laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Message from the President’s Council to the State President of the Republic of South Africa, as follows:

1. (2) Message from the President’s Council to the State President of the Republic of South Africa, as follows:

Mr Chairman, I do not have very much to say in reply to the debate on this Bill. In fact, I believe that enough has been said about the measure. However, there are a few matters that I wish to emphasise.

In the first place, this Bill has absolutely nothing to do with race classification. This measure does not affect in any way the sections of the Population Registration Act dealing with race classification. Every population group is still classified according to race, and included in the population register in accordance with that classification. This new identity document which has been debated here is merely an instrument for identifying a person. It says who he is, and not what he is.

The hon member for Fauresmith quite rightly remarked that the hon members of the National Party would never have agreed to the removal of the racial code if it had served to water down the classification in any way, because that would have detracted from the group concept. Accordingly, hon members on this side of the House have made it very clear that this decision was only taken after due consideration. Evidence was heard. Investigations were conducted. Everything indicated that none of the Government departments needed the racial code in the identity document. The provincial authorities do not need it, the local authorities do not need it, and the private sector does not need it either. Therefore the suspicion cast on this identity document by suggesting that the Government is sacrificing its principles by introducing it is quite unsubstantiated.

There are two other small matters that I want to clarify. The new identity document—which will initially be made available mainly to Blacks—is the document which the White, Indian and Coloured population groups already have. None of us need reapply for an identity document, therefore. It is true that our identity documents still contain the racial code, but the new identity documents are based on the same documents as ours. The idea is to make identity documents such as we have available to the Blacks as well. Whereas they had to use the so-called “dompas” in the past, they need not do so any more. Consequently there is no need for any hon member to apply for a new identity document. We are not incurring any unnecessary costs in this connection, therefore.

However, when any member of the White, Indian and Coloured population groups attains the age of 16 years and has to apply for an identity document, this new identity document, which does not contain the racial code, will be issued to him. The only obligation which is being imposed on the Whites, Coloureds and Indians is having their fingerprints taken, and this must be done within a period of five years.

The hon member for Kimberley South referred very effectively to the Government’s strong standpoint regarding group interests and the protection of such interests. [Interjections.] He referred to the speech made by the hon the Minister of National Education during the no-confidence debate.

Can we believe him?

That statement was a clear exposition of the NP’s standpoint. I also want to refer hon members to my discussion of race, people and nation, and I want to add something to that. The recognition of one South African nation does not pose any threat to the security or right to self-determination of the various peoples and groups which comprise that nation.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?

I am not answering any questions, Sir, because all those hon members have spoken. We are going to discuss another Bill, and hon members may ask questions again during that debate.

The NP’s policy specifically provides for that.

You people do not answer any questions.

Mr Chairman, I believe that the contribution made by the hon members of the CP to the discussion, which lasted all Saturday, was very woolly. Indeed, some aspects of it suggested an erroneous impression or a lack of understanding of that Bill.

Do you agree with the hon member for Kimberley South, who says that Coloureds are Brown Afrikaners?

We must look ahead now. We have decided that a uniform identity document is to be issued, and this is a step forward which will promote good public administration. Let us all support its implementation with enthusiasm.

†There are so many useful purposes to which the identity book can be put. I want to mention only a few of the benefits in the application of this document. In the private and public sectors I specifically have in mind money and banking transactions, obtaining home loans, pension payouts, maintenance payouts, obtaining drivers’ licences, motor vehicle registrations, trading licences and the concluding of hire-purchase agreements, the registration of births, marriages and deaths and the acquiring of municipal services such as water and electricity, admission to hospitals, the renting of homes and many more. I therefore believe this is a step forward that we should all support and encourage.

It is impossible to reply to all the various points raised by hon members. I merely wish to conclude by referring to the marketing campaign that the hon member for Umhlanga, in particular, mentioned. I want to tell him that I agree with him wholeheartedly that the marketing process must be set in motion and that we must market this document. Much has already been done, and here I refer to radio talks and television coverage. The programme is hotting up, and as of the end of the month there will be extensive television and radio—and we hope newspaper—coverage. The interesting fact is that the figures I have obtained in the past week show that there are a number of applications already coming in from Black people.

*It would seem that this publicity campaign is already bearing fruit. We have already received 115 000 applications in all. During the past week alone, more than 31 000 applications were received, which is more than the figure for the previous week, when 20 000 applications were received. However, we must remember that according to our estimate, approximately 14 million Blacks will have to receive these new identity documents.

On Saturday the figure was only 13 million.

We still have a lot of work to do, therefore, and I hope that everyone feels more enthusiastic about it than the hon member for Soutpansberg. [Interjections.]

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz Messrs J H Hoon, T Langley, F J le Roux, Dr W J Snyman, Mr L F Stofberg, Dr A P Treurnicht, Messrs C Uys, H D K van der Merwe, J H van der Merwe, W L van der Merwe, R F van Heerden, Dr F A H van Staden, Messrs J J B van Zyl and J H Visagie) appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Government announced during 1985 that South African citizenship would be restored to citizens of Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei who had lost their citizenship when these countries became independent and who were permanently resident in the Republic of South Africa. Since this announcement, discussions have been held in this regard with the governments of each of the TBVC countries. The Bill which is now before the House gives effect to this.

In introducing this measure, the Government has taken into account that:

1. (i) a large number of TBVC citizens are permanently resident within the borders of the Republic;
2. (ii) the legitimate political aspirations of these TBVC citizens regarding own and general affairs have to be satisfied through structures in the Republic; and
3. (iii) South African citizenship will consequently have to be restored to those who lost it because of the independence of the TBVC countries but who are permanently resident in the Republic.

When the TBVC countries attained independence, all Black people inside and outside these states who had ties with these states lost their South African citizenship and became citizens of one of these states. Prior to the attainment of independence by the various states, Status Acts which brought about this change of status were passed by Parliament. It was specifically provided in each of the Status Acts that TBVC citizens resident in the Republic would not lose any existing rights, privileges or benefits other than their South African citizenship.

The loss of their South African citizenship has caused frustration among those people who are permanently resident in the Republic. Investigations have also shown that they do not exercise their political rights through the constitutional institutions of the TBVC countries.

It is estimated that the following number of TBVC citizens are permanently resident in the Republic at present and will be affected by this Bill:

I believe that these figures represent a conservative estimate, and the matter is being investigated to ascertain whether the figures should not be adjusted.

†Provision is made in the Bill for the restoration of South African citizenship to the following main groups of persons who are citizens of the independent states:

1. (a) Those persons who were born in the Republic prior to the independence of the state of which they became citizens and who have since been permanently resident in the Republic outside that state, become South African citizens by birth upon their confirmation that they are desirous of regaining South African citizenship; [Interjections.]
2. (b) those persons who are citizens by birth or descent of any of the said states and who entered the Republic on or after the independence of that state, but before the commencement of the proposed Act and have been lawfully and permanently resident in the Republic for at least five years, are registered as South African citizens on application for South African citizenship; and
3. (c) those persons who are citizens by birth or descent of any of the said states and who lawfully enter the Republic after the commencement of the proposed Act, must formally apply for permanent residence because they are aliens in the Republic and are thus treated like any other immigrant. They can after a period of five years of permanent residence in the Republic, on application, become South African citizens by naturalisation.

By the amendments proposed in clause 6, it is, inter alia, ensured that a person who regains his South African citizenship cannot lose it again as a result of the provisions of the Status Acts, and also cannot become a TBVC citizen in accordance with those Acts. Such a person can still retain his citizenship of the TBVC state concerned in accordance with his own choice, subject to the citizenship provisions of that state.

Only persons permanently resident within the borders of the Republic of South Africa outside the independent states will therefore be affected by the provisions of the Bill. I thank every member of the standing committee for the work they have done. I also wish to express a sincere word of thanks to the officials of my department who assisted the standing committee throughout their deliberations.

Mr Chairman, we in the PFP will support this Bill. Permit me to say here and now that we find the contents of the Bill somewhat disappointing because the general expectation was that the provisions contained therein, in terms of which citizenship would be returned to Blacks who had been deprived of their citizenship owing to the independence of the TBVC countries, would be far more broadly stated than is the case at present.

What we should prefer—we intend pursuing this in the course of this debate and also later—is that steps should in fact be taken to restore South African citizenship to all the Black people who were deprived of it. By that I mean all those Black people who were automatically deprived of their South African citizenship owing to the independence of the four TBVC states.

By this we do not seek to intimate that we want to wipe out the independence of those states. We do not wish to intimate that we are not aware that that is a given factor or, as it were, a fact of life, whether one likes it or not. We appreciate that one will have to act with circumspection if one seeks to change the situation. However we do believe that there is nothing wrong with giving those people’s citizenship back to them by way of a system of double citizenship. As indicated by hon members who spoke in the standing committee on this matter there is nothing in our legislation in this regard that specifically militates against the idea of double citizenship. To tell the truth, earlier this year we specifically adopted amending legislation in this House that even adjusted the oath made when someone becomes a South African citizen in order to accommodate those people who have double citizenship. The oath was adjusted specifically so that a person who retained his original citizenship but now also became a South African citizen could make the oath without violating his conscience.

It is clear, then, that no specific standpoint on principle has been adopted in our legislation against double citizenship. Even if there were such legislation I suggest that in these circumstances double citizenship could constitute a sui generis case and that it will be a very satisfactory solution for the problem we are faced with. Anything else would amount to our undoing the independence of those states and that is perhaps a little more complex.

Accordingly we should like all those people to regain their South African citizenship in terms of this legislation even though they may retain the citizenship of those states. In the final instance those people as individuals, and in many cases even as groups, were not taken into account in the decision as to whether they should be deprived of their South African citizenship or not. We feel that it is very much a matter of principle that those people should indeed regain their citizenship.

Owing to the discussions in the standing committees the Bill comes before this House today with certain amendments, but a report was also submitted to this House on the activities of the committee on this specific Bill. I should like to refer to that report. I have already made it clear in the course of the discussions in the committee that we would want to say something about the report in so far as the report does not necessarily reflect the standpoint of the PFP. At this point, then, I wish to take this opportunity to do so.

In paragraph 3.1 of the report the following appears:

The last part of this paragraph is correct but the first part is not entirely correct since it creates the impression that those who adopted the standpoint that all such citizens should be able to regain their South African citizenship, namely the hon member for Johannesburg North and myself, expressed their opposition in principle to the Bill. That is not correct. What we are indicating now we in fact indicated in the committee as well, namely that we support the Bill in so far as it does return citizenship to those people. However we should have liked the Bill to have gone further than that.

In paragraph 3.3 the following standpoint is stated:

Once again I wish to say just for the sake of the record that we do not agree with that standpoint. Citizenship of individuals is not necessarily a matter to which only the laws of the country in which those people are resident, apply. There are international precedents in this regard that we mentioned in the standing committee. However we believe that we are dealing here with a very specific situation in which those persons, whether living within or outside the TBVC countries, had South African citizenship over the years and were regarded as South African citizens irrespective of whichever other citizenship they may have had, and they were deprived of that citizenship as a result of laws passed by this Parliament. We believe that that in itself is sufficient reason for this Parliament to restore their citizenship to them whether or not they live within the borders of those states.

Once again we must point out that laws were made in this Parliament and proclamations issued by this Government in terms of which certain areas that formerly comprised part of the Republic in due course became part of those specific states. Those states were not all necessarily fully consolidated when they obtained their independence. Parts of those states were taken away and other parts were added. Once again this is an indication that as far as the legislative process is concerned it took place onesidedly from the point of view of this Government and this Parliament and that is why it is quite acceptable in principle that a person should indeed be able to regain his South African citizenship. We believe that this will be the correct way of doing this.

At the time the decision was made to grant independence to those states, there was no agreement with the individuals who would be affected to the effect that they would lose their citizenship of the Republic. At most, agreements were reached with the governments of what were up to then national states and it was then decided to accept total independence. In very few instances were those governments the true representatives of those affected. That is another reason why we believe that it would be in principle not only acceptable but also desirable that all those people should indeed regain their citizenship.

The argument has been advanced in regard to one of the TBVC countries, namely Bophuthatswana, that they are specifically opposed in principle to the idea of double citizenship, but that that is not the case as far as the other three are concerned. That may well be so. Once again we believe that we cannot simply accept the standpoint of the Bophuthatswana government without further ado as far as that situation is concerned. By that I am not seeking to intimate that one must ignore their standpoint. What I am suggesting is that it is our duty to those former citizens of the Republic of South Africa to adopt a very strong standpoint that they should indeed permit double citizenship in these circumstances. Our legislation in the Republic of South Africa permits it. Those people used to be South African citizens and the fact that we are returning their South African citizenship to them need not necessarily affect their loyalty or their links with the independent state of Bophuthatswana to any extent. We must therefore adopt a very strong standpoint in that regard and we believe that this has not been done to the extent necessary.

Paragraph 3.5 of the report deals specifically with this matter, and I quote:

With all due respect, the final part of this paragraph in fact has nothing to do with the matter. The forfeiture of citizenship does not necessarily have anything to do with the granting of double citizenship by a specific state. Section 11A of the South African Citizenship Act automatically grants citizenship to people in this country without their having to apply for it and often without their wanting it. We do this for a specific reason and that is to catch people in the net for the purposes of military service. This is done without the active or even passive co-operation of such people. It is automatically granted to them. There are other countries that also do this with people who do not live in their own territory.

Then too there is the existence of international agreements. I do believe that if the standing committee of Parliament dealing with this matter really wishes to play its role meaningfully we must accept that we could also have a situation in which we would in fact want to adjust the legislation in a way that could give rise to a clash with the Government of the Republic and that of Bophuthatswana, but then we must amend the Bill as we see fit and subsequently submit it for further negotiation. One could then have a process of amendment and negotiation until we could reach an acceptable agreement with them. Rather that than having an agreement entered into between the officials of the two governments while the standing committee and this Parliament simply become a rubber stamp for that agreement. I do not believe that that procedure gives the correct impression of the status that a standing committee and the South African Parliament ought to have in these circumstances.

We cannot commit ourselves to an agreement entered into between the Republic and Bophuthatswana, because since the independence of that state further negotiations have already taken place—if not, this Bill would not have come before us today. This Bill already represents a situation in which we are departing from the original agreements made between South Africa and Bophuthatswana and probably with the other TBVC countries as well. I merely wish to indicate that these matters can be renegotiated. If it pleases the relevant standing committee and Parliament that legislation should be amended, it ought to be amended in draft form and then submitted with a view to negotiations. The negotiations need not necessarily be disposed of first so that the standing committee and Parliament merely become a rubber stamp of the agreement. Where paragraph 3.5 reads that we respect the agreements, this is in fact the case but it cannot be expected of us to respect them to such a degree that the standing committee and the South African Parliament become the rubber stamp for an international agreement. In the final instance the sovereignty ought to lie with us, and if fresh negotiations have to be undertaken in regard to anything they must be undertaken in the way that I have indicated.

Intimately bound up with this situation is another phenomenon concerning which I should like to hear the hon the Minister’s comment. It has been reported in the Press that the hon the Leader of the House indicated in a speech in the legislative assembly of kwaNdebele that when kwaNdebele accepts independence the citizens of that state would be permitted to have double citizenship. Therefore they will not automatically be deprived of their South African citizenship on the acceptance of independence by kwaNdebele. The existing double citizenship will therefore be retained in future. If that is indeed the case—and I should like to hear the hon the Minister’s comment in this regard—then this amounts to an important shift of emphasis. Therefore, is what the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs said true? Is the Press report mentioned therefore a correct version of his speech? If that is indeed the case then does this hon Minister also agree with that? That is what is important. Does he agree that the citizens of kwaNdebele are going to retain their South African citizenship? If so, then the question is so much the more pertinent because what, then, is the objection in principle to our also restoring the South African citizenship of the citizens of the other four independent states so that they, too, may exercise their double citizenship?

What, then, is the political importance—constitutional and otherwise—of this Bill? Without any doubt whatsoever it represents a very definite departure from the old underlying reasons and arguments for the policy of separate development.

A departure in principle.

A departure in principle, yes. The hon member for Rissik says that it is a departure in principle. It is undoubtedly a departure in principle. Indeed, it is a very important departure.

Yes, of course!

After all, it is the case—and this argument has been advanced over the years—that one of the very reasons for the whole existence of the idea of separate development, for the whole partition policy of the Government, is to escape the consequences of the valid argument that political rights and political equality ought to be granted to Black people in South Africa. To that extent, therefore, there is no doubt that this Bill represents a substantial departure from that. Indeed, in his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister also said:

These are those permanently established in the Republic:

It is therefore conceded by the Government that this represents a definite shift in the standpoint in regard to political representation.

I now wish to ask whether there is any sense in our recognising the permanence of the citizens of the TBVC countries now permanently resident in the RSA—we thereby also admit their claim to political rights in the RSA—but at the same time stipulating that those Blacks who still live within the TBVC countries must retain their citizenship there and exercise their political aspirations there? After all, we are going to encounter the same political consequences in both cases. The difference is only a numerical one; there is no difference in principle. The only difference lies in the number of people.

In any event, if one is going to speak about numbers, since there are those among us who are afraid of majorities, we must really accept that there are more Black people resident within the RSA and outside the TBVC countries than there are Whites, Coloureds and Indians together in this country. Surely that is true. If, then, we have a dreadful fear of domination by Black majorities or of a Black majority government and if we accept that as an inescapable political consequence of our standpoint, then this type of legislation, this shift, is surely a totally meaningless process! It makes no sense whatsoever. We might as well go all the way and restore the situation to what it was originally, namely by giving those people back their citizenship and recognising their political aspirations on the basis that they were citizens of the RSA and that they still are and that for that reason they have every claim to political rights in the RSA.

We cannot deviate from this kind of policy and think that it will not entail important political consequences. I think we are wasting our time if we try to argue against that. The whole issue of Black political rights has been in the melting pot for a long time now. It is spoken about and promises are made and we shall have to see what becomes of this. All I am saying is that this Bill is already a good indication that the whole idea of partition, the whole original motivation for the origin for the policy of separate development, is already in difficulties. It is in grave difficulties and the Government is conceding that by way of this legislation and the other steps they have already taken in the direction of recognising Black political rights.

I just want to say a few words about the issue of the comparison of citizenship of various states. Of course, when one has to do with the restoration of citizenship to people who were previously deprived of it, then one cannot help drawing a comparison between the quality of their citizenship as citizens of South Africa and the quality of their citizenship as citizens of Bophuthatswana, Ciskei, Transkei and Venda. It is quite clear that in some instances those people are at present in a poorer position than they would have been had they been citizens of the RSA. It is clear that the quality of the type of Government to which these people are subjected in some of those territories is poorer than what they were accustomed to here in the RSA. Strangely and ironically enough, it is also true that some of those people are in fact better off than before.

Are you referring to the homelands?

Yes. Despite what they had to sacrifice, interesting comparisons may be drawn. One of the most interesting aspects relates to the Constitution of the independent state of Bophuthatswana. I find it a very interesting and healthy development that an independent state created for all the wrong reasons by this Government—and I say that with no hesitation whatsoever—brought into being a constitution which contains and embodies a charter of human rights. In my opinion this was a tremendously important step for constitutional development in Southern Africa, one that has already had repercussions in our administration of justice. Hon members will be aware of the case which came before the Appeal Court of South Africa a year or two ago—a court which, in passing, is also the Court of Appeal for the Supreme Court of Bophuthatswana. The prosecution whereby the person was found guilty was set aside in the Appeal Court of South Africa on the grounds that the law in terms of which the relevant person had been found guilty, was in conflict with the charter of human rights incorporated in the constitution of Bophuthatswana. This is a very interesting development, one which one can only hope and pray hon members of the Government will take cognisance of and try to realise how important it is to take note with regard to our own constitution, our own legislation, of the fact that one has to respect fundamental human rights…

Order! The hon member is now digressing rather far from the legislation.

Yes, Mr Chairman. I shall conclude that argument by simply saying that one hopes that they will in due course become aware that this is an essential element of the quality of one’s citizenship. Nowadays in particular, in view of the state of emergency, it is very important that one should perhaps reflect on that and understand precisely what one’s South African citizenship amounts to and what in fact remains of one’s rights when we have the kind of Government we are suffering under in South Africa at the moment.

Accordingly we wish to give notice, as we have already done, that after the conclusion of the Second Reading debate on this Bill we are going to propose that this House go into committee to consider amendments which, if they were to be accepted, would amount to South African citizenship being fully and automatically restored to all the Black citizens of South Africa who were deprived of their South African citizenship by the various Status Acts and the independence of the four TBVC countries.

We therefore support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, we heard the hon member for Green Point say that they want to go into committee. He should just concede to us that in the discussions in the standing committee it was in fact only he and the other hon member of his party who were, in principle, in favour of citizenship automatically being restored to the citizens within the TBVC countries as well. It is true that there were debates as to whether we should take into account the agreement with Bophuthatswana, Ciskei, Venda and Transkei or whether we should automatically and unilaterally restore citizenship to all the citizens of those state in South Africa. The hon members of the PFP will concede that it was only they who adopted the standpoint of automatic citizenship in regard to citizens within the TBVC countries, as far as I can remember.

In discussing the declaration of human rights in Bophuthatswana the hon member for Green Point was in a sense speaking against himself because to begin with he admitted that those people had in their own right established something very fundamental. Secondly, he also admitted that the mere existence of the independent states was significant for the individual within those states. We in the standing committee are fully convinced that this Bill, by way of the three methods of acquiring citizenship, namely birth, naturalisation and registration, affords the citizens of the TBVC countries living in South Africa the easiest possible way to regain their citizenship. We are also sure that applications for citizenship submitted in terms of these provisions ought to succeed without difficulty.

I understand that some of the TBVC countries are quite sensitive and say that we are now once again doing what we were initially accused of and that is to decide unilaterally about people’s citizenship. It is true that when we established the independent states a great many people contended that as they perceived it, they had been wrongfully deprived of their South African citizenship on an automatic basis without their having any say in the matter. That is why some of the leaders of the TBVC countries are arguing that we should not do the converse now and simply state automatically to all citizens of the TBVC countries who are here that they are now simply South African citizens.

Whatever the case may be, the hon member for Green Point said the PFP believed that this Bill represented a change. This is indeed one of the most fundamental changes that the governing party has ever come up with in the history of the politics of South Africa.

The simple truth is that by means of this Bill we are saying that our old approach of total partition, linked to the standpoint that the ethnic links of every Black individual in South Africa entailed that he could only exercise his citizenship within his specific state is something of the past. By means of this measure we are recognising that we have Black citizens in the RSA that will also exercise citizenship as a political concept within South Africa. Even if there are people who do not like that, we are by means of this measure effectively and unambiguously saying that partition as a total political solution and end goal—whoever may in future attempt to apply to these people—will give rise to the greatest possible conflict and tension in the history of this country. Whether we like it or not, since the independence of the TBVC countries citizenship has been one of the most emotional aspects of the political debate in South Africa. Anyone with a little political insight into Black politics in South Africa who knows how Black people feel about politics will know that citizenship is a sensitive matter. Many of those people specifically lay claim to their South African citizenship rather than accept what they regard as forced citizenship and a final political say in the independent states.

We are therefore saying by way of this measure that our standpoint in accordance with which political structures must be created in which Black people may be accommodated in South Africa will apply to those to whom we are now restoring their citizenship. In a certain sense, then, we are saying something that we always thought need never be said, namely that there are Black people in South Africa who will only be able to have a political say in the structures that we shall eventually negotiate with them as South African citizens. We are therefore confirming by way of this legislation that there is an endeavour or ideal in the new South Africa whereby all the country’s citizens—White, Black, Brown and Coloured, and I am tempted to say, across all borders—want to express their national political feeling that they belong to a communal South Africa. [Interjections.]

We believe that it is in the interests of all the people and groups in South Africa that we shall find one another and recognise one another’s rights. As far as this legislation and its political significance are concerned, we further believe that we must get away from the concepts of a Black majority and a White minority government. We believe that we shall be able to guarantee the rights of all in a meaningful way. [Interjections.]

I just wish to make the statement that the contents of one’s political experience do not only revolve around one’s ethnic links. We are in fact saying by means of this legislation that the Tswana, the Venda and the Ciskeian citizen living in Soweto need not forfeit their political say there. All we are saying is that he will be able to do so as a South African citizen. We are therefore creating a structure to enable him to do so on the road ahead.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon member for Innesdal whether the Black South African citizens, just like the Coloureds and the Indians who are South African citizens, will acquire joint responsibility in appointing the State President of South Africa?

It is not for me to spell out structures here…

Order! I, too, think that it would be far beyond the scope of this Bill if the hon member were to do so.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I asked whether a Black South African citizen—we are discussing the citizenship of such citizens—would acquire the same citizenship rights as Coloureds and Indians who are South African citizens.

Order! That is not what the hon member asked. He asked whether such a citizen would participate in the election of the State President.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I asked whether that Black citizen would acquire the same rights as the Coloureds and the Indians in regard, too, to joint responsibility in the election of a State President.

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: For approximately the last 40 years one of the cardinal debates in this Parliament has been the issue of citizenship, the consequences of citizenship and everything it involves. I want to make a courteous request to you to rule that these things be permitted to be discussed in great detail in this Second Reading debate—in the old days we should in fact have discussed it at Third Reading—so that we are given the opportunity to ask those questions.

Order! I heard what the hon member for Rissik had to say but hon members cannot deal with the discussion over the past 40 years on citizenship in the discussion of this Bill unless it can be directly linked to a clause of this Bill. That is my ruling, and the hon member for Innesdal may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order…

Order! Is it the same point of order?

