Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of the passage of this Referendum’s Bill we in the PFP remain unconvinced that this is good legislation at all. Obviously the potential of improving a Bill such as this was limited during Committee Stage because this is no more than an enabling measure providing a very shaky skeleton whilst the flesh is to be provided by way of Government regulations. We still believe that the lack of firm provisions governing important aspects of referendum’s leave scope for erratic behaviour on the part of the Government, and in fact for manipulation too. These fears of ours may not be as far-fetched as hon. members on the Government side would like to suggest considering that only a few days after announcing that the referendum will be held on the constitutional issue the hon. the Prime Minister personally qualified this by stating that the coming referendum would not take place until the drought had been broken. This was said by him only a few days subsequent to his first announcement. I believe this is an indication of erratic thinking and of precipitate behaviour on the part of the Government, which should not be given legislative sanction, as, I do believe, is indeed possible in terms of this Bill.

Now that the referendum has been announced, in spite of the continuing drought, I suppose one can merely wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister has spoken with his Water Affairs men lately. I simply believe that if this is bad legislation, it cannot be improved by Government promises and by Government assurances. I also believe that any democratic institution such as this House, which values his own right to legislate, should not forfeit that very right through its own legislation without being absolutely sure that there is no sensible alternative. I certainly believe that that is what is happening in this instance.

I am still amazed at the fact that not even so basic a matter as providing for a minimum number of days between proclamation of a referendum and the actual referendum itself was written into the Bill. I am also amazed at the fact that hon. members of the NP strenuously resisted all attempts at introducing such a limit. I believe that this avoidance of firm legislation was viewed in such a serious light that hon. members of the PFP, the NRP and the CP took a joint stand in opposition to this Bill time and time again. I believe therefore that the public and hon. members of this House must take note of the fact that one has here a rather unusual line up of opposition against the Government, judged by today’s standards. One can only assume that a very firm caucus Whip was required even to keep hon. members of the NP in line on this issue, particularly bearing in mind that they have so recently committed themselves to firm legislative provisions in respect of a situation of this nature.

In respect of the new system of voting on the basis of the identity book, which is made possible by way of this Bill, the Government has advanced mainly two arguments, the first of which is that more people will be able to cast their votes in this way, and secondly, they say, we can do without the administrative difficulties of the special and postal vote system—red tape, as they refer to it. In respect of this I merely wish to say the following. Firstly, if the Government accepted our advice to supplement the existing voters’ roll with the names of people on the population register, we in this House would have succeeded in giving more people the ability to vote than is going to be possible in terms of the Government’s present plans. This is a purely statistical reality; a reality which the hon. the Minister himself has conceded. Therefore, if the original intention was to give more people the opportunity of voting, surely accepting our suggestion would mean the most sensible way out for the Government.

The second point I should like to raise is that a special vote system is still going to be necessary in some form, as is also conceded in the draft regulations, in respect of voters who are ill or otherwise incapacitated, and also in respect of a few other categories of voters. While voters will now be able to vote anywhere in the Republic in terms of this legislation, we believe that the abolition of special votes for absent voters will still make it impossible for thousands of South Africans to cast their vote if at the time when a referendum takes place they happen to be overseas on business or on vacation, or even if they happen to be in the States to the north of us, when they happen to be at sea as members of the merchant marine, as fishing crew or otherwise. I believe this is not a inconsiderable number of people. Even in that sense therefore I believe that while we may be obviating some sort of administrative trouble on the part of the Government, we are still doing it at the price of disenfranchising quite a considerable number of people.

For these reasons mainly we in the PFP remain unconvinced that we are dealing here with good legislation, and we will consequently oppose it at Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point and the other members of his party, as well as the hon. members of the CP, of course, are really chasing in on the drought story now. All of us in this House can still remember the scornful laughter of hon. members of the PFP when the hon. the Prime Minister said that he felt he should wait until the drought had been partially broken before holding the referendum.

Why do you not do it, then?

The hon. member for Jeppe, who is being so noisy now, said by way of interjection at the time that the NP was praying for the rain to stay away because they were afraid to hold a referendum.

But that is true. [Interjections.]

I want hon. members on the other side to make up their minds now about whether they want a referendum or not. I think they themselves do not know any more. [Interjections.]

A Third Reading debate is expected to be devoted to the consequences and the effect of the legislation which is under discussion. Because referendum’s are used to ascertain the views of voters with regard to important constitutional matters, it is obvious that referendum’s can have far-reaching consequences. This is clear from the consequences of referendum’s held in the past, elsewhere in the world as well as in South Africa.

Who could have believed that the referendum held in 1960 with a view to becoming a Republic would so closely unite the South African nation into a true South Africanism within such a fairly short period? Who in this hon. House who voted “no” in 1960 would vote “no” again today in response to the same question? I am directing my remarks at the hon. members of the PFP, who all voted “no”, I believe, and also at the hon. members of the NRP, who, after a “no” vote, benefited by the outcome of the referendum and today call themselves the New Republic Party.

The legislation which is before us is of a special kind. It also contains a strong element of change. It is likely to usher in a new era with regard to franchise. It simplifies the voting procedure for the electorate, and in the process, it considerably reduces the amount of work that has to be done by the interested parties and their organizations. Postal votes are eliminated, as are certain categories of special votes. This means that the method which could be used in the past to enable certain categories of voters to vote before polling day, thereby making it easier for them to cast their votes, will largely fall away, and a greater responsibility will be placed on the voter to perform this voting duty of his own accord. The movement away from the old familiar system towards a new and more flexible system of voting procedures, which will impose a greater responsibility on the voter himself to cast his vote, is probably one of the most important consequences of this legislation. It means that the election mentality of South Africa will have to change. Instead of relaxing in the knowledge that the political parties will ensure that all possible votes are cast at the polling stations on polling day, the voter himself will have to develop a greater sense of responsibility. Langenhoven’s description of politics, namely that it is one’s means of determining one’s own destiny, will have to be taken to heart. Every person who has the right to vote will have to help determine his or her own destiny, and therefore the destiny of South Africa and its people as well, with the greatest responsibility of which he or she is capable. The effect of the legislation will be that the electorate of South Africa will have to acquaint itself with the solutions put forward by the left-wing and righ-wing Opposition groups as alternatives to the Government’s new constitution which is ushering in a new political dispensation for South Africa.

When we examine these left-wing groups and their views, we come to the conclusion that these are the people who close their eyes to reality, who believe, under the cloak of democratic values, that all people are Westerners at heart, who will not or cannot realize that culture is the possession of each separate group in this country, who do not realize that sophistication and westernization are not synonymous and that other cultures may also produce sophisticated people. This is a mentality which is clearly evident in the statement made by the PFP working group at their Natal congress in 1982, which was reported as follows in Die Burger—

That may be the reason why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was so surprised recently at the reaction to the admission that his party’s policy could lead to Black majority rule. It is surprising that one can get so caught up in one’s own policy that one expects the voters to understand that one is in favour, not of Black government, but of a Government that is Black, a philosophy which is reflected in their plea for a national convention and a federal State in which all the population groups in the Republic should participate.

The hon. member for Yeoville once said in this House that it was the performance of the country and not the performance of the Government of the day which kept the country’s economy strong. Does the hon. member really think that our country’s economy would be equally strong under a Black Government, in spite of the events which he is witnessing around him in Africa?

The hon. member for Bryanston once said in this House that “peace, prosperity and stability are not achieved by the new constitution”. Does the hon. member really believe that peace, prosperity and stability would be preserved under Black majority rule, when he sees what is happening in Africa?

When one looks at the right wing, one sees the CP, the AWB, the HNP, the Suid-Afrikaanse Volksparty, die Kappiekomman-do—one could mention any number of them—who are entrenching White privilege at all costs. They demand a monopoly on economic welfare and political power at all costs, without sharing these with others who also have legitimate aspirations. Such a policy is a blueprint for revolution. One sometimes wonders whether they would not welcome confrontation so that supremacy could be maintained through violence. There is not a single country in the world where one group has been able to maintain its position of privilege at the expense of other groups indefinitely. This applies in particular to States with plural populations which are divided along ethnic, language, racial and religious lines. Surely we find many examples of this in Africa.

Allan, whose speech are you reading? [Interjections.]

Moreover, political privilege is particularly prevalent in plural societies where there is political oppression. In practice it amounts to the oppression of the powerless minorities by the privileged ruling classes. We see many examples of this around us in Africa.

To those who believe that the Whites can maintain their standards of living and their values through violence and who regard reform as a swear word, the Russians and other violators of human rights are an example. They found out long ago that problems cannot be solved with bullets. This is proved by situations such as the one in Afghanistan.

In this referendum, too, the voters of the Republic of South Africa are entitled to know where the CP stands with regard to this psychosis. One reads, for example, what the hon. the leader of the CP said in a speech made in the Strand, as reported in Die Burger of 22 Junie 1983—

A psychosis, an attitude which implies only one thing, and that is that the Government will carry out a coup d’état if it cannot have its way. When one analyses that psychosis, that kind of thinking, and one sees what the objectives of the AWB are and one reads that the AWB is a militant arm of the Suid-Afrikaanse Volksparty, as pointed out in an article on that same page of Die Burger, one realizes that the AWB stands for a dictatorship, for the nationalization of property, for the confiscation of land in order to achieve their purposes. They are anti-Semitic. Their God is probably something different from the God in whom we believe. Then one really wonders whether the CP is not deceiving the voters of South Africa by pretending to be the saviour of the Afrikaner people.

We are confronted in this country with what is probably one of the most serious problems we have ever encountered in our political history. We have been devising plans for ten to 11 years in this country in an attempt to resolve our problems. Members of the CP supported us all along, up to a point where they suddenly believed that they had changed their minds, or so they said.

But you have changed.

Now we come to the culmination of this argument. Now we are going to the voters of South Africa, we are going to ask them to answer a question to say whether the Government should proceed with the new constitution or not. Those who say “no” are very obviously fanning the flames of revolution in South Africa, sowing dissension and destroying economic peace and everything in this country which has contributed to the prosperity of the country, all for the sake of political expediency. They have gone so far as to persuade South West Africans to try to promote their cause in the Republic. One can understand why the hon. member for Kuruman is pleading so ardently in this House for the South West African vote. I have reason to believe that responsible and prominent political figures from South West are engaged in influencing people in the Republic to vote “no”. Sir, a yes vote will mean prosperity for ever in this country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Swellendam quoted to us from a report on a speech made by the hon. the leader of the CP in which he reacted to a speech made by the chairman of the President’s Council in which the latter had said that the Government would use every means at its disposal to implement the constitutional plans. Now the hon. member is asking the CP to reply to this. I think that the Government and that hon. member should tell us whether they agree with the chairman of the President’s Council.

That hon. member is very worried about the CP. Every day he tries to find allies of the CP. I want to tell him that the CP is a party in its own right. The CP came into being because the NP had swerved to the left and had deviated from its course. In the forthcoming referendum, the CP will fight this constitutional dispensation which amounts to power-sharing and a mixed government with every means at its disposal, and it will do so in its own right.

The hon. member for Swellendam said that this Bill ushered in a new era with regard to franchise. I want to say that we also welcome the measures which are aimed at streamlining elections, but that we reject an election which is controlled by regulation. He said that the CP members had supported the Government for a long time and had then suddenly realized that they disagreed with the Government. I want to spell out to the hon. member today why we disagree with the NP.

This Bill will mean that the same question on the same subject can be put to the South African nation within the same areas on the same day. I am now talking about the NP’s nation of Whites, Coloureds and Indians. This Bill is now giving effect to the Government’s plans for reform. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs gave us a brilliant demonstration here yesterday of how one can run away from one’s past. He tried to define the concepts of “volk” and “nasie”. He did this after the CP had moved an amendment to the effect that the Coloureds, Indians and Whites should be asked to reply to a question separately by way of a referendum. The hon. the Minister would not accept that amendment and then gave a definition of those concepts, but his definitions differ from those of the hon. the Prime Minister. I should like to quote to him the hon. the Prime Minister’s definition of these concepts, as recorded in Hansard, col. 4631 of 16 April 1982, as follows—

[Inaudible.]

I am not arguing with the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and there is no need for him to get excited. He has always believed in this, but the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs has not always believed in it.

Referring to the Prime Minister, Die Burger wrote as follows in its editorial on 3 February—

Yesterday the hon. the Minister defined the Coloureds. He said: “They are not a people.” I have referred the hon. the Minister to Bangmaakpraatjies. He once wrote—

In this document entitled “Saamstem met vertroue” he also wrote that self-determination was the NP’s foundation on which full political rights were being built on an ethnic basis. The hon. Minister who is now saying that the Coloureds are not a people made the following statement—

In his description of the President’s Council, he said that it would consist of 20 members elected by the White House of Assembly, 10 members elected by the Coloured House of Assembly and five members elected by the Indian House of Assembly. I asked the hon. the Minister to give us a definition of the concept of “volk”, and his reply was—

The hon. the Minister said that there had been mutual trust within the NP ranks in 1977 and that the term “volk” had been used at that time to denote the White people, the Coloured people and the Indian people and their respective parliaments. It is true that there used to be mutual trust in the NP which rejected power-sharing and a multiracial government. Because there is mutual trust in the CP and because we still reject power-sharing and mixed government, the CP still adheres to the principles 1977, namely three peoples with their own parliaments in their own areas. But what does the hon. the Minister say? He says there is no basic mutual trust within their own ranks. This is a revealing statement which he has made. Mutual trust is not possible in that party because it has changed its approach. That is why the hon. the Minister agrees with the hon. the Prime Minister today that the Coloureds are not a people, but that they are part of the South African nation. That hon. Minister has become a yes-man. [Interjections.] Those hon. members who are going to vote “yes” in the referendum are a lot of yes-men.

When the hon. the Minister had to define the term, he said—

I now want to tell that hon. Minister that only a coward runs away and takes refuge behind someone else when he has changed his mind.

