to define own affairs?

We differ fundamentally with this legislation. [Interjections.]

These hon. members have always said, and proclaimed this outside, that the education of our children and the coming generations was the basis of a people-in-the-making. It is an own affair. Today they are saying that it cannot be defined. They are saying it in this House.

Not according to your formula.

During the discussion on clause 14 the hon. member for Brakpan said that per definition nothing was an own affair and that everything was a general affair. Those were his words. Do those hon. members now wish to allege that one cannot define own affairs? Those hon. members must not run away now. Let us first dispose of this point. Are one’s own educational affairs an own affair or not? Do they accept that they can be an own affair? [Interjections.] If they accept that they are an own affair, do they accept that there are other own affairs as well, such as residential areas, which have been indicated as own affairs according to the guidelines of the party?

Subject to general laws.

According to hon. members, general laws include finances. I want to tell the hon. members of the CP that financial matters, in the nature of things, can never be an own affair. [Interjections.] this is the way it is in practice. It is a truth. The reason is that finances are vested in all the people and have to be approved by all the Houses. Now I ask: Did hon. members of the CP accept that as far as education is concerned, the Transvaal Provincial Administration could control its own affairs, and were all the funds voted for that purpose voted only by the province, or were they voted in general? If the respective provinces are not categorically able to vote those funds, then the hon. members of the CP are basically wrong in their approach to this principle. [Interjections.] The hon. members must grant me that basic principle. I say that the CP, in its approach to this discussion and in the arguments which they advance, are trying to make petty political capital in order to win votes.

That is not true.

The hon. member for Jeppe should be the last one to talk. I shall discuss this with the other hon. members, but he should be the last one.

I think it is fundamentally correct that one should first define own affairs, after which the other affairs are general affairs. In principle that is correct. I think it is practicable. I accept that there will, of course, be certain problems in future. These can then be sorted out in practice under clause 16.

Mr. Chairman, it would seem to me that the hon. member for Ventersdorp drew a comparison between the provincial councils and a House.

As far as finances were concerned.

As far as finances were concerned, but also as far as education was concerned.

You did the same thing yourself.

Yes, I did the same thing. I said that the new Houses would have fewer rights than a province. The hon. member for Ventersdorp asked what we had against the rights which a province had because a province could put its own policy into practice and look after its own affairs in the province. I say the CP will never accept that as part of its self-determination. That is the point. We shall never accept that as part of its self-determination. That is the point. We shall never accept that in respect of three exceptions the House will be subordinate to a central Government. It will be in respect of money and in respect of many other things. It will then be by way of a sop, a sales gimmick, to get this Bill accepted. The hon. member for Ventersdorp, exactly like the hon. member for Virginia this afternoon, is struggling with this problem. They are just not able to suggest a solution to us.

I want to illustrate this further by referring to clause 26 of the 1979 Bill, because there one also finds an attempt to define what general affairs and what own affairs are.

That clause 26 does not deal with general affairs.

No, but clause 26 stated that legislative power in the Republic was vested in the House of Assembly. It was therefore a general affair. Legislative power in its entirety belonged to the White Parliament. That was what the 1979 Bill stated. I want to point out to the hon. Minister once again that I have correspondence here in which we asked the then Minister …

Who wrote that letter?

I did.

Then why do you say “we”?

There were others who also objected.

In the form of letters?

I mean in the form of letters as well, yes. I just want to say that the hon. the Minister should look at my own Hansard, and specifically at column 4415 el seq., in the 1982 Hansard.

What date?

The Hansard of 14 April 1982. There I pointed out to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs of the time, who is now chairman of the President’s Council …

Was that in 1982?

Yes, 14 April 1982 [Interjections.]

It is in Hansard.

All you have to do is listen.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has been talking throughout this entire debate, but when we get an opportunity to speak, he does not want to give us a chance to do so. I am referring to correspondence which I had with the then Minister of Internal Affairs on 14 April 1982. The date of that letter of mine was 26 March 1979. In it I said to the then Minister—

To which the hon. the Minister replied …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member dealing with the subject now? [Interjections.]

Order! I do not think the hon. member for Brakpan was in the House when I indicated that this clause was very circumscribed. We cannot discuss the powers of Parliament here, because they are dealt with in a different clause. This clause states—

I therefore request the hon. member to base the discussion of the clause on this.

Mr. Chairman, I quite understand your ruling and I am trying to remain within the limits specified. The point is, however, that when one refers to clause 26 of the previous 1979 Bill one finds that it is in fact relevant because that clause of the old Bill also seeks to distinguish general affairs from own affairs. Hence, Sir, the standpoint of the Conservative Party. The intensive argument which was then in progress, and did not take place solely in the caucus of the National Party that dropped the matter at the time by referring it to the president’s Council, but which was also conducted in the President’s Council itself, was concerned with this question: How is one ultimately going to arrive at a definition of general affairs and own affairs in the same territory when three different Governments are governing. [Interjections.] Sir, I wonder whether the hon. member for East London City has any idea or even an approximate conception of what we are dealing with here. I cannot imagine that he, with his high and exceptional I.Q., will understand what these are concerned with. I think he should rather keep quiet.

The position now is that we find ourselves in 1983; the President’s Council has attempted to give attention to these matters; the caucus of the National Party has given attention to these matters. Now I want to reply to what my hon. friend said earlier this evening: “Experience has taught us”. Firstly, Sir, experience has taught us that one does not …

No, I did not say that.

Sir, the hon. member for Barberton said, “experience has taught us”, and the hon. the Minister reacted to that. But what precisely he wanted to say I do not know. However, I just wish to say this: The hon. member for Barberton said that experience had taught us that since 1979 until the present it had not been possible to define these two matters in one territory. The second thing which the hon. member learned from experience was that if the party of which one has been a member for years decides to follow the road of integration one has to find another alternative way of solving this problem, and that is linked to a geographical area.

Mr. Chairman, I am merely rising to react to what the hon. member for Brakpan has said. I want to ask him a few questions arising from his speech.

The hon. member says that on 26 March 1979 he wrote a letter to the Minister of Internal Affairs in which he set out his objections to the provisions of clause 26 of the 1979 legislation.

That is correct.

I assume that the hon. member for Brakpan consulted his leader in the Transvaal from time to time about his problems in connection with certain clauses of that Bill. [Interjections.] The hon. member must not try to evade the question. I am debating his standpoint with him. It is not necessary for the hon. member for Barberton to tell the hon. member for Brakpan what to say. I take the hon. member’s word for it that he wrote a letter to the Minister concerned at the time. The date on which he wrote it was 26 March 1979. He says he dealt with it in a debate which took place in this House on 14 April 1982. These dates are very interesting. When the hon. member wrote the letter, he was a member of the NP. No one disputed his right to take a stand on the matter. When the hon. member wrote the letter, however, the draft Bill had already been referred to a Select Committee.