Yes, Sir. The Second Reading debate concerns the principle underlying a Bill, and the principle at issue here is citizenship rights. One of the most fundamental citizenship rights is my right to vote for a member of Parliament or for a State President. It is therefore absolutely relevant to the discussion of this Bill that this issue be discussed thoroughly. Otherwise we shall not be able to discuss the underlying principles and then the debate will be meaningless.

Order! There is other legislation that provides for people’s franchise. That is the answer to that point of order. The hon member for Innesdal may proceed.

I abide by your ruling because I think it would be wrong to debate the rights of every citizen whereas we are now dealing with the issue of restoring someone’s citizenship. If we debate about their rights then we shall be talking about all the citizens of South Africa and every facet of society in its totality. Then we shall get completely lost and may still be busy next week. [Interjections.]

In principle this Bill provides that Black people to whom citizenship is restored become participants in the political structures in South Africa from the lowest to the highest levels. I do not wish to discuss the future structure or who will have what say. All we can say unambiguously is that never in South Africa under the rule of the NP has the standpoint been adopted that there are first and second-class citizens.

Of course it has been! [Interjections.]

Therefore, when one speaks about political rights one speaks about the political rights of all the citizens. What we on this side of the House do say, as we have always said, is that it is a fundamental standpoint of ours that we want South African citizens to exercise their citizenship politically so that we can eliminate conflict in South Africa and not create further conflict.

By way of this Bill, then, we are saying that we are making an admission. This is merely further evidence that the Government of South Africa is not running away from the realities of the times we are living in. We admit that we made a mistake in regard to our perception of the total and final solution of this issue. On one occasion Dr Connie Mulder said that we would eventually reach a point at which there would be no Black South African citizens. By means of this Bill we are drawing a line through that remark made by Dr Mulder, and we shall never in all eternity be able to revert to that standpoint. That, we say to the Nationalists and the people at large, is the meaning of this Bill and anyone who says that we shall go back on the provisions of this measure is denying the fact that we took this step after a tremendous amount of emotion had been unleashed. If one just makes a study of Black aspirations one will see that the theme of citizenship is most central in the standpoints adopted by the Black people in South Africa against the Government.

I just wish to make the point that after we had considered this legislation we were absolutely convinced that the expression “permanent residence” as used in this Bill means in effect that every single Black person who qualifies to become a citizen of South Africa in terms of this Bill by way of citizenship, naturalisation or registration will be able to acquire that citizenship. Therefore there is going to be no dispute or argument as to whether a man may acquire citizenship or not. This is very important, because one of the things we are eliminating by way of this measure is the sword which hung over the heads of many people for so long as far as citizenship is concerned.

If in the new South Africa we wish to move forward on a road of national unity among groups and people, it is of the utmost importance that people’s feeling of belonging is taken into account. By means of this Bill we are more, than anything else, giving effect to the Black people of South Africa’s feeling of belonging and of being part of South Africa. Ethnic politics in South Africa is undoubtedly acquiring a dynamic new dimension by way of this measure, but I should prefer not to discuss this further.

We did not look at the Citizenship of National States Act when we considered this Bill. I personally believe—and I do not wish to take this any further—that on the road ahead there may also be a discussion of this law as part of general Black politics in South Africa. Although all citizens of the national states do indeed remain citizens of South Africa in terms of this law, there is a specific form of citizenship about which a discussion could perhaps be conducted. Several questions have been asked in this House about the issue of certificates of citizenship, because the Citizenship of National States Act still has political and ethnic significance for people who, after the passing of this Bill, may feel that that, too, should be reconsidered.

We are therefore saying by way of this Bill what the State President said on his visit to Soweto, although oddly enough the remark passed relatively unnoticed. I remember very well what a tremendously favourable reaction there was when the State President arrived there and said to the Black people: “We are all South Africans.” The positive results experienced in consequence of that one remark—“we are all South Africans”—made one realise how many Black people experienced citizenship, and we therefore know that by means of this Bill we have really taken a tremendous step forward.

We believe that by means of this measure we can create a new climate. We believe that this measure also contains a new symbolism of freedom for the citizens of this country, and we believe that in the short term it is of the utmost importance that people should feel that their rights are being protected. There have been many court cases in which people’s citizenship was at issue—that is to say, the issue of which state they were citizens—and we believe that by means of this measure we are eliminating many uncertainties in that regard as well.

If one wants to see how emotional the issue of citizenship was, one need only look at the disputes that arose in several places in the country in which efforts were made, or discussions held, by the government to include specific Black towns.

I am reminded, for example, of the emotions aroused in connection with Ekangala. I am also reminded of the emotions surrounding citizenship in the Black city of Soshanguve north of Pretoria. A government which did not take cognisance of this climate and this feeling and did not come forward with a measure such as this one would be a government which showed no compassion and no understanding of people’s rights and standpoints.

Therefore this measure once again brings us to a point at which we, together with our voters and everyone in South Africa, will have to reorient ourselves dramatically as far as the new South Africa is concerned—not only as far as the structures are concerned, but also in regard to our thinking.

How do people fit in there? How are groups, peoples and regions going to come into their own without this measure, whereby citizenship is to be restored? Without this measure, the pushing aside of people may give rise to domination by a single group and this in turn may result in our being plunged into conflict. Moreover, once we have accepted this measure, we as Whites need no longer attempt to interpret Black aspirations ourselves.

If this legislation could perhaps just result in an increasing number of our own people finally deciding that other people speak for themselves and that we do not speak on their behalf, then that alone will make it worthwhile. Before this legislation we were inclined to state unilaterally what other people’s aspirations were and how they felt about them. By restoring citizenship we are saying, in effect, that that this is a new ball game and that we are therefore listening to hear how other people experience their citizenship.

We have in this measure one of the most powerful weapons needed for conquering the future. It is this weapon that can cause freedom to be unleashed in the thoughts and experience of people. One need only consider the potential of a person who feels that he belongs somewhere and the tremendous, infinite potential of the striving, actions and thoughts of people who feel free, to appreciate the true significance of this legislation.

The NP certainly does not have a perfect plan for South Africa. That is by no means the case.

Certainly not!

It is by no means true that we have the perfect plan. Anyone who says that we are suggesting that, is interpreting what we say quite wrongly. We do say, however, that if by way of legislation such as this one can at least admit that one perceives people and their greater endeavours, their striving for freedom and their aspirations, and that one takes that into account, then we have achieved a tremendous amount by way of this legislation.

Mr Chairman, the hon member states that this Bill represents the most fundamental change. May I ask him whether the NP has a mandate from the voters to do this?

Mr Chairman, it seems to me that when something bothers the hon members of the CP, they immediately wonder whether there is a mandate, but if something suits them, they are not at all concerned about a mandate. This is proved by the leaders they are constantly quoting here, leaders such as the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

I am not going to dwell on this point for long…

I should be obliged, because in fact it has nothing to do with the Bill.

I just want to say to the hon member for Jeppe that we are convinced that this measure is in the spirit of the mandate that we as a party and the Government have received from all the congresses of the National Party, namely that all the people of South Africa will be able to exercise political rights by way of their citizenship. At one National Party congress after another one leader after the other said that work was being done on structures for Black people outside the TBVC countries and the national states and all the congress-goers recognised, with great acclamation, that this was absolutely essential. By means of this measure those people’s South African citizenship is being restored to them so that structures may be created for citizens of South Africa who want political citizenship in South Africa in the full sense of the word.

I wish to thank everyone who made a contribution in the standing committee, including the hon the Minister who submitted it. I also thank all the officials for their dedication, and I believe that by way of this measure we are placing good legislation on the Statute Book for the new South Africa with which, in the end, we simply have to win.

Mr Chairman, I move as an amendment:

In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister said the following inter alia and on that basis this side of the House will conduct the debate and put our standpoints on the Bill clearly and unequivocally:

In view of what the hon the Minister said, I want to begin by putting a frank question to him. He must not sit throughout the debate and then not give us replies to cardinal and fundamental questions about the political situation prevailing in the country when he replies at the end. The hon the Minister may think he is succeeding in this debate in convincing one that the CP should not put its standpoint, but I want to tell him that all the matters and questions we broach here are also put throughout the country afterwards. If the hon the Minister does not want to give us these answers, we shall find them in other ways.

I want to ask the hon the Minister frankly: In terms of the restoration of this citizenship as contained in this Bill, can a Black man get political rights in South Africa which can enable him to become State President? This is very important to us. This Parliament, and the parliaments that preceded it, took that citizenship away for certain historic reasons and that citizenship is being restored in terms of this legislation. We want to hear a very clear rendition of the argument advanced by this Parliament about why the citizenship was taken away and now has to be restored again, and what the results of this will be for South Africa. We shall ask the Government these and related questions until we have received satisfactory replies to them. It is our right and duty as representatives of those people we represent here to get answers to those questions in the highest Council in the country.

The State President said the following in his Presidential address at the beginning of the year:

I want to contend that with this Bill, the Government is not adhering to what the State President said at the beginning of this year. With this Bill, the Government is bringing the fundamental characteristics of old colonialism back to South Africa.

Yes, that is true!

I want to give the reasons for my saying this. In the first place the Government is drawing the same boundaries with this as the British imperialists did in Southern Africa. [Interjections.] With this Bill the Government is forcing a variety of separate peoples within the same boundaries into a unitary state. In addition, just like the old colonial powers, the Government is dividing peoples in two. In the old colonial period—hon members will remember—the old British and other colonial powers simply drew boundaries which divided peoples and separated them from one another. In the end, in the process of ending the colonialism in Africa, no easy solution could be found to the problems caused by this. This also caused very serious conflict, precisely because the peoples who had been separated from one another could not be re-united in a proper way.

We therefore find that the citizens of all the countries that have received their independence from South Africa—Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and the Ciskei—fellow-citizens therefore—are once again being divided in two in terms of the measure in question. We shall get people who are living in the independent Venda, whereas other fellow-citizens of those same people of Venda will be living in South Africa. That is what will happen—despite all the problems involved.

The Tswanas are being divided in three.

Yes, the Tswanas are even being divided in three.

In terms of the measure under discussion, peoples are once again simply being reduced to an unacceptable sociological concept—to so-called minority groups. By means of the legislation in question, the Government is once again forcing the White people into a position of servitude and submissiveness and dependence in its own fatherland. In addition the Government is continuing the work that Kitchener and Milner did not complete here at the beginning of this century.

Even Piet Cillié said so!

Both the hon member for Green Point and the hon member for Innesdal said that with this measure, the Government itself was destroying those principles and that course it had brought about with hard labour and with sweat and blood through the course of many years. In this way the Government is drawing a line through the work done by the National Party’s leaders in the past.

The final remark I want to make in this connection, Sir, is that with the Bill in question—which we cannot regard in isolation—the Government is allowing the American “melting pot” philosophy to flourish in South Africa. I believe legislation of this nature is used by foreigners—especially Americans—to create a certain state of mind in South Africa—a situation corresponding to that in America. In this respect I want to quote an example from the speech Ambassador Herman Nickel made before the M L Sultan Technikon in Durban. He said the following inter alia:

In my opinion what interference of this nature in South Africa’s affairs amounts to, is that the Americans want to do with us here what they did with the Red Indians in America, viz simply to destroy them.

If I may now address a word to the hon member for Innesdal after our little altercation yesterday, I once again want to tell the hon member he is one of the advocates of the New Nats’ ideas, the New Nats who believe that less and less emphasis should be laid on the ethnicity of South Africa’s citizens in this country. On that basis I told the hon member he wanted a community in South Africa which could not be recognised clearly as White or Black. If he could have his way, one would not be able to refer to the ethnic difference, such as Xhosa, Venda or whatever.

That is not true.

That is the standpoint that hon member has assumed. He wants South Africa to be a non-racial, non-ethnic community. If the other hon members of the NP think I have launched a personal attack on the hon member in this connection, they are making a very big mistake. [Interjections.]

Decades ago this hon member could rise in the name of the NP and say everything he is telling us today, about the Progressive Party and United Party of the time. [Interjections.] Today he is using the standpoints and principles of the PFP and the United Party and accusing us of the same things he accused them of 20 to 30 years ago. All I am doing, therefore, is to show up this kind of politics.

There is something else I want to tell the hon member, as well as his tame journalists who project his standpoint.

Are you becoming derogatory again?

Yes, I am talking about those tame journalists of his who do not create a true image of the debates in this House for the public at large.

Order! The hon member is straying from the Bill. He must come back to it.

Mr Chairman, what I am doing is to place on record that what is conveyed to the public at large is not a correct rendition of what takes place here.

Order! The hon member cannot simply place on record whatever he wants to. He can place things on record only in terms of the rules of the House.

Mr Chairman, the NP is destroying its own principles, and I want to give a few examples of that as far as citizenship is concerned. In the first place I want to quote what exactly Dr Malan said in respect of the inter-group situation in Southern Africa:

Yes, that is correct.

The hon member Dr Vilonel says that is correct. If one tells him one plus one equals two, he will say it is correct; and if one tells him one plus one equals three, he will agree with that too. That hon member agrees with everything. [Interjections.]

You are not always intelligent enough to interpret things correctly; that is the problem.

When we in the CP were driven out of the NP in 1982 about what we are experiencing here today, we said the course the NP was taking would eventually lead to the destruction of one standpoint of principle after another as far as the ethnic variety in South Africa was concerned. That is what we said, and that is why our credibility was attacked in public—by every newspaper that supports the NP, and in every debate! This Bill is proof once again that the expulsion of the conservatives in 1982 was unreasonable, unfair and immoral.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

I now want to quote from Die Swart Vryheidspaaie, a book written by Mr M C Botha. Of course Mr M C Botha was one of the people who contributed a great deal to the independence of the Black peoples in Southern Africa. On page 80 of his book, I read the following:

Who does Mr M C Botha support today?

As far as I know, Mr M C Botha supports the NP. I wrote him a letter in the newspaper’s letter column. Along with the hon the Minister, he must tell us today why he wants to change this legislation while he devoted his life to getting this legislation concerning citizenship onto the Statute Book. As far as that is concerned, he is in the same dock as hon members of the NP.

FW, you must also explain what you said in 1976.

I want to tell the hon the Ministers of National Education and Constitutional Development and Planning that the fact that they are in the same party as Mr M C Botha today, does not mean any of them have political integrity. [Interjections.] He is still in the NP with the hon the Minister of National Education, but he also has to declare on his own conscience why he is still there. [Interjections.]

Further on in his book, Mr M C Botha said, and I quote from page 161:

In a concluding paragraph he said:

This Bill does not renounce independence. [Interjections.]

I shall come back to that later in my speech. The hon the Minister reminds me of the member of the President’s Council, Prof Strauss, who, according to what I hear, now says all the lectures he gave at the University of the Orange Free State through the years must be destroyed. One simply cannot destroy one’s past in that way. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister was one of the first to chase us out of the NP when we predicted these things. If we do not come into power, the hon the Minister will still be sitting in the NP when a Black President comes into power in South Africa, and he will still be saying it was the development of the policy of Malan and Strijdom. [Interjections.]

I want to continue to quote Mr M C Botha. He also spoke on other occasions. Former Minister M C Botha spoke about three alternatives in the publication Skietgoed, under the heading Volkereverhouding in Suid-Afrika: Nou en vorentoe die toekoms in en die implikasies van tuislandontwikkeling. He referred to the one about the HNP—the hon member of the HNP can talk about that himself—and about the second he said:

Then he said—that is where the hon member for Innesdal stands today:

I shall say no more about Mr M C Botha, because I want to come back to Dr Connie Mulder to whom the hon member referred briefly a moment ago. On Tuesday, 7 February 1978, Dr Mulder said (Hansard: House of Assembly, vol 72, col 579):

[Interjections.]

Dr Connie Mulder was not ashamed to say in 1978 that he had a mandate.

And who contradicted him?

The mandate of the NP was to link every Black individual to his ethnic context.

F W de Klerk did not repudiate him then.

Who kicked him out of the party?

Order! I think the hon member for Rissik is capable of making all those points himself.

We have a state of emergency in this country today. We are living in serious times and this Government is doing things in South Africa today for which it has no mandate. We should therefore be shamefully neglecting our duty as members of the House of Assembly if we did not say these things in this House and ask the Government to be honourable, to resign, to call an election and then to ask the people to repudiate these things. There is an hon Minister who does not reply to our questions. Let us look at the division on that Bill on that particular day, however. Who voted in favour of the Bill? Who voted for every Black man to get his own citizenship in his own ethnic context? Here is the name Botha, J C G—this hon Minister! The hon the Minister voted for Dr Connie Mulder’s measure. [Interjections.] Today he is here under the protection of the House, however—it reminds one of the days when he tagged along behind Advocate John Vorster, and when he was appointed as Administrator, he attacked Dr Vorster from the safety of his position as Administrator.

I did not attack him.

The names of P W Botha and J C Heunis are here as well, and if one has a good look, one also sees F W de Klerk…

Goodness—F W de Klerk too! [Interjections.]

This is the morality of the politics one has in South Africa today—that these hon members sit in the caucus and the study groups of the NP and assume certain standpoints of principle which they then change just five or 10 years later…

Without a mandate.

How can the voting public or we as parliamentarians keep the Government to its promises in any way? [Interjections.] I want to refer the hon member for Bloemfontein East—I am not going to quote it—to the speech he made at Maselspoort. At the time he spoke as a young academic, an academic who was presented as being one of the stars of Bloemfontein’s university, but the hon member must go there today and reject this piece he, as a political scientist, wrote about citizenship. He must rise in this debate today and say he rejects it and ask us—just like Prof Strauss—to reject the things he wrote and presented as the truth. [Interjections.]

This Bill has very serious implications for South Africa. There are very serious questions that arise about this Bill. The hon member for Innesdal said we could not see this Bill in isolation. It is not a Bill with a single objective. It falls within the framework of a specific political philosophy of the National Party which wants to introduce radical changes in South Africa. That is why we must ask what the results of this legislation are.

In his Second Reading speech, the hon the Minister said:

The hon member for Innesdal said I had stopped studying when I stopped lecturing him. That is the simple kind of argument one finds. The fact is that the Black man of Africa does not understand or practise democracy and the party system and will never be able to understand or practise it as is done in the Western democracy, and I should like to know which research was the source of this Government standpoint.

Do you dispute it?

Yes, I dispute it. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister made a long dissertation here about people and nation and race etc. It was very interesting, but in reply to this debate the hon the Minister must tell us who wrote it all. What were the hon the Minister’s sources? What were the hon the Minister’s sources? [Interjections.]

As a presiding officer I want to say our dilemma is that we make fundamental statements here and question policies, but the Government does not give us replies to our debate questions. That is when we have to force the Government to say these things.

I now want to ask the hon the Minister when he found out that so-called frustrations are being caused? The hon the Minister has seen all the people of the relevant countries who have been deprived of their citizenship, and he says they are frustrated. I want to ask the hon the Minister today: Is Mrs Winnie Mandela frustrated? Is she one of the people whose frustrations the hon the Minister would like to eliminate? Does the hon the Minister also want to take away Bishop Tutu’s frustrations in this way?

The hon the Minister must know the Whites are also frustrated. After all, there was frustration among the left-wingers when he took the South African citizenship from these people. The Progs debated this for days. That was frustration too, but the Government did not care about the frustrations of the left-wing Whites then. Today the Government does not care about the frustrations and the resentment of the Whites. The hon member for Innesdal spoke about the feeling of pessimism of my colleague, the hon member for Barberton, but I want to tell him there are many other emotions in my heart than mere pessimism about the objectionable things the NP does to my people. That is why I am asking the hon the Minister whether he wants to rectify the frustrations of Winnie Mandela and the other Blacks without thinking of the frustrations of the Whites? What about the Whites who are worried about their future as a specific ethnic group in South Africa?

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning could not even answer the “Vrae wat Pla” from Stellenbosch. The hon member for Green Point referred to the letter that had come from Stellenbosch.

Go and play ping-pong!

I want to play ping-pong with that hon Minister, and he will be quite a sight once I have finished with him.

The hon the Minister said in one of the other Houses that the reform plans would not be concluded in his lifetime. The hon the Minister began with reform of which he is not going to see the end. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister, the State President…

Are you going to live forever?

… and their crowd of supporters which merely sit clapping their hands for them here in the House want to effect reform in South Africa without their realising its results. The hon the Minister himself told the people that he would no longer be there when the products of reform appeared.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member is allowing himself to be led astray and he is digressing from the Bill.

I therefore want to say the hon the Minister should take cognisance that not only is there frustration in the hearts of the Whites, but also very serious concern. We cannot shift that concern aside until the hon the Minister is six foot underground one day, and have our children and grandchildren sitting with the frustrations the Government sees in the left-wing Blacks today, but not in the Whites.

I want to ask the hon the Minister of Home Affairs something. He is giving citizenship to the Blacks, but what value does he attribute to that citizenship? What is the meaning of the citizenship of the Blacks that is being restored? What are the rights that will be linked to that citizenship? The hon the Minister said there were frustrations, but he must tell us what these frustrations are. Are they merely frustrations because the people do not have citizenship, or are they also frustrations concerning the rights and obligations of citizenship?

Have you taken a look at the Status Acts yet and seen what has been taken away and what remains?

The hon the Minister should have thought of that when he took it away.

Do you know what still remains? Go and have a look at what is written there.

I want to ask the hon the Minister whether the Blacks’ frustrations have been resolved. Can we accept that when the Bill is passed, the frustrations of the Blacks, which the hon the Minister spoke about, will have been resolved? Are no frustrations left?

We are worried about the results of this legislation. This concerns political rights inter alia.

The NP says apartheid meant the Whites had had the sole decision about the non-Whites. Today they say that is apartheid. If they are going to negotiate at the end of this year or whenever, will the national anthem and the flag be on the negotiation table as well? These were also established one-sidedly by the Whites. If the Zulus and all the other people who have an own language are going to be involved, what effect will this have on the official languages?

The Government says it has certain nonnegotiables. What kind of country is it going to create if it gives citizenship to Blacks in their millions, but continues to tell them they may not live in certain residential areas or go to certain schools, and they still have to be on a separate voters’ list because there are going to be separate Chambers? Is that not in fact a source of frustration?

The hon member for Kimberley South and I are both members of the Standing Committee on Home Affairs. The hon member claimed there were Coloured Afrikaners. I want to ask him incidentally whether there are Black Afrikaners as well?

I shall never talk to you again until you apologise to the hon member for Innesdal. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Kimberley South had better stop now, because on that condition he will never speak to me again. Does he keep his promises?

Yes!

Then he must stop talking to me now! [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the story is told of a group of idle youths who whiled away the time in a very curious way. Whenever they met, one of them called out a number and the rest of them burst out laughing. After a while, another one would call out a number and they would all burst out laughing again. One day a passerby happened to observe their strange behaviour. He approached them and asked what they were doing. One young man explained that they spent their time telling jokes, but that they had run out of jokes, and in any case they knew all one another’s jokes by heart. They had therefore decided to give each joke a number, and instead of boring one another by repeating the joke, they would simply call out the number and everyone would know what it was about.

What is your number? [Interjections.]

When I listen to the hon member for Rissik, I am reminded of that story. I want to suggest that the CP should consider numbering all those worn-out arguments which they keep repeating day after day in one debate after another, and that they should stop wasting our time. [Interjections.]

His number would be 0. [Interjections.]

Whenever the hon member for Rissik rises in this House, we on this side know in advance that he is going to tell us that we do not have a mandate and that we are selling out the White man.

The number is 0!

When the hon member for Kuruman rises in this House, we also know in advance that he is going to tell us that we are a bunch of quitters. [Interjections.]

That number is one.

When the hon the leader of the CP rises, we know in advance that he is going to tell us, “We will not take it!” [Interjections.]

I listened very attentively to the hon member for Rissik. It is very clear to me that he and his party have completely lost touch with the realities of this country. Any policy—it does not matter which party’s policy it is—which does not take account of the realities of this country cannot succeed and is doomed to failure. I shall come back to this in the course of my speech.

First I should like to draw the attention of this House to the fact that when the State President held out the prospect of this measure in his opening address earlier this year, he offered it with a number of other measures as a reform package. The Bill which is before us must not be regarded as an isolated measure, therefore, but as a measure which is related to other legislation, such as the Identification Bill which we have just finished debating.

It goes without saying that before the Department of Home Affairs can begin to issue a uniform identity document to Blacks, there must first be clarity about the citizenship of the several millions of Blacks who are permanently resident within the borders of the Republic of South Africa and who lost their South African citizenship when the TBVC countries became independent. The measure which we are discussing here today will clarify the matter and we can then start issuing a uniform identity document to Blacks as from 1 July, as envisaged by the State President.

The CP’s opposition to the measure is caused by the fact that they are still clinging to the outdated idea that the homeland policy as announced by the late Dr Verwoerd offers the complete solution to the constitutional problems of our country. This is indeed the reason why we on this side of the House say that they fail to take account of the realities of this country. It is true that most of us on this side of the House used to believe, for a decade or more, I suppose, that the homeland policy offered the final solution in respect of the constitutional aspirations of the Blacks.

Then you lost out to reality!

It is an undeniable fact that for a long time, we regarded the Blacks living and working outside the national states as guest labourers and told them that if they had constitutional aspirations, they should satisfy those in their homelands. It is even true that there were Nationalists who secretly hoped that it would be possible to apply the homeland idea to the Coloureds and Indians as well. It must have been the Jaap Marais’ and the Louis Stofbergs who cherished this ridiculous idea while they were still members of the NP!

And Tino Volker and Gerrit Viljoen! [Interjections.]

I merely mention this in passing, Sir.