According to Hansard of 23 June 1976, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture said (col. 20360)—

He went on to say—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether Dr. Connie Mulder also fiddled around with the speeches of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture when he spoke of a “Kleurlingvolk”.

I also want to refer that hon. Minister who has performed such an about-face to the speech of the hon. the Minister of National Education, in which he said—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether Dr. Connie Mulder fiddled around with Dr. Gerrit Viljoen’s speech, too, when he talked about a “Kleurlingvolk”?

It used to be the standpoint of the NP that we had three peoples, each with its own Parliament, Cabinet and Government. However, the NP has changed its standpoint and now advocates one nation, one Parliament and one mixed Government. This legislation gives effect to that standpoint of the Government.

Unfortunately, my time has expired, and I want to conclude by saying that the NP has performed an about-face. We shall chase the NP from Waterberg down to Table Mountain and we shall ask South Africa to vote “no” to this multiracial constitution.

Mr. Speaker, it is incredible to me that it does not seem to matter what Bill or measure we have before us in the House, we come straight back to the fight about “volk” and “nasie”.

They are fighting for a better past.

I should like to discuss the Bill before the House. I think that might be a refreshing change. The Bill has now entered its final stage and I want to say that we are still as opposed to it as we were when it was first read in the House. We believe it has not been improved in any appreciable manner whatsoever. The effect of this Bill is that we can now hold referendum’s according to the rules that will be made for each particular referendum. You know, Sir, we are a sport-loving people. Or is it a “volk”? [Interjections.]

It is a “nasie”.

I should like to liken this a little bit to some of the games that we enjoy so much. We could have accepted the Bill had the rules been clearly spelt out in the Bill. This is the first game that we are going to be called upon to play where we are only going to know the rules after we have been told the nature of the game. This is all wrong. In a referendum or an election one should know what game is going to be played. We should have a clear set of rules. We accept that there can be club rules because of certain matters pertaining to a particular club. We accept that there can be certain conditions applicable to a certain contest or in the case of horse racing to a certain race where they will only accept certain nominations. We know all that. We know about local rules and we know about conditions, but we do not believe that it is in the nature of any South African to run onto the field of play in order to play a game without knowing what the rules of the game are before the ball is kicked off.

Let us examine seriously for a moment the price that we may have to pay as a result of the effect of this Bill, because what we must debate in the Third Reading is the effect of the measure. We tried to warn the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading and particularly during the Committee Stage of the price that we are all going to have to pay, and that is going to be, in two simple words, “voter mistrust”. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that he, like all of us, would like to see a new system come into both our Electoral Act and our Referendum’s Act as it was last year. We want to see something new. We want to see an easier method employed whereby the South African voter can record his vote. We welcome the ideas that he has in respect of the identity document. This is all a step forward. It is a good thing, but because of the way that this is being done in this referendum, we are going to incur the wrath of in excess of 100 000 voters. I know the hon. the Minister pooh-poohs this because he says that there have always been many people who have been turned away from the polls, but this is the very time when we could effectively write in the rules of the game a rule whereby every player could get to play the ball.

We are doing it.

Sir, with respect to the hon. the Minister, he is not doing it. We have tried to tell him that there is a method that would enable every single voter to have a vote, albeit a declared vote. We have tried to spell this out to him, but it is the old story, namely when one tries to talk to the hon. members opposite it is like water dripping on a stone. Eventually they may get the message, but by then the harm will have been done and voter mistrust will have been sown and will be running rampant once more. We cannot afford to have this again.

I want to say too that on 2 November this party will be involved in the referendum. We shall be involved in it and we have said clearly what we are going to do. We intend to bring every single voter that we possibly can to the polls in order to support the new constitution as being part of the solution to the ultimate goal and a step in the direction of the ultimate goal that we would like to see achieved. That is what we are going to do and we shall bring as many of, if not all, our voters to the polls to do just that. However, it is with regret that we must in all conscience object most strongly to this Bill because of the fact that we sincerely believe that the details of the modus operandi should have been clearly spelt out. They should have been clearly spelt out in the Bill and not in a set of regulations that we have yet to see.

In the minute left at my disposal I want to say in all sincerity that I sincerely trust that the hon. the Minister will ensure that those regulations will be made available to political parties without any delay whatsoever. I would urge that the hon. the Minister ensures that the regulations be made known to the parties in this House within a matter of hours if it is humanly possible because I do not believe …

I promise you it will be done before the end of the week.

I thank the hon. the Minister for that assurance. I sincerely believe that if we are going to hold referendum’s on this basis, if we are going to have them in the future and if we are going to have them run on the basis of a set of regulations being proclaimed by the State President, then that set of regulations should be available to all interested parties at least two clear calendar months before the date of such referendum’s.

Sir, we shall oppose this Bill at Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon and yesterday evening I listened to the hon. member for Umhlanga. This afternoon he repeated exactly what he advocated yesterday evening.

There is no harm in repeating the truth, is there?

I want to remind the hon. member that the attitude with which we approach this matter, is of the utmost importance. I think it is very important that those members who are serious about the referendum that is going to take place on 2 November, should do everything in their power to ensure that the greatest number of voters possible will participate. The hon. the Minister has given us the assurance that for every application reaching his department by the end of September, an identity document will be issued.

I also feel it is a pity that members of the CP are using legislation such as this to make personal attacks on the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.]

What did he do?

I think this can only be ascribed to the fact that members of the CP are jealous of the leader of the NP in the Transvaal. However, I shall not pursue the matter any further.

We have now reached the final stage of this Bill, and I must say it is a pity that there has been so much negative criticism of this legislation, so much so that all three of the Opposition parties are going to vote against the legislation. It contains only 18 clauses whereas the Referendum’s Bill of 1982 contained 82 clauses. The Bill before us is a very important Bill. It not only makes provision for the referendum that is going to take place on 2 November. We are on the threshold of a new constitutional dispensation in which referendum’s may be held frequently. For that reason this Bill also provides for future referendum’s. I should now like to emphasize certain principles of the legislation.

In the first place the voting will not take place on a constituency basis. There has been vehement criticism of this provision from all three of the Opposition parties. To the NP it is not a matter as it is to the PFP, of its 27 constituencies, to the CP of its 16 constituencies or to the NRP of its 8 constituencies. To the NP it is a question of the Republic as a whole, and with this measure we are rendering a service to our voters. This measure makes provision for taking the polling station to the voter, nearer to where he lives and nearer to where he works. In this way we are going to eliminate long queues of people waiting to vote during peak periods in elections. People will not have to wait long in order to vote.

I think it is a pity that the Opposition is opposed to every innovation the Government seeks to introduce. I predict that the way this referendum is being arranged, more people will participate in it. When it comes to the identification of people, they can now use their identity documents to vote. I welcome this provision as well. The identity document is going to have a new significance for everyone because every identity document is going to bear a stamp which will serve as proof that the relevant individual kept his appointment with the future. The enabling Bill in terms of which the holding of referendum’s will be arranged by way of regulation, will have the effect that it will not be necessary to amend the legislation in the slightest.

I therefore consider it a great pity that there have been such vehement objections to this legislation from the ranks of the Opposition parties here in this House, particularly to the provision in connection with the regulations. I want furthermore to congratulate the hon. the Minister most sincerely on the introduction of this measure. I also want to congratulate the Select Committee, the legal draftsmen and the officials who assisted the hon. the Minister, on a fine piece of legislation.

Hon members of the CP maintain that we should speak of a “volkstemming” instead of a “referendum”. For the sake of interest, I should just like to point out the following fact. In constitutional law and in political science a fine distinction is drawn between a “volkstemming” and a “referendum”. A “volkstemming” is usually the consultation of a people on a specific broad principle. In contrast, a “referendum” is usually held, when a very specific matter is referred to the people for decision. The hon. members of the CP once again advanced the argument in connection with people of colour. Hon. members of the PFP also tried time and again to involve the Black people. I want in all earnestness this afternoon to appeal to the Opposition parties here in this House to leave references to people of colour out of our debate, if at all possible, for the moment.

But you want to bring people of colour into this Parliament. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the way in which references of this nature are made, is not promotive of good relations mutually. It bedevils good race relations. For that reason alone, I want to make an earnest appeal to hon. members of the Opposition parties to refrain from doing so. [Interjections.]

I want now to turn briefly to the hon. member for Rissik. The hon. member for Rissik made a few statements in this House which I should like to test against the truth this afternoon. According to the hon. member for Rissik, during the past months and years the political opponents of the governing party have not had the opportunity to test the Government. He went on to allege that the Opposition parties have been eliminated as much as possible from the process of criticism. In the third place the hon. member alleged that registered Opposition parties will play an ever-decreasing role in the politics of the future. Of course, hon. members of the PFP are singing the same tune.

Let us test the truth of these statements. In 1977 and in 1981 the NP received a mandate to create a new constitutional dispensation for the Republic of South Africa. In spite of the fact that the NP received that mandate, we did not go ahead and implement it. We decided to go back to the voters. In this way we are affording Opposition parties the opportunity to put forward the policies they support and to influence their people to vote “no” when the referendum takes place on 2 November. I want to know from the hon. member for Rissik if this is disregarding the rights of the Opposition parties. I maintain that that allegation is devoid of all truth. The Bill under discussion was referred to a Select Committee. After that it was debated in all its stages here in this House. The same applied to the Constitution Bill in respect of which every political party here in this House had the opportunity to pass criticism and make contributions. I want to tell the hon. member for Rissik today that positive and constructive criticism has always been welcome in the past. The same thing will apply in the future as well. That is, of course, if it is approached in the right spirit.

I come now to the second allegation of the hon. member for Rissik—his allegation in connection with the role of Opposition parties in the future. This allegation too is unfounded. This brings us once again to the Constitution Bill. That Bill was referred to a Select Committee on which hon. members of all the Opposition parties served. We devoted many hours here in this House to the Second Reading and to the Committee Stage of that Bill. The Committee Stage alone took days. I want today to accuse the Opposition parties here in this House—and this applies to hon. members of the CP in particular—of placing obstacles in the way of constitutional reform in the Republic of South Africa. The hon. members of the NP on this side of the House prepared themselves to debate every clause of the constitution with hon. members of the Opposition parties but those hon. members of the CP were guilty of obstructionism by deliberately denying us that right and I shall always hold that against them. Amendments of the Opposition were accepted on several clauses of the constitution and I maintain that this is also a sign that we on our part were prepared to listen to positive criticism. If clauses like clauses 41, 42 and 43, to mention but a few, are reviewed, we find that Opposition parties are also going to be given the opportunity to appoint their people to the various Houses and also to the President’s Council. I want therefore to ask whether it is true that we do not want to give our political opponents the opportunity to state their standpoints clearly.

The hon. the Leader of the official Opposition alleged—and the CP associated themselves with it—that the Government wants to steamroller legislation. Surely that is not true. All speakers on this side of the House can point out that opportunities were given provided they were used in a positive way. I maintain that the role the Opposition parties are going to play in politics in the future will depend to a major extent on their attitude. If the Press quoted the hon. the Leader of the CP incorrectly, I am asking him this afternoon to tell us so. At a meeting of a congress of the CP which was held in Kimberley, the hon. the leader of the CP said he accepted a seat on the Select Committee solely because he did not want to be considered a boycotter, but that as far as the Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act were concerned he had already taken a decision. Is that the correct attitude to adopt? [Interjections.] The hon. member is at liberty to rise and tell me if that is not so. I also want to ask the hon. the leader of the CP to reconsider the statements of the leader of the NP and also of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs with regard to this Matter. If we want to participate in politics with this attitude in the future, then I am utterly convinced that Opposition parties will not have a role to play in the future. I ask the hon. the leader of the CP to react to this when he rises to speak. [Interjections.]

I want to put this question: Who is going to benefit if the result of the referendum on 2 November is negative?

South Africa and the Whites.

Neither the PFP nor the CP nor the HNP nor the AWB nor the UDF nor the Kappiekommando nor the Black Sash and all its supporters is going to benefit from this. There is only one party that will benefit if we have a negative result at the polls on 2 November and that is the Communist Party and the enemies of South Africa. I also want to say who will benefit if there is a positive result at the polls on 2 November. I am convinced of this because many people are going to vote yes on 2 November. The reason for this is not that either the NP or the NRP is going to benefit but that the Republic of South Africa with all its people is going to benefit from this because peace and security and prosperity through law and order will assure the future of all the inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa.

In conclusion I want to tell the hon. the Minister that this Bill is a winner just as the yes vote will be a winner on 2 November 1983.

Mr. Speaker, it would require a considerable amount of time to convey to the hon. member a few points in connection with security and so on, so I shall not reply to that very seriously. If anything proves how out of touch people like the hon. members of the NP are with politics in South Africa, that hon. member does. Just imagine, he asks us to talk about the political future of South Africa without bringing colour into the matter.

But that is the way to involve people of colour who matter.

One can leave the hon. member to go on sitting there in his White bench.

Among other things, the Bill repeals the 1982 Act, which is barely a year old and has never been used. It is really something brand new which we have thrown out of the window. Of course, it also repudiates a lot of the arguments which the NP used at the time when the Bill was being piloted through Parliament. One thinks in particular of the protective measures with regard to MPs, MPCs and members of the President’s Council contained in the old Act. The PFP strenuously objected to these at the time, and we are glad, of course, that they have not been included in this Bill. We only trust that they will not reappear in the regulations.

Another debate, if one can still call it a debate, which has been conducted in this House has been the old discussion of the terms “volk” and “nasie”. The same ridiculous argument which the CP is now advancing in favour of the term “volkstemming” was advanced with equal enthusiasm by the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and members on the other side last year, but now the hon. the Minister is blaming the CP. He says they are using the term “volk” in such a loose way that they are eliciting an emotional response. But this is by no means a new phenomenon. For years, the NP also relied on an appeal to the emotions when they lacked arguments. The hon. the Minister himself is very reluctant to abandon the appeal to the emotions. I noticed that he said yesterday that he was still standing on exactly the same platform as in 1981.

It seems to me that your emotions have become stultified.