I have it in writing here that the decision to appoint a Select Committee was taken on 30 March.

That is even better, for now the hon. member is helping me. He says that the wrote the letter before the Bill was referred to a Select Committee. He wrote the letter to the Minister of a party to which he belonged. The hon. member knows that the Bill was then referred to a Select committee.

On 30 March.

That Bill was referred on behalf of this party.

Was the caucus consulted on the matter?

I am not talking about the caucus now, I am talking to the hon. member for Brakpan. After the hon. member had written the letter, the Bill was referred to a Select committee in terms of a decision of this party, of which the hon. member was a member.

Who took the decision?

The NP as Government. Who does the hon. member think takes the decisions?

Was the caucus consulted on the matter?

The hon. member was there.

That is not true.

I want to concede at once that my concept of truth and that of the hon. member for Jeppe are not the same.

You are getting insulting again.

I am not being insulting. [Interjections.]

Order!

I just want to say that at least I do not turn up at certain places without having been invited.

That is not true.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Rissik allowed to say that what the hon. the Minister has said is an untruth and that he knows it?

Mr. Chairman, I did say that it was an untruth, but I did not say that the hon. the Minister knew it. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I take it that the hon. member for Brakpan had very serious misgivings about that provision in that draft legislation …

Yes.

In other words, the hon. member had serious misgivings about that provision, otherwise he would not have written a letter. Is that a reasonable deduction?

Yes.

The hon. member says it is a reasonable deduction. I also take it that when the hon. member has such serious objections and when he writes letters about the matter to which he objects, he will surely consult his leader about the matter. I would. I would at any rate have asked my leader what he thought I should do about my objection. I therefore take it that the hon. member for Brakpan has the same respect for his hon. leader as I have for mine.

But he did that.

I have an idea that the hon. member and I would have done exactly the same thing, and I think that this is what he did. I know the hon. member for Brakpan. He would have done it.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is this discussion relevant to the clause?

It is difficult for me to interpret whether it is relevant because I do not know what the contents of the letter are.

It may be interesting, but it is not relevant.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

The hon. member says that he then wrote a letter, and I say it is reasonable to infer that the hon. member for Brakpan, who is an extremely good and loyal party man, would have informed his leader at that stage. Furthermore, I must infer that his leader was aware of the fact that he had written a letter, because he was a member of the Government. Arising from this, I want to ask the hon. member only two questions. How is it possible that his leader at that time, who is still his leader today, could have said on 3 February 1982, without qualification, that that Bill represented the standpoint of his party? He said: Not one of the members of my party raised any objection to the clauses. He said that the evidence he had was contained in that Bill. It is that one to which the hon. member is referring. What I also find disturbing is that after the statement made by the hon. leader of his party, then and now, the hon. member for Brakpan did not rise immediately at the next caucus meeting and say: “Look, I just want to say that it is true that you have said this and I understand why, but I want to tell you among ourselves that I did object to the legislation and that I informed you of this.” Surely this is not true. The fact is that the hon. member for Brakpan first referred to his objections on 14 April 1982. Do hon. members know what they were? At that time the hon. member was no longer a member of the party which his leader had supported in the past. That is why I say, with all due respect, that this kind of hair-splitting will not get us anywhere.

I now wish to discuss the clause itself. The hon. members who have participated in the discussion of this clause are the hon. member for Jeppe and the hon. member for Durban North. All that is contained in this clause is the principle that there are general affairs. The principle contained in it is that the meaning of the term “general affairs” is determined by the preceding clause. I also understand the standpoint of the hon. member for Sea Point and his party. They are not concerned with the meaning of the term “general affairs”. The hon. member and his party object to the fact and—I am not reproaching them; they have every right to do so—that it should be argued that there can be a division into own or general affairs at all with regard to the population groups concerned. This I accept. However, if this is the hon. member’s argument, I believe, he must also accept that we cannot give much weight to his party’s standpoint that a concept such as group interests does exist. After all, group interests are only identified on the basis of the interests of the group itself. I do not wish to argue the matter with the hon. member now. However, the fact remains—and I give the hon. member credit for that; I am praising him, therefore … [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the hon. member does not want to be praised. [Interjections.] The fact remains, however, that the hon. member’s philosophy—in terms of his own and his party’s arguments; and the hon. member for Pinelands also confirmed this with regard to this particular clause …

It is all very well but …

Well, it is always an objective test. The hon. member will understand that. [Interjections.]

*The philosophy of the PFP is also reflected in their standpoint on this clause, of course. Therefore it is no use arguing with one another about the substance of the clause. The hon. members are opposed to the concept of it, and for that reason I believe, we need not reply to the hon. members on this.

Mr. Chairman, I merely want to resolve this issue with the hon. the Minister. Our objection is to the formal statutory definition of “own affairs”, and more particularly when that statutory definition of “own affairs” or “general affairs” is imposed by one group on all groups. We do not say there are not general matters or group matters but we believe that those matters manifest themselves within a society by the natural grouping of people around particular issues, whether they are general or own. What we are arguing against, however …

Order! I regret that the hon. member has seen fit to raise this argument. It deals with the principle which was already agreed to at Second Reading, and which can be discussed again at Third Reading. It is, however, not relevant to clause 15.

Mr. Chairman, I think I must really try to help the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.]

You will have to help him a lot more; he has praised you; do not forget.

Yes, it seems as though I will have to help the hon. the Minister a lot. They believe in rigid statutory association and we believe in voluntary association. That is all.

I want to come to one other point now, Mr. Chairman, which, I believe, is relevant to this clause. It is also, I believe, relevant to the debate which has preceded this one. That is the following. The hon. the Minister, in respect of either own affairs or group affairs, has indicated that this legislation should be seen as a “vertrekpunt”.

*The hon. the Minister has said repeatedly that this is not the end of the road; it is merely a point of departure. He has said that this is merely a starting point.

We can debate that again at Third Reading.

I should like the hon. the Minister to explain to me how he sees this matter.

I shall explain the matter again fully at Third Reading.

I think we should discuss it now, Mr. Chairman. After all, the relationship between own affairs and general affairs is a subtle one. The one depends upon the other. All that I want to know from the hon. the Minister is the goal this point of departure is aiming at. Is it a point of departure aiming at more general affairs, of more togetherness in the community, or is it a point of departure aimed at more self-determination or more apartheid? I am asking this because hon. members of the CP say it is a point of departure aiming at more and more general affairs. That is also why they do not want to support it.