I want to come back to the matter concerning the Blacks. We hoped that the influx of Blacks from the homelands to our cities would be gradually reduced and eventually reversed. If I remember correctly, 1975 was mentioned to us as the year in which this movement would be reversed.

No, 1978.

What are the facts? The fact of the matter is that today, 11 years later, there is still no question of any reversal. Although the homelands remain an important component of the total solution, it has become very clear that it does not offer any solution in respect of those Blacks who are permanently resident in South Africa, outside the national states, for whether we like it or not, those Blacks are here to stay. Many of them have no ties with their homelands any more. They have no family or possessions there, for example, and they are not interested in ever going back there. [Interjections.]

Moreover, we cannot do without those people. They work on our farms and in our cities and towns as domestic servants, factory workers, and labourers on the mines, to mention just a few examples.

Did Japie Basson send you that speech?

Does the hon member for Kuruman wish to suggest that he has no Black labourers on his farm? [Interjections.]

These people were citizens of the Republic of South Africa before their respective homelands became independent. Now they are in a certain sense stateless. These are further realities which we must take into account. The recognition of the permanence of these Blacks means that all Blacks, except those living within the independent states, have an inherent claim to South Africa citizenship, just as Whites, Coloureds and Indians do. Common sense and a sense of justice make it easy for us on this side of the House to support this legislation, therefore.

It is also a fact that the six self-governing states say quite frankly that they are not interested in independence if it would mean the loss of South African citizenship. Since the Government realises that the world does not recognise the TBVC countries as independent states, and that this causes inconvenience to the citizens of those states, it is prepared to negotiate with the governments of those states about a system of dual citizenship for those who live permanently in this country. This policy adjustment makes it possible for the six self-governing states to accept independence now or in the future, therefore, because those of their citizens who are resident in this country will not necessarily lose their South African citizenship in that case. Common sense tells one that if this is done, one must also restore their South African citizenship to the citizens of the TBVC countries who are resident in this country at the moment.

There is one final remark I wish to make. The days when Whites could take unilateral decisions and then force them down the throats of people of colour are gone forever. That is another reality we must take account of. Finally, I want to say that just as the hon member for Waterberg is unable to give us the name of a single Coloured or Indian leader who would be prepared to accept his idea of a Coloured or Indian homeland, none of the self-governing states would be prepared to negotiate with that party about independence on the basis of their having to sign away their South African citizenship. Since they will not be able to obtain the cooperation of the self-governing states, their policy is stillborn. [Interjections.] If they think they can force their kind of independence upon the Blacks unilaterally, they are headed for a revolution, as sure as fate. They know that.

This is a destructive speech.

The measure which is before us is fully in accordance with NP policy, and I take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, with the introduction of this Bill the wheel has now turned full circle. It certainly has turned full circle since the first debate on citizenship which we had in this House in regard to the Status of Transkei Act of 1976.

While I was listening to the hon member Mr Kritzinger I wondered what the old frontbenchers of the old United Party would have said if they had been here today to hear that hon gentleman. I wonder what the likes of Sir De Villiers Graaff, T G Hughes, L G Murray, G F Jacobs, R M Cadman, M L Mitchell…

Japie Basson.

… Japie Basson and a few others would have said, listening to that speech.

André Fourie.

I wonder what has gone through the mind of the hon member for Durban Point sitting here today and I wonder, if I may, what is going through the mind of a gentleman sitting in the Press gallery whose dome is probably a little shinier that it was in the days when he heard the debates on this issue in 1976. It is incredible to think of the acrimonious debates which took place in that year on the status of Transkei and the arguments which were presented as to why we had to take away citizenship from many people and why it was so right to do so, and here today we have this same governing party telling us why citizenship must now be restored to those people.

That is progress!

That debate was followed by similar debates in respect of Venda, Bophuthatswana and Ciskei. [Interjections.] It is somewhat ironic that, if we had done the right thing at that time, all this could have been avoided. All this misery and frustration about which the hon member for Rissik had an argument with the hon the Minister could have been avoided. [Interjections.]

*What are they?

They are a real bunch of “Sappe”—the bunch sitting over there!

They are coming right. They are really coming right.

†I should like to give attention to something this afternoon that, obviously, we are not going to hear an awful lot about. I should like to talk about the Bill.

Hear, hear!

I think it could be important to do so. In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister confirmed that the Status Acts which I have just mentioned, whilst providing for the fact that the TBVC citizens resident in the Republic would not lose certain rights, privileges and benefits, ensured that they certainly lost their South African citizenship. That they did, and that is what we are correcting here today. The hon the Minister went on to say that this has caused frustrations, and that is the argument which the hon member for Rissik has had with him. Then he had the humility to go on to say that investigations had proved that these frustrations had to be addressed. We are grateful for that.

He also suggested that the people who had had their citizenship taken from them and had had homeland or independent state citizenship imposed upon them, did not exercise their political rights in any of the TBVC countries. We tried to tell them 10 years ago that all this would happen.

Let us be grateful for small mercies, however. As I said at the outset of my speech, the wheel has indeed turned full circle and the Bill before us this afternoon rights a number of wrongs.

With certain justification it is argued that this Bill does not go far enough. However, I think it is important to all that this Bill be recognised for the fact that it does restore South African citizenship to all those people who have had other citizenship imposed upon them by virtue of the Status Acts. This citizenship was imposed upon them while they have, to all intents and purposes, remained residents, and therefore citizens, of the Republic of South Africa. It is also interesting to note that someone who regains South African citizenship in terms of this Bill cannot lose it as a result of the provisions that are currently contained in the Status Acts. I think that is a very important and good point embodied in the provision before us.

However, during the deliberations in the standing committee there were long debates regarding the difference embodied in section 6 of the Status Act of Bophuthatswana and the corresponding sections in the Status Acts of the other independent states. When one reads the four Status Acts side by side, one finds that section 6 of the Bophuthatswana Act is quite different from the Acts dealing with the other states. In that regard I think we would do well to remember that when we talk about South Africa and South African citizenship, Transkei and Transkeian citizenship, Bophuthatswana and Bophuthatswanan citizenship, and that of Ciskei and Venda, whether we like it or not and whether we approve of it or not, we are talking about five sovereign independent states, each one of which has the same sovereign powers over the citizens within its boundaries. Whether or not we approved of the Acts that granted independence to these states, their independence is a fact of life. The outside world may not recognise this, and indeed they do not, but we in South Africa do. It therefore follows that we must accept that each state is entitled to make its own laws in respect of citizenship. That is my answer in a nutshell to the dilemma regarding section 6 of the Status of Bophuthatswana Act.

I can summarise the situation as follows: In terms of the Bill before us we have now decided, firstly, that people born in the Republic of South Africa and who lost their citizenship owing to the Status Acts but who have, since that loss of citizenship, continued to live in the Republic of South Africa, may now indicate whether or not they wish to regain their South African citizenship. It is up to the individual to make this decision.

Secondly, people who have lost their South African citizenship and have lived in the independent states but who have subsequently come to live in the Republic of South Africa and have lived here for five years, may apply for naturalisation and South African citizenship.

Thirdly, people who, after the implementation of this legislation, enter the Republic may apply for naturalisation and citizenship after a period of five years, which is the normal procedure for anyone entering and staying in South Africa.

Concerning this point the question has been raised as to whether the people, particularly those who come here from the independent states and go back there for prolonged periods, would lose this qualification were they to take extended periods of leave. We do have this peculiar situation. They very often take leave for periods of up to three months. In answer to that question it has been indicated that the people concerned would not be penalised under those circumstances as long as the period of residence of five years could be argued to be of a continuous nature in what we could call the African context.

There are those who will argue—and there are many who have argued—that the Bill is not good enough. I personally would agree with them in the sense that I am sure that as we go along, we are going to find that we have to amend this Bill from time to time. I do not think this Bill is the final answer. I do believe, however, that it is good enough to use as a launching-pad and it is certainly good enough to restore South African citizenship to those very many people who have felt aggrieved over the years. That, I believe, is what it is all about.

We on these benches have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting this Bill but we do feel, however, that as sure as night follows day we shall have to look at this Bill again and possibly even again in order to iron out the technical difficulties which are bound to surface in the years ahead.

Mr Chairman, with reference to the speech made by the hon member for Umhlanga, I just want to say that the 360° reminded me of a person who said: “Sak so ’n bietjie, Sarel!” I really do not believe that the NP has turned through the full 360°, for partially they are still clinging to the homeland idea and they still foresee that the homelands can become independent. They still accept the independence of the existing independent states, but here a line is being drawn through the ethnic ties of those peoples to a part of whom independence has been granted, while the rest continue to live in the Republic of South Africa. In my opinion the 360° is putting it a little too high. But that makes the NP’s problem even more difficult.

The hon member Mr Kritzinger expressed a few ideas here, some of which we already know so well that we can mention them by number. I am saying this in a lighter vein though. If anyone talks about the obsolete idea of the homelands, I want to say it is not obsolete, because the NP is still elaborating on it. It even wants those states that are at present self-governing to become independent, but in the process the Government is making it far more difficult for them with legislation such as this.

The hon member mentioned quite a number of things on which I do not want to spend much time. He referred to realities, and this is another of the NP arguments one can number by now, viz that they work with “realities”. The NP is a reality, a declining reality. The CP is a reality, a growing reality. [Interjections.] The Black states that became independent as a result of NP legislation, are a reality. We do not think they should try to undo this, nor should they try to undermine it with legislation in respect of citizens who belong to those states.

The Coloured land which over a period of scores of years has been set aside and held in trust for the Coloured community is a reality. It is a reality that they have 400 000 ha of land in Gordonia. Sir, I shall direct the argument in a different direction in a moment, but since we are discussing realities, I want to say it is a reality that there is potential in the Richtersveld, etc.

Black aspirations are a reality, but White aspirations are also a reality. Black frustrations are a reality—no one denies that. Hon members must please not try to create the impression, unless they are trying to make a wilful point, that the CP and people who advocate White freedom in a sovereign White state, simply want to cram every idea of ours down the throats of the Black people. If that is so the NP has a sinful history, because it took decisions which simultaneously affected the freedom of the Whites, but also opened up constitutional paths and channels for the self-determination of Black peoples. In this way, while it was pursuing Black independence in a Black state, it was simultaneously serving the interests of the White people, and pursing their freedom. If we talk about a sense of justice, we are endeavouring just as hard to attain justice for Black peoples, but also for a White people in its own fatherland.

If I refer to certain statements made by the NP in recent times, it is simply to support the preamble to my argument. I hope you will allow me to mention just a few statements in connection with citizenship. In 1979, at the Free State congress, the State President inter alia spelt out the Black policy as follows, according to page 40 of the report of the 66th NP congress of the Free State:

Secondly:

I think that was the standpoint which over the years applied as the standpoint of the NP. I also think that the underlying principle was not only the interests of the specific Black peoples and that those peoples should be viewed as entities—even if they were not living within the same consolidated geographic area—but was most certainly, too, to bring about separation between the political expression of the Black peoples and that of the White people. It was therefore separation in respect of political expression.

Subsequently—I am now looking at various statements—the State President said the following in Durban in August last year in the Rubicon speech:

I concede that this is not precisely relevant to the Bill, but I am mentioning it with a view to the numbers which are mooted in the speech of the hon the Minister when he indicates the numbers that are now going to re-acquire citizenship of the Republic of South Africa. He then went on to say:

In his speech in Bloemfontein in September 1985 the State President said the following:

This statement dealt with the citizenship of people within the states that had become independent—“within the borders of Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei”. It therefore referred to citizens who were now living there and who were not involved in the category this Bill deals with. The point I want to make is that a separation is being brought about between citizens living within those states and other members of that specific people living outside that state, who have lost their citizenship here within the Republic of South Africa.

I now want to refer to another statement of policy by the NP. I am quoting from the Program van Beginsels en Beleid van die Nasionale Party ten opsigte van Burgerskap, as follows:

I think one should see this matter in its correct perspective. While we are discussing citizenship of the members of peoples who have accepted independence in a specific country—those citizens who have become independent within a specific state—but who are living outside that state, the NP says it is prepared to negotiate to give the people who are still living within those states, the pure-blooded citizens one could almost say, of the Transkei, Bophuthatswana, the Ciskei and Venda, dual citizenship; and with it, therefore, citizenship of the Republic of South Africa. I think this is a matter which deserves comment and closer elucidation.

For the sake of fairness I just want to refer to a statement made by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. Shortly after that speech in Bloemfontein the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning commented, and I am quoting from Business Day of 13 September:

This is followed by:

This means a citizenship which has nothing to do with political rights, according to the hon the Minister.

I just want to read out a definition from a dictionary from which I have quoted in this House before. With reference to a definition which the hon the Minister subsequently quoted from the Oxford it appeared to me as though my dictionary and its definition, as an authoritative source, was not bad at all. The word “citizen” is described under quite a number of categories, which I quote:

In other words, franchise is being linked to citizenship here. According to the second category a citizen is defined as follows:

I shall now quote the third definition:

The following example is then furnished:

According this source there are different categories of citizenship, but in the first place it seems that one cannot separate the question of franchise from the concept of citizenship. Furthermore, a citizen is a person who lives in a particular country by birth or by naturalisation, and a person can also be a “citizen” of a country while he is living in another country, but then he declares his loyalty to the country of which he says he is a citizen and expects protection from that country. This is an additional viewpoint on citizenship.

I now want to make a few remarks by way of comment. Through this legislation the concept of citizenship is being made confusing. I think we are confusing the matter, because on the one hand a citizen is a person with political rights and franchise, but on the other he is a person without political rights and franchise. A person is for example a full-blooded citizen of an independent state, but then there is another person who is ethnically related to the citizen within that state. He is just as much a member of that people who has full civil rights within that state, but he is now living within the Republic of South Africa and he must now receive full political civil rights as well. The NP now intends to negotiate citizenship for the citizen who is living within the independent state as well. The question now is what kind of citizenship or political rights the NP now wishes to negotiate for citizens of Bophuthatswana, for example, to have within the borders of the Republic. I think that makes the concept of citizenship confusing.

Secondly, I associate myself with the idea expressed by the hon member for Rissik, but I shall not repeat it. It is that this measure brings about an unhealthy division of peoples into various states. We have in this way a repetition of the process of the 19th century and the conduct of the colonial powers in Africa when they drew boundaries through peoples at random and laid down that one portion of a people would live in a specific state, while another portion would live in another state. In this way, for example, a boundary line was drawn through the Ovambos and today I think we have the unhappy consequences that part of the Ovambos are living to the north of the river and another part to the south, with reciprocal and joint action and joint problem-creation on both sides of the river.

I want to remind hon members of a statement Chief Buthelezi once made in a letter to The Sowetan in which he warned and pleaded for his people not to be divided into Zulus of the homeland and Zulus of the cities. His request was that his people should not be divided in that way. Of course he has his own specific political reason, and I can understand it. Chief Buthelezi will want to have the biggest possible power-base, not only of 6,3 million Zulus, but a far broader power-base of Black people throughout the entire Republic of South Africa. However, I do not think that we should repeat in South Africa the sins committed by European states during the 19th century.

Thirdly I want to say that the measure gives Black people a choice Whites do not have. I do not want to repeat the point I raised last week, but merely refer to it briefly. It is a question of applying double standards. The Blacks have a choice. They can now choose whether they want to be included in a Black state, whether they want to become independent or whether they want to be grouped together in a unitary state together with the Whites, Coloureds and Asians. In such a unitary state they have the choice of participating with everyone in decision-making on general affairs which also affect the Whites. The Whites do not have such a choice, and to them we say this is merely the reality, and the reality is that they are in a unitary state. This gives the Black peoples a dual power-base, also in spite of Chief Buthelezi’s warning that his people should not be divided between homeland Blacks and urban Blacks. He still considers the Zulus of Soweto to be his people. Such people will therefore have a dual power-base. With an organised people and an organisation such as Inkatha one is giving those people an opportunity to organise across boundaries and in this way to muster political power in South Africa.

I think this Bill seeks, by way of legislation, to allocate rights—I think this is a very serious thought—over which wars have been fought. The question of citizenship and the rights pertaining to citizenship, namely the right to acquire political power with the vote one has at one’s disposal, is not merely a question of something on paper, but related to it is the right of existence, the power of existence of a people and its right to see to what extent rights which are being given to the members of other peoples are becoming a threat to the political self-determination and self-expression of one’s own people.

I want to go further and say that this measure is seen as a covert invitation to independent states to relinquish their independence and to revert to a unitary state. To the extent to which the honeycomb in the White area is more attractive compared to what it is in the national and independent states, and the rights and privileges of the citizens of those specific states increase here in the RSA, to the same extent will a longing be created among people in those states to be included in the unitary state, for according to them there are more privileges for them here.

I remember that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs warned on several occasions, if not in this House then on other occasions, that the development and allocation of rights and freedoms to Black people within the Republic should not be anticipated according to what was being achieved in the national states, because we would then be creating a problem.

I want to go further and allege that it may even be regarded as a serious inhibitive factor on self-governing states on their road to independence because they would then prefer not to accept independence.

I want to make another statement. Full citizenship means that someone has the right to participate in decision-making processes. In the language of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning: A person has the right to participate in the government of the country in which he is living. According to him, it is 1,75 million people who now qualify not only to be reckoned as permanent but as full-fledged citizens of the Republic of South Africa, with the rights attaching to it.

Within the structures as provided.

I should like to discuss the structures. Let me react to that quickly. If the structures are regions, all of us know that the regions are part of a unitary state. We also know that the regions still fall under a general Parliament. The regions are therefore not each going to have a sovereign parliament. The regions—whether they are kwaZulu, Lebowa or whatever region it may be—will still fall under the same general Parliament. The question then is how that Parliament is going to be constituted, apart from the question of how the regions are going to be constituted.

In this connection I want to remind the hon the Minister of the policy which the NP has maintained over the years, in contrast to PFP policy, when they told the PFP: “You speak about regions; can you point out a single region in South Africa in which the Whites are going to be in the majority?” I see the hon the Minister is making a note. Possibly he will reply to this. I repeat: It subjects Whites to a Black political joint say in their own White fatherland.

I know there are hon members sitting on that side who will now say that the Whites have never had their own fatherland. Then they drag in all the farm labourers and say that their presence in the White area confirms that there has never been a White South Africa. I think that is a poor argument.

Where do you accommodate those workers?

I shall tell the hon the Minister where I do not accommodate them. I definitely do not accommodate them in the same Regional Services Councils, nor in the same provincial or regional councils and definitely in the same Parliament! [Interjections.] The NP accommodated them in principle in their links, in the first place, with their own people, and that people has its own political and geographic base. [Interjections.] Surely we have not completed that process yet.

If one can excise an area such as Mdantsane and add it to the Ciskei—in this way a large Black community is added to a specific state—or if one can excise an area such as Thaba Nchu—traditionally a Black area—which is situated in the heartland of the Free State, and link it to other areas of Bophuthatswana, surely it is not excluded that further large Black communities can be excised and linked to other Black areas under their own governments. This can be done without working with bulldozers and without ramming anything down people’s throats. This must be done to prevent—on this point I think the hon the Minister ought to agree with me—the political decision-making right of the Whites being in effect taken out of their hands because they have to share it with others.

Sir, I have stated in this House, and I still adhere to it: “If you share power, you lose power”. I do not want to elaborate on that subject, I just want to make the point that if, as far as citizenship is concerned, one increases the numbers in the same political dispensation, and in that way shares power, one loses control over it. If one shares power, one loses the control of the power. That is an obvious truth.

I want to make another statement as well. This legislation opens the door wider to Black majority rule. Unless the Whites capitulate politically, this is the prelude to the most serious political conflict and strife South Africa has ever known!

Sir, you must permit me to react briefly to the contribution made by the hon member for Innesdal. He issued a warning about conflict and said that we would never in all eternity—I take it the hon member is sometimes prone to using superlatives—undo certain things. That is a very long time. I do not think he and I will still be here then, but let us simply leave it at that. But I think we should not underestimate the impact, the fears and the concern of Whites over the question of citizenship and political rights in a unitary dispensation of Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Asians, and with the addition now of a few million-people from the independent states. That should not be underestimated at all.

Talking about members and the effect, the impact on political decision-making, I want to point out one example, and I think you will allow me to do so, Sir. I shall quote from a speech made by Prof Piet Cillié. Well then, Prof Piet Cillié is not a person with whom I agree in all respects—nor he with me. Nevertheless that does not detract from the fact that I have an eye for a truth which a person is expressing, even though it is a person with whom I occasionally differ. He wrote:

And do you know, Sir, what Prof Piet Cillié’s comment on that was? He said:

Of course it is!

People must take cognisance of that!

Sir, I think these are very serious words. Prof Cillié also referred to the resistance among many of the Cape people. I want to quote him further:

Now I just want to add at once—by way of an interruption of this quotation—that if matters take the course the National Party wants them to take, it will not remain a predominantly White parliamentary system. I am not elaborating on that now. I am merely saying that even in a relatively equal division it could become a decisive force.

Sir, these are the words of a person who is regarded by many as being a very levelheaded person. He said:

Sir, I see you are watching me. I shall not elaborate in too much detail now. The point I want to make, however, is that we are dealing here with expanding rights within a unitary political community—expanding rights for various ethnic groups within the same system. The State President himself has also referred to this.

Here, however, I should also like to quote a few words spoken by Disraeli. People have the idea that all we are dealing with is so many people; that they are in fact members of separate peoples, races and so on, but that in the long run we are dealing merely with so many people. These days we hear so often from hon members of the National Party that references to colour and race should be removed from our legislation; that we should become less conscious of race. Surely there is a difference between racism and race-consciousness. I shall quote what Disraeli once said:

These are the words of Disraeli—words which I am quoting by way of a warning.

Sir, I do not want to try your patience, but you will probably allow me to say that we now have an addition here to what the situation was previously. I am saying this on the strength of the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech, in which he said inter alia:

From the point of view of the political impact within a unitary state, I do not think that one can merely say that this affects only the 1,75 million people to whom the hon the Minister is referring here. It affects the political power position of the Whites within the unitary system, because that loads the scale against the Whites as far as numbers are concerned.

I do not want to tire this House with too many quotations, but here is what I find to be a very strong statement by a Netherlander, Dr Abraham Kuyper. It is true he is not part of our situation, but he once said:

[Interjections.] I am appealing to you, Sir, and to this House, that if we speak about realities, we should take cognisance of this. After all, we are dealing here with a numerical superiority which is being created within a unitary system. Our State President did in fact say:

He also said:

This is followed by the quotation concerning the national states that do not want to accept independence.

Sir, may I please comment on this? If the reference to regions means that those non-independent states remain part of an undivided South Africa, then they have no full-fledged independence and must be represented in a general Parliament and Government. This applies to those citizens of the independent states to whom we wish to give rights of citizenship within the RSA by means of this Bill. Then they, together with the other Black communities outside the homelands, form an overwhelming Black majority in the RSA unitary state. [Time expired.]

Order! Before I call upon the hon member for Turffontein to speak, I want to say that I listened very attentively to the hon member for Waterberg. He tried to indicate that the restoration of citizenship would of necessity have certain political consequences. Without commenting on the correctness or otherwise of the hon member for Waterberg’s argument, I rule that it must not give rise to a general political debate on franchise and so on.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this subject again? With all due respect, Sir, I refer you again to the second paragraph of the hon the Minister’s introductory speech. I am quoting:

1. (i) A large number of TBVC citizens are permanently resident within the borders of the Republic; and
2. (ii) …

This is actually the important part—

1. (ii) the legitimate political aspirations of these TBVC citizens regarding own and general affairs have to be satisfied through structures in the Republic.

This opens the door to a general debate on the principle of this Bill. Consequently I am appealing to you, Sir, to allow us to discuss the implications of this paragraph fully.

Order! I did allow the hon member for Waterberg—and I am prepared to allow every other hon member—to argue that the restoration of citizenship must have specific political consequences. But I am not prepared to allow a debate on the matter of franchise or political implications as such only. I cannot allow that. If hon members can link their arguments to the Bill, well and good; but if they cannot do so, I cannot allow it. I call upon the hon member for Turffontein to speak.

Mr Chairman, I must tell you that your ruling makes it rather difficult for one to respond to the hon member for Waterberg. In fact, I am inclined to think that 90% of what the hon member for Waterberg said falls within the ambit of your ruling. It is difficult for me, therefore, to respond to the hon member for Waterberg; and so, if I ignore him now, he must accept that I do so because I am not being allowed to respond to what he said.

No, you may if you like.

Order! I must point out to the hon member for Turffontein that there is absolutely nothing which prevents him from responding to the hon member for Waterberg’s argument that citizenship must necessarily have specific political consequences. The hon member may continue.

I shall refer to the hon member’s arguments in the course of my speech, but for the moment I shall not respond directly to them.

†Before I come back to the hon member for Waterberg I just want to make one remark in regard to what the hon member for Umhlanga said. He said that the wheel had turned the full circle. Then he said he wondered what Graaff, Hughes and other people would have said if they had been sitting in this House today. I just want to ask the hon member one question. Did the old United Party accept the principle of independence if such an area asked for it or not?

Are you saying that you want me to reply to that?

No. The hon member can simply say “yes” or “no”.

You asked me a question.

The hon member knows the rules of the House. He has asked many questions himself.

Then you mustn’t ask such questions.

I will answer the question on his behalf. The old United Party accepted the principle of independence for homelands provided such an area asked for it.

And citizenship?

For the hon member to come back now and talk about how those people would have felt today…

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member to kindly tell the House what Graaff and others said about the citizenship of the people outside those independent homelands?

I think the hon member can read those speeches of the old United Party and he will see that independence meant independence. Whoever was a member of that state became a citizen of that country. The hon member must not try to be clever after the event.