He said that platform was built on the foundations which had been laid in 1977. I had thought that there was change in the air, but now it seems to me that when the hon. the Minister lacks “volkies” and he can no longer win the support of the “volk”, he wants to apply the same arguments to the “nasie”. In that connection I should like to issue a very serious warning to hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Swellendam is no longer appealing to the “volk”; he is beginning to appeal to the “nasie” instead. In sounding this warning, I ask hon. members such as the hon. member for Innas-dal and Randburg, who are in the vanguard of NP thinking to take it to heart. For years, they aroused the emotions of the people and mobilized them around the concept of the “Afrikanervolk”. It was deeply divisive and it took decades to bring about anything like a reconciliation.

It was done on the basis that members of the White population were nonetheless able to participate in the democratic process on an equal footing. The division which had been caused and which endured for such a long time before it could be repaired was not aimed at depriving a population group of certain rights because of their very membership of a particular population group. In the White population group, rights are allocated on an individual basis and not on a group basis. Just as the NP sowed dissension among the Whites at that time, the NP is now engaged in a new process of sowing dissension with the concept of “nation” which is being used just as loosely.

Firstly, the NP is suddenly including the Coloureds and the Indians as members of the Nation, but unlike the White population group, they do not have individual rights; they only have group rights, with the result that their compulsory group context still forces them to live under discriminatory laws which naturally form part of the problem which we are trying to solve here. Secondly, the NP is violating the concept of “nasie”, just as they used to violate the concept of “volk” by not including the Black section of the population—I shall not say that they are being excluded, for if I did, the hon. the Minister would take umbrage at once. Unlike the Whites, they cannot seek reconciliation within the democratic process. The hon. member for Swellendam has just told them again that they are excluded. He says to the Blacks: “If you were to be included, there would be chaos and misery.”

I said nothing about the Blacks.

I ask the hon. member with tears in my eyes: If he says that they are excluded and will remain excluded …

But he did not say that.

He said that if they were included, there would be Black majority rule. If he denies that, he does not understand his own statements. He said that if the stage were ever reached where Blacks were included, with the result that they formed the majority in the Government, there would be chaos, etc. Does he really believe that if those people are permanently excluded, they will remain patient and complaisant forever? That is my question to the hon. member. It also serves as a reply to the question of the so-called security which this new constitution offers us. The Blacks can no longer seek to be included in a democratic way.

You are for Black majority rule.

On the basis of these two points, i.e. the misconception of the inclusion of the Coloureds in the nation on the one hand and the exclusion of the Blacks on the other, I am afraid—or rather, I am glad to say—that the NP will fail to get the nation on its side now that reconciliation is so essential. The members opposite must not try to convince me that this is not so. I am sure that it would be much easier for me to sell PFP politics in the middle of Nylstroom than it would be for the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs to sell his policy in Chatsworth, Mitchell’s Plain, Soweto or Umlazi.

†Finally, if a referendum is called to determine the will of the people on a subject as important as the new constitution, there are certain prerequisites if the results are not to end up as simply a box full of useless information. Firstly, excepting the grand flaw that Blacks will have no say in the implementation of the constitution which also affects their fate, at least we want a commitment from the Government that it will not implement the new constitution, even if it is acceptable to Whites, unless a “yes” vote can also be obtained on the same basis from the Coloureds and Indians who are to be included. Secondly, if there is to be a referendum, there should be informed opinion, and at this stage there is grand confusion as to the details. In this regard the PFP calls on the media to inform the public on the contents of the Bill and to allow the debate on the consequences to be put on an unbiased basis. This most important debate will not take place on that most important platform, namely SATV. I therefore appeal to all public-spirited organizations, churches, service clubs, businesses, professional institutions and, in fact, all groups which aid in forming public opinion to arrange public forums on this referendum in the interests of their members and of the public at large.

You can only confuse them more.

We may not have our own J.R. oil-well type of backer to put out emotional and misleading platitudes, but we will meet any Government member on any platform at any time to debate the merits and consequences of this constitution for the benefit of all voters. Sir, I am still quite young and I just will not take “yes” for an answer very easily.

Mr. Speaker, I want to observe at the end of the debate that if there is an hon. member on the other side of the House who has dropped the ball, it is the hon. member who is lost in a reverie at the moment, namely the hon. member for Innas-dal, who denigrated some of the clergymen in this country in a much more reprehensible way than the teachers of South Africa.

With reference to the effect of clause 7, which provides that no voter may be unduly influenced, I should like to say a few things to the hon. the Minister. In the first place, I wish to refer to the talk entitled “Sake van die Dag” which was broadcast by the SABC on 26 August. I want to quote a few phrases from the talk. Among the statements made were the following—

After an analysis of the no votes, it was said that these would lead—

The talk concluded with the sentence—

I now want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, if this talk were to be broadcast after the referendum had been proclaimed, he would consider it to be a contravention of clause 7 of the measure. I want to come now to the television service. On 20 December, two newspaper editors explained the constitutional plan with much gesturing on a set with lights going on and off. However, the other side was given no opportunity to state its view of the matter. No opportunity was afforded us of explaining our interpretation of the constitution. The PFP did not get an opportunity either. Recently 19 academics came out in support of the constitution. This was not only the main item on the news programmes of the television services, but those people were also given the opportunity of commenting on it. Subsequently, 148 academics voiced their opposition to the constitution, but they got no mention in any news programme of the SABC television service. They were given no opportunity of explaining their case.

The hon. the Minister indicated yesterday that we should go to court with our complaints, but I want to tell him that I hope he is not going to force us to do so. Not only would the fine of up to R10 000 have to come from the taxpayer’s pocket in such a case; it would also furnish irrefutable proof of the fact that the Government is recklessly using State funds for NP propaganda. I trust that such an action will not be necessary.

I want to make a serious plea, on behalf of the taxpayers of South Africa, for the public to be given an opportunity to view the matter from both sides. This is done in every democratic country. During the recent general election in England, equal time was made available to all the political parties to state their case. I believe that the hon. the Minister owes it to the taxpayers of South Africa to give every party enough and equal opportunities to state its position and its view of the question so that the taxpayers may decide what they should do. I am anxious to hear the hon. the Minister’s reply to this.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat is making propaganda out of aspects involving the SABC, a matter not directly relevant to this debate. He should rather attack my colleague about this during the Third Reading debate on the Constitution Bill. I should like to make use of the opportunity to take up the cudgels for the SABC once more. The SABC is part of the media in the country. It is, firstly, an autonomous organization controlled by an autonomous board. Secondly the SABC presents discussion programmes in which opinions are expressed. I can find no fault with the SABC presenting the kind of thing the hon. member quoted. We shall probably he hearing the SABC say tomorrow that the hon. member for Kuruman had stated that this Government’s policy would result in mixed government and power-sharing.

That is true.

That is not true. It is not true, yet the SABC will be expressing that opinion. They make recordings of speeches by the hon. the Leader of the CP, thereby giving him exposure. The SABC, for example, repeatedly focused the spotlight on Prof. Boshoff, who unreservedly echoes CP standpoints. He obtained exposure in an interview with Dr. Willem de Klerk, in a debate with Adv. Louis Nel and also in newspaper reports and comment. So what are those hon. members complaining about? Everyone gets a fair chance. The SABC reflects various standpoints. As a newspaper editor, for example the editor of Die Patriot, is surely entitled to put his standpoint, so too are those who wish to express their organized, considered opinion, entitled to do so by way of the S ABC’s discussion programmes.

These are not discussion programmes, but the opinions of the SABC. I am talking of the programme “Current Affairs”.

“Current Affairs” does not represent an official standpoint. During the time the hon. member for Benoni worked at the SABC, he regularly adopted a certain standpoint. It is the same as editorial comment.

The CP is busy with “undercurrent affairs”.

Before I get round to this afternoon’s debate I quickly want to touch on two aspects which hon. members brought to the fore but which could not, because of the lateness of the hour, be given proper attention yesterday evening.

The hon. member for Constantia had a problem involving the prohibition of opinion polls. Let me tell the hon. member that this matter has a long history in this House of Assembly. As far back as 1976 a Select Committee on the Electoral Consolidation Act, 1946, reported as follows on the prohibition of opinion polls—

During 1976 one of my predecessors gave, inter alia, the following interesting motivation when he said—

What is interesting, is that he calls the election itself an opinion poll. The same prohibitions were then introduced. If that is indeed the case, then one has to admit that a referendum is fundamentally that much more of an opinion poll. It is an opinion poll conducted in the most scientific manner possible, because it is not conducted by taking a sample of say 30, 3 000 or 6 000 subjects, but a sample involving all voters who are eligible to vote in the relative opinion poll. That is why, during such an opinion poll, there is not really any room for smaller opinion polls, the scientific nature of which is not always above suspicion and which can be manipulated to the detriment of a voter’s right to express an unbiassed opinion during what is the most important of opinion polls, a referendum, such as the one we are going to have on 2 November.

A second matter that was raised was the question of whether we should speak of “referendums” or “referenda”.

†The hon. member for Johannesburg North tried to make out a case for “referenda” as the plural for “referendum”. I just want to refer him to well-known English dictionaries, such as Fowler’s Modern English Usage, the 1965 edition, and Webster’s New International Dictionary. If he consults these dictionaries he will find that the word “referendums” as the plural for “referendum” is the more acceptable form in modern usage. In this regard the following quotation from Fowler very aptly illustrates the point—

Hon. members are also referred to a fairly recent publication entitled Referendum’s, a Comparative Study of Practice and Theory, published in 1978, which is a good example of the preference given to “referendums” as the plural for “referendum”. In any event, what will the Refenda Act sound like and how will it fall on the ear? To my mind somewhat unnaturally. “Referendums Act” sounds better. I think I have given hon. members sufficient quotes to prove that we have not lightly decided not to accept the amendment.

*Before saying any concluding words on this Bill, I should like to react specifically to two previous speakers, after which I shall be referring to other speakers in my general summing up.

The hon. member for Greytown made more or less his normal type of speech, but I am not going to make any negative comments now. He gets enough of a hiding as it is. The hon. member did, however, make one oblique point, in that regard joining up with what we hear regularly from the CP benches. What he did was to suggest that there was division in the ranks of the NP. He spoke of some who were spearheading the NP and others—so he suggested—who were stragglers. Can the hon. member see how carefully I was listening to him? I spotted what he was suggesting at. I should like to tell the hon. member that he really chose the wrong moment for that. After his party’s executive, according to reports, was not unanimously prepared to follow the lead of the hon. Leader of the PFP on this fundamental issue, after serious division on this matter in their ranks, after a senior member, in his official capacity, first said that the decision was unanimous and then later, according to newspaper reports, admitted “that there was an overwhelming majority”, after such floundering around on this issue, that hon. member speaks about so-called division in the ranks of this party. Let me put the hon. member’s mind at rest. Since hon. members of the CP, who wanted to hijack the NP from within and who, over a period of time, had undermined the party from within, have left our ranks, there is no longer any division in the NP. In my executive, the Transvaal executive, there has never again been any division on any important matter since the CP left us, and that is also the position in all three the other provinces. Things are going well in the NP ranks. Nor will it do hon. members any good to try to play the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and myself off against each other. We are not engaged in any struggle. We are working together in a team for the same cause in which we both believe equally strongly.

Now I come to the hon. member for Kuruman. In the light of his speech I want to test the hon. member’s credibility on two points. He intimated that I gave a different definition of “nation” to that given by the Prime Minister. He then quoted the Prime Minister’s definition. Let me again quote to him the definition I quoted yesterday and point out to him that that is not my definition, but the definition of the General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church, and this definition agrees with the definition given by the hon. the Prime Minister. Let me quote this definition once more—

It is precisely what the hon. the Prime Minister also said.

But the Prime Minister said nothing about the Blacks.

Let us take it a bit further. Those hon. members agreed, did they not, about the Whites, Coloureds and Indians occupying one geographic area, as set out in the 1981 constitution. They agreed, surely that a separate country for the Coloureds or for the Indians was not possible. Therefore there should be co-responsibility on matters of common concern, and on that score those hon. members also agreed. Now the hon. member comes along and uses the concepts “nation” and “people” to cast doubt on our credibility. Sir, if the hon. member wants to talk about somersaulting, let me say that I do not know what it is they were doing in regard to this cardinal issue which eventually led to a split. Surely they did not break away because of the standpoint they now advocate. In the interim they have advocated other standpoints. For quite some time, after their having broken away from the NP, and having established the CP, the hon. the Leader of the CP said that he stood by the 1977 constitutional plan. It was only at a later stage that he adopted another standpoint. His first standpoint was that the 1977 plan was good. Then it was a matter of a difference of interpretation. So those hon. members must not talk to us about credibility or doing a somersault. Their credibility hangs in tatters.

A great fuss is also made about the use of the concept “people”. On more than one occasion I have said that this is a term that has been used very loosely in the past.

Does that apply to you as well?

We have all been guilty of doing so, myself included.

Now we must go along with you because you were not careful enough …

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members to give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to complete his speech. We cannot go on with this to and fro discussion.

Even when we were using the terminology so loosely, we still jointly believed that a Coloured homeland was not practical politics, that we all lived in one country and that there should consequently be co-responsibility in matters of common concern. Then those hon. members had not yet done a somersault. The split, however, has made it necessary for us to speak clearly about the fundamental differences existing between us. Let us raise the debate to a higher level and state matters in clear terms. We on this side have stopped using these concepts loosely, and I appeal to hon. members opposite to fall in line with the scientific definition of the concepts “people” and “nation”. I also ask them to obtain more clarity about the concepts so that we do not get ridiculous situations such as the hon. member for Brakpan saying, the other day, that he is a member of the White people and also a member of the Afrikaner people.

Are you not?

I am a member of a single nation and I am a member of the Afrikaner people. When it comes to belonging to a people, this means only one thing, as far as I am concerned. Hon. members opposite use these concepts in a woolly fashion.