Unfortunately the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs is not in the House at present. I want to allege, however, that in those two adjoining benches in this House—the bench of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs and that of the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—there are actually two approaches to what this legislation eventually aims at achieving. Among the people to whom the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning talks …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Sea Point not discussing the wrong clause now? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Sea Point may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of this side of the Committee let me now conclude. I am saying it is of cardinal importance. In which direction is this clause moving? The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, who is not present here, gave us a clear exposition today, as he did in the Select Committee too. What his explanation amounted to was that as this Bill, this system, developed, more and more affairs would be moving in the direction of self-determination or apartheid. There are many members of the public, however, who gained a different impression from the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, viz. that the real point of departure was aimed at fewer own affairs and more general affairs. I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning what effect he foresees this clause having in the future. Is this in the direction of—the impression that many businessmen have—moving away from apartheid? Is it a step in the right direction in the sense of moving away from apartheid, from self-determination, from discrimination, in the direction of more and more general affairs and joint decision-making, or in the direction of even more apartheid and even more separate decision-making? I am asking that question because there are two different nuances in evidence from those two benches.

Order! That point has been discussed several times.

Possibly, Sir, but I do not believe as effectively as it is being discussed now! [Interjections.] I just want to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us, when replying to this debate and stating his viewpoint, whether he is speaking for himself or on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. In what direction are we moving with this clause? Are we moving in the direction of general affairs, apartheid and self-determination or are we moving in the direction of co-responsibility? This is a crucial question because the electorate will not be judging this legislation on the basis of what is on the Statute Book, but rather in terms of what they believe the Government’s intention to be. In which direction is South Africa moving—in the direction of more self-determination or in the direction of more co-responsibility?

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to react to the hon. member for Sea Point. It is very interesting to note, as far as orderly debate is concerned, that this is the second time in the debate today that hon. members of the Opposition have told us that they are putting their party’s case better than previous speakers have done.

Better than hon. members on that side.

No, the hon. member for Sea Point himself said that he was putting the matter better than it had been put before. [Interjections.] I accept the competition which exists among hon. members opposite. [Interjections.] Yes, of course.

But the hon. the Minister has no competition over there!

Mr. Chairman, I say that I understand the competition which exists over there. The hon. member for Sea Point asked me a fair question. He asked what I regarded as the basic premise of this legislation, and I should very much like to reply to that.

Whether it seeks to bring about more or less apartheid.

The hon. member for Sea Point must please give me a chance. I listened to him patiently. I would advise the hon. member to do the same, because it does one good to listen to other people. It is an unsettling experience which he has never had, but he really should try it. What are the facts? As far as the premise of this legislation is concerned, the Government’s standpoint is as follows. If one wishes to reduce or avoid conflict, what is required, apart from what we are discussing now, is a division into own and general affairs as well as a devolution of power—a devolution of decision-making. This is in accordance with a principle which the hon. member for Sea Point should understand, namely that the Government should be brought as close as possible to the communities that are to be served by that instrument. The hon. member for Sea Point will agree with this as well. The hon. member knows, after all, that the decision-making in terms of that particular principle, namely that decision-making should be decentralized to community institutions, has not yet been defined or accepted. The hon. member for Sea Point also knows—I say this in all fairness—that in order to achieve this, there will have to be a reallocation of powers to various levels of government. Moreover, there will have to be a reallocation of funds to the particular level of government which one wishes to perform certain functions. The hon. member must please give me a chance now. Surely the hon. member knows that from that point of view, these proposals are points of departure.

The hon. member was a member of the Select Committee and the hon. member knows that we did not discuss second-tier government on that Committee. We did not discuss the provincial system and its functions on that Committee, once again because no decision had been taken on the matter, except that there should be a reallocation of powers, functions and funds. I make no apology for adopting the standpoint that those investigations should be conducted locally. The hon. member will concede to me that the Cape Town City Council is one of the institutions that have requested us to reinvestigate the functions of local authorities. The hon. member should not shake his head now; surely this is a fact. A lot of the constitutional proposals at various levels have resulted from the fact that local authority systems have requested an investigation into their financial situations because the survival of those systems depended on new financial arrangements. The hon. member will not dispute this and there is not even a political quarrel about it.

The question is more or less apartheid.

I am coming to that. I have told the hon. member what my argument is. My argument is that in terms of the concept of the devolution of power, we are providing for government at the local level, and that we are doing this by creating a sufficient number of autonomous units to enable communities to take their own decisions. This has nothing to do with apartheid; it has everything to do with the concept that government should be brought as close as possible to the community. That is the only consideration.

It is a good idea.

I need not tell the hon. member what the merits of such a standpoint are. After all, he knows the history of Cape Town.

More apartheid or less apartheid.

No, just a little more order.

Order! I realize that the hon. the Minister is replying to a question asked by the hon. member for Sea Point, but he is nevertheless digressing a little in his argument and going beyond the scope of the clause.

But, Sir, then you must not allow the questions either.

I shall try to do so.

The answer, in a single sentence, is this: The Government believes that if one is to reduce the conflict in this country, there must be a devolution of decision-making to autonomous units which are basically orientated towards the population groups. The hon. member can decide for himself whether this constitutes less or more apartheid, but I am saying that this is the Government’s objective.

You must tell us.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister was quite surprised when I pointed out to him that the 1979 draft constitution had provided that legislative power in the Republic was vested in the House of Assembly, because he did not reply to that statement of mine. Legislative power was not vested in the State President and the House of Assembly; it was vested only in the House of Assembly.

I said so.

But the hon. the Minister looked rather shocked to me at that stage. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Brakpan should please note that the power of Parliament or the power of any House of Parliament is not relevant here.

Sir, I should like to obey your ruling on this aspect. I should like to come back to something if you will allow me, but if you do not allow me, I shall quite understand that. I just want to make the point that in his reply to the point I had made concerning the struggle which had been going on since 1979 in respect of the definition of “general affairs” and “own affairs” within one territory, the hon. the Minister tried to score a debating point by asking whether I had discussed the matter with my leader or something of that nature. However, he did not reply to the point I had made, i.e. that this still did not offer a solution with regard to the difference between general affairs and own affairs in a separate territory. Furthermore, I want to tell him that he should look up the Hansard from which I read to him. At that stage, when I wrote that letter on 30 March, the entire NP caucus knew of the problems which we were experiencing. We argued until 1 o’clock that afternoon with the then hon. Minister of Internal Affairs. That afternoon he was tired, because many questions had been asked about this matter of own and general affairs and clause 26, so much so that the meeting was adjourned at that stage. There are hon. members on this side of the House who had attended it. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs was chairman of Coloured Affairs at the time. He also sat at the table in front. I could mention the names of some other people in this connection. A heated debate was going on within the NP about this very problem during that period. The then Minister of Internal Affairs replied to my letter on 5 April through his private secretary, and I quote—

What happened, however? As early as 30 March …

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member for Brakpan that a discussion of this aspect would be more appropriate during the Second or Third Reading debates. It is really not appropriate during a Committee Stage discussion.