That is just not true! [Interjections.]

Don’t come and tell untruths!

It seems that it has not yet dawned on the CP—the hon member for Waterberg spelled that out quite clearly here this afternoon—that South Africa’s entire history is an eloquent example of changes and adjustments. [Interjections.] Without that history, those hon members are not in a position to get up in this House and conduct a debate. I want to add to that—this is the standpoint of this side of the House—that without change South Africa is doomed, just as those hon members are doomed with their arguments that they cannot substantiate in history.

It simply depends on the direction in which you want to change.

One thing that must be accepted today—we say this with great respect—is that the Verwoerd ideal of separate national states for all the Black people in South Africa cannot be seen as a final solution for South Africa’s multicultural composition.

That is your standpoint.

Something we must not lose sight of is the fact that the architects of a possible solution also envisaged a kind of commonwealth of Southern African states. When one tries to interpret that, it is not impossible to say that Dr Verwoerd possibly had joint citizenship in a commonwealth of states in mind for the peoples of Southern Africa. Even somebody like Dr Verwoerd held out the prospect of certain geographical territories—territories with which the Black people had ethnic links—growing towards sovereign political independence, and perhaps even enjoying formal and close co-operation with one another on a state-to-state basis. Adv John Vorster himself, when he was in power, mentioned the possibility of formal co-operation among the various states here in Southern Africa. The most important requirement for the success of this geographical political division, however, was that Black people living outside the national states also had to exercise their political rights at national level within those territories or states.

Citizenship probably constitutes the most important component of a possible solution such as this one. This is why, when the TBVC countries became independent, it did not matter where the Xhosa of Transkei, the Tswana of Bophuthatswana, the Venda of Venda and the Xhosa of Ciskei found themselves. They lost their South African citizenship and automatically became citizens of the TBVC countries purely as a result of the independence of these countries.

There is, however, an important aspect that the hon members must not lose sight of entirely. While the hon member for Rissik was delivering his speech, the hon the Minister asked him by way of interjection: What about the status laws? I would therefore like to tell those hon members that when the status laws were accepted at the time these countries became independent, it was provided that none of the rights, privileges or advantages to which those people living outside the TBVC countries but in the RSA were entitled, would be affected. The status laws made provision for this. I contend, therefore, that in this we encounter recognition, for the first time, of the permanence of certain Black people inside the RSA—without political rights, perhaps, but with all the other rights that had not been denied them.

I come now to a question that we must ask each other. This is a question that the NP has put to itself and has already answered. The question is whether it is reasonable and justified to expect of any individual to exercise his political rights at national level in a country in which he is not living, where he will not be living and where he may not want to live. The hon members must, in all fairness, also put this question to the Black people living outside the TBVC countries. This is why the Government has introduced this Bill. Those people who object to this should put this question themselves and also, in all fairness, to the Black people of South Africa.

There is, however, just one further remark I should like to make before these people put this question to themselves. What I am about to say I say as one who, from outside the NP, was critical of what we called at that time the “Bantustan policy” of the NP. If, over the years, the Government of President P W Botha, the Government of Adv John Vorster before that, or the Government of Dr Verwoerd before Mr Vorster did not really succeed in actualising Verwoerd’s ideal of getting these people to settle in their national states, even after spending millions upon millions of rands—they identified and recognised certain territories, they added certain consolidation land and they developed certain territories in an attempt to accommodate the ethnic diversity among the Black people of South Africa; and they made almost superhuman efforts and tried all kinds of methods such as border industries, development within the national states, the Development Bank of Southern Africa which made funds available for development, community growth points, concentration points and decentralisation measures—if they were not able to manage it, how is the CP going to succeed in actualising that ideal today, or tomorrow for that matter.

They do it with dreams.

Fifty per cent of South Africa’s Black communities live outside the national states, and the NP Government recognises this fact. Furthermore, the NP Government recognises the political aspirations of these people. The hon member for Waterberg—this is quite interesting—said here today that the Blacks do indeed have aspirations, but that we are so quick to forget that the Whites have them too. We accept the aspirations of both the Whites and the Blacks in South Africa. It is precisely because we on this side of the House recognize those aspirations and are trying to discover a formula to bring about peaceful coexistence in this country, that we have come forward with these measures. [Interjections.]

After all, citizenship is one of the primary and basic rights of people, and naturally the CP are also putting forward their own “models” in respect of possible political formulae that we cannot debate with one another in this debate…

[Inaudible.]

I will come to that. The fact is that this Government is dealing with the realities of South Africa. This Government recognises the permanent presence here of those Black people living outside of the national states. This Government recognises the aspirations of those Black people and will continue to negotiate formulae whereby to accommodate this problem of political participation.

One of the things the hon member for Waterberg said here was that Chief Minister Buthelezi once said that one cannot divide the Zulu people. One cannot, for instance, have a section of the Zulu people in Soweto and another section in kwaZulu. I want to tell that hon member that this measure makes absolutely no inroads on the choice of such a Black man should he want to exercise his choice. If a Zulu wants to live in Soweto, even though kwaZulu is his political home and he feels attached to it, no one is going to prevent him from exercising his political rights along with the people of kwaZulu. This issue in no way detracts from that.

Let us examine the kind or argument the hon member comes up with. He is now very concerned about the division of peoples and the exercise of their political rights. His party, however, is a proponent of a Coloured homeland into which they will throw the Cape Coloured, the Malay, the Griqua, the Muslim and the Christian. He is not at all concerned about the preservation of the ethnic purity of each of these groups.

Consider, too, the idea of the Indian homeland. The Muslim and the Hindu have to be thrown together in one homeland. The hon member has only to look at India where they have the same problem. The hon member is thus being ensnared by his own arguments.

It is not as though there are no structures existing in South Africa; after all, the principle of Black citizens in South Africa is not a new one. I want to tell the hon member that apart from those living in the TBVC countries, all the other Black people in South Africa are South African citizens.

We would also very much like to see the other Black states become independent as well. KwaNdebele has requested independence and the Government is not going to stand in its way. I want to point out to the hon members, however, that neither we nor they can force any homeland to accept independence. We cannot call a UDI on their behalf. Those people have to decide that for themselves, and if they do not do so, they remain South African citizens and the government of the day has to deal with that problem. We have no guarantee that the other six self-governing states want to be independent of South Africa.

The hon member for Green Point says that the PFP is disappointed that the citizenship we are awarding in terms of this measure is not being restored to all citizens. That is a typical paternalistic liberal point of view. The TBVC countries are independent states and we cannot unilaterally change the measure in order to award South African citizenship to all citizens of the TBVC countries. After all, we are talking here about four sovereign independent states.

This measure is the result of negotiations with the TBVC countries. These countries were consulted about the categories of people who are not satisfied with exercising their political rights within the context of a national state, and those people are being accommodated.

Three of those countries are prepared to accept dual citizenship!

Existing institutions are not being prejudiced in any way. The tricameral parliament continues to exist for the Whites, Coloured and Asians; and with the exception of kwaNdebele, the six self-governing states remain part of South Africa and the people remain citizens of this country. Still, a void does exist, and if the hon members of the CP do not want to recognise that void, if they do not want to accept it as a reality and allow the government to deal with it, they may as well forget about it and leave the problems for us to handle.

There are indeed people who became citizens of the TBVC countries as a result of those countries becoming independent, but who are not satisfied with the situation. That is the deficiency which the Government must try to deal with. The first right to which these people lay claim is that of citizenship. There are already local governments for Black people in South Africa. Moreover, the regional services councils as well as a new provincial executive authority are to be established. An invitation has also been extended to everyone to participate in the National Statutory Council in order to expedite the achievement of their political rights at the national level.

We on this side of the House would like to express our appreciation to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Home Affairs, the hon member for Innesdal, and also to the members of that standing committee. We welcome these moves and congratulate the Government on this measure.

We appeal to all well-meaning people to accept the State President’s invitation to come and serve on the National Statutory Council so that we can solve South Africa’s problems quickly and effectively.

Mr Chairman, I shall refer later to the speech by the hon member for Turffontein.

I am not going to take up much of the time of this House by discussing in depth the whole issue of citizenship and political rights. I just wish to say that I agree in principle with the hon member for Waterberg that citizens of a country that are permanently resident in that country must also participate in the process of political decision-making. I think that goes without saying. However, I understood that to the hon member for Waterberg it was a matter of a strong moral principle, and it is the immorality of the principle he expressed that, in the nature of the matter, I was questioning.

It was only in 1930 that White women were given the franchise in South Africa, and they were citizens of South Africa. Before the passing of the Promotion of Black Self-government Act, if one could regard that as an Act which granted political rights to Blacks, the Blacks in South Africa, particularly those in our urban areas, had no political rights. At that stage the hon member for Waterberg and his colleagues did not say it was wrong.

Let me take this further. When the Coloureds were deprived of the right to vote and even of the limited representation they enjoyed, we were not told that they were citizens and that they were therefore entitled to political rights.

As far as the Coloured and Indians in the Transvaal are concerned—they never had political rights—why did I never hear anyone from those circles say that it was wrong in principle that they should be citizens of South Africa, but that they Jacked the right to vote? [Interjections.]

I have one final remark in this regard. The hon member for Waterberg said: “If you share power, you lose power.” In South Africa all the Whites share political power, and those Whites consist of more than one ethnic element. We have Afrikaners, English-speaking people, Portugese and so forth. In view of this experience of ours, how can we maintain the standpoint that sharing necessarily leads to loss of power? Surely that makes no sense. It is a statement which cannot be justified objectively, and I shall leave it at that. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether, if the Americans and the Chinese were to share, each nation would still enjoy full self-determination?

I do not know, because China and America are very far apart. In America the same principle applies, namely that everyone who is a citizen of America and is permanently resident there participates in the political system. Their approach is as simple as that.

I wish to associate myself with the hon member for Green Point in supporting the Bill. I also agree with him in connection with what we regard as defects in the Bill. Let me state very clearly that citizenship of the country where one is born and is permanently resident is nothing other than a fundamental human right. This is regarded as self-evident throughout the civilised world. There is nothing so disturbing and disruptive as statelessness, that is to say, if one has not been designated a citizen of a specific state. There is nothing as disruptive as the knowledge that one may be stateless. That is why I say that citizenship is a fundamental institution. If it happens that people become stateless, a situation of total insecurity is created. Indeed, such people may be termed “people of nowhere”, because they do not belong anywhere. I say this merely to emphasise the importance of citizenship.

It seems to me that in this regard two fundamental principles are applicable. As I indicated a moment ago, one is, firstly, automatically a citizen of the country in which born and where one is permanently resident. I think those principles are generally recognised. Secondly, it is true that by one’s own doings one can endanger one’s citizenship, or else one can renounce it voluntarily. However the state does not have the right unilaterally and arbitrarilly to deprive one of one’s citizenship as long as one is resident in the state in which one was born.

Our own existing legislation on citizenship gives expression to these two principles, namely those relating to birth and the place where one is permanently resident, and that concerning the definition of who a South African citizen is, and of the circumstances in which one can lose one’s citizenship. What I want to say—I am sorry to have to say it, but it is a sober fact—is that by creating those four independent territories we violated both of these principles. We, the White Parliament, declared unilaterally that millions of Black South African citizens would no longer be South African citizens even though they had been born in South Africa and were permanently resident here. In the second place, by accepting that legislation we decided that all future generations, even though they were born here and had lived here for ever, would never be entitled to South African citizenship. That is the implication of that legislation that we accepted!

How anyone can condone this state of affairs on a moral basis—I refer, too, to my friends in the CP—is simply beyond me. [Interjections.] I simply cannot understand it. In theory one could say that those people who are permanently resident in the territories which had been declared independent could be citizens of those territories, and that they would lose their South African citizenship. That is something I shall come back to. However there was no justification, either from a logical or from a moral point of view, for depriving those people who were born here, that is to say, outside the TBVC countries, and were permanently resident here, of their citizenship. What we are doing by way of this legislation, is simply to undo—in part at least—that gross injustice that was committed.

Reference has already been made to the various status laws and to Section 6 therein. More specifically, reference was made to Section 6(3) of the status Act relating to Bophuthatswana. Hon members will recall that a vehement debate on that very point was conducted in this House because at the time Mr Mangope insisted that they did not wish to lose their South African citizenship. Section 6(3) was inserted to satisfy him. In practice, unfortunately, this did not mean much.

I must say, however, that the provision in Section 6(4) of the legislation relating to Bophuthatswana—it is Section 6(3) in the legislation applicable to the other states—was at least still upheld in the Bophuthatswana Border Extension Act, 1978.

In fact it is a tragedy that the same protective measure which was incorporated in Section 6(4) of the Act of 1978 was not repeated, at least as far as Bophuthatswana is concerned, in the other legislation, which contained essentially the same provisions as the legislation of 1978, namely the Borders of Particular States Extension Act, 1980, as amended in 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983.

That loss of citizenship was not just a loss of citizenship. Despite the provisions of Section 63 and, in the case of Bophuthatswana, Section 6(4) to the effect that the loss of South African citizenship would not mean the loss of their rights and privileges, we know that in practice that was not how it worked, particularly in respect of those people’s children who were born after the dates of independence. They encountered problems in regard to Section 10 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Act and in regard to so many other things such as the 99-year leasehold and the fact that citizenship certificates were often required. They also encountered problems with passports. What I want to say, therefore, is that the loss of citizenship, despite the retention of rights and privileges as provided by Section 6(3) and, in the case of Bophuthatswana, Section 6(4), very often caused problems for the ordinary man in practice because the loss of citizenship also meant that the rights and privileges that others could lay claim to no longer existed.

Unfortunately I must refer again to that episode when the Admission of Persons to the Republic Act, Act 59 of 1972, was used to deport the citizens of Transkei from the Western Cape because technically speaking they were aliens. I mention this as evidence that the loss of citizenship did indeed have serious detrimental consequences for those people despite the provisions of Sections 6(3) and 6(4) respectively. I reiterate that in that sense I am grateful that the injustice committed is now being rectified.

In the debates at the time the argument was advanced that those people had the right to vote themselves and therefore were able to achieve their independence. We know that that is not correct. Not all voted, and the independence as well as the loss of citizenship were not in all cases the issues in elections that took place.

It was a minority vote in any event.

Even as far as Bophuthatswana and Ciskei are concerned the original and clear understanding was that citizens of Bophuthatswana and Ciskei as defined who were resident outside those territories would not necessarily lose their citizenship. That President Sebe and President Mangope accepted that situation despite section 6(3) is a pity. Initially however there was extremely strong opposition to their being deprived of citizenship.

I wish to dwell for a moment on the people who were resident outside those territories. Those people who are now getting their citizenship back had no loyalty whatsoever towards those people who were in power in the TBVC countries. Their loyalty was here. When I listen to my colleagues in the CP I find that hopeless confusion prevails among them as regards ethnicity and political loyalties and links. [Interjections.] I want to ask a very simple question. If Mr Mugabe in Zimbabwe wants to say today that the Whites in Zimbabwe are ethnically linked to the Whites of South Africa because they are Afrikaans and English speaking and on that basis he has the moral right to deprive them of their Zimbabwean citizenship, that would be precisely the same thing. [Interjections.] Surely that is an indication of how ridiculous and unjust the whole situation is. [Interjections.]

I want to go further and say that the State President of South Africa certainly does not in any circumstances have the right to sign away my South African citizenship. He does not have the right. All those Black people who lived around us here denied that Presidents Mangope, Mantanzima, Sebe and Mphephu had the right to sign away their South African citizenship on their behalf. I reiterate that I would not accept it if our own State President had the right to sign on my behalf that my South African citizenship was to fall away. [Interjections.]

Where did they deny it? [Interjections.]

It was done consistently.

Moreover we used ethnicity as a basis for taking away that citizenship, according to the definition of the measures used in that regard from the outset. By doing so we gave the concept of ethnicity an odour which means that the Black people of South Africa outside the independent territories want to know nothing of ethnicity.

Oh come now!

I am speaking about ethnicity as a political instrument. They have never said that they are not Zulus, Basothos or Pedis. That they have never said. In that sense they have been consistent. In the same way there are Afrikaners in Argentina who, despite their being Argentinian citizens, still regard themselves as Afrikaners. I want to repeat that ethnicity has nothing to do with political rights. [Interjections.] Because we used ethnicity as a reason to deprive those people of their citizenship we made ethnicity stink as far as these people are concerned—and I use the word deliberately—and this means that they do not want to know anything about ethnicity, not even the good aspects. [Interjections.]

I want to go further. By depriving our people of their citizenship I just want to ask how we shall ever be able to negotiate with people for peace and to draw up a new constitution for South Africa if not one of the people with whom we are able to negotiate in that regard are even South African citizens. I ask hon members how one can negotiate with a person about the constitution of one’s country if he is not even a citizen of one’s country? Surely that is totally inconceivable. Can hon members understand how we can negotiate, consult and speak about the future of our country with Mr Motlana, Bishop Tutu and so many others, whoever they may be, but at the same time tell them to their faces that they are not even South African citizens? Surely that cannot work! That is why I must say that it is necessarily so that if we are to achieve any success in our negotiations, this Bill is a prerequisite.

As the hon member for Green Point indicated, we have certain problems with the Bill. I have in mind for example the issue of the written notice that certain Blacks must give if they want their citizenship back. I object to that because in terms of Act 43 of 1984 to which the hon member for Green Point referred, the acquisition of South African citizenship by naturalisation on the basis of permanent residence is granted automatically to White people without their having to apply for it and without their having to give notice of now wanting to be South African citizens. In that way we wanted to involve those Whites in our Defence Force. Owing to our defence needs we said that those people were automatically South African citizens unless they declared that they did not wish to be so.

Therefore I want to say to the hon the Minister on the basis of that example that we shall have to take another look at this Bill. We cannot continue to apply double standards. We cannot say to one group, because they are Whites and because we want them in the Defence Force, that we declare them to be automatically South African citizens on the basis of naturalisation and permanent residence, whereas in the case of Black people who are permanently resident in South Africa they first have to give notice of wanting South African citizenship and, in specific cases, must first apply for it. That dichotomy, conflict and obvious irregularity cannot remain. I want to say to the hon the Minister that as far as I am concerned it is essential that we reconsider that aspect. It is essential that we take another look at automatically restoring citizenship to those people who are in the TBVC countries. This will not detract from the authority of those countries. We are by no means saying that those governments are not recognised. We are not saying that those people should lose their citizenship of those countries but it is this country’s right to say to whomever we wish that we accept them as South African citizens. By doing so we do not detract from the independence or the authority of those countries’ governments. As far as that point is concerned we shall have to take another look at this Bill.

It is my privilege to support this Bill together with my hon colleague the hon member for Green Point.

Mr Chairman, it is certainly understandable that hon members of the PFP are pleased with the direction indicated by this legislation. It is also understandable that they are not altogether satisfied, that they would have wished to have automatic full citizenship for all citizens of TBVC countries but they are very pleased with the movement in that direction nonetheless. They are happiest, however, about the dismantling of the old, traditional standpoint of separate development which the opposite side of the House has now obviously abandoned.

The hon member for Rissik asked the hon member Prof Olivier whether, if a country like China and one like America were accommodated in a unitary state, there would still be self-determination for Americans. The hon member replied that he could not understand the question at all because America and China were situated so far apart etc. I now wish to put the question to the hon member in the light of an example very much nearer to us. If the citizens of Swaziland were to be accommodated in a unitary state with us, would the Swazis still have self-determination?

If they were to enter into such a state with us, it would be their choice. [Interjections.]

But then they would no longer have self-determination. That is the point we want to make.

The other point I wish to make is that the hon member Prof Olivier alleged that ethnicity had absolutely nothing to do with political rights.

Political loyalties!

Political loyalties. Nevertheless I want to ask the hon member Prof Olivier what the situation is in Zimbabwe of which he made particular mention. The political division there is precisely according to ethnicity; there are definitely no other political loyalties or arrangements not based on ethnic grounds. It cannot be otherwise in the Southern African context; it is based on ethnicity.

This afternoon the hon member for Turffontein, like all NP members, said the assumption of independence of states like the TBVC countries and citizenship of those states were not the final solution. I therefore want to ask the hon member why further states of this kind are then to be created? Why is more land being purchased for purposes of consolidation? Surely it is no longer necessary in this case? The hon member also said they did not wish to be paternalistic and unilateral. I shall point out an example of extreme paternalism and one-sidedness in this Bill.

I first wish to refer quickly to the hon member for Innesdal. I hardly recognised him today after his hysterical outburst of Saturday. He put his case in a laudably calm manner. If his utterance of Saturday had been addressed to me today, I should have accepted them in light vein. He was in deadly earnest on Saturday, however, when he said that he had not asked me for a prescription over the past two years as he was afraid I would give him the wrong medicine.

It was just a bit of a joke. [Interjections.]

I shall return to the hon member in a moment as regards this point. [Interjections.]

The Status of the Transkei Act of 1976 as well as the Status of Bophuthatswana Act of 1977, the Status of Venda Act of 1979 and the Status of Ciskei Act of 1981 all arose in consequence of the development of policy which resulted from Dr H F Verwoerd’s statement of standpoint in this House on 20 May 1959. If I may extract just one central sentence, as far as I am concerned, from that speech of Dr Verwoerd’s, it is this one:

From that moment the entire attention and all the powers of the Public Service were mobilised to accomplish this.

Former leaders of the NP realised perfectly well that the Whites, and the Afrikaner in particular, would never be able to uphold political authority in his own country if he begrudged the Black peoples of Southern Africa what he demanded for himself. That was the basic point of departure. That is why the predominant objective of all State institutions over many years was to assist every people to progress and development in its own country. I think back reverently to those hundreds, thousands of officials whom the Government seconded to those states, first the self-governing states and later the independent states. Those were people who made great sacrifices; people who permitted themselves to be placed far from the city lights because they were imbued with an ideal. They were imbued with the ideal of own freedom and the right to self-determination which they knew they would ultimately lose if that policy of separate states did not become a reality. The hon member for Rissik referred to that. The hon Dr Connie Mulder stood up here in 1978 and said:

All on that side of the House, including the hon member for Innesdal, had no fault to find with that. [Interjections.] The hon member is shaking his head emphatically now so he is telling me that, when this was discussed in the caucus—this utterance of a senior hon Minister in this House—he did not have the courage to rise and tell him: “Dr Mulder, I do not agree with you.” He did not have the courage.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member what was proved in practice as regards the movement of the Black people? [Interjections.]

It was proved in practice—as late as 1978 and subsequently—that the policy of separate development was succeeding. [Interjections.] It was succeeding until recently. The other day I mentioned figures to hon members concerning the Northern Transvaal Development Board, which is very well known to the hon member for Innesdal, showing how it had been developing in a brilliant way and in reality succeeding.

My standpoint is therefore that it did not merely concern the survival of the White as such but also the safeguarding and survival of every other people in this subcontinent of Africa.

In this regard I really hold it very strongly against the hon member for Innesdal that he represented our standpoint on separate freedoms and separate citizenship for the various peoples of Southern Africa as he did in the House last Saturday. When I saw in this morning’s Die Burger how the hon member had put it, I was actually shocked. I quote from this morning’s Die Burger.

Surely, in all fairness, that is not true. That is certainly not the policy of this side of the House. It is simply not true. We definitely do not begrudge them their citizenship in their own fatherlands; we do not wish to dominate them so it is an absolutely untrue statement. [Interjections.] The way the Sunday Times put it shocked me even more. At first I could not believe it until…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it in order for an hon member to refer to another hon member’s speech in the same debate and then quote from a newspaper calling that the other hon member’s speech? I am referring specifically to the report now being quoted by the hon member for Pietersburg which was definitely not the wording of my speech.

It was not the same debate.

Mr Chairman, may I point out to you that it did not deal with the same debate?

Order! The hon member for Pietersburg may proceed but he may not quote newspaper reports on this same debate.

It was a different debate, Mr Chairman. This is not the same legislation as was debated on Saturday. [Interjections.]

The hon member must quote facts from my Hansard.

Mr Chairman, if the hon member for Innesdal alleges it is a faulty quotation, I shall meet him by reading the relevant quotation from the Sunday Times and subsequently from his Hansard by way of a control. [Interjections.]

In yesterday’s Sunday Times I see:

These are the hon member for Innesdal’s words—

I should like to read the last paragraph as well after which I shall quote the hon member from his unrevised Hansard. The report in the Sunday Times closes like this:

I am pleased all the same that a little banging of heads and strife remains. This tells me there are still hon members on the opposite side of the House who cannot agree with a standpoint such as that of the hon member for Innesdal. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Pietersburg must not embroider too extensively on that theme.

I shall not, Mr Chairman. In addition, I also wish to refer to the hon member’s Hansard as the hon member for Innesdal denied this. I should like to quote the hon member for Innesdal from his unrevised Hansard of 21 June in a reference of his to the hon member for Rissik:

There is no other way in which we can interpret his politics. These are the politics of covert White mastery; these are the politics elevating the Afrikaner and the White in South Africa to the exclusion of all other groups and people. These are the politics—the hon member for Rissik said this today—leaving the rest of the people in this country no choice but to take up arms because they are being reduced to nothing in their own country and because they are being rejected in their own country by those people who want to seize power.

Order! I have a problem with the hon member for Pietersburg’s argument. On the point of order raised by the hon member for Innesdal, the hon member for Pietersburg indicated that he was quoting from a report dealing with a different debate. This appears to me to be so but I should then like to know what it has to do with the current debate. The hon member should relate his argument to the Bill under consideration.

I am actually only replying to a question put to me by the hon member for Innesdal when he claimed that that was not what he had said. It dealt with the identity document which is closely linked with citizenship. I cannot distinguish between the two.