In conclusion the hon. member touched upon my reference to Dr. Mulder. Let me tell hon. members an interesting anecdote; I do not want to, but they are forcing me. As an information officer Dr. Connie Mulder once called me in and told me, with great enthusiasm, that we now had the plan that would make the breakthrough, that would offer the solution, that was the magic formula. He told me that in his study where he did not have to say anything other than what he really believed. But what did he subsequently say at Kroonstad? There he said that he had never believed in this plan; that he knew it was going to fail and that he had waited for it to fail. Sir, that is the kind of leadership quality and credibility that we have to deal with in the unfortunate, bitter struggle that is being waged at the moment.

Sir, the Bill and the proposed regulations for the referendum on 2 November should, at this stage, be evaluated in the light of four norms. The first question that must be asked is whether this is in the interests of the voters; whether this promotes the interests of the voters. To this the answer is: Yes, because it makes it easier for voters to vote, and everyone who wants to vote, has an opportunity to do so. There is still time to obtain a book of life if voters do not have one yet. The second test is whether the question that is being put is confusing or not. The answer is that the question is not confusing, but rather clear and to the point. There is consensus about this amongst the various parties. The third criterion is whether there are sufficient measures to control or prevent malpractices taking place. Here the answer is also “yes”. The quality of the control will be the same as that during general elections. I have undertaken to make the regulations available to the various parties before they are published and as soon as I have approved them in their final form. I now just want to lift the veil a little on a few aspects that have not yet been dealt with.

Firstly, there will be 166 voting areas, each with a voting officer. A referendum agent will be appointed in each of these areas, and in conjunction with the one referendum agent per constituency, nine “yes” vote assistant agents are going to be appointed and nine “no”-vote assistant agents. We envisage having three voting agents per “yes”-vote polling station and three voting agents per “no”-vote polling station; also that we shall be appointing four agents on each side for checking the votes cast in each voting area and that we shall, in accordance with the size of the region and the number of potential votes in that region, be appointing agents to count the votes on a regional basis. So for the larger regions such as Johannesburg and the Western Cape more people will be appointed than for smaller regions such as George and the Northern Transvaal.

I must also mention that as far as special votes are concerned, the fact of the matter is that the main category, i.e. those able to cast special votes on polling day because they cannot be in their constituencies, is a category that falls away. In future, those people can vote at any polling station in the country. Categories in which provision will still be made for special votes in the referendum are those involving the sick, the aged and pregnant women, and also voters who are resident in the Republic, but who will be abroad on polling day, voters who, because of the duties they perform in the police, the nursing services, the fire brigade and other services cannot get to a polling station on polling day, train passengers who, because of train timetables, will not find it possible to get to a polling station and military personnel who, owing to military operations, will not find it possible to get to a polling station on polling day. At homes for the aged special polling stations will also be set up, as is the case during ordinary elections, with everyone being notified, and the aged being given an opportunity to vote there owing to the fact that on polling day they would not easily be able to reach a polling station, chiefly because of their physical condition. A service will also be furnished by way of the appointment of more officials to allow the aged, the bedridden, invalids, etc., to vote by way of special votes in their homes. These are but a few of the measures that we intend to adopt in order to ensure that people have every opportunity to vote and that fairness does prevail.

The fourth test…

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

I have very little time left, but the hon. member may ask me a quick question.

Mr. Speaker, I actually want to put two questions to the hon. the Minister. I am gratified to hear the hon. the Minister say that provision will be made for people who find themselves abroad. Could he just tell us whether this would also be applicable to other smaller categories of people, for example those at sea who cannot therefore cast their vote in any electoral district in the country, in fact cannot vote at all? My second question is whether the hon. the Minister would be prepared, in drawing up the regulations, to consider granting approval for agents—all those appointed on behalf of the “yes”-side and the “no”-side—not necessarily having to act for the chief “no”-agent or chief “yes”-agent, i.e. that the chief “no”-agent or chief “yes”-agent does not necessarily have to be legally responsible for all the other people acting on behalf of that specific side.

Mr. Speaker, my answer to the hon. member’s first question is “yes”. Those involved must, however, furnish proof that they will be on the high seas for the whole of that day, from 07h00 to 21h00. In such a case they would, in my opinion, also qualify, and we shall be giving special consideration to such cases.

To the hon. member’s second question my reply is that no one is being appointed to act on behalf of a party. The people who are to be appointed are to be appointed to exercise control, against the background of a specific standpoint, over possible malpractices, and also to check that the opposite standpoint is in no way given preferential treatment and that the standpoint he defends is in no way adversely affected. I therefore do not foresee this taking place on any special grounds. What I do foresee, however, is that parties will be free to ensure this. I also want to give the assurance that we would like to ensure, for example, that the NP in a specific constituency, or even the NRP, on the basis of representations that it can make or proof that it can furnish in regard to the support it enjoys, can have more than one of the assistant agents, so that there will specifically be one of them who will have the same powers to personally enter polling stations and exercise control.

The fourth test is whether political parties will have a reasonable opportunity to put their case. I want to argue that this will indeed be the case. There is sufficient time subsequent to the announcement of the referendum. All the parties have an equal period of time. The referendum was announced immediately after the decision had been taken.

When this Bill is passed at the end of the Third Reading Stage, and when the new constitution is passed, which we expect to happen at the end of this week, the scene will be set for the electorate to make a decision; a decision of vital importance to everyone in South Africa. I believe that it is of cardinal importance for each and every voter to properly clarify for himself what the referendum that is going to be held is really all about. At a time when the dark clouds of a potential conventional war in Southern Africa are heavily banked on the horizon, at a time when millions of people, who will not be taking part in this referendum, will assiduously be watching the campaign and the result; at a time when the real enemies of South Africa are rubbing their hands and licking their lips, particularly at the prospect of the division and bitterness in Afrikaner ranks, a heavy obligation is placed on each individual voter to determine his or her position and to cast his or her vote in a reasonable, calm, level-headed and scientific manner, with his or her eyes on the future. In this connection there is a special word I want to say about the level to which the CP, in particular, has reduced the political debate in Afrikaner ranks. [Interjections.] All objective observers who speak to me express their dismay at the level of debate in this House, particularly between the CP and the NP, and say that it is a disgrace to the highest House in the land that things have sunk to that level. [Interjections.] In regard to the bitterness of the struggle that is so fierce as to have elicited such negative comment, there is a passage by the writer Gerhard Beukes that I should like to quote, a passage that, I think has a message. In an essay he wrote the following—

Then he continues with this sensible advice—

And in any case this is oneself—

Sir, for South Africa a “no”-vote is part of that abyss to which this writer was referring. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Leader of the CP, who said “not a drop”, I should like to ask: Supposing, contrary to all expectations, 51% of the voters were to vote “no”. Who is going to claim a victory? The Progs are going to say it is a vote against this constitutional development because it does not include Blacks, etc. The CP is going to say it is a vote against integration. Who is going to join them, however, in saying that it is a victory? All the other with whom those hon. members ought not to be grouped, all the others who stand for a “no”-vote, are going to claim a “no”-vote as a victory for the UDF. [Interjections.] There is also a new development in this connection. In reading today’s Citizen, one sees that a meeting was held at Pietersburg and that 700 young people at the—

These 700 people represent Azapo.

I am not accusing hon. members of the CP of sharing these sympathies. I am not saying that they are opposed to this for the same reasons. Let me confront the hon. the leader of the CP with this question: If he helps the “noes” to win, to what is he lending his assistance and whom is he helping? That he must settle for himself.

A “yes”-vote is a vote for orderly development. A “no”-vote is a vote for chaos because there would be a chorus of conflicting claims that would be made. What is the mandate of that “no”? The “yes”-mandate states that we maintain the basic point of departure of self-determination. The “yes” mandate states that out of self-determining own institutions we build up co-operation on matters of common concern. The “yes”-vote opens up the door of hope for the future. The “yes”-vote ensures that those who also adhere to the values adhered to by the hon. the leader of the CP will join hands in this country against those who want to destroy those values in this country.

Question put,

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members are aware, section 1 of the Borders of Particular States Extension Act, 1980, provides that the State President may from time to time by proclamation transfer some of the land defined in the schedule of the Act to certain sovereign independent States. Land transferred in this way then ceases to be part of the Republic of South Africa and forms part of the State to which it has been transferred.

The amending Bill before the House at present simply aims at amending the schedule by incorporating the town of Thaba ’Nchu into Bophuthatswana. The fact is that the taxpayers and the municipality of Thaba ’Nchu—this became apparent from a referendum held among the inhabitants of Thaba ’Nchu—requested to be incorporated into Bophuthatswana. As far back as February this year the Cabinet gave permission for Thaba ’Nchu to be incorporated into Bophuthatswana.

The Government also nominated a technical committee to negotiate the conditions for incorporation. This technical committee has disposed of its work and has recommended that Thaba ’Nchu be incorporated into Bophuthatswana on 1 October. In terms of this legislation, the State President will then give effect to the incorporation by way of proclamation in the Gazette. I shall therefore be moving an amendment to clause 2 of the Bill during the Committee Stage. The fact is that the technical committee, which consisted of myself as chairman, inhabitants of Thaba ’Nchu and the Government of Bophuthatswana, drew up conditions in terms of which Thaba ’Nchu could be incorporated.

The Cabinet’s standpoint was that the White residential area of Thaba ’Nchu should be incorporated into Bophuthatswana at the request of the inhabitants of Bophuthatswana. The technical committee found that in order to incorporate the White town of Thaba ’Nchu into Bophuthatswana properly and in a functional way, it would be necessary to incorporate more than simply the present surveyed residential area, and it is therefore recommended that 571 ha be incorporated. This will include facilities such as the reservoir and the sewerage works. Therefore, only the section of the urbanland of Thaba ’Nchu north of the Bloemfontein road will be incorporated. As far as the remainder of the land is concerned, the position is that the original deeds of transfer provide that if the land is not being used for the inhabitants of Thaba ’Nchu, it must revert back to the original owners, or to the State. Consequently, at a later stage it will be necessary for us to look at what should happen to the remainder of the land which at present forms part of the town common-age of Thaba ’Nchu. A section of the land was donated to Thaba ’Nchu by the State at that time, whilst other sections of the land were made available by others.

The Committee has succeeded in achieving complete agreement between the South African Government, the Government of Bophuthatswana and the inhabitants of Thaba ’Nchu. There are just over 500 White inhabitants in Thaba ’Nchu, 200 of whom are taxpayers. We have also reached an agreement with regard to the school in Thaba ’Nchu, as well as with regard to maintaining the infrastructure of the town. It was also agreed that Thaba ’Nchu would not simply be left to its own devices in the process, but that projects such as the building of a regional abattoir, for example, which is not only of importance to Thaba ’Nchu, would be tackled. We expect approximately 450 000 people to be living in the Thaba ’Nchu-Onverwacht area shortly. Consequently, the whole process of negotiation with Bophuthatswana makes provision for a technikon to be built in Thaba ’Nchu. We do not expect a large exodus of people from Thaba ’Nchu. There will probably be a few people who will want to leave immediately as a result of practical circumstances, but I want to remind the House that the Cabinet took a decision as far back as 22 February 1983 with regard to the situation in Mafikeng, for example, which will also apply to the whole consolidation process throughout. People need not leave if they do not want to. If it becomes necessary for them to leave at some stage, they have the guarantee that the South African Government will permit them to do so. We are therefore not going to place restrictions on people to leave within a particular period of time, or to remain. We have also been given the undertaking by the Government of Bophuthatswana that Whites who are being included in the consolidation process, as is the case in Thaba ’Nchu, do not necessarily have to become citizens of Bophuthatswana. Most of the independent and national States have already altered their constitutions to the effect that it is now possible for Whites to own property in those Black States, and they may, in fact, own more than one property.

We have made the necessary arrangements with regard to police and telecommunications. Arrangements have also been made to link up the sewerage works of Thaba ’Nchu with that of the neighbouring Black area. Arrangements have also been made for the linking up of the automatic telephone exchange in Thaba ’Nchu. All these arrangements have now been finalized. It is to be hoped that the transfer of Thaba ’Nchu will run smoothly on 1 October. I do not think we foresee any problems at this stage. The fact is that the people themselves have requested this. A large and properly organized development point which will be to the benefit of all could be established at Thaba ’Nchu and in the neighbouring Black area of Bophuthatswana—the Thaba ’Nchu district—and in the Onverwacht area, which is trust land at present, but which is nevertheless earmarked to accommodate at some stage the Sotho people returning from the urban areas.

Mr. Speaker, before I come to the Bill before the House I should like to say a few words about the hon. the Deputy Minister. Although we differ very considerably from his political point of view, and have differed very often over all these years, we have always found him a very courteous person to deal with.

Hear, hear!

All of us on this side were sorry to hear of his resignation and retirement because of his ill-health. We want to wish him better health and we hope that he will enjoy a reasonable span of life when he leaves the House.

We have so few men in the Cabinet and then he resigns!

Having said that, I want to come back to the Bill. I want to remind the House that this is actually the second time within three years that Bophuthatswana is going to acquire a South African town. The other occasion, of course, was in June 1980 when Bophuthatswana acquired the town of Mafikeng. That was of course a much larger proposition than the one we are considering today because Mafikeng had a population of some 8 500. The town was added to Bophuthatswana after two years of considerable uncertainty, during which period, I may say, the residents went through an anxious time. There was a good deal of consultation with the residents concerned. The town council of Mafikeng gave its consent to the move. It represented something like 4 000 Whites. The Coloured Management Committee which represented 3 600 people and the Indian Management Committee which represented about 300 people, as well as the local agricultural union, Chambers of Commerce etc., were all consulted before the hand-over took place. All the Black inhabitants of course were already Tswana citizens. At the time when that hand-over took place there were detailed arrangements about the taking over of schools. The management of schools was to remain in the hands of the Transvaal Education Department. Ample time was given for the transfer of property and for the payment of compensation. Most important of all was the retention by those people who remained in Mafikeng after it was handed over to Bophuthatswana of their South African citizenship. Arrangements were also made as to where they were going to vote in the forthcoming election.