In that case, Mr. Chairman, I simply wish to conclude and to say that we are awaiting a reply by the hon. the Minister in respect of what he regards as general affairs and what he regards as own affairs.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back to that aspect of clause 15 that specifies what must be regarded as general affairs. This is an aspect that, in point of fact, lies on a point of contact among three clauses of the legislation, and I hope I shall be permitted to refer to the other components as well. I refer to a point of contact among clauses 14 and 15 and Schedule 1. This is a matter that has been touched on by several hon. members, viz. the fact that it appears from Schedule 1 that certain defined aspects of the clauses of subject defined as own affairs in Schedule 1 are so defined that that definition is subject to general legislation with regard to those specific defined aspects. It has been alleged here that the fact that some of the defined classes of own affairs are defined in such a way that they are subject to general legislation in regard to specific defined matters, has the affect that that own affair as a whole is, as it were, watered down and converted into a general affair. I think that this is a very important matter because it forms a specific category of general affairs in terms of this eliminative definition under clause 15. These aspects in regard to which the possibility of general laws are created, are aspects of own affairs that do not relate, specifically and separately, only to a specific population group, but by their inherent nature affect all population groups involved here and as such must therefore be dealt with on the basis of general affairs.

I now wish to argue that this category of general affairs, viz. these singled out, defined aspects of own affairs that can be dealt with by way of general legislation, do not by reason of their existence uplift the inherent importance and extent of the specific classes of own affairs, but comprise are a definition—and I want to repeat this—only of defined, limited aspects of those own affairs, that for inherent reasons, must be dealt with as general affairs. Without going into detail I do just want to refer by way of illustration to the fact that it is a common phenomenon in education—there are various other own affairs, too, but this occurs in education in particular—that it is subject to general laws with regard to specific aspects of education.

To bring home my argument that this is not an abrogation of the own affairs character of education, I want to point out, in the first place, that what are at issue here are limited and defined aspects of education. Only three aspects of education are at issue, and thus the balance, the greater part of education, is excluded. The issues are financing, staff matters and examination and certification standards. However, not only is this a matter of three limited and defined spheres, it is also concerned only with a specific aspect, a specific point of view or approach, in those three spheres. They are defined as matters susceptible to general legislation in regard to norms and standards of those defined spheres, not in regard to all aspects of those spheres. Therefore this does not affect the way in which the management, control, executive function and the operationalization of education operates in these spheres of financing, staff matters and certification and standards.

Order! I wish to point out to the hon. the Minister that that aspect can be discussed fully when we discuss the schedule. The hon. the Minister indicated that he wished to mention it by way of illustration.

Therefore I shall let that suffice and I shall not refer to that matter again.

I should like to elucidate two further aspects to indicate that this matter does not in any way disrupt the situation as regards the authority of the bodies responsible for general affairs and those responsible for own affairs. For example, in the present setup we have a statutory body like the Joint Matriculation Board which sets certain norms in regard to education standards with which all education departments must comply and have always complied, without there having been any question of this interfering with the in authority or autonomy. The other example has already been mentioned—although I certainly do not wish to intimate there by that it is a full analogy—viz. Government bodies concerned with own affairs and Government bodies concerned with general affairs on the one hand, and the provinces and the central Government on the other. Nevertheless it is also true that in various spheres in which the provinces have autonomy—not derived autonomy, but direct autonomy which is granted them primarily by the constitution itself—the central Government nevertheless has specific regulatory, co-ordinating functions without this meaning that the authority and autonomy of the provinces is negated. I believe that this will also be the case as regards general laws on these particular affairs. Therefore I want to distinguish very clearly the category of general affairs that arises when defined, limited aspects of own affairs are made susceptible to general legislation, as a case which does not significantly interfere with the authority and character of own affairs.

Indeed, I wish to state that whatever the political relationship among the three population groups, in all these cases in which specific aspects of own affairs are singled out for general legislation, the inherent nature of the matters is such that there must be a form of authoritative co-ordination in those fields, whether we have the three population groups in three Parliaments or in three Houses of Parliament, or even in the dispensation proposed by hon. members of the CP, viz. a White House of Assembly that vests specific authority in a subordinate body for Indians and a subordinate body for Coloureds. It is simply unimaginable that as far as these standards are concerned—as far as, say, examinations and certification in education and in the other specified instances are concerned—one could have different systems for the different population groups without this being made subject to the minimum standards with which all must comply. Otherwise one would have chaos and even discrimination in reverse, if one could call it that. One would no longer know whether a specific certificate or examination in one department was equivalent to that in a different department. Unless one also, in accordance with the dream of the CP, isolates these examination systems in totally separate states, because the examinations are intended for population groups in the same country and in the same professional market, one would have to make provision for such matters to be regulated by ordering them on the basis of general affairs. These matters do not only have an own character.

I contend that this is an extremely important matter which, by implication, as it were, is defined in clause 15.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister said that there was an interface between clause 14, 15 and 16, but he has missed that interface completely. Naturally education is an own affair. That has already been determined by the previous clause having been passed, and also in the schedules. [Interjections.]

As far as the definition of general affairs is concerned, they are obviously those not included under own affairs. According to that definition one can say that own affairs are those which are not essential to the maintenance and furtherance of the culture, the traditions and the way of life of a specific group. Obviously there are a number of matters left which are excluded and are therefore definitely general affairs. Those are affairs having nothing to do with the culture, traditions, etc., of a specific group.

I should like to ask a few questions about those general affairs. I should like to refer specifically to transport affairs, for example. Since transport affairs are not listed in the schedules, they will be general affairs. One will be able to say, therefore, that no affair which deals with transport is an own affair of a specific group. Suppose the City Council of Durban applies for the integration of their bus services because it is a general affair and the Minister has also said that the devolution of power as regards the performance of duties, etc., would be a good thing. One would therefore expect the Transport Commission to say: “Certainly; first of all the Minister has said that the devolution of power would be a good idea in the process of government and consequently they themselves should run their own affairs as general affairs.” Then the Transport Commission, in respect of every bus service which is not integrated, out to …

Order! This clause has nothing to do with the powers of any authority. It states only that matters which are not own affairs are general affairs.

That is correct.

The hon. member must please confine himself to the clause.

I should like to confine myself to the clause. I just want to illustrate my question with an example. That is all I want to do. I am merely illustrating it with the example of transportation as a general affair.

Order! That the hon. member can discuss under the schedule.

Sir, there is no description of general affairs in the schedule. There is just one clause which deals with general affairs, viz. clause 15. So I just want to put a question to the hon. the Minister and I do so by way of an example which is a general affair. [Interjections.]

Order!

Well, let me put my question, that is to say if the hon. Chief Whip of the Conservative Party would give me a chance.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: By adopting clause 14 we established what are own affairs. That has now been established and passed by this House. This clause says that matters which are not own affairs of a population group in terms of section 14 are general affairs. We have already defined what are own affairs. Everything else is general affairs. That is all this clause says. We have now had debate for roughly an hour and a half and all this clause says is that having established own affairs everything else is general affairs. I want to put it to you that there is in fact no scope for debate on this at all except to delete “general” and to say there should be no general affairs. I submit it is out of order to discuss everything else that could be general affairs.