The hon member for Barberton then said by way of an interjection: “Now you sound like Swapo.” I shall quote from the hon member’s Hansard to indicate to him that the contents of the newspaper report are factually correct.

Order! I regret I do not find it adequate that it is factually correct. The hon member must indicate to me that it is related to the subject under discussion and he has not done so yet.

With respect, Sir, when you were speaking to someone, I was attempting to explain that that debate dealt with the identity document, something inextricably bound to citizenship. I want to quote it to prove that the statement I made and the report from which I read aloud are correct.

Order! I permitted the hon member to make the statement he made in support of his argument but I appeal to him not to pursue that theme too far by enlarging on it.

Mr Chairman, the hon member is trying to link the identity document to citizenship but I wish to point out that an identity document is also issued to people who are not citizens of South Africa.

At this point I am not ruling on the accuracy or lack of it of the hon member’s statement in this regard. I am concerned only with the relevance of the argument which the hon member is advancing.

Mr Chairman, it concerns the debate that the CP is adopting a standpoint regarding non-Whites which does not accord with fact. Where citizenship is involved here…

Order! The hon member has already had a turn to speak. The hon member for Pietersburg may proceed.

I should like to read a short quotation from Hansard concerning which the hon member said the Sunday Times was wrong. He said:

Who is that man?

The terrorist.

Of course. I shall quote further:

The hon member for Barberton then said by way of an interjection: “You do not know what you are talking about!” Upon which the hon member for Innesdal said:

Order! I cannot permit the hon member for Pietersburg to repeat the entire debate on the identity document by means of reading aloud from Hansard. The hon member is doing exactly what I said in my earlier ruling I would not permit, which is the conducting of a general political debate. The hon member must revert to the Bill.

I shall leave it at that except for this comment: If that hon member thinks that the Black man with a gun in his hand will permit him to remain in this country after he has obtained power, he is mistaken. I shall leave it at that.

To revert to the Bill: The 1963 constitution of the Transkei gave it self-government and is fashioned on the South African parliamentary system but with an adjustment by which representation is modified in order to provide for traditional rights and customs of the Xhosa. That constitution provides that citizenship of the Transkei may be granted to certain categories of persons. This is a citizenship and a constitution referred to with pride by President Mantanzima when he recently praised the policy of separate development. He said the 1948 policy was the very one which had granted him and his people their independence and freedom and made him their State President. After the Transkei assumed independence, that of Bophuthatswana followed in 1977 in terms of Act 89 of 1977. In the discussion of this Act on 6 May 1977 a very important hon member in this country had the following to say on that status of Bophuthatswana Act of 1977.

Who is the member?

I shall tell you shortly. I first wish to read what he said. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister may guess who said this. That hon member said the following on the assumption of independence by Bophuthatswana (Hansard, 6 May 1977, col 6979):

Order! There is nothing in this Bill which in any way erodes the independence of any independent state; nothing whatever. Consequently I cannot permit a debate on independence. The hon member must confine himself to the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the entire spirit of that debate was not only that countries should be made independent; it was also about peoples with citizenship. This Bill before us is negating it again. I must therefore be able to debate on the principle of citizenship for independent fatherlands. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may debate on the citizenship of citizens of independent states but I cannot permit him to debate on independence as such. The hon member may proceed.

I shall quote a few sentences from an argument of a very senior hon member in 1977 on the principle of citizenship for peoples in their own fatherlands. I quote from what the hon member said:

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I respectfully contend that the hon member for Pietersburg is continually circumventing your ruling. What a debate of 1977 in any case… [Interjections.] How a debate of almost ten years ago can be relevant to this discussion…

You are crying because it hurts, aren’t you? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order…

Order! The hon member for Innesdal is raising a point of order. Will the hon member for Brakpan please resume his seat.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietersburg is continually attempting to circumvent your ruling in a very skilful manner. I therefore respectfully wish to contend that what he is doing at the moment merely comes down to further circumventing of your ruling.

Order!

Mr Chairman, may I address you now on a point of order?

Order! The hon member for Brakpan may put his point of order now.

Mr Chairman, it appears to me that the hon chairman of the standing committee which dealt with this Bill did not even read it. It is clearly indicated in the Bill that the Schedule to this measure comprises the Status of the Transkei Act, 1976, the Status of Bophuthatswana Act, 1977, the Status of Venda Act, 1979 and the Status of Ciskei Act, 1981. The hon member for Pietersburg is reading from a debate which dealt with one of these Acts. I therefore request you, Mr Chairman, to permit him to proceed.

Order! I agree with the hon member for Brakpan on the relevance of the former debate to this discussion. Nevertheless I cannot agree with the contention that anything said during that 1977 debate necessarily has to be relevant to this one.

The presiding officer has to judge throughout whether what an hon member is quoting from a previous debate is relevant to the debate on the Bill under consideration. I feel the hon member for Pietersburg is trying to stretch the possibility of relevance very far now. I therefore make a final appeal to the hon member to confine himself to the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I wish to contend, with the utmost respect, that the 1977 debate dealt with the question of citizenship for the citizens of an independent state—a state which was on the point of becoming independent. That citizenship is now being changed again to a great degree. I therefore believe the debate on the obtaining of that citizenship is absolutely relevant and I shall not tax you with it for very much longer. I merely wish to indicate that the hon prominent member on the National Party side became so lyrical at a certain stage that he even said about the legislation concerned:

He continued:

He said in conclusion:

Order! I have listened attentively to the quotation read aloud by the hon member but the entire quotation contains nothing about citizenship. The debate does not deal with self-determination—however important this may be. This debate does not deal with self-determination at all; it does not deal with a joint say or co-responsibility; it deals with the restoration of citizenship.

Mr Chairman, I abide by your ruling. [Interjections.] I should just like to satisfy the curiosity of the hon the Minister of Law and Order; I can see he is extremely curious. [Interjections.] I shall mention only the name of the hon prominent member who uttered all these fine words in 1977. It was none other than the Transvaal leader of the National Party, the hon the Minister of National Education. [Interjections.]

Would you believe it!

Disgraceful! [Interjections.]

What is so terribly strange about that? [Interjections.]

Can it honestly be possible?

Order!

That was 1977.

What does it prove now? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Innesdal asks me what it proves. [Interjections.] It proves…

Order! The fact that the hon member for Innesdal has asked what this proves will not make what the hon member now wants to say in an effort to embroider on what he has already said any more relevant. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, as I said, that was 1977. Much later, in 1981, similar utterances emanated from the side of the National Party. I have a copy of Skietgoed here but you will not permit me to quote from it. [interjections.] At the time the hon member for Bloemfontein North waxed lyrical on the standpoint of own freedoms and an own citizenship for peoples in their own fatherlands. I shall omit it now and read it aloud at a later occasion. [Interjections.]

Now the hon the Minister of Home Affairs comes—surely you will permit to quote from this, Sir, because it is the speech made by the hon the Minister of Home Affairs—and opens this debate by saying:

The hon the Minister then enumerates the various bases which have been repeatedly read out during this debate.

My question is now how one determines whether a citizen of one of the TBVC countries lives here permanently, especially after the abolition of influx control. A citizen of Bophuthatswana, for instance, could say: “But I am here; I live here.” I should be pleased to hear from the hon the Minister how he will determine that that Tswana who claims to have been here for so long cannot become a citizen of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like briefly to pursue the argument which has just been occupying the hon member for Pietersburg. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether any time limit has been set as a condition which these TBVC citizens have to satisfy. What is the position in the case of new citizens entering the RSA and establishing themselves here by degrees? [Interjections.] Has the hon the Minister considered the implications of this step in any way?

Read the Bill.

The hon the Minister must reply very clearly to this point which was raised by the hon member for Pietersburg. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister also promised us solemnly on Saturday to reply to the question of Brown Afrikaners but he did not do so. I now wish to ask him here this afternoon for the second time to reply to us on this point.

Order! Brown Afrikaners are not being discussed now. [Interjections.]

Yes, Sir, but the hon the Minister is. [Interjections.] I am referring to the hon the Minister’s dilatoriness and his omitting to reply after solemnly undertaking in another debate to do so. I hope this will not be the case again.

The principle underlying the Bill before us is that racial integration and the intermingling of people in one constitutional context should be facilitated by granting a single citizenship to all.

that is not true.

An hon member says that is not true. If it is not true, Sir, then nothing relating to this Bill is true. [Interjections.] With this step this Government wants to open the doors to Black people who are citizens of other states but live here “permanently”. It says “permanently” but this word is not defined. There is no indication whatever of how many years the person concerned must have lived in the RSA or of the content of this "permanence”. There is no provision for a yardstick by which to measure this permanence. Is the person concerned, for instance, merely to say he is here permanently?

The fact is that for the sake of racial intermingling and the interweaving of peoples within one constitutional context, this citizenship is being granted to citizens of other states. This Bill is a powerful step in that direction.

You are talking nonsense.

The hon member says I am talking nonsense. It is not nonsense. This is a giant step. There are two million foreign citizens who can be brought into South Africa just like that and to whom citizenship is now being granted here.

They are here.

Yes, but I mean—to put it like this—they are now being transferred to our citizenship roll as citizens. We are receiving an extra two million citizens.

In the second place, I wish to ask the hon the Minister whether we are now accepting the responsibility toward all those people—we have to do so—which we accepted toward all other South African citizens in the past. If so, I want to ask whether the hon the Minister and his department have made even an approximate estimate of the costs to South Africa. What will it cost South Africa to place the almost two million extra TBVC citizens on its citizenship roll? Hon members need think only of pensions and security services which will have to be supplied. We also have to think about schools and accommodation required overnight…

They are here already!

Yes, all the more reason why we now have to shoulder the responsibility for all the rights and privileges of South African citizens. I want to know of the hon the Minister whether he has made a projection of the additional costs. I am not saying he should build another house for someone who already has one. I want to know what the hon the Minister is costing South Africa by taking this step in this time of depression. Has this mad Government estimated and calculated what it will cost South Africa?

In the second place, I want to emphasize that the purpose and great objective behind this step is obviously to break down all the work Dr Verwoerd did in South Africa. I do not wish to pursue the point any further but merely emphasize it. The purpose is to make as many Blacks as possible within South Africa fully equal to the Whites, Coloureds and Indians by the granting of citizenship and in so doing to increase the numerical superiority against the Afrikaner and the White man even further.

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

No, Sir, I cannot reply to a question now as I do not have time for it. The hon the Minister and the Government know that the problem attached to the entire struggle of the Afrikaner and White man in Southern Africa to maintain his own political freedom here is represented to a great degree by his numerical position against that of the Black masses in Southern Africa. Now this Government comes with a shrug of the shoulders and indifference—it does not care—and simply adds almost two million people to the citizenship roll of South Africa. Has the hon the Minister considered what the feelings of the burghers of the Transvaal and the Free State were at the conclusion of the “Tweede Vryheidsoorlog” and how they revolted against the idea of being British subjects? Does the hon the Minister appreciate what feelings are now being stirred up in the hearts of Afrikaners and White people when they see the Government simply aggravating the numerical position against them in their own fatherland on a massive scale and on a basis of equality as regards citizenship? Let him not think this escapes us. Let him not think we and the vast mass of voters are as indifferent toward this as the Government and he. I want to say something else to him: We are concerned—it is more than concern—and I say today there is something diabolical behind the Government’s plan. The Afrikaner and White man waged wars before and after 1900 to escape the oppression of the British Empire. He did not wish to be entangled and forced into the British Empire as a subject. For those reasons he fought in wars and undertook the Great Trek.

These foreign powers saw the type of person the Afrikaner and White man is. The mighty British Empire of the time could not keep him down through submissiveness. Now they want to overwhelm the Afrikaner and White man for a second time in his own fatherland to such an extent numerically that he is unable to do what he did after the Anglo-Boer War. New forces in South Africa—leftist forces and big business—want to overwhelm the Afrikaner here in his own fatherland with these citizenship measures and he is not to be permitted to escape them as he escaped from subjection to the British in those days.

In the second place, the HNP anticipated these steps. I do not wish to say we foresaw the exact day and date—from the nature of the case—but when we differed with the Government in 1969 on the question of deviation from the sports policy, we told the Government it would lead to equalisation across the board. I could not lay hands on that particular document in time but we specifically said this in 1969 as regards citizenship. We predicted it. It was one of the items we enumerated to give substance to the statement we made.

Mr Jaap Marais said that in the caucus.

Yes, Mr Jaap Marais said that in the caucus. Whereas we saw 17 years ago where deviation from the sports policy could lead, there is a tendency—nowadays a very strong one—among the most prominent Government members to want to draw a veil over the HNP’s breaking away in 1969 on the basis of principle. One finds the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning doing this. I wish to mention as an example that in another debate he said that in Port Elizabeth—this is in his Hansard—I supposedly persuaded a young academic of that university to plead my case for me and he said I would recall this. I merely want to say that I did not previously know that academic who made that speech. I want to make the point… [Interjections.] I did not know that person previously and I have not met him since. What the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said was absolutely untrue in the effort to draw a veil over our action—in other words, if we supposedly broke away or were expelled in 1969 for whatever reason, it was not on a great matter of principle in any case. Today’s step, this measure which simply gives South African citizenship to 2 million Black people with the flick of a finger is one of the most horrendous practical steps this Government has taken against the Afrikaner, the White man, yet. Consequently I wish to say to this Government—and this obviously speaks for itself—that we shall fight this with might and main.

The NP has denied over a period of years that it has deviated in principle; it still denies this at times. In general, however, hon members—like the hon member for Innesdal—are increasingly prepared to admit that they have deviated not only in policy but also in principle. According to what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said in another debate—and it also applies to this—the NP is following this policy today, the great policy of the inclusion of all races and all people in one constitutional context—and this measure is a step in that direction—and it is pursuing this policy because it wishes to control change. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said—and I have his Hansard here:

In other words, the hon the Minister is taking this step, too, under the illusion that he can retain control of the process but, once he has done this, the process can repeat itself in the case of other independent states. This Government can take this step in respect of Mozambique—the precedent has been created now. It can tell Mozambique that the hungry Blacks who pour in here, live here, come and work here and become established here are subject to the same steps now. In principle, the Government is therefore opening the door not only to involving these 2 millions but further millions as well in citizenship of the South African state. We therefore want to tell the Government here that it is obviously impossible to control the process of change. It is more likely the process of change which is controlling it. It is being hagridden by the process of change. Look at what happened at Crossroads. Look at what happens among mine-workers. Mineworkers can come little by little and say: “We have lived and worked here for years, for decades; we are citizens of whatever state and you say that, if our children were born here, they may obtain citizenship. Well, we have been here for so long, our children were born here, our grandchildren were born here and we also want citizenship for them here.” They will then come and demand it for themselves in terms of this legislation. This law will therefore be like a magnet drawing in Blacks on a massive scale for 101 reasons—I do not have time to enumerate them all now.

I wish to put a second very important question to the hon the Minister. The reason for the step is furnished on page 2 of his Second Reading speech. It is in sympathy with Black people throughout. I quote:

Of course, this is temporary—

This created frustrations for the Black man and now the Government wants to relieve him of his frustrations but what new frustrations and anxieties is the Government creating among White People? This does not matter and it is indifferent to this. What does it care? It does not care that it is now creating far more than frustrations among Whites but the frustrations of the Black man have to be removed. [Interjections.]

That the Government is doing this is an absolute atrocity. I cannot understand that the Government can be so coldbloodedly indifferent to its own people’s interests and endeavours.

We are asked to put a price on our citizenship. There has to be a ceremony when a new immigrant is granted citizenship. The flag of the country has to be raised and over the years the magistrate has had orders to turn the occasion into a special ceremony. An oath has to be sworn and the immigrant has to feel that it is a privilege to become a South African citizen.

Nevertheless the hon the Minister now goes ahead and just dishes it out to another 2 million Blacks.

But they were born here!

But I have said that, even if he is born here, he is a citizen of another country. Now he receives our citizenship but he gets it just like that. It is simply handed out before breakfast. One should note the contrast between what we have been told should be made of South African citizenship and what is being done here now. Where in the history of South Africa has a government ever granted citizenship overnight to 2 million Black people who were citizens of other countries? This has never happened because there has never yet been such a mad government.

This Government wants to plough the Whiteman in South Africa under at the level of citizenship for a start because political rights are linked to it. It first wants to increase Black citizens in this country to such an extent that the White man will gradually be manoeuvred into the position of the White people in Zimbabwe.

I do not suspect the Government of wanting to have the White people driven out of the country but it wants to pile up the numbers of Black citizens against those of Whites until the White man loses heart and throws in the towel as in the case of many hon NP members. The White man in South Africa will then ultimately land in the powerless position in which Whites are today in Zimbabwe.

If that is not the case, the hon the Minister should rise in this debate and tell us so. If it is not the intention for the White man in South Africa ultimately to land in the position of Rhodesians, what is the hon Minister’s bottom line? He must tell us about it in this debate. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon the Minister we are fighting the measure because we steadfastly believe in the principle that there are different races and peoples in South Africa and that the best way is gradually to grant them all citizenship linked to fatherlands or homelands. I shall not enlarge on this; I think the hon the Minister knows what we mean by it.

I don’t know!

Doesn’t he know? When did the hon the Minister join the NP? Did he not belong to the NP in the days of Malan, Strydom and Verwoerd? Did he join the NP only yesterday or the day before? Even if it was only yesterday or the day before, has he never read Verwoerd aan die Woord? [Interjections.] Has he never informed himself about Verwoerd’s view of citizenship? To think the hon the Minister should tell me he does not know!

I think he may perhaps be waiting tongue in cheek to see whether I want to spend my time educating him politically but I shall not do so. The hon the Minister will have to see to his own political education. [Interjections.] The fact that he, an hon Minister and Natalian to boot, does not know what the NP policy has been over the decades regarding Blacks and citizenship is enough to have one throw up one’s hands and give a sigh of despair. [Interjections.]

I wish to say something to the hon the Minister about citizenship. The White people in South Africa were once Dutch citizens; they were actually subjects of the DEIC. Subsequently they were under the rule of the Batavian Republic for a while; then they were subjects of Her Majesty, the Queen of England, for some time. In spite of this, they fought almost for centuries until they became citizens of their own fatherland. In 1961 the entire country, including South West Africa, became a republic.

The primary reality in South Africa is the fact that there are separate peoples here with different racial content and substance. The cardinal reality is not the frustrations of the Blacks. With respect, they are of a passing nature. If they are not of such a nature, they are of secondary importance.

The stark reality of South Africa is not the frustrations of the Blacks but the aspirations of the various peoples with different racial elements. That is the reality which the hon the Minister of Home Affairs is not accommodating. He is simply not accommodating it but he is creating a new flashpoint as well and will cause the lid to be blown off the whole pot by suppressing the aspirations of different races and peoples, smothering them and ploughing them under.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning made a further statement in this respect on which I want to address the hon the Minister in charge here today. Dr Verwoerd’s policy that various peoples should be granted citizenship of different fatherlands or homelands was branded by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning as something of Dr Verwoerd’s epoch. I shall quote his exact words:

Hon members should note what the NP says today about the views of Dr Verwoerd who was the planner and thinker behind the vision of Southern Africa including the question of citizenship which we and the CP support. It is being said in the highest ranks because the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is practically the Deputy State President.

He is actually the State President altogether!

He says it was only good enough for Dr Verwoerd’s time. [Interjections.] He says the plans made by Dr Verwoerd, the visions he saw and the dreams he dreamt applied only to his time. Then he makes the splendid little gesture that he is not questioning Dr Verwoerd’s motives.

Thank you very much!

But he does question Dr Verwoerd’s judgment. He wants to give Dr Verwoerd credit only for his good intentions.

If he maintains Dr Verwoerd’s views applied only to his time, I want to ask the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and his Government today on what grounds their views, plans and steps will remain valid beyond the period in which they are in power. Who will stand by the steps they are taking today? I hope they are not so conceited as to think that their views will last longer than Dr Verwoerd’s. Do they think that Dr Verwoerd’s applied only temporarily whereas theirs are permanent? I hope they are not sufficiently conceited to think themselves better than Dr Verwoerd or all other rulers.

Have they made plans and have they asked themselves what conditions they are creating in South Africa for the time when they will no longer be in control and when their mistakes have to be put right again? The blood that will flow then, to which the hon member for Waterberg referred, in consequence of the civil wars that will be precipated, will be on their heads. [Interjections.] It will be their responsibility.

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

Mr Chairman, I am not prepared to reply to a question. [Interjections.]

The argument is being put forward that the Blacks who live and work here should receive citizenship or full rights because they live, work and were born here. The fact that the were born here is usually also mentioned. These are always said to be internationally recognised principles but they are not recognised internationally! There are many businessmen today—I am mentioning only businessmen—living and working in other countries, who were even born there, who have studied and become professors there, but who retain the citizenship of their lands of origin! In America, for instance, it is customary that American citizenship is granted to such people only in exceptional cases. The argument used by the Government, that we have to grant citizenship to those Blacks living and working here, therefore does not hold water.

I repeat, we may make any arrangement we like in South Africa to solve the problem on the basis of our principles, as I have already put it. The NP must tell us now whether those Blacks, this Government or anyone in the world can complain if we deprive the 2 million Black people to whom citizenship is now being granted of that citizenship when we come to power. Can they say it is immoral? Can they say it is a despicable deed? They cannot…

It will be illegal!

Yes, it may be illegal, but if we want to change the Act, it becomes legal. Changing the Act is exactly what I am talking about now. This Government itself made the original arrangement regarding citizenship! [Interjections.]

Illegally!

The hon member says it was done illegally but the Government did it nevertheless! [Interjections.] It was done and I now want to tell the hon member for Bryanston we shall undo this Act by doing exactly what happened originally and we shall have no pangs of conscience whatever about it. We shall do this without batting an eyelid! We are not mincing matters—we have warned this Government and today we are warning the Black people concerned that we shall undo what this Government is doing here now. [Interjections.] They will not be able to point a finger at us because we shall simply do what the NP Government itself did a few years ago!

The hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid made the following very emphatic statement according to a report in Die Burger of 24 April this year—it will emerge clearly from this that I am still confining myself to the subject under discussion:

[Interjections.] As far as citizenship is concerned, these 2 million Blacks are returning from their homelands, as it were. Consequently, there is no question of political franchise for them within a homeland; they have to exercise their political franchise in South Africa! The hon the Minister then continued and said:

What did the hon Minister mean by “equal treatment” (“gelyke behandeling”) and “equal opportunities” (“gelyke geleenthede”)? I shall tell hon members in a moment what he meant. A little later it was reported:

[Interjections.] In brief, it comes down to the fact that the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid told this House, South Africa and the Blacks that the latter would become citizens and that they would obtain full political rights. This includes their participation in whatever manner in decision-making by means of a statutory body on a new dispensation after this one. The hon members for Randfontein, Turffontein and Springs—just name them—who have indicated that we are now functioning under the final dispensation for South Africa should note that it is clearly printed here that there will be a new dispensation on which the statutory council will decide. The 2 million Black people we are placing on our citizenship roll here today are part and parcel of that dispensation. They have no political rights or base within South Africa except this granting of South African citizenship to them. If the Government says this is in order as far as it is concerned, it should know without doubt that we do not regard it as being in order. The hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid went further and referred to other questions such as fences, but I shall not take up your time with that now.

In conclusion, I wish to point out the very important step ahead of us. We are taking this step now and through this deed illustrating, or at least the Government is, what is envisaged with citizenship in South Africa. Blacks are being brought in and obtaining rights on a massive scale. The NP is en route to its congress in Durban, in that hon Minister’s province, and in all likelihood there will be talks at that congress—all indications point to this—and decisions on the political rights of Blacks in South Africa. This will apply to all Blacks who have South African citizenship at the time or will obtain it later.

On 30 May Gatsha Buthelezi had the following to say in Rome about that occasion:

In consequence, this step is a step in the direction of what Buthelezi calls “the great power-sharing” (“die groot magsdeling”) which is coming. The hon the Minister will now have to inform us of his standpoint on the joint dispensation for Coloured, Indian, White and Black to follow the current dispensation so that we may have an indication of what will happen at that congress. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sasolburg has confused me a little, because this afternoon he has turned out to be a big champion of the citizens of the TBVC countries for the retaining of their citizenship. I cannot remember that we had the hon member and his party as such strong allies when we gave those four countries their independence in those days. [Interjections.]

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

No, the hon member has used a full half-hour for his speech, and I think he will grant me the opportunity to make mine.

We have now witnessed a remarkable spectacle on the side of the right-wing element. Firstly we saw how the hon member for Pietersburg used a full halfhour to quote what other people had said. I can honestly say that after his speech all I admire about him is his bibliography. After that the hon member for Sasolburg demonstrated an incredible ignorance about the content of this Bill. [Interjections.]

He said here amongst other things, that the hon the Minister does not lay down any period of residence in the Bill for citizenship to be granted and that doubt exists about what constitutes permanence. He also spoke about the costs of granting citizenship.

I am going to return to the hon member for Sasolburg and his right-wing allies. It is perhaps fitting that the hon member for Pietersburg spoke just before him because I see in the latest edition of Die Pietersburger that the AWB and the HNP are now going to form an alliance. [Interjections.] I should like to return to the concept of citizenship of the AWB’s “boerestaat”. These are the old Boer republics.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Has the question of the HNP and, more specifically, the AWB’s “boerestaat” any relevance to this debate? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member has made his point. This issue is of no relevance to the debate, and that argument cannot be developed any further.

With respect Mr Chairman, I said I wanted to return to the concept of citizenship as related to the AWB’s idea of a peoples state, and this Bill is relevant to that.