I notice that the hon. the Deputy Minister did not mention today what arrangements were being made in regard to the electoral rights of those South African citizens who will remain in Thaba ’Nchu after the handover to Bophuthatswana. Presumably they will vote in Bloemfontein or in the nearest White town.

Today we are talking about the hand-over to Bophuthatswana of the small town of Thaba ’Nchu. Geographically it is a different situation of course. Mafikeng was entirely encircled by Bophuthatswana. Here we have a small town which is adjacent to the territory of Thaba ’Nchu and which is many hundreds of miles from the major territory of Bophuthatswana, which is well to the north of it. Nevertheless, we have heard a detailed and lengthy explanation from the hon. the Deputy Minister about the hand-over of the small town of Thaba ’Nchu. I think there are something like 244 adult Whites among whom a referendum was held, and I am told that 87% of the inhabitants agreed to the transfer. There are some people, therefore, who are not very satisfied, but I presume that proper arrangements will be made to compensate those people as far as their property is concerned should they decide to leave the area. The hon. the Deputy Minister stated that there was no set date when these people would have to make up their minds, but I would put it to him that the sooner the arrangements re compensation are completed the better it will be for the peace of mind of the people concerned. I gather too, of course, that these people are going to retain their citizenship and there is no problem with the South African Government or with the Bophuthatswana Government on this score. I gather that there are no Coloured inhabitants whom we have to worry about. There are no actual removals that are going to be effected. Black inhabitants are also already Tswana citizens. And being the Orange Free State, there is not an Indian in sight.

Will they be allowed in in future?

They probably will be because I am sure the Government of Bophuthatswana will take what I would call a more progressive attitude towards the admission of Indians than did the provincial authorities of the Orange Free State.

There was one factor that affected the people of Mafikeng which also affects the people of Thaba ’Nchu, and that is the economic factor. Hon. members will remember that when the Mafikeng handover was being discussed, the question of the competition that was being experienced by storekeepers and people who were running businesses in Mafikeng was being very badly affected by the fact that there is no general sales tax in Bophuthatswana. So they were losing a lot of their customers to Mmabatho, and the same thing is happening, I understand, as far as Thaba ’Nchu is concerned. Stores have opened in the adjacent area, inside Bophuthatswana, and the Thaba ’Nchu storekeepers are experiencing severe competition because of the fact that those stores or businesses do not have to charge general sales tax whereas in Thaba ’Nchu, which falls under the South African system, they do have to pay general sales tax.

I understand too that the major infrastructure of the town is to be handed over as well. The hon. the Deputy Minister did mention that there was some division as to what is going and what is not going to be given to Bophuthatswana and that only part of the infrastructure is being handed over. We would be interested to hear some more details about that.

Sir, we are not going to oppose this measure since there are no forced removals involved. There is no loss of citizenship involved and the people themselves have in an overwhelming majority decided that they wished to join the territory of Bophuthatswana. Since they themselves want this and, as I say, there is no question of deprivation of citizenship or the loss of any property rights, etc., without compensation, we are not going to oppose this. I might say we are going to have to consider each case on merit as it crops up. I also want to tell hon. members that it is not to be considered a matter of principle that we have agreed both to Mafikeng and to Thaba ’Nchu or that this means that we are going to agree to handovers in the future where different sets of circumstances may operate, both geographically and as far as the wishes of the inhabitants of those areas are concerned.

With these few words I wish to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we are not going to oppose the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. member for Houghton. We are all very pleased that the PFP is not going to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. We thank them for that. We are dealing here with the realities of South Africa. We see them on a miniature scale in Thaba ’Nchu. The fact of the matter is that Thaba ’Nchu, a White town, is isolated on the eastern side of the Thaba ’Nchu area, which belongs to Bophuthatswana.

Bophuthatswana is an example of those masterpieces of the NP’s policy of separate development which is making wonderful progress and is, moreover, viable in the highest degree. It is also true that tremendous development is taking place in Bophuthatswana just across the border in Thaba ’Nchu, as the hon. member for Houghton, too, rightly pointed out. I believe we would do well to note what the real infrastructure in Thaba ’Nchu involves so that we may form an idea of what we are dealing with. The fact of the matter is that the number of residents totals about 600. There are only 171 taxpayers. The effect of this can be felt in many places particularly with regard to the rates that those people have to pay to the town councils. For example, in the case of a property of R40 000 in Thaba ’Nchu, the relevant piece of land having been valued at about R5 000, it appears that the tax structure in Thaba ’Nchu is almost twice that in a city such as Bloemfontein.

Because it is such a small town, and also because there is a growth point just over the border, all these things make it preferable to those people to be incorporated into Bophuthatswana. It is no wonder, then, that the inhabitants of Thaba ’Nchu have asked to be incorporated. In fact, as far back as April it was already felt that they would very much like to be incorporated and that this was a matter of urgency.

Therefore, taking this into account as well as the enormous volume of work that the incorporation of such a town involves, one cannot help thinking, too, of the extensive infrastructure that has to be considered. The fact is, too, that all the infrastructure north of the tarred road has to be incorporated into Bophuthatswana. All these things indicate the extent of the work that has to be done in order to finalize all the agreements in this regard; for example, agreements in regard to the purchase of land, as well as the consideration of certain escalation provisions, holding discussions with people, and all the innumerable things that entails. Furthermore, we call to mind of the negotiations being conducted with the Government of Bophuthatswana. After all, that Government surely has a say in the acquisition of what is acceptable to it too.

In conclusion, I should like to pay tribute to the hon. the Deputy Minister who, as it were, planned and thought out all the aspects in respect of Mafikeng and also carried them through successfully. With the experience he gained in the case of Mafikeng the hon. the Deputy Minister is once again seeing to the transfer of Thaba ’Nchu to Bophuthatswana in the smoothest possible manner. We should therefore like to pay tribute to the hon. the Deputy Minister. He is an absolute expert in this field. He is an expert in his field and we all regret the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister will not be with us for much longer. We who served with him on the Commission for Co-operation and Development sensed his leadership very strongly. We relied on his knowledge and his common sense. Therefore, we, too, thank him for the guidance he gave us there.

The hon. the Deputy Minister also appointed himself chairman of the technical committee which had to arrange all the aspects of the transfer. Furthermore, he appointed himself chairman of the agreements committee, which had to organize the agreements. He is the man who negotiated with the Cabinet Ministers of Bophuthatswana, with the town council, the mayor and all the other people in Thaba ’Nchu who were involved, and we should therefore like to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that that is the monument to himself that he leaves behind him. He is showing us the way we have to follow from this point onwards. We wish him a prosperous temporary absence from the House of Assembly. May his health improve speedily and thoroughly. We are looking forward to having him with us again.

With these few words, Mr. Speaker, and particularly, too, because hon. members of the official Opposition as well as, I believe, the other parties in this House, support this measure, I want to give our most cordial support to the Second Reading of this measure on behalf of the governing party.

Mr. Chairman, before you allow me to address a few words to the hon. the Deputy Minister, I just very briefly want to put our point of view, not only in respect of this legislation but also in respect of further legislation we can expect in this regard in future.

In 1936, certain legislation was passed in terms of which a promise was made in regard to the transfer of land to the Black peoples of South Africa. Without that legislation having been repealed, its quota is now being exceeded repeatedly, and virtually as a matter of routine. For that reason it is our standpoint that although Thaba ’Nchu is a small area, it cannot be seen in isolation. After taking office, the hon. the Prime Minister said that the final consolidation of the Black homelands had to be concluded. The instruction was given that the proposals had to be finalized within a certain period. We eagerly looked forward to that, but to this day we do not have those final proposals. However, these proposals are now bit by bit reaching the highest House in this land for approval and, with the proposals yet to come, we have to hear repeatedly that the quota of 1936 is being exceeded time and time again. This is why I am saying that it is the standpoint of our party that we are opposed in principle to that quota now being exceeded on an ad hoc basis time and again. For this reason we are unhappy about the whole situation; furthermore we are not in favour of the measure before us.

I now wish to address a few words to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I think I am entitled to call him my friend. In the course of one’s life, particularly one’s public life, one’s path crosses that of many people. In some cases one wants to forget it as soon as possible, but in others one remains grateful that one’s path—and that includes one’s political path—had crossed those of certain people. I am grateful that in my public life I was able to become acquainted with the hon. the Deputy Minister, an idealistic young man, a man with an exceptional intellect who had a dream for South Africa. He had a dream of separate Black peoples who would be properly consolidated and brought together as separate peoples in their own fatherland. I am convinced that he did everything in his power to help realize that ideal. We are personally aware of the frustrations encountered by the hon. the Deputy Minister in this process, how proposals from his side, made after level-headed consideration, were not accepted but rejected for the sake of political expediency. I do not want to quote examples in this regard, but those frustrations existed. However, in spite of that, he endeavoured to carry out the task entrusted to him to the best of his ability.

Since the hon. the Deputy Minister has now resigned, I want to say to him from our side that we are sorry, that we regret the fact that this House and the administration of this country will have to forfeit his talents. We wish him good health and want to express our earnest wish that our paths will often cross in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for the work he and I were able to do together over many years. As a member of the Commission for Co-operation and Development, he was my chairman for a number of years, and I came to know him as someone with a tremendous capacity for work. I think hon. members who still serve on the commission, will recall that he often arranged meetings for 07h00 or until late at night. He has a capacity for work which I do not think would be easily equaled, and he is not simply a slave, but someone inspired by the work he does, as the hon. member for Barberton said, someone who had a dream of a better South Africa. The hon. the Deputy Minister is someone who does not regard himself as bound to absolutely rigid, unalterable regulations. He is someone who is prepared to analyse a situation, to see a situation in perspective and to try to find solutions to the problem and not stick rigidly to previous regulations.

I want to tell the hon. member for Barberton that I understand that a certain quota was fixed in 1936 and that many people would like us to stick rigidly to that quota, but in this case, where we in Southern Africa are able to bring about peaceful co-existence and since, in carrying out this task, we are making peaceful border adjustments which can satisfy both the White and the Black peoples, we are benefiting future generations in South Africa. This is the pattern that was set by the hon. the Deputy Minister. He was able to adapt to a dream of a better Southern Africa for White and Black. We want to express our appreciation for this.

When it comes to altering borders, I am aware that the history of the world is interspersed with wars that resulted from disputes over border adjustments. I think we in South Africa have set an example of how it is possible to effect border adjustments peacefully. Is it not ironical that although we in South Africa are able to effect peaceful border adjustments between peoples—in this case between the Tswanas and White South Africa—the world rejects us for that very reason. The world does not acknowledge this, the world refuses to recognize Bophuthatswana’s independence. Is that not ironic? Is that not a sign of the absolute double standards being displayed internationally? This is the kind of double standards being displayed by the Third World countries that have already obtained independence due to the dissolution of the colonies before the war on the one hand, and as a result of the political expediency of the First World—I am speaking about countries in Europe that previously had colonies—that refuse to recognize the independence of Bophuthatswana, Transkei, Venda and Ciskei, with whom we were able to come to a peaceful agreement, on the other.

A referendum was held in the case of Thaba ’Nchu. As the hon. member for Houghton said, 87% of the eligible voters who participated in the referendum, voted in favour of the area being incorporated into Bophuthatswana. Arrangements were made so that anyone who was not happy, would not suffer any loss. A peaceful arrangement was made to the satisfaction of all the inhabitants.

What is the position, basically? We in Southern Africa who have borders that overlap, must try to find a pattern for peaceful co-existence. What are the demands made by the people involved? They demand that they will not be worse off economically. They also demand that their social well-being is not adversely affected. They demand personal security. They ask that their way of life should not be adversely affected. They ask that they will not be adversely affected economically, in the sense that the value of their properties declines, or that the property market in that area collapses to the extent that their purchasing power is adversely affected.

If such an arrangement can be made, as has been done here, we are creating goodwill between the Whites and Blacks in South Africa, we are creating goodwill between the peoples of South Africa in an otherwise explosive continent when it comes to the multiplicity of peoples and races. Is this not beneficial in Africa, where so much tension is caused over the borders between races and peoples? The whole of Africa is full of such examples.

If there were Black leaders in the Free State or in the Transvaal who would also show a certain degree of understanding for the necessity to maintain sound relations, let us continue to improve relations. If, in that process, we find it necessary not to stick rigidly to the quota prescribed in 1936, but to deviate from the 1936 decision, a decision that was taken arbitrarily, I ask hon. members of the CP not to adopt a rigid standpoint in this regard. May they display an understanding of the situation.

When are you going to stop giving land away?

It is not a question of giving land away. We are trying to order relations among peoples in an orderly way. In this case, we are able to do so without anyone suffering any loss. The White inhabitants are not suffering any loss. Nor are the Black inhabitants suffering any loss. In the process, the Black inhabitants in that area are also being involved in a new situation in which they can enter the free market and be placed on the path of development in the free enterprise system. What is the greatest evil in South Africa?

The CP.

Is not the greatest evil in relations between Black and White in Southern Africa the fact that the Blacks have a land ownership system which will destroy this country if we continue on this path for much longer? They do not have private property ownership. Basically, they have a feudal system in terms of which the land is in the possession of certain “land barons”, the Chiefs. As the hon. the Deputy Minister said on occasion: God stopped making land, but he did not stop making people. If the people who live there attach no value to that land, the land will go to ruin, and our country as a whole will suffer loss. We have made arrangements and found a formula to foster sound relations. This is a positive step.

To conclude, I wish to record once again my deep regret that the hon. the Deputy Minister has seen fit to hand in his resignation for health reasons. As the Member of Parliament for Klip River, I had set my hopes on his knowledge and ability to be of assistance in solving some of the many problems in my constituency. He knows the area and has visited the problem areas personally. In his understanding of the realities there, he intimated at one stage that we could possibly find solutions by deviating from the rigid, prescribed formulae which could perhaps apply elsewhere, but not here. I truly want to express the hope that whoever succeeds him, will learn from him how to go about solving problems.