I have pointed out repeatedly that this clause is very limited in its scope. I have been trying to get hon. members to confine themselves to the wording of this clause. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, let me just put my question. It will not take long. All I am asking is: When it comes to general affairs, is it still necessary to implement apartheid? That is all that I want to ask.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to what the hon. the Minister of National Education had to say. You permitted him to say something about general affairs relating to education. I wish to react to that briefly. The hon. the Minister made a statement that I find astonishing. He said that those parts of education that were general did not constitute significant interference with the authority of own affairs. He said that there were three general affairs, viz. finance, staff matters and syllabi, including examinations.

No, I said the standards and norms with regard to that.

That is correct. If one takes away from education the money that is involved, the teachers and the other staff and the norms and standards for syllabi, my question is: What remains? If the hon. the Minister wants to say that that does not constitute a significant undermining of own affairs, then he is indulging in an academic caper.

Order! I fear that the hon. member is again deviating from the wording of this clause. The hon. member did indicate that he was reacting to what the hon. the Minister of National Education had to say. I said to the hon. the Minister of National Education that I had allowed him some latitude, but that he was out of order in terms of the wording of this clause. Because I did point out to the hon. the Minister I cannot at this point permit further unrestricted debate in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I concede that without question. That is why I reacted in one minute to a ten minute speech.

I say to the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development that he is fully entitled to get personal with us now and again. I take that amiss of him. I want to say that it is not his right to leave our questions unanswered.

I also take a remark made by the hon. member for Ventersdorp somewhat amiss. I must react to it.

Order!

He is “semels” (a low type).

Mr. Chairman, did you hear what the hon. Chief Whip of the National Party said?

Order! For almost two hours I have been permitting a discussion on this extremely narrow clause. From time to time hon. members have advanced debating points and these have been debated. I have tried to be reasonable, but we have now reached a stage at which I shall only permit a discussion relating exclusively to the wording and meaning of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. Chief Whip of the NP entitled to say that an hon. member on this side of the House is “semels”?

I withdraw that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to react to what the hon. member for Ventersdorp had to say. He was having supper, but he has done me the honour of being present here. I just wish to react to the argument he advanced in regard to this clause. The hon. member said that there was doubt in our ranks as to what constituted own affairs and, consequently, what constituted general affairs. The hon. member intimated that the CP begrudged giving education to others as an own affair. Our standpoint is specifically that there will be comprehensive own affairs in regard to which there will be total sovereignty.

In a pamphlet the NP used certain terminology in regard to own affairs and general affairs. As far as own affairs are concerned, self-determination is defined therein as something that the Whites already have and that will remain as such. [Interjections.]

I should be obliged if the hon. the Prime Minister would be calm for a moment.

You are talking nonsense now.

What, then, were general affairs in the terminology of the NP?

Order! Discussion of what political parties said in information documents is a matter that can be debated at length in the Second Reading and again in the Third Reading.

The Second Reading is past, Sir.

The Third Reading is still to come and at that stage there can be a full debate on this matter. The Third Reading was specially extended to ten hours. I shall not permit any further discussion at this stage which is not specifically related to the wording of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Kimberley South again refer to this side of the House as “semels”?

Mr. Chairman, when I said that I was not referring to hon. members opposite.

At this stage I am not going to permit any further interjections while we are discussing clause 15.

Mr. Chairman, may I just have your ruling with regard to the remark by the hon. member for Kimberley South?

I was not referring to an hon. member on that side of the House.

Order! I am not going to permit any further interjections or comments. I now appeal to hon. members to refrain from making provocative personal remarks.

Mr. Chairman, I want to sum up our standpoint by saying that general affairs are therefore those things that are not own affairs. We suggested that there were no own affairs; in other words, our standpoint was therefore that in point of fact, all affairs were general affairs and in our opinion this constituted full political power-sharing and a fully integrated Government system.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to be extremely brief and the only reason why I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister is because I have during the discussion on a previous clause put the same question and, of course, there are heads and tails affairs, and I am now speaking to clause 15. In terms of the evidence led by the Select Committee, there were constant references by those who gave evidence, both written and verbal, concerning own affairs and general affairs. I submit that if one is talking about the one, one has to talk about the other. When they were drawing the discussion to a conclusion in the Select Committee, the hon. the Minister, who was obviously chairman at the time, put the following question to the delegation from the South African Indian Council—

I asked the question to the hon. the Minister, and I put it to him again because I think it is a reasonable question: Could he tell me of any distinguished Coloured or Indian leader in South Africa who agrees with this clause, namely that there ought to be a subject called general affairs as distinct from own affairs? I ask this question because the hon. the Minister’s argument in terms of general affairs is that this enables people to have the right and freedom to make their own choice and to follow their own pursuits. We do not hear it that way, we do not see it that way and I am asking the hon. the Minister to please tell me whether there is any leader of any distinction in South Africa …

You have already said that. Now sit down.

Hang on. I want to make quite sure that the question is put.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member for Durban Point has just interjected. Is that not against your ruling?

Order! The hon. member for Pinelands may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: You gave a definitive ruling five minutes ago that you would not permit any interjection of any kind while this clause was being debated. There was a quite clear interjection from the hon. member for Durban Point and either your ruling is to be implemented or it is not to be implemented.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize.

The hon. member for Pinelands may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I wish hon. members would not waste the valuable time of this Committee. I am having a discussion with the hon. the Minister and I have put a question to him. I put it once more and then I shall sit down. Is there any distinctive leader of any group, Coloured or Indian, Black or otherwise …

Order! Unfortunately that is not a matter that falls under this clause. This relates to the question of the principle of whether there should be general affairs or own affairs.

But that is what the clause is, Mr. Chairman.

No, we are not dealing with the principle. The principle has been accepted. The principle of general affairs and own affairs has been accepted and we are not dealing with the principle now. We are now merely dealing with the definition of what general affairs are and not with what members who have led certain evidence in the Select Committee have or have not said.

May I address you on this matter, Mr. Chairman?

You may address me.

I am arguing as to why there should or should not be …

No, that is not applicable. That has been decided upon when the Second Reading was adopted.

Mr. Chairman, is it not the usual custom to allow at least one member of a party to discuss the principle?

We have already had many more than one member speaking on the general principle. I cannot allow a discussion on the general principle if just a new detail is raised.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

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

1. 1. On page 14, in line 5, after “shall” to insert:
   subject to the provisions of subsection (2) and section 17
2. 2. On page 14, in lines 13 to 22, to omit subsection (2) and to substitute:
   1. (2) The State President shall, subject to the provisions of section 31—
      1. (a) notify the Chairman of each Ministers’ Council of his intention to express his decision in terms of subsection (1);
      2. (b) if no objection is received by him from any House then in session or from a Minister’s Council when the relevant House is not in session within 14 days of such notification, express his decision on any question contemplated in subsection (1) by proclamation in the Gazette or, if Parliament is then in session, by notification to the Speaker, who shall cause such notice to be published in the Minutes of Proceedings of each House of Parliament;
      3. (c) in the event of any House or the Chairman of a Ministers’ Council, as the case may be, advising the State President of an objection to the intended decision, act in terms of section 17.