Order! We are not dealing with the citizenship of any citizens other than those mentioned in this Bill.

Fine, Sir, but I am in any case going to return to the hon member for Sasolburg and a few of the things he had to say here.

But I first want to refer to the standpoints of the Official Opposition. I initially thought that it was only the CP who was living in a dream world until the hon members of the Official Opposition proved to us today that in their own mind’s eye they also see South Africa as it was in the past. They also see South Africa just as it was before 1983 and before the present Constitution, and more specifically as it was before these four states became independent.

I want to refer to the arguments put forward by the hon members of the PFP. The hon member for Green Point referred to the desirability of not only granting citizenship to these categories of people to whom reference is made in the Bill, but to all the citizens of the TBVC countries. Throughout the sittings of the standing committee it was clear that if only they could do so, the PFP would try to denigrate the independence of these four countries. That is why they are just simply trying to ignore the reality of the independence of these states.

Let us return for a moment to what the Bill makes provision for. The Bill specifically makes provision for the restoration of South African citizenship to three categories of people. There are those who were born in the Republic of South Africa and have always lived here. This is the first category. These people merely have to sign a statement indicating that they want to regain their South African citizenship. It is then automatically given to them.

I am sorry that the hon member Prof Olivier is not in the House now, because I want to return to what he said. With reference to ethnicity and political affiliations he said ethnic ties and political affiliations are two different things and should not be confused with one other. This remark he directed at the CP.

The remark is correct, but if this is the case, he should also explain to us why his party in its effort belittle ethnicity, at the same time tries to ignore the political reality of the independence of the TBVC countries. He himself says that he is not in favour of any proviso on the treatment of a group of people under the first category being incorporated to the effect that they must first confirm that they want their citizenship restored. With that statement he specifically indicates that he despises the citizenship of Bophuthatswana, which insists on the renouncement of this kind of citizenship. Then one cannot use this argument and at the same time say that we have to ignore this demand of Bophuthatswana.

The second category of people whose South African citizenship can be restored, are those people who were citizens of any of these four states by birth or origin, but who on or after independence came to live in South Africa and have lived here for at least five years. Now the hon member for Sasolburg can really listen because he after all talks about a residence qualification that is missing in this Bill. The people involved can simply obtain South African citizenship by registration.

Thirdly there is the category of people who settle in South Africa after the commencement of this Bill and usually, as is the case according to the principle of naturalisation for any citizen of any other country in the world, can also obtain citizenship of South Africa after five years.

These are the three categories of people who are specifically addressed by this Bill. Now the PFP also wants to involve a fourth group of people. They are the people who have always lived in the TBVC countries. They want provision to be made for these people to be able to get South Africa citizenship as well. The State President has already on an occasion in September 1985 referred to those people.

I ask the hon members of the PFP whether this is not the correct procedure to follow. What the hon member Prof Olivier and the hon member for Green Point implied, was that we have to act unilaterally and that we should disregard the reality of the independence of those four countries by implication by unilaterally also restoring the South African citizenship to the people in these four categories. I want to tell hon members that we know that there are many examples in the world, such as East Germany and Red China who for quite a while, even for a generation, were not recognised by the Western World. This did not affect the reality of those two countries’ existence. People who tried to deny the existence of Red China and communist East Germany, later on had to admit themselves that those two countries existed, that they were a reality and gave them recognition. If the Official Opposition thinks that they can negate the existence of these four states and base their argument on the fact that these four countries are not recognised by the rest of the world, I say it is a specious argument that does not hold good.

Comparing the Ciskei to Red China will really cause trouble!

The question of citizenship is so basic to any political philosophy that every party has to answer for it. I think the CP should also tell us what their standpoint on citizenship is. We know it is their policy to retain the link with the homelands, but they should tell the country what they foresee as far as citizenship is concerned.

If we examine the population in the Transvaal and the Free State—which probably comprises the core of their White people’s state—we see that more than seven million Blacks live in that area while less than three million Whites live there. What is the CP going to do with those people? The hon member for Pietersburg referred to the statement of Dr Connie Mulder in 1978 on the prospect that no Black South African citizens would eventually remain. However, practically the experience was that the number of Blacks in White South Africa did not decrease, but continued to increase. [Interjections.] Experience has simply taught us that whatever one’s policy on it may be, want and need, as has been said earlier on in the debate, knows no boundaries. What is the CP going to do about the superior numbers of Blacks who live within the so-called White people’s state? Are they aiming to remove the most powerful magnates which attract people, from that people’s state? Are they going to remove the PWV area and the Free State gold-fields? The hon members of the CP have up until now not yet given any indication of such unselfishness in their approach. Are they going to drive out the preponderance of Blacks in their White people’s state with violence? Are they going to drive them out at gunpoint or are they going to regard them unspecifically as guest labourers in that people’s state? Is one going to have a situation in that people’s state where one will have to go and look for members of that chosen people amongst the overwhelming majority of inhabitants of that state?

We also want to know from the hon members of the CP: According to this legislation a situation is going to arise in which people of the one state may move to the other and, after they have met the necessary residential qualifications, will be able to apply for citizenship. They will therefore be able to became naturalised, just as citizens from Germany or France who have come to live here in South Africa, after they have met the necessary residential qualifications can become naturalised citizens of South Africa. Are they going to allow this? Is the CP, in their philosophy of peoples and their citizenship philosophy, going to allow for naturalisation of all the states which will exist here in South Africa after they have applied their policy of partition?

Let us suppose that eight independent partitioned states now exist. The CP surely cannot think for a moment that moving from the one to the other would then stop. Even if one just for a moment ignores the fact that on the date when that separation takes place one does not have compartmentalised White and Black populations in the states, surely migration to and fro across those boundaries is still going to take place, even if the hon members of the CP tried to prevent this by taking up arms. Do they think that if they came into power…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I want to ask if the hon member for Umlazi may keep referring to the CP as a party that wants to solve problems by taking up arms. [Interjections.]

Order! That is not a point of order. There can be a political objection to that, but it is not unparliamentary. The hon member for Umlazi may continue.

If there were as many different people’s states in a divided South Africa as the CP wants there to be—and in which migration still takes place to and fro—are they going to allow naturalisation, or are they not going to allow it? Are they going to allow the same naturalisation as far as these Black states are concerned in the same way as they allow in the case of European immigrants here in South Africa, or are they not going to? If they say “no”, their policy on citizenship is surely based on colour and colour alone.

Why can the Brown Afrikaners not sit in this House? [Interjections.]

We are dealing here with citizenship and not with where a particular hon member may sit. [Interjections.]

The hon members of the CP should not think that they can get away with generalisations when they speak of partition. [Interjections.] They are very quick to tell us on this side of the House that if one applies partition in South Africa, all the problems will disappear. All the problems will simply vanish but they do not reply—they are dead quiet—when one asks them what they are going to do in connection with the people of other South African states in their set-up of peoples who live in the Whites states. Are they going to allow them to naturalise, or are they going to regard them as strangers? [Interjections.] The fact remains that any political party in this country, with the reality…

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

No, time is marching on. [Interjections.] The fact remains that this Bill addresses three categories of people who were South African citizens in the past.

With its argument until now, the CP has made out that these 1,7 million people whose citizenship is being restored, will now be Black citizens of South Africa for the first time, which is suddenly throwing the doors open. This really is not the case. We do after all know that there are 10 million Blacks living in White South Africa at present. We know that citizenship as far as less than 20% of them are concerned will be restored by this. We know that there is a large number of Black South Africans, and the CP can do just as they please but they will have to address that situation in their set-up eventually.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Umlazi has set up an Aunt Sally and then shot it down himself. [Interjections.] He spoke about the CP’s White people’s state. Where, in any CP document, has he come across the idea of a White people’s state? The hon member has set up an Aunt Sally simply in order to gain time to master an argument to lead the CP up the garden path. He asks us what the CP is going to do with Blacks in White South Africa. What did the NP, up to and including 1981, whilst he was still a member, plan to do with the Blacks in White South Africa? [Interjections.]

Not a word from him now.

Now the hon member is shaking his head, but an hon member on this side of the House quoted to hon members what the State President—up to and including 1981—said would happen to the Blacks in White South Africa.

His twelve-point plan.

Yes, his twelve-point plan. We are simply going ahead with the considered, deliberate plans the NP had up to and including 1981. The hon member asked us: What about the interaction between the peoples of the eight independent states we want to create by virtue of our policy of partition? Unfortunately the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid is not present, but at the moment there are four independent states in South Africa and we heard from this hon Minister that there are more on the way. My question is whether they are playing word-games. Are they going to continue establishing independent states or are they going to stop doing so at some or other stage? [Interjections.] What are they going to do with the people of the eight independent states who move to and fro? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I respectfully want to suggest that the Chairman of Committees ruled earlier that debates on the independence of the homelands would not be allowed during this debate. [Interjections.]

Order! The argument about how many more independent states are to be established is not relevant to this discussion. The hon member may proceed with arguments involving the content of the Bill. [Interjections.] Order! The hon member may proceed.

If eight, ten or whatever number of states within South Africa were granted independence by the CP, they would be able to make mutual arrangements in regard to the movement of the citizens of those states or those of other states. The naturalisation and their citizenship would be a matter for the relevant independent states to arrange, as is the case at present, with the “proper” movement of citizens taking place at present between Bophuthatswana, Venda and Swaziland and with marriages being contracted, even at the level of royalty. That would be exactly how things would be done if the CP came into power. [Interjections.]

The hon member is worried about the barrel of a gun, but when substance was being given to the first NP’s policy in this country, a policy the CP is continuing with, there were fewer guns in evidence in this country than there are this evening or were last night. We believe that as we progress our policy will increasingly eliminate the need for rifles in South Africa. Since we are discussing and unravelling his party’s policy this evening—including the question of citizenship—let me ask him what things are like in South Africa this evening, with all the soldiers patrolling the streets and the borders and with guns in evidence all over the place.

This Bill is part of a package deal of Bills with which the Government wants to undo 30 years of political effort. During the past few days we have, amongst other things, heard the absurd recriminations about the CP being racist, wanting the whole of South Africa for Whites and forever wanting to dominate the non-White peoples of South Africa, plus the most ridiculous of claims that this is the first time the Government is coming to light with reform and development procedures. If that is the case, hon members on that side of the House have surely, for the whole of their political lives, been living a lie. Then the NP’s philosophy of multi-ethnicity, with everything that entails, for example the Acts for the creation of the national states, for granting independence to those states, and the Acts mentioned in the Schedule to this Bill, have all been lies and deceit. Then 30 years of political debates, of international criticism and derision, the millions of rands spent on the consolidation of homelands, the establishment of separate facilities, the development of border industries and the financial, technical and educational assistance granted to developing Black states, have been futile. That is, after all, what the first National Party has been busy with for 30-odd years. The creation of the Black peoples’ states, the excision of land from South African territory for each people did, after all, involve giving them freedom. The resulting independence—four states at the moment and one in the pipeline—with its concomitant citizenship was surely the granting of freedom, reform and development. The 1977 constitutional plan to accommodate Coloureds and Indians and to give them a political say was, after all, reform and development. In that context sound ethnic relations grew and blossomed, with South Africa proving to be an economic miracle. It went hand-in-hand with investment, order and peace. That is what a National Party of “Men”—I am writing the “Men” with a capital M—was engaged in for a period of 30 years. Elsewhere in Africa integration brought all Whites—English, French and Italian—into the firing line as far as the freedom forces were concerned. We had our development and reform at some remove from the misery of the Third World. It was development and reform removed from the domination of a minority group over a majority group or that of a majority group over a minority group. It was reform and development removed from racial tension and unrest, reform in which own politics, own identities, own government and own citizenship held sway, with the recognition of the economic interdependence that could be regulated, on an interethnic basis, at the statesmanship level. The Government, members of this House, are now saying that throughout the years in which we proclaimed this message we only pretended to believe what we were saying, only pretended to be asking for a mandate, having in fact other plans up our sleeve. Anyone who says that he believed differently in 1977, but nevertheless came to Parliament via an NP platform, surely knows that wherever the truth is weighed up, he would not make the grade. In the midst of such people the Helen Suzmans, De Villiers Graaffs and Japie Bassons must be saluted. Both familiar and foreign observers laugh at such people.

The State President chose one undivided South Africa with one citizenship and overall franchise. Citizenship is a right that is obtained in various ways, amongst others by birth and by statute. Once that citizenship has been obtained, however, there are consequently privileges that one cannot argue away, that one cannot get away from with political glibness. The State President did not even need to mention overall franchise, as my hon leader very succinctly pointed out, because in a democracy franchise is included in the concept of citizenship. That is a political reality. If one comes along with a kind of denuded citizenship, without any franchise, or with another kind of citizenship including franchise, the truth of modern-day international politics would very soon catch up with one. Then one gets first-class and second-class citizenship in the same country.

Order! I just want to point out that in terms of the rules, arguments that have previously been raised may not be repeated. This argument being raised by the hon member has been raised repeatedly and I want to appeal to him to get to the point now.

Mr Chairman, just allow me to address you on that issue. Some of the arguments are being repeated, that is true, but our problem on this side of the House is that the governing party is not replying to our arguments. As the first speaker on this side I said at the outset that we would have to repeat certain arguments until the Government replied to them.

Order! I understand what the hon member for Rissik is saying. The Rules of the House do not, however, make provision for arguments to be repeated until they are replied to by the opposing side. [Interjections.] The hon member for Soutpansberg may proceed.

I have finished with that point. With great respect let me put it to the House that here we are dealing with a second reading and not with a committee stage. We would therefore very loosely be able to debate the restoration of citizenship. I shall, however, leave the matter at that. I have done with that point.

This Government is rapidly and decidedly painting itself into a corner. According to a newspaper report the State President has been given 18 months by his caucus to conclude the entire reform process which he envisages. If one looks at the feverish activity that is evident here, it would seem as if he intends to have it done even earlier.

The unrest, the disinvestment, the sanctions and the low value of the rand are the incentives being used by those who are egging the State President on to destroy, by means of the National Party, the entrenched measures built up in this country, over a period of almost 40 years, for a White civilisation and the survival of the Whites. They are not going to allow the National Party and the State President to stop at mere unadorned citizenship. They are going to hound them until full citizenship has been instituted by this Government.

Yes, very definitely!

So when this Government, is called to account, within a period of 18 months or so, for its undertaking to facilitate capitulation of the Whites, this Government will be able to write the following inscription beneath its conduct: Quod erat demonstrandum.

With this Bill the whole of South Africa is being thrown open to the Blacks of Southern Africa.

Today the hon the Minister spoke of 14 million Black people. On Saturday he spoke of 13 million Black people. I put it to him that he can double that figure. After the South African Citizenship Act was passed I had the right—the option—of retaining my British citizenship. As a nationalist, however, I exercised my option in favour of South African Citizenship. Just in passing, Sir, one hears that today there are thousands of people in this country who did so at the time and who today question the wisdom of that decision as a result of the course now being adopted by this Government. That is not, however, the point I want to make. The point I want to make is that all the citizens of the states mentioned in the Schedule to the Bill under discussion can theoretically exercise their option in favour of South African citizenship.

Mr Chairman, I now come to two very important aspects. Before I do so, however, there is just one thing I want to say. The hon the Minister gave, as one of his reasons for introducing the Bill under discussion, the frustrations of the Black people. Do the hon the Minister, his Government and his caucus really believe they are going eliminate the frustrations of the Blacks by granting them citizenship without the right to vote? Those agitators… Let me rather first point out the following fact. I live in an area where I come into daily contact with citizens of Venda. I also move in many areas where there are citizens of other independent Black states and national states. It is strange, but I do not find that frustration amongst those people. The frustration apparently occurs where the communities are closer to the integrated set-up.

Those are also the frustrations of the New Nats!

When one really analyses those frustrations, they are apparently the frustrations of the agitators who crave power.

Are you alleging that they are all agitators?

I am saying that the frustrations are kindled by those agitators who crave power.

The New Nats!

I think the hon member for Rissik—and I have to say this—is quite correct in suggesting that at the present time those frustrations are also kindled by hon members sitting in the National Party benches. [Interjections.] Those agitators who kindle the frustrations of Whites and then fan the flames of citizenship will surely not cease their activities once citizenship has been obtained, and this is not related to citizenship. It is not, in any case, a matter of citizenship. It is a question of the power-struggle throughout the world, which is what the political struggle is always about. It is, after all, also a question of the power vested in the vote that is linked to citizenship. They will not call a halt when they have obtained citizenship which is devoid of the right to vote, because in the right to vote lies that component of citizenship that everyone looks for.

Order! The argument about the franchise and about citizenship has also been raised innumerable times.

Mr Chairman, I have just finished dealing with that. I shall continue with my next point. I am apparently just keeping a step or two ahead of you. I say that with all due respect, Sir.

As far as access to South Africa is concerned, let me say that a South African passport is very much sought after by thousands upon thousands of inhabitants of Southern Africa, even to the north of the equator. They walk thousands of kilometres, they risk their lives in game-reserves teeming with animals of various kinds, in river waters where crocodile and hippo attacks are a daily occurrence, they risk arrest and a gaol sentence, even death, to enter this country. You know that, Mr Chairman, and all the other hon members sitting here and I know it too. [Interjections.]

What is the point?

I am now coming to the point.

You must just listen.

The point is that you should not cheapen our citizenship.

As I have said, access to South Africa is very much sought after by the Black people of Southern Africa. We know that, Sir.

Those people who are entrusted with the day-to-day administration, identification and orientation of the Black inhabitants of South Africa, know the problems. They know of the artful dodges—perfected over many years—which are employed specifically to gain access to South Africa, specifically to obtain the symbol of South African citizenship, or at least the symbol of the right to be present in South Africa. We know of the artful science that has developed in its wake and of the exploitation that is involved in the whole process.

To thousands of people from Africa, South Africa is what the USA is to thousands of Mexicans. Whilst the Americans, I am tempted to say, apply cruel influx control measures, this hon Minister and his colleagues are abolishing influx control. They are also abolishing existing identity documents, and the one which is to replace the present one is going to be phased-in over a period of five years. Then the hon the Minister still asks me what the point is I am trying to make! [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Was the hon the Minister not listening? Well, let me then tell him what the point is that I want to make. Once these five years have passed, there will be so much chaos in regard to the question of citizenship that it will take five times 25 years to unravel it.

This Government—and I am now speaking from personal experience—no longer has any control over the flood of people crossing South Africa’s international borders. On both sides of those borders there are Shangaan, Swazi, Venda, Sotho and Tswana people who can speak Afrikaans and know South Africa as well as do their brothers, nephews and nieces who are in South Africa. They are people who do not in any way, not even in terms of this legislation, qualify for South African citizenship, but who seek to obtain that citizenship. Those people, once they have crossed the border, will now be able to move, without any impediment, from their independent states right into Pretoria or Cape Town.

Some of them armed with guns.

As my colleague says, some of them armed with guns. Let me tell you, Sir, that moving across South Africa’s international boundaries is almost as easy as it is for me to walk past you from my bench.

Unravelling citizenship rights is going to take this Government much longer than a lifetime. [Interjections.] The NP Government of the past is responsible for the states governed by the Matanzimas, Mangopes, Sebes, Mphephus and their successors. They persuaded those leaders, by a process of negotiation, persuasion—the process sometimes being severe—and with promises and enticing prospects, to accept independence. With courage and conviction those leaders, often in the face of tremendous opposition, abuse and derision, accepted the path of independence. I want to ask the hon the Minister how those governments feel about this idea. How did he reach agreement with them about this question of citizenship? How does this Government now stand in regard to those independent Black states which its predecessors helped bring into being? With this dual citizenship the Government is probably enticing some of the best manpower away from those states. I am speaking of the more competent and more developed people who have a certain expertise. The Government is doing an injustice to those states, which the first NP brought into being, because the Government is breaking them down, is committing a breach of faith.

When Bophuthatswana took independence, the then Prime Minister, the late Mr John Vorster, said we were not making geographic areas independent, but the peoples of those countries in which the members of those peoples happened to find themselves. [Interjections.] As far as I am concerned, that answers the hon member for Umlazi’s question. When those peoples became independent, the citizenship laws of those states crowned that process of emancipation. Any hon member on that side of the House is mistaken if he thinks he can tell me this evening that his party is still a party advocating separate development after they have taken that crown and smashed it to smithereens. The labours of many years—closer to 40 years than 30 years—are being cancelled out by the legislative package we have been discussing for a week now, and in the years to come South Africa will definitely live to regret this. I am therefore not going to tire myself any further this evening. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Soutpansberg now concluded with the argument that 30 years labour has gone down the drain. That argument he also raised approximately 10 minutes earlier.

Refute it in 20 minutes, because you have 20 minutes time.

The point is that for approximately 30 years the NP devoted a lot of work and labour to establishing national and independent states for Blacks. Those national and independent states will continue to remain an integral part of the greater South African dispensation. In spite of all the work which has been done over so many, years, it looked as if it were not possible to bring that ideal to fruition. The work that was done on it, however, was not in vain. It is part of the dispensation and will remain so.

There is another point which the hon member spent about 10 minutes enlarging on. He said South African citizenship is sought after by many people of Southern Africa—he said many people from South Africa to the north of the equator. He made the point that as a result of this legislation it will be easier for people to obtain South African citizenship in an illegal way. [Interjections.] That surely was the hon member’s argument! He said they could come from all directions and settle here…

I brought my argument back to the problem… [Interjections.]

The point is that at the moment there are more than 10 million Blacks in South Africa who still have South African citizenship—after all these years, since 1910. [Interjections.] But there is nothing in this legislation which makes it more difficult or easier for people to come into the country from outside and to obtain South African citizenship in an illegal manner. This legislation alters not a jot or tittle of the magnitude of the problem, a problem which I know exists and which all developed countries come up against.

Together with the abolition of influx control… [Interjections.]

We are not discussing the question of the abolition of influx control. We are talking about the issue of citizenship. [Interjections.]

Albert says it is a package.

I am very sorry that the hon member for Waterberg saw fit to walk out just a few minutes ago, because I want to return to two statements which he made. The hon member for Waterberg in this debate—and also on various previous occasions—quoted the following: “If you share power, you lose power.” He then built up a whole argument around it. But let us examine this statement. “If you share power, you lose power.” It is a statement containing an inherent contradiction because if one has lost power, one has nothing left, in other words then one no longer has a part of it. Then of course one has not shared power, but rather given it away. The statement “If you share power, you lose power” therefore actually states that power-sharing is not possible.

If one has a whole egg, one breaks it in half and one gives the one half away, then you have surely shared the egg. [Interjections.]

A cooked egg or a raw egg?

This links up with another statement which he made in connection with which he quoted the authority of Kuiper to say that in politics it really concerns numbers. That is why it more or less amounts to it that if one gives the franchise to the people amongst one, one is in trouble. [Interjections.] This is precisely the essence of the difference. Democracy, as it was known 20 or three years ago, was purely a numbers game, but in this tricameral Parliament we already have a muddle which virtually completely and utterly—close to 90%, gets away from the reduction of democracy to a numbers game.

Order! The hon member is wandering off the topic of the Bill. The hon member must please return to the topic of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I shall do so gladly. I am just replying to an argument which the hon member for Waterberg raised in so many words in this debate. [Interjections.] This is in any case all I wanted to say about it.

This Bill touches on the most fundamental aspect of the political set-up in this country. From a politico-theoretical viewpoint, a distinction is drawn between three tiers of estate. The top or most immediate tier is the Government. People can either support or not support the Government. The second tier is the system as such and how that system works. It is a deeper level where people perhaps do not support the Government, but they still support the system. The most fundamental tier of the political system centres around the question of who all are members of the political community and what its composition is. This Bill deals with this third and final tier.

Mr Chairman, that is why you and the other presiding officers experience so many problems trying to confine the debate to the subject of Bill, since fundamentally this cover the entire political spectrum of South Africa. We should have no doubt that the categories of people and their citizenship have unmistakable implications for the political rights of the different people, and as a consequence, for the whole nature of the political system and the community.

We do not have to debate the final content of citizenship and the final form which the political system is going to take; there are other debates that we can use for that.

Because it is such a basic matter, however, there is also a basic philosophical parting of the ways which is taking place between us on the one hand, and the CP and the HNP on the other. If one accepts a policy of partition as one’s policy, then the previous policy of the NP makes sense where one creates a number of independent states for the different ethnic groups—one therefore creates ethnic states—and that one wants to allocate every individual, as far as citizenship and political rights are concerned to one of these ethnic units.

After implementing that policy and struggling with the realities of South Africa for many years, however, we have come to the conclusion that the model of absolute partition is not attainable. We should therefore follow another model in which the people who live within the borders of the country eventually in one way or another have a share in the power and the political system.

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

No, unfortunately I have too little time. [Interjections.]

That is why one’s conception of citizenship changes fundamentally. We therefore have a parting of the political ways here, and our approach and that of the CP is completely different.

We have found that the policy according to which we deny South African citizenship to specific people who live here and who were South African citizens previously, has become tremendously unproductive in the realities of South Africa. I should like to add in what respects this policy has become counter-productive and what problems will consequently have to be cleared up through this legislation.

Firstly, as stated here by the hon member for Sasolburg, citizenship is a tremendously emotional issue. The hon member indicated here that the Afrikaner specifically opposed the fact that British citizenship was forced on them against their will. In a very descriptive, emotional way he indicated how the Afrikaners opposed this British citizenship in every way, including violence. The point is that whatever citizenship it is, it is being forced on one. This is where we have made a mistake as far as Blacks are concerned. We decided what their citizenship should be and we tried to force it on them. That is why one could expect to the Blacks to have the same violent, intense, emotional reaction as our own people had when citizenship was forced on us against our will.