Mr. Speaker, having to listen to everybody talking about him instead of against him, this occasion is perhaps more traumatic for the hon. the Deputy Minister than trying to consolidate some boundaries. However, we too would like to place on record our very sincere appreciation for the manner in which the hon. the Deputy Minister has received us on occasions when we have gone to him with consolidation problems. I always felt in his presence that one was dealing with a person who had a good measure of common sense and a sincere appreciation of the problem under discussion and that we were not in fact dealing with an official or an ideologically or politically bound person who was not prepared to take each case on its merits. We do appreciate the hon. the Deputy Minister’s approach to these matters. I think it speaks volumes for a man who has in many respects held a portfolio which has been very emotion-laden when it comes to the question of the implementation of Government policy in respect of consolidation, the uprooting of people and getting rid of old and established family homes with all the sentiment attached to such things, that he has nevertheless remained someone who is respected and appreciated by members of this House.

I think I must use this opportunity to place on record equally that we know that, apart from the members of the commission, there are with the hon. the Deputy Minister certain members of his staff who have supported him and who have done a tremendous task. They have been equally approachable and very patient in the face of the tremendous problems they have had to face, largely of the Government’s making, and which they have had to unravel. I will not say any more about that. We on these benches feel that there are not enough of these people. There are certain people in that department who, if I am allowed to use the expression, are working their butts off. They really are doing more than seems humanly possible. I would like to suggest that the hon. the Deputy Minister, as a parting shot in his department, makes a recommendation to the effect that those people are assisted in this enormous task, because all of us in this House are more than anxious to see consolidation brought to finality.

Lastly, the hon. the Deputy Minister has such an enormous wealth of knowledge about the situation. He became involved when we were really bogged down. We ran into a terrible period in die mid-seventies, and he came in in the aftermath of Government stocks being issued to farmers and when there was a terrible slowdown in consolidation. He had to make some pretty brave statements about consolidation and he had to take a renewed look at the way to go about it. He had the bravery to do that from within his party. Perhaps when the hon. the Deputy Minister’s health has improved and he has regained his old vigour, the Government might consider using him in a similar role as in the case of Mr. Louis Rive, where on an extra-Parliamentary and extra-party basis he has been asked to try to solve some problems which the Government cannot solve. In fact, he has brought fresh light to bear on these problems. I am quite certain that in the consolidation procedure that we are going through now some horrible problems are going to be left unresolved. There will be some awful border situations that will not be solved from within political parties. It will need an outside person to come in and bring a measure of common sense and fresh air to the matter. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister can look forward to solving those problems in the future. Certainly we are not going to solve all the border problems just by passing legislation through this House. I do not think the relations committees which are established are in fact going to bring home the bacon in this respect. It is going to need fresh input.

We wish the hon. the Deputy Minister a tremendous retirement and renewed health, and we certainly look forward to seeing his participation in the new South African era that lies ahead of us.

I should just like to mention one aspect in respect of this Bill. Once again we have here the use of the referendum, that conflict resolving mechanism using the entire plebiscite to decide a situation. In this case the vote was in fact for incorporation. On a previous occasion, in the case of my constituency, the vote was against incorporation. To the Government’s credit it has honoured both the pros and the cons. I am quite certain that in the future the mechanism of a referendum will be used to decide many of South Africa’s problems. A referendum is a mechanism for taking the anger out of a situation and of allowing people to have their say. It allows people to go into a new situation on the basis of majority vote. A referendum can be held right down to a local affairs level and it is something that will be used on an ever-increasing scale in future. We on these benches will be supporting this legislation. We also trust that the hon. the Deputy Minister will speedily recover and we wish him exceedingly good health.

Mr. Speaker, before making a few remarks about the Bill, I should first like to associate myself with the tribute paid to the hon. the Deputy Minister by various hon. members. I came to know him when I was a member of the Jeugbond and he was a young MP. At that stage he already commanded my deepest respect, I almost feel inclined to say, my admiration. I do not think there is a single hon. member in this House who would not agree that someone with the ability of this hon. Deputy Minister is seldom to be found in this House. I think we and the whole country have been privileged to have him here. We have witnessed how his health has declined over a long period. It was with concern that we noted this. I really do not think that we can afford to lose him, although this is what is happening now. Against that background, I pray—I am sure all hon. members would agree—that his health will improve greatly, in fact, it is my prayer that his recovery will be complete, that we will soon have him here with us again. There is still a great deal of work for him to do. I truly hope that we will not be denied this opportunity.

The following are just a few thoughts on the Bill. If one considers what the circumstances were that gave rise to this Bill, it is difficult to say that one can learn real lessons from how things develop. The hon. member for King William’s Town referred to the referendum which was accepted in both cases. This is certainly something one could emulate, but if we had held a referendum in Thaba ’Nchu five years ago, the result would probably not have been what it was. The problem really arose with the independence of Bophuthatswana and the accompanying, or later, removal of the White farmers out of the Onverwacht area, the removal of a large number of South Sothos from the Thaba ’Nchu area of Bophuthatswana to Onverwacht, which removed a large section of the purchasing power from the town, and the additional, almost imminent, danger for the inhabitants of Thaba ’Nchu in that, with the development of the large business complex only a few kilometres from the town boundary, the other half of the town’s purchasing power could be lost and, in fact, a section has already been lost. One does not really know what lessons one could learn from this, but we are going to be dealing with similar problems in the future. Rather than the Government learning specific lessons from this, the people who are going to find themselves in the same circumstances should ask themselves what will happen in the future and how things are going to develop, and when they reply, they must reply in terms of what they expect to happen, and not on the basis of what they would like to happen.

I now wish to react to the speech of the hon. member for Barberton. Unfortunately, he is not in the House at present, but I nevertheless want to react to one or two of the statements he made. He said that the 1936 quota was the quota to which they felt they were bound and which they wanted to stick to, and that they would oppose everything that would mean exceeding it. In his tribute to the hon. the Deputy Minister, the hon. member referred to the “dream” of consolidation which the hon. the Deputy Minister had had, thereby try to drag him in, in a roundabout way, against decisions made by the Government by way of the consolidation proposals which served before us from time to time. I should like to ask the hon. members of that party what their attitude is. Do they want consolidation when they speak of the “dream” of consolidation and of economically meaningful consolidation? Do they support it, or do they regard themselves as bound to the quota in the sense that they want to retain everything there is to retain for the White man and do not care about the people of the national States that have to be consolidated? The hon. member for Barberton has returned to the Chamber and he is looking at me, but he is not reacting. It was also interesting that the hon. member for Rissik asked by way of an interjection when the hon. member for Klip River was speaking: “When are you going to stop giving land away?” What is that hon. member doing? It is my contention—and I do not want to do this too pertinently, since I hope the hon. member for Rissik will still rectify this—that this kind of language is the language we have been hearing in HNP circles for the past 14 years. This is not the language those hon. members spoke earlier. They were in favour of consolidation, of meaningful consolidation and of territorial consolidation of states. It is what those hon. members asked for when they were on this side of the House. However, since they left, one hears this kind of thing being said more emphatically. That was probably what gave rise to their breaking away, and proves once again that those hon. members had, in fact, never been Nationalists, but that they had always simply been the shy HNPs who concealed themselves in the ranks of the NP.

In conclusion, I was also pleased to see that the hon. member for Houghton can be pragmatic concerning a matter about which they have usually adopted strong fundamental standpoints. However, she gave her support on behalf of her party today. In view of her pragmatic support in this case, it is odd that the PFP supports consolidation as such, for the sake of the better development of these Black communities and the areas in which they find themselves, whereas the people who are opposing that development are in the ranks of the CP. I find that very ironical. The public must take cognizance of what is happening in this House at present.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton has already indicated that we support the Bill under discussion. I should very much like to associate myself with what she said—other hon. members in the House also did so—and convey my appreciation for what the hon. the Deputy Minister has done, both as member of this House and in his capacity as chairman of the Commission for Co-operation and Development, and also as Deputy Minister of course. It is definitely with a feeling of personal loss that we take leave of him. In my case it is in fact with a feeling of personal loss because I can only say that I always received the fullest co-operation from him, as well as the highest degree of courtesy. I am sorry that he is leaving us. Together with other hon. members who have already said this, I also convey to him my very best wishes for the future.

I am particularly grateful to be able to say that the hon. the Deputy Minister is, I think, one of those people in this House who brought level-headedness to the entire question of consolidation. What I particularly appreciated was that in so many respects he succeeded in getting away from the woolliness which surrounded the entire problem of consolidation for so many years, and that he cast a rational light on this whole subject for us. He told us in this House what was practicable, and what was not.

There are quite a number of things on which I should like to comment, including what the hon. member for Barberton and the hon. member for Klip River said. When It comes to the question of consolidation, however, I just want to point out once again that our party’s standpoint in this respect is very clear. We believe that more land should be made available to Black people, but at the same time we also want to emphasize that we consider the principle which is being maintained, i.e. that Black people may not acquire any freehold rights outside the areas set aside for them, as an obsolete principle; as a principle which ought no longer to apply. When that principle was introduced in 1913, it was done under completely different circumstances than those obtaining at present. At the time South Africa had a rural population. The 1936 Act was nothing but a sequel to the 1913 Act. As long ago as 1913, the promise was made that more land would be made available to Blacks. The whole intention of the reservation in 1913, however, was to create an opportunity for the Black communities to carry on with their community life—their tribal life if we want to put it like that—as they had known it before that time. At that stage this move had no political implications. The intention was most certainly not that that land was to be utilized to help implement a policy of political separation in South Africa. It is a pity that this matter has become confused in this way over the years. However, I shall not debate that aspect now, Mr. Speaker.

I want to come back briefly to the interesting aspect which the hon. member for Rand-burg touched upon. He asked what lessons we had learned from this process. In my opinion we learned a few interesting and important lessons from this whole process, and in this respect I take off my hat to the hon. the Deputy Minister. The first lesson we learned was that it was possible for people of separate groups and races, people of divergent ethnicity, to meet around a conference table like reasonable people, particularly when there was such a good intermediary like the hon. the Deputy Minister in their midst, and to arrive at a rational agreement. As few other things have done, this course of events has confirmed the fact that when willingness exists, when goodwill exists, when people want to arrive at an agreement, it is in fact possible for them to do so, regardless of the differences which exist. I believe this is one important lesson we have learned from these negotiations which the hon. the Deputy Minister had with the people of Thaba ’Nchu. This is a lesson which emerged from all the negotiations which the hon. the Deputy Minister had with all the people of Thaba ’Nchu, as well as with the people and with the Government of Bophuthatswana.

When we take cognizance now of what those negotiations led to, I must add that there are a few important matters which, I think, could be possible pointers for us in future. What did we achieve with these negotiations? The first important thing is that people need not move. An important lesson which we have learned in this process is that it is possible to arrive at an agreement by way of negotiation if people know that they are not being threatened with being compelled to move if they are unable to arrive at an agreement. I think that is very important. We must simply learn the lesson that the time of enforced removals is indeed past. If we have done that then we have already learned a great deal.

The second lesson we are able to learn from this, is that people need not be afraid that they will not be properly compensated if they decide, of their own accord, to leave. This is an important further step.

In the third place there is the fact that the people at Thaba ’Nchu received the assurance that they were not losing their South African citizenship. That is the important lesson we learned from this process. As far as the creation of independent States is concerned, we have stated on so many occasions: Give people a choice. Those people of Thaba ’Nchu have therefore not lost their South African citizenship, but they are at liberty to apply in accordance with the legislation of Bophuthatswana for citizenship of Bophuthatswana. This is not compulsory loss of citizenship applying once again in regard to this matter, and in this respect I also believe that there are important lessons to be learned. As the hon. the Deputy Minister said, they need not be citizens of Bophuthatswana. They retain their South African citizenship, but if they prefer, they can acquire citizenship of Bophuthatswana.

A further important factor is that they are not losing their freehold rights. The hon. the Deputy Minister also made a very important point in this respect. In terms of the legislation applying in Bophuthatswana, those people are able to obtain freehold rights over more than one piece of property in Bophuthatswana. On the basis of Black/White relations in the Republic of South Africa, if this is successful in Thaba ’Nchu, if it is successful in Bophuthatswana, then there is no rational reason why these principles cannot also be successfully applied in the Republic. This is my firm conviction. I am not saying these things for petty party political purposes. I think that the model which is being created here for the people of Mafikeng and Thaba ’Nchu could possibly serve as a further model in regard to the acceptance as well of those Black people who are permanently established in the Republic. I believe it is important in that sense. We cannot apply two criteria and say that as far as the Whites of Bophuthatswana and Mafikeng are concerned, certain principles can successfully be applied but that when it comes to Blacks who are permanently established here, those principles do not apply.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Klip River that when we talk about private enterprise and the fact that we want to start the Black people off on the road towards the acceptance of private enterprise so that they can also participate fully in this system, then we cannot continue with a situation in which those Blacks are denied the acquisition of freehold rights within the Republic.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to thank all the hon. members who addressed kind words to me. I hope to be able to say a few more words in this connection at a more appropriate occasion later this week, but at this stage I just want to say that I value the kind words of hon. members highly. In this connection I want to make specific mention of the Opposition parties, having come into contact with the hon. member for Houghton, the hon. member Prof. Olivier, the hon. member for King William’s Town, the hon. member for Lichtenburg and the hon. member for Barberton in the course of my work.

We are now dealing with Thaba ’Nchu, which is perhaps not all that large a place and in which not many people are living. However, I think the symbolism remains the same. What we learnt from Mafikeng, we were able to apply better in the case of Thaba ’Nchu. In this connection I want to point out to the hon. member for Houghton that the voters in Thaba ’Nchu will continue to vote in the Ladybrand electoral division of which they are at present voters.