The object of these amendments is to provide a different procedure for consultation before a decision is taken by the State President on own affairs and general affairs. It is designed to bring into the decision-making process a process of consultation with the Chairman of each Ministers’ Council.

When I move these amendments in the Select Committee, an alternative amendment was moved whereby the State President was charged with consulting with the Speaker and the Chairman of each Ministers’ Council on each decision he has to take on certifying a matter as own or general.

I move these amendments because I believe that that is a political decision which he has to take. The question of whether a matter is own or general is political. The Speaker is not political. He represents Parliament. He is the voice of Parliament and the authority of Parliament and although he is a member of a party, he is not politically partisan. The Chairman of each House is also a person who will be a presiding officer whose primary task is to control debate and to give a fair deal to opposition and minority parties. These Chairmen too, like the Chairman of this Committee, are people who must be neutral. They must not be partisan.

I believe that the people who are involved in politics—they are the Chairmen of the Ministers’ Councils—are the people with whom consultation should take place. I believe this for two reasons. They are not only executive members, part of the Executive dealing with own affairs, but in terms of the Bill as amended by the Select Committee, they have to carry the confidence of their Houses. When the State President “appoints the chairman of a Ministers’ Council, he is explicitly required to satisfy himself that the person he proposes is a person who enjoys the confidence of the House. The presiding officer of the House is not politically involved, there is no question of confidence and it would be most embarrassing for him if he took a political stance in advising the State President in an own or general matter. Therefore we believe that the consultation process should not be with the Speaker and the Chairmen but the Chairman of each Ministers’ Council. That is the primary objective of my amendment. It then goes on to say that if no objection is received by him from any House while Parliament is in session, or from the Ministers’ Council out of session, then he will make his decision and proclaim it and that will be the end of it. If there is no objection it becomes an agreed decision between the Houses. The last point is that if there is an objection from any House or from a Ministers’ Council, then the State President refers it to the President’s Council for further attention as provided in clause 17 which I will not deal with now because that is not part of this clause. This is the preliminary procedure before referral to the President’s Council. We believe that these amendments carry no political or ideological significance and it is the question of what is correct: whether to consult with a neutral Speaker and Chairmen or with the people who are actually involved in taking the decisions on political issues.

Mr. Chairman, clause 16 is obviously closely related to clauses 14 and 15. It is, in fact, a major clause in this Bill and it is a very controversial clause. I say this because it gives the right to the State President to decide in applying this Act which matters shall be own affairs and which matters shall be general affairs. The clause then goes on to say that he is to do so in such a manner that in any governmental institution, to paraphrase the rest of the clause, so affected by the State President’s decision, the interest of any other population group must not be affected. I want to come back to that. It then goes on to say “irrespective of whether such other population group is defined in this Act”. Therefore, in mentioning the interests of other population groups, it does not only refer to Indians and Coloureds, but it is also dealing with the interests of the Black population group because that is not a group defined in the Act. I shall come back to that presently and I hope the hon. the Minister in his reply will explain precisely what the latter part of the clause really means and what its effect will be. However, if one looks at the clause in its generality, the mind boggles at how the State President is going to apply this without adversely affecting other population groups. When one looks at the clause, it is clear that it gives the State President immense power and awesome responsibility. He will be the person to decide which are own affairs and which are general affairs other than the own affairs already prescribed by clause 14 and Schedule 1 of the Act. When we look at the powers which we are giving to this Head of State, we should ask ourselves who the State President is and how is he elected. We have to go back to this because this is the man we are giving these enormous powers. We know from the discussion on previous clauses that he is in fact going to be the creature of the majority party in the White House, elected on the basis of the electoral college which we approved, which will comprise 50 members from the White House, 35 from the Coloured House and 13 from the Indian House. This is the man whose office will come as a result of a nomination and as a result of the support of the majority members of the White House. This is the man who is going to decide throughout the application of this Constitution which are own affairs and by implication, of course, which are general affairs. It is therefore incredible power to repose in one man, who holds office on so small a base. He holds office on the base of the majority members in the White House represented in the electoral college. He can actually be in a position in exercising these enormous powers where he represents a small minority of the people represented, who sit in the three Houses of this Parliament.

He is going to decide on what they can deliberate and on what they are going to be responsible for. I believe this is an extremely dangerous provision. It is a provision which would place a democractic-minded President in an impossible position. If he is not a democratic-minded person, it is a provision which would be seized upon by a President who is autocratic and has dictatorial tendencies. It could be manipulated and abused with enthusiasm. I think it is a highly dangerous position because we are giving enormous powers to one individual to determine what in fact is going to be the responsibility of the three separate Houses of Parliament which this Constitution is creating. He will be a one-man regulator of the racist policies which this Constitution seeks to entrench for South Africa.

In general I believe the whole thrust of this clause is highly dangerous and highly undesirable one in a Constitution for South Africa. So much for the basic objection which we have to this provision.

Let us look at the detail of the clause and at some of the supposed constraints which the clause seeks to impose on the President. Regarding the detail I should like to know how in fact the President is going to determine own affairs in practice without affecting the interests of other racial groups. The hon. the Minister must explain what precisely is meant by the second part of Clause 16(1)(a) which reads—

How is he going to do this? What in fact does it mean when the legislation talks of “governmental institution”? Let us take as an example a hospital, the Groote Schuur Hospital. If it is determined that it is for the benefit of a particular racial group, how in fact does the President determine which other racial groups are going to be affected? Is the State President not put into an extremely difficult position? I should like the hon. the Minister to try to indicate to us what precisely is meant by this—it is virtually a proviso—power which is given to him. One may have an institution which serves the interests of all four racial groups in South Africa—Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks—and it is going to be somehow determined to be own affairs of a particular racial group. How is the President going to apply his mind to that sort of situation? One can think of other examples too, such as universities and other educational institutions. Again, the situation is totally vague.

The rest of the clause will be dealt with by my hon. colleagues. Also there a totally permissive power is given to the State President as to whom he conveys his decision and as to how he conveys it. That will be dealt with later. In general terms we believe this clause gives far too much power to the State President. We believe it is unwieldy, we believe it is a dangerous provision, and we will therefore vote against the clause.

Mr. Chairman, no fewer than ten memorandums commenting on this matter were submitted to the Select Committee. Most of them sharply condemned the provision that this specific power should be given to the State President to decide in the final instance whether an affair was an own affair or a general affair.

The State President-in-Council.

Can the hon. member for Pretoria Central tell me where the words “State President-in-Council” appear in the Bill? He is supposed to be such a clever lawyer. He must please tell the Committee where it is stated in the Bill that it is the State President-in-Council. I shall straighten him out, Sir. He is a man with ambition, and perhaps he will still turn out well.