This depriving people of citizenship and the threat of taking away the citizenship from other people who have always been South African citizens, caused an intense feeling of rejection to arise amongst the Blacks. They felt that we completely rejected them because there can be no deeper form of rejection than that. That is also why some, as a form of emotional self-defence against it, also rejected us completely. This hon caused a tremendous chasm between Whites and Blacks in this country.

Many people were told that the Government was going to make strangers of them in the country of their birth by taking away their citizenship from them. It has been said that the Government is going to plot with some or other blockhead in a homeland and take away their citizenship. This sword which has hung over the heads of many people, has become a strong argument in the hands of the revolutionary agitators. They have told the Blacks that the Government wanted to take away their citizenship, even although their fathers, their grandfathers and their great-grandfathers were born in this country, and even although they had never been in any other country. The revolutionaries say the Government wants to give Blacks the citizenship of a place where they have never been and a citizenship which will not be recognised anywhere in the world. [Interjections.] That was a tremendously strong emotive argument in the hands of the revolutionaries. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member has explained this to us quite a number of times, and he is starting to repeat that argument.

But we still do not understand it, Sir. [Interjections.]

Which homeland leaders are blockheads? [Interjections.]

I did not say the homeland leaders were blockheads. I merely phrased the argument in the terms used by the agitators. [Interjections.]

This policy was also negative in another respect. People asked how they could negotiate with us if what our policy in fact amounted to was that we were going to cut them out of the body of South Africa. This was used as an excuse not to become involved in the process of negotiation on the political future of South Africa. [Interjections.]

These detrimental effects of the policy as it was then, are being removed by this Bill. [Interjections.] That is why we are giving the Blacks involved a feeling of security in regard to their citizenship. We confirm the Government’s intention of finding a symbolic system of power-sharing which is loaded with the most emotion possible. We have been told before when the State President has made announcements, that they are just words. Here, however, it is now being confirmed in the most fundamental way that the Government sees envisages a future for all the relevant people in South Africa, and that they should therefore participate in the process of creating a new order in South Africa.

That is why this Bill is one of the most positive measures which the Government has introduced and which has come before Parliament in a very long time. This can be an instrument to create a peaceful and prosperous South Africa. That is why I should like to support it.

Mr Chairman, a very interesting concept, which is often used in this House, is that of the creation of a “new South Africa”. It is also interesting that the NRP gave its party the name of the “New Republic Party” specifically because it wanted to create a new South Africa. I find it very interesting that the NP, after having been elected in 1981 on the basis of the policy of separate development, discovered five years later that separate development was no longer the answer and was supposedly no longer viable. For five years they rode on the backs of people who believed in separate development! Now they make the great discovery that separate development is supposedly no longer viable!

We said that even prior to the referendum! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Helderkruin says they already said so prior to the referendum. That is very interesting; we shall come to that in a moment. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Helderkruin said the NP still believed in homelands. They believed that the homelands could still play a role, but that that was not the overall solution. The old NP—ie the one that existed before this discovery was made—specifically said we should adopt the policy of separate development, partition or the creation of separate freedoms to avoid one people dominating another! The old NP specifically said it believed in partition and separation to get away from the numerical domination of one people by another.

I now want to tell the hon member why the NP believed in that. The NP adopted that policy in the light of the historical background of Africa. The hon member also said that my leader had referred to the standpoint: “If you share power, you lose power.” The history of Africa has proved that where the White man shared political power, where there was a numerical preponderance of Black people, the Whites lost control and eventually had to leave those countries.

Where?

In no part of Africa where the White man had to share power, did he retain that power! [Interjections.]

Whereas we had the power in a White Parliament throughout the years, this Government is now sharing it with Coloureds and Indians. It has now also chosen the course of power-sharing with Black people.

Order! The hon member for Kuruman must come back to the Bill. [Interjections.] The hon member may proceed.

Sir, where power was shared, the White man lost his power…

Order! If the hon member does not abide by my ruling, I shall definitely order him to resume his seat. [Interjections.] I am just putting it to the hon member that he must return to the Bill. The hon member may proceed.

Sir, may I just ask you whether you are going to allow me to react to statements made by hon members who spoke before me in the debate?

Order! I shall see how the hon member handles the situation. The hon member may proceed.

The hon member for Helderkruin said partition was not viable and that another formula should consequently be considered. He spoke of a “magic formula” in terms of which citizenship is now being given to Black people whose father-lands were previously a part of South Africa. That is the new formula that is coming to light! We are saying that it is a dangerous course that that party is adopting!

In this Bill provision is being made, amongst other things, for the restoration of South African citizenship to the citizens of the TBVC countries who are in the Republic. Prior to the referendum we asked that the White South African citizens living in South West Africa should also have a say in the constitutional future of South Africa. They were, however, denied the privilege. I should like to refer hon members to the reason that is put forward to explain why citizenship is now being granted to these members of the TBVC countries. In his second reading speech the hon the Minister said:

It caused them some frustration, but what about the frustration of the White citizens of South West Africa? In that referendum they could not also have a say in the political future of South Africa. The citizens now obtaining rights in South Africa will be able to decide about that, but those rights were denied the South African citizens of South West Africa. I want to ask that party whether it has the same concern for the frustrations of the White citizens of South Africa living in South West Africa as they have for the frustrations of the Black people now living in South Africa. [Interjections.]

The hon member says that investigations have shown that they do not exercise their political rights through the constitutional bodies of the TBVC countries. When Bophuthatswana and Transkei became independent, the citizens of those states living within the Republic of South Africa surely took part in referendums, too, and surely their opinions were also gauged. When the governments of those countries were constituted, the citizens of Bophuthatswana, Ciskei and Transkei also had to help to elect the members of Parliament and the governments of their fatherlands. [Interjections.] During those elections the percentage of the Xhosa vote here in Langa and Nyanga was higher than the percentage vote in Transkei.

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

No, I do not have the time. Today there are citizens in the governments of the Black fatherlands who were then so-called urban Black people. They exercise their political rights there. I should like the hon the Minister to tell us which investigations allegedly prove that they do not exercise their political rights through the political institutions in the TBVC countries. I should like the hon the Minister to spell that out for us.

I have here the Abolition of Influx Control Bill. In the memorandum on the objects of this Bill there is the following, amongst other things:

This Bill, which has already been passed by Parliament, also makes it possible for these 1,7 million citizens, which the hon the Minister has identified in his second reading speech as the people who may obtain South African citizenship in terms of this Bill, to move about freely, as they see fit, within the borders of the Republic of South Africa.

They are already here.

They may now, however, move around within the Republic of South Africa as they see fit.

But they were not citizens.

They were not citizens of South Africa. [Interjections.] I have here the Black Communities Development Amendment Bill. In the memorandum on the objects of the Bill there is, amongst other things, the following:

The citizens of Transkei and Ciskei who at present find themselves in Langa, Nyanga, Guguletu, Crossroads and Khayelitsha, are therefore obtaining, in terms of this Bill, proprietary rights within the borders of the Republic of South Africa.

What is wrong with that?

In terms of this Bill, which still has to be discussed, these people can convert leasehold rights into proprietary rights. [Interjections.] This Parliament and this Government of South Africa have, over the years, spent millions of rand on the establishment of fatherlands for the various Black peoples. My own district relinquished 633 000 morgen for the creation of a father-land for the Tswana. [Interjections.] In terms of this Bill 595 600 Tswana can now obtain proprietary rights within the Republic of South Africa.

That’s the ticket! They were born here.

I accept the fact that the hon member has said: “That’s the ticket!” The PFP says: “That’s the ticket!” [Interjections.] The PFP can say that’s the ticket. The PFP must thank the Government, because step by step the Government is transforming PFP principles and ideals into legislation in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Joke number 17! [Interjections.]

They are transforming the PFP’s principles into legislation.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether it not true, too, that Whites in these independent Black countries can purchase land?

The hon member asks me whether Whites can purchase land in the independent countries. They can purchase land there if the governments of those independent states decide that it is permissible. Let me ask that hon member, however, whether the Government is perhaps also going to make an effort to relieve the frustrations of the voters, the South African citizens who are at present living in the TBVC countries and are perhaps frustrated because they do not have political rights in those countries, since the Government is so concerned about the frustrations of the relevant people living here. [Interjections.]

In his second reading speech the hon the Minister says—I wonder whether the hon member for Helderkruin agrees with that—that this Bill has deep-rooted political implications. That is so. In his second reading speech the hon the Minister says:

That is one of the most important reasons why this legislation is before Parliament. After all, political aspirations also mean the franchise, representation in some or other structure that has to be established and a say for these citizens within this undivided South Africa. It also means, as far as these citizens are concerned, political power within the borders of the Republic of South Africa. That is why it is true that this Bill does have deep-rooted political implications. I now want to refer to these deep-rooted political implications.

In the undertakings given by the NP in its 1983 manifesto, it is stated:

That has always been the case!

Is the hon member for Beaufort West saying he still rejects a unitary state?

Yes!

Thank you very much! I now want to ask the hon member for Helderkruin whether he also rejects South Africa as a unitary state on the basis of a system of one man, one vote?

Of course, yes!

That is very interesting. We shall be coming back to that in a moment. [Interjections.]

This Bill makes provision for the restoration of citizenship to a large number of Black people. This citizenship being granted to Black people is basic to a unitary state with a system of one man, one vote. [Interjections.] I should like to quote what the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said. This also brings me to my answer to the hon member for Umlazi who put certain questions about partition and the morality involved. The hon the Deputy Minister said:

Up to 1985 that was Government policy. That was what Dr Connie Mulder spelled out in 1977, ie that when this policy of separate freedoms was carried to its logical conclusion, there would be no Black South African citizens. Up to 1985 that was NP policy.

But you know, do you not, what has been proved to be the case in practice. [Interjections.]

Up to 1985 it was NP policy. In 1981, with the election, it was the policy of the hon member for Rustenburg’s party. I want to ask the hon member for Rustenburg how he answered those questions put to him by his voters.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question?

No, the hon the Minister is free to make a speech in the time allocated to his colleagues.

The hon the Deputy Minister also said:

Sir, in 1981 the Government’s policy was separate freedoms with citizenship for Black people within those fatherlands. Subsequently, however, they came upon the discovery mentioned by the hon member for Helderkruin. Now the State President says:

Hence an undivided South Africa. I am therefore now asking the hon member for Beaufort West: Is that a unitary state or not?

Of course not! [Interjections.]

Sir, the Government accepts “’n onverdeelde Republiek van Suid-Afrika waar alle gebiede en gemeenskappe binne sy grense deel vorm van die Suid-Afrikaanse staat”. According to the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning South Africa is one state. Surely that is a unitary state. [Interjections.] The Government accepts one citizenship for all South Africans, which implies equal treatment and equal opportunities. If this hon Minister tells us that the Republic of South Africa is a unitary state in which they accept one citizenship for all South Africans, implying equal treatment and equal opportunities, in my view he should start thinking things over, because that is why people such as those in Stellenbosch write such letters to him in the newspapers.

With this change in policy that took place in 1985, the NP is breaking its word to its voters. It is reneging on its voters. It is reneging on a firm undertaking which was given to its voters in 1981, prior to the election. Not only has it gone back on its undertaking and deviated from its policy, but it has forsaken a principle.

What did President Botha say about all this? On 16 April 1982—by then the CP had left their ranks—he said:

Then the State President went on to say:

That is the principle.

Let me tell the hon member for Beaufort West that they have changed and adopted a principle for which they did not obtain a mandate in 1981. I want to ask hon members of the NP how they could bring themselves to do it, how they could square it with their consciences, and here I am referring not only to the fact that they went back on an undertaking they had given, but also the fact that they had forsaken a fundamental principle of the NP, whilst still retaining their seats in this House. I want to ask him: Are they not ashamed of that? [Interjections.] I am asking whether they are not ashamed of the fact that they have in principle gone back on the policy they adopted. [Interjections.]

Order! That argument has repeatedly been raised in this House. The hon member has made his point and I therefore suggest that he proceeds with the next point.

Just a lot of stories he is telling! [Interjections.]

Order! It is not necessary for us to have more than one chairman of the House. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member should rather confine himself to matters he knows something about. He is better at burying people than at giving injunctions.

As they say: “He is the last man to let you down!”

With this change in policy the NP is establishing a unitary state, and the hon member for Hercules waxed lyrical about that when he said: “Hierdie land, hierdie dierbare Vaderland van my en hulle, is nie net ons s’n nie; hierdie Vaderland behoort ook aan die Swartmense wat hier woon.”

With this Bill those Black people—those coming from the TBVC countries—are being granted citizenship rights in this dear father-land which also belongs to them. This does, after all, confirm the NP’s standpoint of a unitary state.

The NP says, however, that it rejects a system of one man, one vote. These citizens are now obtaining the franchise, too, because surely citizenship rights also imply political rights in this country. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said the following:

Within this undivided South Africa there will consequently be a system of one man, one vote. The hon member for Beaufort West, however, says it is not so. [Interjections.] One citizenship, with equal rights for everyone in this country—that is what that party advocates. [Interjections.]

What is the result of granting South African citizenship to Blacks and of the State President’s undertaking that no South African will be excluded from full political rights? What is the result? Firstly it is that Blacks have been brought in as members of the regional services councils, and the hon the Minister has also said that such a Black person could also become chairman of a regional services council. These citizens of Bophuthatswana who are now obtaining citizenship can also become chairmen of regional services councils in South Africa and thus participate in the local government of this country.

Secondly there is the abolition of provincial councils, which took place in the past week. Dr Odendaal said that the abolition of provincial councils would be unavoidable because only Whites could be elected to provincial councils. He said it was unavoidable. The consequence of granting this citizenship is therefore the abolition of provincial councils as the second tier of White government and the appointment of multiracial executive committees with Black members—Blacks who can now also obtain citizenship by means of this legislation.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, in his second reading speech on the abolition of provincial councils, gave the assurance that proper cognisance would be taken of the composition of the population where executive committee members and administrators were appointed. He said that proper cognisance would be taken of that factor. Proper cognisance would also be taken of these 1,7 million Blacks now obtaining South African citizenship, not to mention the millions—mentioned by the hon member for Umlazi—who already have South African citizenship. They are therefore obtaining citizenship and the right to serve on these executive committees. They also obtain the right to be appointed an administrator of a province, as the hon the Minister said in his reply.

Briefly the results of the granting of citizenship to Black people in South Africa are the following: Firstly it has resulted in powersharing with Black South African citizens at local government level. A Black man can also become the chairman of a regional services council. Secondly the granting of South African citizenship to Black people has resulted in power-sharing with Black citizens at the provincial level, and a Black citizen can become administrator. Thirdly one of the consequences is power-sharing with Black citizens at the highest level of government. The result is a Black state president. The hon member for Randburg has already said that South Africa eventually having a Black state president is unavoidable, and he had not yet been repudiated. So the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs was right when he said that. [Interjections.] In terms of this citizenship certain rights are being granted to Black people, and this evening the hon the Minister must make this clear to us. I should like the hon the Minister to listen so that he can explain whether the voting qualifications for White, Coloured, Indian and Black South African citizens, in terms of this legislation, are going to be the same. [Interjections.]

Those are nonsensical questions. Go on with your speech. [Interjections.]

No, that is not a nonsensical question, because it is a question with far-reaching political implications. The hon the Minister of Home Affairs calls it a nonsensical question, and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning just snorts. He snorts!

I am laughing at you, because I know…

Yes, let the hon the Minister laugh. He will be laughing when the White man relinguishes his say in this country—just where the hon the Minister wants him. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister is being flippant about the welfare of the White man in this country, and he is free to go on laughing. [Interjections.] Just hold an election so that South Africa can get rid of frivolous individuals like the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

[Interjections.] I should now like to put another question to the hon the Minister of Home Affairs, someone who does not answer one’s questions. When it was said on Saturday that the Coloured citizens of the Republic of South Africa are now Coloured Afrikaners, we asked him whether he agreed with the hon member for Kimberley South that that was the official standpoint of the NP, but he did not answer that question. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister did not answer that question.

He promised he would.

He promised he would answer it, but I guarantee hon members that he will still refrain from answering it. [Interjections.] That is why I am asking whether the franchise requirements for Black South African citizens will be the same as the requirements for Whites, Coloureds and Indians. I also want to put that question to the hon member for Randburg. [Interjections.] Are the voting qualifications for those citizens who are now obtaining citizenship in terms of this legislation going to be the same as those of the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites?

Probably, but not in terms of this legislation.

He says probably, yes.

He says probably. The hon member Dr Vilonel said, on another occasion, that it could possibly happen, and he was not repudiated. The hon the Minister does not answer the question, because he says it is a nonsensical question. Hon members on that side of the House say that franchise qualifications are probably going to be the same. They say that the franchise qualifications of Black citizens—who will be obtaining citizenship in terms of this legislation—will probably be the same as those of the Whites, Coloureds and Indians.

On separate voter’s lists?

Do hon members on that side of the House know what the structures look like within which Black citizens are going to obtain a say and are going to be represented at this highest tier of government? [Interjections.] Here we now have South African citizens who, according to those hon members, are going to obtain political rights, but they do not yet know what the structures will look like within which these people are going to obtain their political rights. [Interjections.] The hon member for Kimberley North says they will obtain the vote on separate voter’s lists. [Interjections.] I do not want to be disparaging towards the hon member for Kimberley North on the strength of his mental abilities, but does he know what the structures look like within which these people are going to obtain representation? [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kuruman started his speech by saying that the NP was bandying about the concept of a new South Africa, discussing it and so on. I have the Hansard of 4 June 1980 here in my hand, with the hon member for Brakpan speaking about the new direction South Africa was taking. What did that hon member say? He said that the Whites had reached accord and spoke about the new course for the future. He referred to the establishment of the President’s Council, but this is a matter I do want to discuss now. He said:

Elsewhere in the same speech the hon member said:

The hon member is concerned with the new South Africa. I submit that as far as laws are concerned and as far as accepted NP policy is concerned the question of separate citizenship or not, homeland citizenship or not, citizenship of independent states in this country, is a fairly recent topic. This is not old NP policy, the original policy and the like.

The Promotion of Black Self-government Act of 1959 was the first Act which made the independence of Black states a possibility. As far as NP policy and legislation is concerned, it is consequently a very recent policy and is approximately 25 years old. The Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act of 1970, now known as the National States Citizenship Act, followed it and then came the various status acts, namely in 1976 for Transkei up to the most recent one in 1981 for Ciskei. Consequently we must see the matter in perspective. Separate citizenship, like certain other aspects of apartheid and separate development, is not an original principle of the NP, but is barely a quarter of a century old and politically very recent.

In point of fact this Restoration of South African Citizenship Bill contains a fundamental change in important aspects of the policy of separate development. The change is constantly being levelled against us—the hon member for Kuruman has just done so again—that we have changed our policy and even our principles. I should now like to debate the question whether a party is entitled to make fundamental changes in its policy. I also want to debate the question whether under certain circumstances a party is obliged to do so, and I want to do this with reference to this Bill according to which we have quite rightly changed our policy fundamentally. Is there a time when one not only wants to or is entitled to do this, but must do it on principle? The question is whether we are justified in changing the status quo. The legislation in 1959 and after that in fact dealt with the changing of the then status quo.

On 21 January 1961 the Federal Council of the NP met under the chairmanship of Dr Verwoerd and I should like to quote from the minutes of that meeting. I just want to remark that Dr Verwoerd was not a static, stupid “zombie” like the CP makes him out to be, but that he was an intelligent person with insight in the future. I now want to quote from the minutes of that meeting. I just want to mention that this concerned Coloured policy. I know this is not at issue now, but the principle is at issue now. Sir, you will allow me to quote a few sentences on what the Coloured policy is, and then I will debate further. I want to quote as follows from the minutes:

I shall not pursue this matter, just to gain perspective. The Federal Council, under the chairmanship of Dr Verwoerd, went on to say:

I am now reverting to the matter the hon member for Kuruman raised, namely that we are supposed to have changed our principle. The Federal Council said:

Those hon members frequently quote Dr Verwoerd as having said this or that, but here is his signature under an exposition of the NP’s policy. He said it was the NP’s standpoint of principle and also our principle now and for the future.

In the same minutes the following is also said, and this is very important:

For now and for the future, as I quoted:

The hon member for Kuruman is not here at the moment, because he should also have listened to this. His hon colleagues can tell him. I am continuing to quote:

All this was said under the signature of Dr Verwoerd. The document was published in Dr Verwoerd’s time to state the standpoint of the National Party. I am continuing to quote:

This is my answer to these hon members. I can continue to quote in this vein. I admit that we have changed our standpoint. Those hon members have not held that standpoint for a long time either. But the point is that it is justified and it was accepted by the NP congresses as our policy developed. These are the same NP congresses that kicked those hon members out, where they could have stated their standpoint, but they did not see their way open to do so. Our policy has changed, but we are entitled to do this, in accordance with the standpoint of Dr Verwoerd too.

I also want to quote very briefly what Dr Hertzog said at Malmesbury on 26 May 1926. He said precisely what the NP’s policy was with regard to separate development, apartheid and all those things, which I do not want to quote now because it is not relevant. He said:

And so he goes on. What did he also say? I am continuing to quote:

And then he refers to the present. He goes on to say:

Then Genl Hertzog goes on as follows, and this is the point I want to make:

He then goes on to say that the present policy is merely a bridge to the future. His concluding words are:

I can also quote what other people said, which amounts to precisely the same thing. They include Dr Malan, Adv Strijdom, Adv Vorster and so on. They said they had a policy for their own time, but the future would have to be determined by us ourselves. This is precisely what we are doing. We are in the process of doing this, and we are doing so in principle and in accordance with the mandate we received from our congresses.

The question now is whether it is correct that as regards this question of citizenship the National Party is now adopting a different standpoint. We want to change the status quo. The status quo ante was changed in the late fifties, as I have indicated. Now we want to change the status quo again. Are we entitled to do so? I believe the answer to this revolves only around the question whether or not separate development has succeeded. Has separate development succeeded adequately or has it not? How does one determine this? How does one know whether and to what extent it has succeeded? If it has succeeded and there is not a problem regarding the question of citizenship, one leaves it at that. Why do we want to change it?

We say that we want to change it because the policy of separate development has not succeeded adequately. Now I am asking how one determines this. How does one determine whether or not that policy succeeded? I want to raise the following argument. I do not want to quote from the Sauer Report of 1947, various statements by Dr Verwoerd and other documents either. What did they say they wanted to achieve with this policy? What they had in mind was a political goal, a social goal, an economic goal, a geographic goal—we can continue in this vein. They had separateness in mind. Separation is what they wanted to achieve. Now the question arises whether this succeeded. I do not think it requires a tremendous argument to prove that it has not succeeded. I even find it rather ridiculous to sit here and listen to hon members of the Conservative Party trying to tell us how extremely successful this policy was. In fact it did not succeed.

At the moment I am attending lectures at a university in an effort to gain a degree in politics. Mr Chairman, do you know what the topic of discussion in those lectures is at the moment?—Why did separate development not succeed. It is no longer even being argued whether or not it succeeded. It goes without saying that…

Which university is that?

The University of South Africa. [Interjections.] We can even consult the Tomlinson Report on this. Unfortunately I do not have the time to quote from it now. In the Tomlinson Report it was estimated that by the year 2000 there would be between 19 million and 21 million Blacks in South Africa. In the Tomlinson Report it was said that with the best intentions, irrespective of how much money was spent, and irrespective of everything that could be done—we must remember that Dr Verwoerd did not accept all the recommendations in that report either—by the year 2000 approximately 30% of all Blacks in the country would still be living in the White areas. This is consequently a total of 6,3 million. This means that in the Tomlinson Report there was also an advance warning that separate development was not going to work. We are now speaking retrospectively as if the Tomlinson Report said something else. Very well, it did say that the influx of Blacks to the White areas would be reversed by 1978, but only to the extent that 30% would still remain. Obviously it goes without saying that 30%…

Yes, but Tomlinson did not know that the quitters would come into power!

I have the Tomlinson Report here in front of me, and the…

Oh, Stoffies, your mad aunt Tillie is a quitter!

The hon members of the Conservative Party have entirely the wrong… [Interjections.]

Tomlinson did not know that traitors would come into power! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, if the hon member for Sasolburg is alleging that Tomlinson was a traitor…

No, he says we are the traitors!

I say the traitors came into power!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Sasolburg entitled to say the traitors came into power? He is saying this with reference to the present Government. [Interjections.]

He has a point there!

Order! Did the hon member for Sasolburg say that?

I did say that, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon member Dr Vilonel may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: Is the hon member for Langlaagte entitled to say that the hon member for Sasolburg has made a good point. He said that to endorse what the hon member for Sasolburg said when he said that the traitors had come into power.

Order! I do not know whether the hon member for Langlaagte endorsed the hon member for Sasolburg’s statement. Did the hon member for Langlaagte in fact endorse that statement?

Mr Chairman, I said the hon member for Sasolburg had made a good point. But can the hon member for Randburg say to whom I said he had made a good point?

Order! The hon member Dr Vilonel may proceed.

Mr Chairman, may I address you briefly on this?

Order! Of course the hon member may address me. But it is not clear to me to which point the hon member for Langlaagte referred, which according to him was a good point. If the hon member for Langlaagte does not own up, the hon member for Randburg will never be able to prove his submission.

Mr Chairman, I should like to address you briefly on this anyway.

Order! The hon member for Randburg may address me.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sasolburg made a remark which you ordered him to withdraw. The hon member for Langlaagte, with reference to that selfsame remark, said that the hon member for Sasolburg had made a good point. [Interjections.]