Depending upon practical arrangements which may possibly still be made, we are probably going to try out a different method here from the one applied in Mafikeng. There is a feeling among the people of Thaba ’Nchu—we are talking about the compensation now—that we should do the valuations immediately and establish what their land is worth; then they will decide whether they are going to sell or not. I think that is a little unwise. The Cabinet decided that the values of properties in Thaba ’Nchu would be ascertained on the basis of an area like Bloemfontein and other areas and by way of market research because for quite a long time now we have not had a land market as a result of the location of the place. As far as Thaba ’Nchu is concerned, things may work out differently. Nevertheless I think we should warn the people to be careful, because it seems that people who are in the land market in Mafikeng and who are selling now, are in fact obtaining better compensation for their land because the land market improved after incorporation. As far as this aspect is concerned, the people should perhaps exercise a little caution. That the compensation will be comparable is certain.

There are not really any places which can be compared with Thaba ’Nchu and in certain respect we have problems. For example one will find a pensioner with a house, the value of which is possibly not more than R10 000 or R12 000, but who found it convenient to live there and who was perfectly satisfied. It was possibly to graze cattle on the commonage and cultivate vegetables there, etc. If market value is now paid out to that pensioner it must be remembered that there is no place that can be compared to Thaba ’Nchu where that pensioner can buy a similar property for R10 000 or R12 000. Such places simply disappear. The pensioner will probably be in the position that he will hardly be able to buy the land with the R10 000 or R12 000. We are trying to view the situation with compassion.

Since there was a guide plan for the Onver-wacht-Thaba ’Nchu area, we reached an agreement for those plans to continue. All of the undertakings which the provincial administration gave the town of Thaba ’Nchu in regard to aid for the tarring of roads, the improvement of sewerage, and so on, will be kept. We shall not therefore burden Bophuthatswana with a town with a poor infrastructure. In fact, the Cabinet has resolved, in order to give Thaba ’Nchu a chance in this process, that the loan which the town council of Thaba ’Nchu has will be phased out over a period and that the Treasury will take over the loan so that the tax income of Thaba ’Nchu will enable that town to provide an infrastructure and make some of the improvements we have in mind. We would not like the Whites there to feel that they had been left in the lurch, but on the other hand we do not want Bophuthatswana to feel we are giving it a beggarly town. The arrangements have been made and I can give the hon. member the assurance that those things are continuing.

There is something that we are in fact eliminating. Bophuthatswana planned a certain infrastructure in order to by-pass Thaba ’Nchu, but we are now going to prevent that. No double roads will be built to by-pass Thaba ’Nchu on their way to the Black business centre because the road network, to mention only one example, is now going to be integrated. Consequently it will not be necessary to spend that money. On the one hand a saving is therefore being effected in the same process.

As far as the quota is concerned, I admitted to the hon. member for Barberton that it was something the CP could become excited about, but I do not think it is something one should become excited about. As far as the question of Thaba ’Nchu is concerned, I want to say that at this stage we are already exceeding the quota in the Free State by 1 100 ha. In the Transvaal we are already exceeding the quota by 149 000 ha and in Natal by approximately 50 000 ha. As far as the Cape Province is concerned, the quota will be full when the present purchase of the Stockenström area takes place. Technically the quota will then have been filled. That does not mean, however that one has really exceeded the quota because in accordance with already existing resolutions there is more land that has to be declared White area. The thing is that we purchased at a faster rate than land was declared to be White area. Earlier this year the hon. members had a fine time criticizing actions of that kind. These are the facts. However, they do not justify the remark which the hon. member for Rissik made. I think it was irresponsible of him to ask: “When are you going to stop giving land away?” We have never given land away. We did not do so in the past and we are not doing so now. These matters are being dealt with in order to achieve a certain objective.

Who paid for the land?

If the hon. member wants to know why we are giving Thaba ’Nchu away, the reply is that the Whites there asked for that step to be taken. The fact of the matter is that if we had not been able, by way of an agreement with Bophuthatswana, to transfer Thaba ’Nchu to Bophuthatswana, that town would have bled to death, and the people there would have suffered tremendous economic losses. As a result of the tax structure right next door, where the sales tax of 6% is not levied, the business community in Thaba ’Nchu simply cannot make a living. That is the fact of the matter. Surely it is not a question of giving it away. We are not giving it away.

I want to say that we should be frank as far as the quota is concerned. When the hon. the Prime Minister announced in February 1979 that we would take another look at consolidation—he also said on occasion that the Trust Act was not a sacred cow—everyone in the NP was in agreement with his statement. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Rissik knows as well as I do—we discussed it in the study group in 1979 and again in 1980—that on one occasion in the House he said, when I was still sitting behind the hon. member for Pretoria Central, that the quota would have to be exceeded. We all said it.

You know what we were discussing.

No, we all said it. The hon. member for Rissik cannot run away from it now. There was no doubt about it in the mind of any hon. member in this House. Surely we all knew, after 1975, that after the 1975 quota had been met, the quota would have been filled. Therefore, when the hon. the Prime Minister made the announcement in 1979 that we would have to look at the situation again, surely it is only logical that we would not have been able to remain standing at that quota. I think that the Whites in South Africa have to realize this. Politically we must clear this hurdle as quickly as possible. We shall have to amend the Act next year merely in order to make provision for the quota to be exceeded. If we consider the consolidation proposals to date, which are available to everyone, I do not think that anyone will be able to say that we are acting in a reckless way with land. If one views everything in its context, I do not think that that is the case. The hon. members could perhaps have adopted the standpoint which they adopted today in relation to other matters, but as regards the 571 ha at Thaba ’Nchu, I can say that the Whites asked for that to be done, and that it was undoubtedly the most the practical thing to do. To wish to make the general principle of exceeding the quota applicable here, is in my opinion not fair.

I am convinced that the step which we have taken to include Thaba ’Nchu in Bophuthatswana was the right step. I am convinced that we are bringing relief to the Whites of Thaba ’Nchu who, in exactly the same way as people in many other places, lived with this sword over their heads for many years; that we are at the same time working on sound relations in our dealings with Bophuthatswana and are also setting a practical example of decentralized development in the Thaba ’Nchu-Onverwacht area which is absolutely in line with the modus operandi of any government in the country that wished to bring about the proper economic distribution of privileges in this country.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

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

1. 1. On page 2, in lines 29 and 30, to omit “, and shall come into operation on 1 October 1983”.

The matter goes back so far that hon. members may perhaps find it difficult to remember. As the clause is worded at present, this measure has to come into operation on 1 October 1983. In terms of the principal Act, however, the State President is required to make a proclamation. Consequently we must take the provisions in the principal Act into account and cannot therefore provide here that the measure shall come into operation on 1 October 1983. An opportunity must first be allowed for a proclamation to be made. That is all the amendment amounts to.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Mr. Chairman, it will probably not surprise the hon. the Deputy Minister that we voted against this motion on the Select Committee and that we cannot in fact grant our approval to these proposals. We are dealing here with the purchase of a relatively large portion of land in order to give effect to the Government’s intention to establish kwaNdebele as an independent State. Although it is not specifically apparent from this report, it is the obvious intention that the land should be purchased and consolidated in order to establish such a State.

In view of the attitude we have frequently adopted in connection with the establishment of independent States in South Africa from pieces of the territory of the Republic, I want to say at once that in this case, too, we adhere consistently to our standpoint. We are not in favour of the creation of an independent kwaNdebele. After all, it will be nothing but a mini-State with a miniature territory. We cannot agree to the acquisition of land with a view to the creation of yet another independent State.

We do not think that anything is solved by means of this kind of policy. I do not think the creation of a kwaNdebele State will solve the problems in respect of Black-White relations, not even those in respect of the people involved in kwaNdebele. We know what is going on in some of the other territories. Some of us are apparently inclined to close our eyes to the realities of what is happening there. With the exception of Bophuthatswana, I do not think that any one of us can say that the creation of the other independent territories brought us any nearer to solutions. In many respects the problems were aggravated. I want to repeat our reason for adopting this standpoint. It is not solely because of the fact that we believe that the creation of independent territories does not solve the problems, but we also reject the implications of Government policy in regard to the creation of these territories, and more specifically in regard to the loss of South African citizenship in the case of certain people. We also reject the policy owing to the fact that it frequently entails that people have to be moved, and we also reject it on account of the ideological basis of the whole policy.

In this connection I want to refer back to the debate we conducted in this House on Moutse. The idea is that Moutse will subsequently be added to kwaNdebele. We shall take that debate further when that happens. I trust that the hon. member for Pretoria West, the chairman of the Commission for Co-operation and Development, will take cognizance of my arguments and will also reply to them. The people of Lebowa told us, after the Bill with a view to the inclusion of Moutse in kwaNdebele was passed, that the only commission that had ever consulted them in regard to the matter was the commission under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Pretoria West. According to this the statements made by the hon. the Minister to the effect that there had also been negotiations between the previous commission and the people of Lebowa themselves on the inclusion of Moutse in kwaNdebele were not correct. I do not know where the problem lies, whether it should possibly be attributed to faulty communication. However, there is dissatisfaction among the people of Lebowa about the statements made by the hon. the Minister in this connection. Previously the hon. member for Pretoria West also made the statement that Moutse was situated within kwaNdebele, but that is obviously not correct. In addition the people of Lebowa also question the figures mentioned here as to the number of people involved.

We are not dealing with Moutse now.

I know. We are, however, dealing with kwaNdebele. I am trying to indicate why we cannot separate the two matters from one another. I am referring in other words to our unwillingness to support the proposals for the purchase of land because we know that the land is related to the question of the independence of kwaNdebele. In passing I just wish to reiterate that we have no objection to further land being made available to Blacks, but not for this purpose. I shall listen with great interest to what the hon. members of the CP have to say about these proposals in view of the fact that they voted against the proposals on the Select Committee. If I recall what the hon. member for Rissik had to say about the consolidation of kwaNdebele when we were discussing Moutse, I find it strange that they did not support the proposals on the Select Committee. But they will simply have to speak for themselves in this connection.

We shall.

I spoke about the ideological basis of this step with which we are now dealing. There was a time, not very long ago, when there was a movement in Natal to secede. You know about it, Mr. Chairman. What actually happened there? Every time we say the people want it. The majority of people in kwaNdebele want independence. To my mind that seems to be such a racialistic view. We grant the Blacks the right to be separate, but we do not grant this right to Whites. I want to propose that the Government should make public money available to purchase some of the land around the Verwoerd Dam so that the Republic of Orania can be established there, so that that group of Whites who would so much like to be alone and would like to do their own thing in isolated self-determination will be able to do so there.

Order! That matter is not relevant.

I know it is not relevant, Sir, but I just want to tell hon. members that if we do it for the Blacks, we can do it for those Whites as well.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House do not think that it would be worthwhile establishing a Republic of Orania because it would consist of only 18 persons and would therefore be a little unrealistic.

When we look at the third report in connection with the kwaNdebele matter, we see that it consists of two paragraphs. The first paragraph deals with the territory which is going to be added to kwaNdebele. The second paragraph deals with the purchase and sale of certain land. To a large extent there was unanimity on the Select Committee in respect of the second paragraph, and consequently I shall not deal with it. However, when it comes to the first paragraph, it is perhaps important that we should take cognizance of the history of the development of this situation. In the first place I want to say that the policy of separate development is the basic point of departure of this side of the House, and separate development stands on two legs. That is precisely where we have difficulty with the PFP, because they do not believe in “separate”. They do believe in development, but jointly and not separately. We also have a problem with the CP because they believe only in “separate” while they ignore the “development”. They have baulked at the same point Mr. Jaap Marais refused to go beyond in 1969. The fact of the matter is that hon. members of the CP believe only in separateness, and avoid development. I say this deliberately because I believe the argument is going to be that the boundary should be moved to the north in order to make the Groblersdal-Verena Road the boundary. That is going to be the argument, and it will imply in the first place that there will be less viability and fewer development opportunities for kwaNdebele.

On the other hand, however, it will mean that they will be further away from their employment opportunities; further away from the development axis of Bronkhorstspruit-Witbank-Middelburg. That is of course an emotional argument, particularly in view of the coming by-election in Middelburg. The fact of the matter of course is that the Government will give attention to the building of a road there so that there will be access to Groblersdal, around that Black area. These are the facts of the matter. The political argument of hon. members of the CP therefore falls away completely.

Furthermore, I also want to return briefly to the question of the quota, and point out that what we are actually doing is, if I may put it this way, asking for a certain instruction; a certain decision from this House. The decision which this House must take is that the State President may declare certain areas to be open areas. It is not an accomplished fact. We are simply asking permission for the State President, under certain circumstances when he deems it fit, to be able to declare certain areas to be open areas. It is consequently not a request for a final instruction that we now have before this House.

Although hon. members of the PFP have objected vehemently to the separateness, and insist on joint development, I nevertheless want to point out to them that the people of kwaNdebele met a Hammanskraal during the seventies. On that occasion Dr. Eiselen was also present, and a resolution was adopted by those people. The resolution reads as follows, and I quote—

Consequently this is a desire of the people of kwaNdebele; a desire of those people to acquire territory where they can obtain their independence. I therefore believe that it is our duty to comply with this request as far as possible.

When the quota system is being discussed, I think it is necessary to take cognizance once again of what the hon. the Prime Minister himself said in this connection. I am referring hon. members to the guidelines which were set forth in this House on 7 February 1979 in regard to the consolidation of the Black States, and the investigation into those guidelines. The sixth guideline which the hon. the Prime Minister laid down here read as follows (Hansard, 7 February 1979, col. 242)—

It is important for us to note that the hon. the Prime Minister laid down this guideline as long ago as 1979. Therefore it is not a new decision of the Government, and the hon. members of the CP were not absent when it was taken. Hon. members of the CP were present when this decision was taken. But I want to take the matter a little further. I want to ask where the hon. member for Lichtenburg was when that decision was taken? Where was the hon. member for Lichtenburg in 1979, when the hon. the Prime Minister issued this statement? Was he not then the Deputy Minister of Development? Was he not, subsequently, Minister of Education and Training as well? Was he not in 1979 the Deputy Minister who contributed to the formulation of the above-mentioned decision?