You are being very sarcastic now.

In the following clause the words “in consultation with” appear.

You are being very personal.

But he is looking for trouble and he will find it. The hon. Whip must be careful that he does not also find it.

Order! That kind of remark has nothing to do with the clause.

Very well, Sir, will you please tell those hon. members who made the interjections as well.

Order! I am telling the hon. member for Brakpan that those remarks have nothing to do with the clause.

Very well, Sir. I assume that the interjections had nothing to do with the clause either.

I am now addressing the hon. member for Brakpan.

I hope you will also comment on that. I am saying so with all due respect.

Order! I am referring to the remarks made by the hon. member for Brakpan. If other hon. members carry on like that in the Committee I shall give the same ruling in regard to them. The hon. member for Brakpan may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Before you gave your ruling, the hon. member for Pretoria Central kept on making remarks.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central said the State President-in-Council. That is all he said.

But that was an interjection.

It referred to the clause.

Very well, Sir, then surely my reaction to it also referred to the clause.

The reaction of the hon. member for Brakpan was a personal attack on the hon. member for Pretoria Central.

In any case, Sir, I shall proceed. I repeat: At least 10 of the memorandums objected to that provision. I should like to single out a few of them for the information of the Committee. I am referring, for example, to the memorandum of the Federated Chamber of Industries, which is another body the Committee saw fit not to invite, although it invited Assocom to comment. I am quoting—

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister will still have plenty of opportunities. I am continuing to quote—

Then follows the evidence and memorandum of the Labour Party and of the Indian Council in connection with these dictatorial powers which are actually being granted to the State President. I also want to refer in particular to the memorandum of Prof. Van der Vyver. With regard to this matter he said—

He then goes on to say—

Now I know that the Government’s reply to this argument is that the State President or the Cabinet can be dealt with if a decision is taken which does not please the electorate. Then we get back to the problem I mentioned the other evening and to which the hon. the Minister has not yet replied, namely where the State President is going to figure in this firmament. If he is part of the political organization, if he is part of the caucus, if he is part of the entire NP establishment, then he is politically accountable and he can be dealt with at a next election. However, the question is where the State President stands. We also say that, even if the State President were to be part of the entire political pattern and even if he were to be a leader or chairman of the majority party in a Chamber, this is not sufficient to be able to say that he can be controlled by elections which will then follow. The damage which can be done, the injustices which can take place, can be so bad in the period before an election takes place that a political victory will not be able to rectify matters.

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

Please do not ask me any questions; I only have ten minutes and the hon. the Minister has as much time as he wants. He can put his question to me then and, in the few turns I still have to speak, I shall reply.

Mr. Chairman, I now want to associate myself with a previous speaker in connection with this matter and I want to ask: How does one determine whether or not a matter affects another population group? Irrespective of what checks there are on the State President, how does one determine that a decision in respect of one population group does or does not affect another population group? Strangely enough, the other population groups mentioned here also include Blacks. It will be very interesting to hear from the hon. the Minister whether he can think of a decision which the State President can make in respect of own affairs which will not affect another population group at all. He will remember that we debated this matter very seriously on the Select Committee; the question of what its precise meaning was. There was a feeling that this would have an adverse effect or that it would be to the detriment of another population group. The hon. the Minister will remember that I mentioned the example of the Day of the Vow. If there was ever a matter which could be identified as a purely White matter, in particular an Afrikaner matter, it is the Day of the Vow. And if one were to decide to close the shops on the Day of the Vow and to close everything including businesses and business premises, this would mean that a Black, a Coloured or an Indian would not be allowed to do business on that day, because it is a day affecting the White population group. [Interjections.] This is the kind of problem. There is no problem which one can identify which does not affect another population group in some or way other.

You people thrive on problems. [Interjections.]

We have a very clear answer to this problem. If only the hon. member had not been so thoroughly brainwashed, he would have realized long ago that he was adopting the wrong course.

You lot are politically sick!

I should like to know from him when he is going to join the other party, the left-wing party, because he is not a Nationalist. He is no longer within the cadre of the NP, even though the NP is inclining towards the left. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon. members have finished making their personal remarks, the hon. member for Brakpan must return to the clause.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now it is also the position that the State President is compelled to announce his decision to the Chairman of the Minister’s Council. However, I do not quite understand the reason for such a provision. It is meaningless, because the die is already cast. His decision has already been made and it is meaningless to advise the chairman of the Minister’s Council of the various population groups in this connection. According to clause 16(2)(b) he may make known his decision on such a question for general information as he deems fit. The position is that I maintain that it is absolutely insupportable to leave this decision on matters which go to the very heart of one’s self-determination to one fallible person. That the State President, while acting in consultation with a mixed Cabinet, has to decide on own and general affairs is objectionable to my own people, and we cannot accept it.

Mr. Chairman, both the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Brakpan tried to argue here that the State President would be able to act in a dictatorial manner because he is said to have the sole right to decide on what constitutes own and general affairs. However, both hon. members have overlooked a very important point. Any question decided by the State President in terms of clause 16(1)(b) will be a general affair. I do not want to discuss clause 19, but it is obvious that clause 16 should be read in conjunction with clause 19. In terms of clause 19 the executive powers in respect of general affairs are vested in the President acting in consultation with the Ministers who are members of the Cabinet. Therefore, the hon. member for Pretoria Central was quite correct in saying …

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to discuss clause 19 now.

Mr. Chairman, I am discussing clause 16(1)(b) which deals with the President’s right to decide when a matter is a general affair. All I want to say is that this provision should be read inconjunction with clause 19. From this it is quite clear that the State President cannot make this decision alone. Therefore, the argument of the hon. member for Brakpan that the decision rests with one fallible person, lapses.

Order! I realize the hon. member’s problem, but I think the hon. member should raise that argument when we discuss clause 19.

I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

†A further argument put forward by the hon. member for Berea was that this clause is unacceptable to them because the State President would have an extremely small power base. This argument has been put forward before by his party, but the fact of the matter is that the State President is elected by the majority party of each House. Consequently those parties represent the majority of the electorate of each of their voters’ rolls. The State President’s power base is therefore far wider than those hon. members purport to propose.