That is absolutely true.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lichtenburg was a codrafter of this statement which the hon. the Prime Minister read out in this House on 7 February 1979, and in which he made it clear that there was no problem about exceeding the 1936 quote, provided certain conditions were complied with. What do we see today however? A mere opportunistic approach on the part of people who are in reality renouncing their past. I am very sure that hon. members of the CP will argue today that the quota laid down in 1936 should be adhered to. If they were to do that, I should like them please to explain how it could have happened that the hon. member for Lichtenburg adopted such a definite standpoint at the time; a standpoint which he totally rejects now. It is very important that we receive a reply to this question. Mr. Speaker. We should therefore like to hear what hon. members of the CP have to say about this. I believe that the arguments that have been raised have been thoroughly replied to. The arguments which they may still be able to advance have also, I think, been replied to adequately, However we should like to hear what else hon. members of the CP have to say about that. We on the other hand support the acceptance of the report under discussion.

Mr. Chairman, this is truly a very interesting debate. It seems that the PFP as well as the NP are attempting, in anticipation, to reply to what they hope the arguments of this party will be. [Interjections.] It is also interesting that I have to deduce on the basis of this debate that the PFP and the NP have now become bedfellows in any event, and that they have one common enemy, namely the CP. [Interjections.]

Order!

As regards the second paragraph of the recommendation, i.e. that a certain farm may be alienated in terms of section 18(3) of the Development Trust and Land Act of 1936, which, I think, was unanimously accepted by the Select Committee, I want to mention that I think it is time—I think the Select Committee felt the same way although it will not be stated in their report—the provisions of this specific section were re-examined and the necessary statutory amendment effected so that it will not be necessary in cases such as this to follow the time-consuming procedure which is at present being followed to find a solution to this problem. I am convinced that the department will eventually—next year, I hope—rectify this matter. One feels a little uncomfortable having to make use of such a time-consuming and unnecessary procedure to do what has to be done. We find no fault with this.

As regards the consolidation of kwaNdebele, I want to state our standpoint briefly. We have not altered our standpoint that the respective Black peoples should arrive at full autonomy and independence when the time for that is ripe; not at all. The hon. member for Pretoria West has just made the nonsensical remark that as far as the CP is concerned we are interested only in separateness and not at all in development. I think I am on record in this House as having said more than once since the establishment of the CP that it is our standpoint that the development of the Black homelands is not progressing satisfactorily, that things are happening too slowly. On occasion I expressed doubts as to whether the NP was still in earnest about causing the proper development of those homelands to succeed when one considers the funds which were being made available for that purpose. [Interjections.] The development of those homelands—and I am certain the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree with me in this connection—does not merely entail, if I understood the hon. member for Pretoria West correctly, the granting or the allocation of additional land. Development must primarily be seen as proper development of the existing land in the homelands. By merely adding additional land, one achieves nothing accept giving people a place to be in. Development requires far more than that and this is where the programme falls short at the moment. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister would be the last person to differ with me in this connection.

We stated our standpoint on the Select Committee. We are not satisfied with these proposals as far as kwaNdebele is concerned The hon. member for Pretoria West found it easy to argue about what we wanted to say because he knew what our standpoint on the Select Committee was. I am referring specifically to the existing road link between Bronkhorstspruit and Groblersdal which, in terms of these proposals, is going to fall within what will hopefully be a future independent State. He tried to circumvent that argument of ours by saying that an additional road would now be provided. That is a promise on his part. Apart from that, he also advanced the argument that we were opposed to this because we did not wish the Blacks to be near their employment opportunities in White areas. What was the hon. member saying in reality? Does he see that future Black State as a labour reservoir for White South Africa?

I would prefer him to see that future Black State as a State which will provide labour opportunities for its own people within that State. The maximum number of labour opportunities should be provided within the State itself. The hon. member must not accuse us of not wishing those people to have development possibilities while I can make no other inference but that he wishes to regard that State solely as a labour reservoir for the adjoining White area.

You definitely have it wrong.

Our standpoint is the opposite: The maximum degree of development should take place in the Black States so that their own people can live and work to the maximum extent in their own State. What is more: In this case as well—after all we did put it this way in the Select Committee—the quota of land in the Transvaal is being exceeded even further. We cannot view this matter in isolation because the hon. member for Pretoria West is now active in the Western Transvaal. Apart from Thaba ’Nchu which in terms of the resolution which we adopted earlier today, is being incorporated into Bophuthatswana, he is coming forward with additional proposals to add further thousands of hectares of land.

Are you a prophet?

Sir, is the hon. member for Pretoria West not negotiating? I am under the impression that the hon. member is engaged in negotiations for the addition of thousands of hectares of land.

Who told you?

The hon. member wants to know who told me, but some of us know what is happening in South Africa. If the hon. member does not know, it does not mean to say that we do not know.

We want to know where this process is going to end. Since the promise has been made that this kind of thing should come to an end now, we want to know when finality is going to be reached. It is our standpoint that the mere addition of more and more land is not the solution. The solution lies in the proper development of the land, which has already been allocated to the national States, to provide their people with employment opportunities.

I said earlier today—some people tried to make political capital out of it—in a word of thanks to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I thought he had had a dream for South Africa. I still believe this, and I want to repeat it. He had a dream—I too had a dream. The hon. the Deputy Minister was willing—we are also willing—to place part of our fatherland at the disposal of Black peoples who are gaining their independence, but there is another side as well. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat tried to get away from their standpoint that a quota was laid down in terms of the 1936 Act and that no further purchases may take place. That is the standpoint of the hon. members of the CP, and to get past it, the hon. member for Barberton has now implied that they place the emphasis on development. Development is their watchword and that is where the emphasis is placed, he said.

The hon. member for Pretoria West quoted the piece of history that occurred on 7 February 1979. What he did not spell out very clearly was that the hon. member for Lichtenburg, who was the Deputy Minister at the time, participated in that same debate on the same day and endorsed that same standpoint of the hon. the Prime Minister. That is the tragedy we have before us today. Now the hon. member for Barberton, under the cloak of development, is trying to gloss over the fact that they cannot perceive the practical, logical necessity of exceeding the quota. Oh come now, surely we are not children. When, at any stage in South Africa, and in view of the modern circumstance, could one ever consolidate the national States properly if one did not exceed the quota?

The hon. Whip gave me only a few minutes in which to speak. Therefore I just wish to refer in addition to the hon. member Prof. Olivier. The official Opposition is in fact confined from time to time to specific standpoints in respect of the same thing. I want to put it like this: If we are dealing with a national State becoming independent, then the loss of citizenship is the important reason for their not supporting it. However, when we are dealing with the question of the transfer of land, then their standpoint is based on the fragmentation of South Africa, the disruption of the unity of the economy of South Africa, etc. Today, however, they came forward with something entirely new. They said they were opposed to this report because, as they had heard, it could lead to a national State becoming independent.

Is that not correct?

He says it is correct.

No, I asked whether that was not correct.

In other words, they will never again be able to support any transfer of land because all national States can in due course become independent if they so wish. I believe that they will simply have to look for a new reason at the next transfer and that they will muddle along in this way and never be prepared to help South Africa and this Government with the great task on which we are engaged.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to use this opportunity to raise one or two points. As the hon. member for Pretoria West has quite correctly said, this report and the acceptance of the details of the schedule will come forward later in the form of legislation. Just as we have just discussed the Borders of Particular States Extension Second Amendment Bill in relation to Thaba’Nchu, so this report will be attached as a schedule to a similar piece of legislation in respect of kwaNdebele. This gives the Government some time to consider the fact that in this case we are creating final borders along which farmers have to live and carry on with their farming enterprises.

For a long, long time hon. members in these benches have pleaded with the Government to honour its undertaking to make it possible for farmers, who have become border farmers as a result of consolidation, to have a tenable existence in the circumstances under which they live as a result of the new consolidation measures. I have here a document from the S.A. Agricultural Union. There are many such documents. They have been sent through to the Ministers concerned and contained proposals and suggestions in respect of the sort of assistance farmers require when they find themselves in the circumstances brought about by consolidation, circumstances such as will pertain if kwaNdebele in fact becomes consolidated.

I do not as yet know of one case in which any form of assistance or concession has been given in order to bring about any permanence, security or stability in the light of the circumstances in which they live. I should like to direct a plea to the hon. the Minister to instruct his successor in bold red type that, concurrent with every step towards final consolidation in the future, a plan for the stabilization of the new border farmers will be put into effect. Let us not wait until the consolidation has taken place, the complaints pour in and people want to sell out and offer their farms to the Government. Let us not carry on with the cancerous situation which can develop. Concurrent with final consolidation, with the creation of each new and final boundary, let steps be taken to bring about that stabilizing process which is so vital.

Secondly, I want to refer to the unfairness in respect of traders. The hon. the Deputy Minister will know very well what I am talking about. When trading stations are bought out, no form of goodwill comes into play. The situation comes about that a person who has had a good life and brought up his family in a home attached to his trading store finds himself given only the value of the buildings, which money is not even sufficient to buy an ordinary dwelling at today’s prices. That does not fit in very well with the undertaking by the Government that in fact no one would suffer as a result of consolidation. Those people are getting a pittance for a viable enterprise because of the formula used for the compensation of traders which does not include goodwill. They go away from those places with their standard of living decreased and have to go and live in far more modest dwellings than they were accustomed to. They are taking a very severe knock.

I just wanted to make these two points about consolidation procedures. We will support this report.

Mr. Chairman, in the minute or so which I have at my disposal, I should like to tell the hon. member Prof. Olivier that we as a commission were very grateful that we were able to talk to the people about Lebowa. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why I should doubt the word of the hon. the Deputy Minister. He told us about the talks that took place, and I shall leave the matter at that.

I should like to draw attention to a speech which I made in connection with Moutse on 11 August 1983 (Hansard, col. 11114). I just want to say that the figures of 24 000 and 10 000 which I mentioned at the time referred to the Bantwani tribe.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a few observations. I understand why the attitude of the PFP is as it is. It has always been their standpoint, and I therefore do not think it is necessary to deal with this in detail. However, the fact remains that with regard to kwaNdebele one has to make a few observations which are important.

The people of kwaNdebele are returning to kwaNdebele in large numbers. They are coming from the Winterveld, the East Rand and the West Rand to settle in kwaNdebele. Conditions in kwaNdebele are not as they should be and that is why it is in any case, irrespective of independence, essential for us to make more land available for the establishment of a residential area, to mention only one reason. That is why it has become essential for more land to be made available for kwaNdebele. The same applies with regard to the argument of the CP. We are not merely concerned with the making available of land to kwaNdebele. At present kwaNdebele consists of only 72 000 hectares. When one thinks in terms of development and the establishment of a new State and that half a million people are already settled there and that people are moving there in their thousands, it is surely impossible to expect that more land shall not be made available. It is correct to accept that the Government is proceeding from the standpoint that we are working with kwaNdebele with a view to independence and that we are obtaining more land for them for that purpose. That is the point of departure and that is also how development will take place.

As far as the hon. member for King William’s Town is concerned, who referred to borders and the compensation to border farmers, I just want to point out that there are recommendations before the Cabinet to regulate the situation of border farmers. A permanent committee has been appointed to deal with the matter of international borders. An agreement has been reached on a standard border which will be determined. The problem we have had thus far with the determining of borders, is that the Black people say if we begin erecting border fences now we have obviously decided on the borders. We must therefore first decide on the borders before we begin to erect the fences. However, I want to agree with the hon. member for King William’s Town that we should not think that once the Select Committee or the commission has made recommendations on kwaNdebele, this will mean the end of the discussion on the borders of that area. The fact remains that one is only getting on to the land now in practical terms and can therefore only now see where the land is situated. The commission has heard evidence and now it is over to the technical people to ascertain what physical problems exist on the land. We therefore have to be a little pragmatic in this connection. One may for example find that someone is totally cut off and that he cannot get to his farm except by travelling through the Black area, may be something one did not know better. These sort of circumstances must simply considered in practice so that a border can be determined in such a way that it is humanly possible to deal with the matter.

I should like to thank the commission and the Select Committee most sincerely for the work they did. We are certain that we can now go ahead with the development of kwaNdebele. On our part we hope that they will ask for independence shortly and that we shall then be in a position to deal with both their independence and their borders consecutively so that one can give them something that they can deal with at that stage.

Recommendations agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

House Resumed:

Resolutions reported and adopted.

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

On 9 October 1981 Parliament approved a temporary right of water storage and an aqua-duct on the Taaibosch Kraal River in the Cedarberg State Forest to convey water to a farm belonging to a certain Q. de Vries in die Clanwilliam district. Q. de Vries obtained these temporary water rights and then sold the farm to a certain G. P. C. Bosman who is now seeking the same temporary rights. The Augsberg Agricultural School of the Cape Provincial Administration depends on the Taaibosch Kraal River almost entirely for its water supply. This water is needed for use at the school domestically and for the farmyard, stables and horses as well as irrigating 12 ha of land. Other water is pumped at great expense from another river on the farm, but this water cannot be used domestically. De Vries and Bosman are abstracting so much water that the school reservoir is empty by 10h00 in the morning. The abstraction point of the Augsberg School is below the weir of De Vries, and the whole school and all the children are suffering. I have discussed the matter with the province and they will be satisfied if they can use the same weir as stated in my amendment.

It is argued by the Select Committee that the Water Court must decide if they cannot come to an agreement. I maintain that De Vries, and now Bosman, should not be given this temporary right as it militates against the whole school. I offer as a compromise this amendment which allows both to draw from the same weir, because I cannot agree to a whole school belonging to the State suffering while people obtain water for their own profit motives.

Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry but I am not prepared to accept this amendment. It is not the department’s task to deal with the apportionment of water. This has to be dealt with by way of an agreement between the parties, or if they cannot agree, it has to be done by a Water Court Order. This matter has already been reported in full to the Administration and they are dealing with it at present. In any case the Select Committee was with one exception unanimous on this matter.

Amendment negatived.

Recommendation agreed to.

House Resumed:

Resolutions reported and adopted.