The question was also asked how any decision which affects the own affairs of one group can be taken without impinging on the affairs of any other group. I can quite understand the dilemma of those two hon. parties. Their dilemma arises from the fact that the official Opposition only wants there to be general affairs, while the CP wants there to be only own affairs and that they must be totally exclusive. But life is not quite as easy as that, nothing is either white or black and there are compromise situations. It is quite clear from clause 14 that there is a list pertaining to own affairs, but it is also obvious that such a list cannot be exhaustive and that situations can arise where one can make additions to this list. All that clause 16 has to do with is how these additions are to be made to the schedule. Obviously whether a matter is a general affair or an own affair it does affect the various groups. The only difference is whether it affects each of the groups separately or all of them collectively. That is the decision that has to be taken. In the schedule it is quite clear that education is an own affair. Consequently each of those groups has its own educational system and whatever decision the President has to make, whatever addition is made, the subject matter will then either be an own affair of each of those groups or it will be a common affair. If the hon. member for Berea wishes to argue that everything must affect all groups collectively, then he does not make this distinction. If, however, a matter does affect all groups collectively, then it cannot possibly be an own affair. Then per definition it must be a general affair. Therefore I think that the arguments of both those parties are spurious because it is obvious that all affairs, i.e. any subject under the sun, will affect all the groups. The only decision is whether it affects each of them separately and therefore is an own affair or whether it affects all of them collectively and is then a general affair.

Then, of course, the hon. member for Berea brought in the question of Blacks who are not included in this constitution specifically except in such a way that all decisions that affect Blacks are general affairs. Therefore, in my humble opinion, that question does not arise here.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the argument put forward by the hon. member for Benoni. I wish to endorse what was said by the hon. member for Berea in connection with own affairs in a hospital, such as Groote Schuur hospital. As hon. members know, that hospital is divided into two sections at the moment, one for Whites and one for non-Whites. On the non-White side there are Coloureds, Asians and Blacks. Which are the own affairs in this case and how is the President going to decide which section is the own affair of which population group?

†. Chairman, there is an amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper which I should now like to motivate. The clause in its present form is permissive because the President “may” make the decision on what are own affairs. My amendment makes it imperative. He shall publish his decision in the Gazette and he must also give his reasons for the decision. I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister has come in because I believe he will accept my amendment, first of all because of the clarity of my argument and, secondly, because of its brevity.

Mr. Chairman, in the discussion of this clause I just want to point out, in the first place, that during the investigation of this clause by the Select Committee, a great deal of attention was given to bringing the powers of the President in connection with this specific clause within limits and keeping them well under control. For this reason certain provisions are laid down regarding the procedure the President has to adopt in reaching the decision he has to make in terms of the clause directly following this one. Ultimately this entails that the President will not be able to take these decisions on own affairs and general affairs in total isolation; and that is not, of course, to mention the fact to which the hon. member for Benoni also referred, namely that because such a question is a general affair, as mentioned in clause 16(1)(b), he has to reach this decision in consultation with the Cabinet. Of course, this makes the situation quite different from what it would be if the President were to take the decision entirely on his own.

It has also been asked here what in fact the criterion will be which will be applied to the question of when a decision or a power may affect the own affairs of another population group. As the hon. member for Brakpan rightly observed, the discussion on this matter was fairly haphazard before this specific formula was eventually decided on. Surely it is quite logical from the wording of the clause under discussion that any incidental area of contact of no consequence will not be deemed to affect the interests of another group. The concept of “affect” implies that that group’s interests have to be substantially influenced or altered; it implies that there must be a substantial effect on the interests of another group.

In fact, therefore, this will also be a case of a matter in which the President will have to use his discretion; a case in which the President and those who have to advise him on these decisions, will have to use their discretion to determine whether the way in which the own affairs of other groups are affected is such that it ought to be a consideration in the decision. On the other hand, however, there is of course a control mechanism built into this entire matter as well, in the sense that it is only logical that what is designated as an own affair for one specific group will also be designated as own affair for the other groups. In fact, therefore, it is not so much an issue that the decision could possibly lead to the interests of another group being adversely affected; on the contrary, it is far more likely to be concerned with the development of an administrative problem due to there being too many areas of contact among the defined or proposed own affairs of population groups, and that this will in fact have to be the consideration which will result in its being ascertained whether that specific matter can be controlled and administered separately. Thus the main issue is not so much whether one group can prejudice the interests of another group. After all, this is not the primary consideration. Basically the administrative and legislative feasibility is the real consideration.

The question was also asked why these decisions have to be conveyed to the chairman of the Ministers’ Councils. The reply to this question is actually very simple. The chairmen of Ministers’ Councils are the very people who are primarily concerned with the executive action in connection with own affairs. For that reason alone they have to be aware of all decisions made by the President, and accordingly it is logical that there should be a statutory obligation on the State President formally to convey those decisions to the chairmen of the Ministers’ Councils.

Mr. Chairman, there is just one other matter I should like to raise here, one relating to subsection (3) of clause 16. In this regard I should like to move the amendments printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Mossel Bay, because he asked me to do so on his behalf. I therefore now move the fourth and fifth amendments printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Mossel Bay, as follows—

1. 4. On page 14, in line 23, to omit “for the first time”.
2. 5. On page 14, in line 26, to omit “, notwithstanding the provisions of section 19(2),”.

What are the implications of these amendments? Subsection (3) provides that when the State President assigns specific matters to Ministers’ Councils for own affairs, thereby classifying that affair, as such, as an own affair, then in terms of these provisions he must do so in accordance with a decision as provided in this clause. Therefore makes it clear that all decisions are taken either on the basis of the legislation or on the basis of executive affairs dealing with the classification of specific affairs as own affairs, in accordance with the provisions of this clause.

Then there are two phrases which were added here for a specific purpose, at the stage when the Select Committee was deliberating about this, but which have in the meantime actually turned out to be unnecessary and for that reason I move that the words “for the first time” in line 23 be deleted and that the words “notwithstanding the provisions of section 19(2)” in line 26 be deleted. The intention here was that because so many decisions would have to be taken initially, the President could act without the mediation of his Cabinet. After further consideration it was, however, decided that he has to act in consultation with his Cabinet in all cases.

It is for these reasons that I move that these words be deleted.

Mr. Chairman, clause 16 deals with the decision on what is an own affair or a general affair. The hon. member for Helderkruin specifically mentioned that the State President, who has to take this decision, will do so in consultation with the Cabinet. This is in terms of this legislation. I want to put this question to the hon. member, in all fairness. If he had been watching the proceedings in this Committee this evening and had witnessed the intolerance of the potential State President, does he think for one moment that Cabinet members appointed to the Cabinet of South Africa, who will not necessarily be members of this House, who could be people from outside—as a matter of fact all of them could be from outside—would dare to disagree with such a State President? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to cast a reflection on the character of an hon. member of this House in that way?

Although the reference is not a pleasant one, I do not think it is unparliamentary. The hon. member for Pietersburg may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the decision in connection with what is an own affair of the people represented in this House is, according to the provisions of this clause, going to be left to one man, and subsections (1) and (2) of this clause are being entrenched. As regards the decision whether an affair is an own affair or a general affair, in terms of the provisions of subsection (2) this is to be left in the hands of an indirectly elected State President. As regards affairs which can therefore be considered to be own affairs, such as cultural matters, an own living space, own education, own customs and traditions, etc. the State President can decide that these are general affairs and that legislation in this connection can be referred to all three of the Houses.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.