Order! It is very easy to solve this problem. The hon member for Langlaagte must tell us whether he was referring to what the hon member for Sasolburg said, when he said that the hon member had made a good point.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sasolburg said that the traitors had come into power, to which I said that he had made a good point. Do you want me to withdraw this?

I am considering the position.

When you said that the hon member for Sasolburg must withdraw it, I did not react to that.

Order! The hon member Dr Vilonel may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I do not think there is a quorum present in the House.

Quorum:

The attention of the presiding officer having been called to the absence of a quorum, the division bells were rung.

A quorum being present, debate resumed.

Order! The hon member Dr Vilonel may proceed.

Mr Chairman, with all due respect I want to say that I could have put forward a far better point than all the hon members who raised points of order. Now I am compelled to leave out the crux of my speech and conclude.

The crux?… [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon member for Sasolburg is actually a very decent person. He attended the same school I did and his father was my headmaster. I wonder where he learnt the manners he displays nowadays. [Interjections.]

To conclude my speech with regard to the Restoration of South African Citizenship Bill I want to say we are facing a very serious situation today and we must do everything in our power—the hon member for Helderkruin also referred to this—to defuse the situation. In this regard our historic interdependence—White and Black—is a very important aspect.

The Bill before us gives evidence of a very important decision which we took with regard to citizenship. We must take these serious decisions, and we must take them now. The overriding problem or challenge of today is the political rights of the Black man. Separate development only offered a partial solution, and we must now take the matter further. The number of Black people living permanently in South Africa is increasing. As a matter of fact I hear that at present almost 12 million Blacks are citizens of South Africa. Now there is talk of a further 1,7 million. But the numbers are no longer so terulily important. We are dealing with millions of people in their own country, and a choice between White and Black has no longer been at issue for some time. As a matter of fact White and Black are faced by precisely the same choices—perhaps from different angles, but the same choices nevertheless. The choices are not between White and Black, but between specific principles, specific directions and specific courses for the future. The big choice is between peace and violence.

If I could have made a Third Reading speech, I would have said one of the side effects of this legislation will in fact be to help to defuse the situation in the country. The NP has chosen the path of peaceful change for the future in our endeavour to reach a situation in which all South African citizens—this Bill also indicates this—all permanent inhabitants of this country, irrespective of colour, race, creed or sex, will have a fair, just and equitable share in the government of the country by means of the maximum possible say in affairs of their own group, as well as joint decision-making and a joint say in matters of common interest, with the maintenance of law and order, stability, civilised norms and identity throughout, without one group dominating, prejudicing or destroying the other. Hon members can consider this our motto. This is the course we are taking, and this Bill is a part of what we are striving for.

Mr Chairman, in his speech this evening the hon member Dr Vilonel clearly indicated that he took his politics very seriously. I think he also foresees the political power-struggle that must necessarily develop as a result of the presence of an additional 2 million Blacks. Perhaps this is also related to his reconnaissance expeditions, because I have heard that he also paid a visit to the UDF.

I was there.

The hon member says he was there. Perhaps he could just tell us what he was doing there.

I went there to learn a few things. One must know what one’s opposition is doing and that is why I also attend AWB meetings.

The hon member also took exception here to a statement made by the hon member for Brakpan, which he quoted. Perhaps, to his great amazement, I could tell him that there is nothing that the hon member for Brakpan said there—if I remember correctly what the hon member Dr Vilonel quoted—with which I do not agree. [Interjections.] I agree with it. At that stage, of course, we were entering upon a dispensation about which we agreed at the time. It was not a dispensation that included this kind of citizenship and powersharing. We must agree to disagree, but that is how we saw things at the time. The hon member says we are dealing here with fundamental changes. In that connection the hon member for Innesdal also says these are the most fundamental changes ever made, that we are breaking with old traditions.

The hon member Dr Vilonel also debated here the issue of what right the NP congresses supposedly had to change its mandate. I shall come back to that at a later stage, but I just want to tell him that it is no use quoting Dr Verwoerd as he did. I just want to refer him to a statement made by the State President. He said that if the Government came along with far-reaching proposals—I cannot remember his exact words, but what it amounted to was far-reaching and fundamental changes—he would hold a referendum. Hon members conceded this evening that such changes were being brought about by this legislation. [Interjections.] The hon member must just wait a moment. I shall be coming to that. I still hold it against the hon member for saying that the Conservatives regarded Dr Verwoerd as a “zombie”. I do not think it is true. I do not think it befits the hon member to accuse us of that, and I think we should rather leave it at that.

It was not a good choice of words.

Yes.

Like your policy too.

The object of this legislation—and I want to condense this into one short sentence—is to confer South African citizenship on citizens of the TBVC countries. This evening I want to raise two objections to this, and this constitutes the theme of my contribution.

The first point is that the Government does not have an alternative. It must not continue with this legislation, because it does not have a mandate to do so. I want to indicate as much to hon members this evening—as when one starts a court-case by making a point in limine, taking exception or saying one cannot proceed with the case because there is no mandate. That will be the point I shall be making. Let me start right out and tell hon members that the NP has only two mandates. Its one mandate is the Constitution, Act No 110 of 1983. It deals with the position of Indians, Coloureds and Whites. That is a situation that we in the CP are opposed to. We reject the new dispensation, but we acknowledge the fact that we were beaten. We acknowledge the fact that the Government went to the voters, that it held a referendum and that we lost. The Government has a mandate as far as the Indians, Coloureds and Whites are concerned—that is Act No 110 of 1983. [Interjections.] The Government may proceed with that. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, I wonder whether you can help me.

Order!

As far as the Indians, Coloureds and Whites are concerned, we recognise the Government’s mandate. Several assurances have been given, however, about Act No 110 of 1983 not including the Blacks. My standpoint is therefore now that in the 1981 election the NP obtained a mandate about what precisely it should do with the Blacks, and to satisfy you in good time, Sir, let me indicate that citizenship such as this is excluded—in other words that the Government does not have the right to make this law.

In 1981 the Government went to the voters with its 12-point plan. The 12-point plan was the programme of action, and here I have a photostat copy of it. After the NP had approved the 12-point plan at its congress, it went to the voters on 29 April 1981. Point 3 of the 12-point plan specifically deals with the position of the Blacks outside the national states. I should like to quote point 3 of the 12-point plan:

I am quoting from the only mandate the NP has in regard to the Blacks, particularly the Blacks outside the national states. I quote further:

Now, in this National Party mandate, there is a particularly sombre warning, and I quote:

Here I want to interrupt myself by saying: The NP’s mandate, the 12-point plan drawn up and submitted by the State President, warns the NP against the alternative it is now trying to implement. It is stated that the alternative is integration, conflict and the engulfment of the Whites and of the other minority groups.

Let me quote further, and now I have come to the last paragraph of the third point…

What Act is that?

I do not know who it is who has just asked what Act this is, but I cannot allow myself to take any notice of people who, when they are busy deceiving their own people, do not want to pay heed to their own mandate.

Where is your Coloured homeland?

Now the hon member for Parow is asking me something.

The charming member for Parow!

He is asking me where my Coloured homeland is. The CP does not, at the moment, have a piece of legislation before this Parliament. We are, after all, discussing a piece of NP legislation. [Interjections.] I shall specifically be putting my point at some time or other. At this stage it is a question of citizenship legislation. [Interjections.]

Order!

I shall now quote the last paragraph, and this is specifically applicable to the Blacks outside the national states:

My standpoint there is that the NP drew up a 12-point plan in which it specifically made provision for the Blacks, particularly the Blacks outside the national states, those who, in terms of this legislation, become part of South Africa, if I may express it in those terms. In spite of this mandate, which states that this is a linking-up policy, that the Blacks must exercise their rights through their own homelands, the NP is making fundamental, far-reaching changes, changing the entire political set-up in South Africa, in conflict with this mandate. That is why I am saying that the NP has no right to make this law. If the NP wanted to do the honourable thing, it ought to block this legislation and not proceed with it.

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

No, I am not going to answer questions this evening.

Mr Speaker, before you perhaps upbraid me, let me tell you that earlier this evening, when you were not present, I said that I was going to argue two points. The first was that the NP did not have a mandate to implement this legislation and ought to withdraw it. Secondly I want to argue the political consequences of the legislation on the basis of the hon the Minister’s second reading speech.

Order! As long as the hon member sticks to the legislation, I am satisfied.

Very well, I shall do my level best. You know me as a very obedient person. [Interjections.]

The second point I want to raise, to indicate why the NP does not have a mandate, we find in the words of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. I quote what he said on 10 November 1982, therefore prior to the referendum:

Here the hon the Minister is ratifying the mandate that Black people should not be accommodated outside the national states. The hon the Minister goes on to state:

He said that anyone who said so, would be telling a deliberate lie.

What are you quoting from?

I am quoting from the Cape Times of 10 November 1982. He went on to say:

In another debate the hon the Minister said he was not referring in general to Black rights, but merely that he meant that the Black people would not be included in the tricameral Parliament. In another debate I closed this little door for the hon the Minister. I quote further from the Cape Times:

Here the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning gave the assurance that” … the National Party would not deviate from this path”. One of the reasons presented at the time—I want to impress this upon the House—to indicate why the present Bill should specifically not be adopted, is the following, and I quote:

I am now issuing a warning to the House this evening on the strength of what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said in 1982. He said that if one were to give political rights to the Black people—this would be the inevitable consequence because approximately 2 million more of them are now also obtaining South African citizenship—it would lead to a system of one man, one vote.

Hear, hear!

Someone is saying: “Hear, hear!”

Let me quote further from what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said, according to a report in Die Transvaler of 6 October 1982. He was also referring, in general, to Black participation outside the national states and did not refer to the present constitutional dispensation. I quote:

The same hon Minister issued a further warning against what the Government is trying to do today. According to Die Burger he said the following on 28 August 1982: “As u wel Swartes so betrek, sal dit Suid-Afrika vemietig.” Now I do not know what more I can say about a mandate or about warnings than to call the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to bear witness to the fact that such a system would destroy democratic values and lead to one man, one vote and destroy South Africa and its minority groups.

Chris is going to suspend Stoffel!

There is a great deal of doubt, at the present time, about the NP’s philosophy concerning national states, a philosophy on which this legislation on citizenship is directly based, because the Government now wants to divide the citizens of a particular country up into two portions. Is the homeland policy, if I may call it that, going to proceed or not? We should like these questions answered by the Government.

It is going to proceed. [Interjections.]

Very well, the hon the Minister says it is going to proceed. Several speakers have also said so, but I now want to explain my dilemma.

They all say so.

I should like to quote from the hon member for Innesdal’s unrevised Hansard of 16 June. He was referring to another Bill:

The hon the Minister will have to repudiate him loudly and clearly:

Then he describes the old concept:

The hon member was talking about the Abolition of Influx Control Bill.

Yes, but the two aspects are not in conflict!

Good heavens, Sir, the hon member says the two are not in conflict! The hon member for Innesdal says the whole concept of the national states, the homelands, is being wiped out completely. The hon the Minister says the concept is still alive. Another hon member says the two statements are one and the same thing. [Interjections.] I have difficulty in understanding that. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Helderkruin also contradicted the hon member for Innesdal on this point. That is why we want to know what the NP’s official standpoint is. Are they continuing with the idea of national states?

Yes!

I hear a lot of yes’s. I am very glad about that, because that is also our policy. [Interjections.] The hon member for Innesdal, however, says no. He says it is being wiped out altogether. [Interjections.] I have not quoted him incorrectly; surely this is quite simple language. He says that “the homelands which belong only to the Black people” are going to be wiped out completely! I shall, however, leave the matter at that. He was saying nothing else, and the hon member for Randburg can wave his arm about in front of his lovely red tie as much as he likes, but the record is here in Hansard. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Umhlanga today asked where the members of the old United Party were. Where are those old frontbenchers who sat here when the NP introduced this measure? The standpoints they adopted then against that policy are now, in effect, being adopted by the NP. [Interjections.]

Exactly!

The hon member says “exactly”. The NP is now experiencing a crisis of confidence. [Interjections.] All that has been happening, in fact, in one debate after another, is that the NP speakers have merely had to delve into the past to bring forth the old United Party argument and present it here. They say, however, that they retain their credibility.

[Inaudible.]

There is another small point I want to raise here in connection with the question of a mandate, and with this I am coming to the end of this aspect.

Hear, hear!

I can believe that hon members would want to applaud, because I am sure there are still some of them left who realise that my argument is a valid one. They are probably hurting, because they know they do not have a mandate to do what they are doing.

Order! Today I have tried, to the best of my ability, to follow the arguments in the House on closed circuit television in my office, and the point about the mandate has now almost been done to death. I shall allow the hon member an opportunity to go into this briefly, but I am not going to permit any repetition.

I need only 30 seconds, Sir.

I have here an HSRC report. It is entitled Race Relations Survey, 1984. In the report it is stated that 89,6% of Afrikaans-speaking people are in favour of “African homelands”—the homeland idea. Let me add that the 89,6% of Afrikaners are under the impression—that was also the case—still included the linking-up policy. The Government therefore does not have a mandate to continue with what it is doing! With that I now come to the end of the mandate question. [Interjections.]

The following point I want to make I specifically want to link up with statements made by the hon the Minister in his Second Reading speech. For example, he said the following about the principle on which this Bill is based, and I refer to item (ii):

The NP is now introducing a new system, in conflict with its mandate, in terms of which political rights will be granted to Blacks outside the national states. All the NP is telling us is that the Blacks will be accommodated in these “structures”. I now want to say something about these structures. If hon members could give me more particulars about this system and the proposed structures this evening, and if this were perhaps to satisfy me, I could possibly have indicated my acceptance. It would perhaps even have been possible for me to forego my objection to this Bill, or even support it!

What is happening is that one aspect is simply being relinquished—I am referring to the fact that the Blacks must exercise their political rights in their own homelands—and that something else is being put in its place. I now respectfully want to ask what it is that is going to replace this, because reference is simply being made to “structures”.

I want to spell out to hon members what my problem in this connection is. What is involved is that 1 700 000, virtually 2 million, Black people who are eligible to vote are being brought into the political dispensation of the Whites. That is an extremely serious matter, and there are questions I want to ask in this connection, because in my own mind I am very concerned indeed about this! Someone said—I think it was the hon member Dr Vilonel—that the NP did not yet know what the structures were. I cannot believe that, Sir. I really cannot believe that one policy is being relinquished, that one vaguely talks about structures, but does not know precisely what they are! I cannot believe that the NP does not already have certain structures and a system with which it wants to replace this one! [Interjections.]

Here it is a matter of the political rights of the people whom the hon the Minister spoke about. I now want to pick up certain threads. The State President said it was NP policy that the Blacks should have political rights up to the highest level outside the national states. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that on the basis of these proposals a Black man could inevitably become State President, and the hon member Dr Vilonel said the State President did not really repudiate him on that score. So it is extremely important, is it not, for us to know what the future political rights of the Blacks are going to be! Two million Blacks are now being cut off from their homelands. They are being brought into the White dispensation and the Government says it will, in fact, accommodate them. I want to know how that is going to be done.

We now come to the whole question of groups. I want to highlight a few of the relevant trends of thought. The NP says there are various groups. One no longer speaks about peoples who are going to obtain independence by way of partition; there are now groups in South Africa, and one groups will supposedly not dominate another. That is the new way of looking at things, is it not? [Interjections.] Someone is muttering over there, but I do not know what he is trying to say.

As far as these groups are concerned, what I want to know is whether it is not still separate development if the Whites form one group, the Coloureds another and the Indians a third group. Surely that is apartheid, because why is everything not simply thrown open? If apartheid is dead, as a few hon members have alleged, why are there these separate groups? I cannot understand that!

In regard to the Black groups I want to know whether there is going to be only one structure for the Blacks. Is there going to be only one Black group, or are there going to be several groups? For example, on the strength of the present homeland idea, is there going to be a Zulu group and a Sotho group? Is the homeland idea going to incorporate the distinction that is drawn between groups?

There is another matter I want to touch upon in this context. This is the fourth debate in which I have wanted to ask the same question, since there are a number of Bills that form an overall package. The hon the Minister says one group should be prevented from dominating another. How does he want to do that? [Interjections.] We have asked this question in four debates now. At one stage I quoted a letter to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning asking him please to spell out for us how he wanted to prevent one group from dominating another. I said that the PFP had a few measures which they had suggested, but that the NP had nothing. How could they now expect to sell their policy? Let me ask the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply, who is sitting there, whether he can tell me how they wish to prevent one group from dominating another.

Just exercise a bit of patience.

Just exercise a little patience. [Interjections.]

I am no longer all that patient, and I now want to turn to the hon the Minister of Home Affairs who is involved in this debate. If he is telling these two million Blacks that they now have South African citizenship and therefore also political rights in White South Africa—if he will accept that term—outside the national states, how is he going to prevent one group from dominating another? The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning raised two feeble little arguments on the strength of a letter which appeared in Die Burger of 7 June under the pseudonym “Vrae wat pla”. Firstly he said in a constitution and, secondly, he spoke of legal measures, judicial measures.

My reply to that was that according to Dr Arnheim, the bloody constitutions strewn around Africa made Africa look as if it had been sprinkled with confetti. A constitution is a piece of paper and a Bill of Rights is also a piece of paper.

What did Arnheim say?

The hon member can go and read for himself what Arnheim said. [Interjections.]

So there is no attractive proposition. They want to put their standpoints to people and enter into negotiations. The hon member Dr Vilonel says: “We have an open-ended agenda.”

†He wants to negotiate with an open-ended agenda, but he cannot say that because he has a mandate. He is bound by the mandate which was given to him on 29 April 1981. He cannot say he has an open-ended agenda. He is bound by the mandate which he got from the electorate in 1981.

*Now what are the protective measures? Are we perhaps moving towards a dispensation in which the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians are to be second-class citizens? [Interjections.] Is that a scheme that the NP has in order to deceive the Indians, the Blacks and the Coloureds so that the Whites can remain in power the whole time?

Never.

I heard the hon member Mr Vermeulen say something over there, and I want to ask him whether he thinks there will be a Black president? [Interjections.] A deathly silence! That is what I cannot understand. I ask the hon the Minister of National Education, who is the Transvaal leader of the NP…

Ask Connie Mulder. Connie Mulder said so.

He does not say so. [Interjections.] Sir, I also just want a chance to speak. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must please remember that he did put a question to the hon member Mr Vermeulen.

Yes, Sir, but he just stared at me, and I cannot read sign language.

Ask him why he voted for Connie.

I now want to ask him why he voted for Dr Mulder.

Another lie.

Is that so? I shall take the hon member at his word if he says he voted for Mr P W Botha, but I just find it strange that he has not yet been promoted. [Interjections.] I now want to ask whether, in this new South Africa, we can have a Black president or not. Sir, you must understand my problem, because it is a question of political rights. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs says we can have a Black president and the State President repudiates him, but actually he does not repudiate him, because the hon member Dr Vilonel says he was not really repudiated. In the meantime the hon member for Randburg says, both in Canada and in South Africa, that we can have a Black president, but he is not repudiated. [Interjections.] Dr Vilonel also thinks we can have a Black president.

I am asking the hon the Minister of National Education and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning if we are going to have a Black state president. I am asking hon members sitting here this evening whether we are going to have a Black president. Is it possible? [Interjections.] A deathly silence! Believe it or not—a deathly silence! [Interjections.] There is not a single one who is prepared to say he is not prepared to accept a Black president.

Order! The hon member must come back to the Bill.

I want to conclude. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude by saying that the NP is introducing this new legislation without having a mandate to do so, thereby creating an opportunity for almost 2 million Blacks to exercise their political rights here, amongst the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. They do not, however, say how that is going to take place. They do not spell it out for us. They do not know what the future scheme of things will look like. There is complete confusion about this. If I think of the debates we have conducted here in the past few days, noting the listlessness amongst certain hon members, and I bear in mind the fact that the bells have had to be rung simply to obtain a quorum, let me say that it is time we held an election so that we can get rid of the NP Government and have a fine, energetic CP government take over. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member Mr Vermeulen has repeated a few times: “That is another lie.” The hon member must withdraw the word “lie”.

I shall withdraw the word, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, this is the second time it has been my dubious pleasure to follow the hon member for Jeppe. I must say he opened a constitutional debate this evening with questions on constitutional matters which will make it very difficult for me to reply to all those points if I also want to get around to the legislation.

But there are a few matters I cannot ignore. The hon member devoted a large part of his speech to a very hackneyed argument which they have raised in this House over and over, namely the question of a mandate. I now want to ask the hon member and his party what way there is to test the voters between general elections regarding what party they still want to be in power. The answer to this is by-elections. I am asking him to show me which new backbenchers have joined his party since they broke away from the NP. Here are the hon members for Parow, George, Newton Park, Springs, Bethlehem and Vryburg. The NP’s back benches are full of new members after the by-elections. [Interjections.] The only way of testing the views of the voters between general elections is to hold by-elections. A week or two ago we had city council elections in Johannesburg and Pretoria and we won them all. [Interjections.] Consequently I am asking nicely that we remove the question of the mandate from the table once and for all because it is not a topic of discussion. [Interjections.]

A second point the hon member for Jeppe made which indicated that he did not understand what was at issue here at all, was that an additional two million Blacks were going to enter South Africa. This legislation is not being introduced to bring people into South Africa. It is legislation which is making provision for granting citizenship to people who are here. The name of the Bill is the Restoration of South African Citizenship Bill.

The next matter regarding which the hon member for Jeppe made a very big mistake, was his statement that the NP Government did not have a mandate to submit this legislation to this House because this introduced a new phase after the phase of 1983. What citizenship did those people have before the relevant homelands became independent? [Interjections.] They were citizens of South Africa. Consequently we are restoring citizenship to people who were citizens of South Africa and who lost their citizenship when the homelands became independent. [Interjections.] Consequently this has nothing to do with a deviation from a mandate. We do not need a new mandate for this measure.

A final point which the hon member for Jeppe made to which I want to react was his statement that no one wanted to answer him regarding our standpoint in connection with the homelands. I have here an official brochure of the NP from which I want to quote him one paragraph. He need not wonder where the NP stands with regard to this matter. We have put it in black and white. This brochure states the following:

[Interjections.] Hon members must please listen then I need not repeat what I have said.

Order!

Sir, the hon members do not want to listen to answers. It goes on to say:

Consequently this remains a part of the NP’s policy. But when the hon member for Soutpansberg was asked what the CP was going to do with the Black people living in the urban areas, he replied that they would continue on the course of the old NP. They do not have their own solution. But the NP adopted that course and eventually, after all the successes achieved with the homelands, realised that this did not offer the total solution. When one realises this, surely it is foolish to continue with it in the hope that it will still bring a solution some time in the future. Then one must face up to the realities and this is what the NP has done. This is the problem the NP is wrestling with now. I can give hon members of the CP the assurance that if they were to come into power and were to adopt that course, they would arrive at precisely the same point where they would realise that this did not afford the total solution and that total partition was not possible or feasible in South Africa.

I want to get back to the legislation. As far as the restoration of citizenship is concerned, I should like to put a question to the hon members of the CP who are so opposed to this. Our forefathers who came to South Africa from the mother countries, Holland, Germany and France reached a point where they were no longer Hollanders, Germans or French but became South African.

Afrikaners!

May I ask the hon member for Sasolburg where his forefathers came from. Did they come from Germany, France or Holland? [Interjections.] If Germany, France or Holland were to decide to deprive him of his South African citizenship, what would he think of that?

I never got my South African citizenship from them.

He got his citizenship here in South Africa by birth. [Interjections.] How did the hon member become a citizen of South Africa? By birth? [Interjections.] Or was he not born? [Interjections.]

Order! My problem is that I am not participating in that dialogue. I hear laughing and talking, but I do not know who is being addressed. I just want to tell the hon member that he need not react to every interjection made. He will not get to his speech if he does that.

Thank you for the good advice, Mr Speaker. I shall confine myself to that.

In Southern Africa there are Botswana, Swaziland, Venda, Transkei, Ciskei, kwaZulu etc. There are citizens in all those countries. Generations ago Black people also moved to the cities, had children in South Africa who became South African citizens by birth and who no longer want to be Zulus, Xhosas, Vendas or Tswanas. This is consequently a new Black tribe which developed in South Africa which no longer wants to be Zulu, Xhosa or Venda. Do we want to force that citizenship on them because they acquired it by birth, in the same way that the hon member for Sasolburg told me that he became a citizen of South Africa by birth? His forefathers came from Holland, Germany and France. Many of our forefathers also came from other countries, and we no longer want to be citizens of those countries. [Interjections.] No one can force us to be citizens of another country. We are South African citizens, and in the same way there are also Black people who are South African citizens and who do not want to be anything else but South African citizens. By means of this legislation we are restoring South African citizenship to those people who no longer want to be citizens of Transkei, Ciskei, Venda or Bophuthatswana.

I want to congratulate the hon the Minister and thank him for this legislation. I want to tell him that in my opinion it is very meaningful legislation. Together with the Bill we piloted through on Saturday, it is one of the measures we are enacting in this House with regard to which the State President made a promise in his opening address that this would be done in the course of this session. I want to thank him for this, and I support the legislation.

Mr Speaker, the hon member Mr Schoeman began by referring to the speech of my friend, the hon member for Jeppe, about the question of the mandate. I think one can reply to him briefly as follows: In the first place we want to ask the hon member to take into account that the last election was held on 29 April 1981 and that the average interval between elections since 1910 has been four years and two months. We have been sitting here for five years and two months now, and there has been no election yet. [Interjections.] We say that despite the fact that, in accordance with their mandate of 1981, the NP has no mandate to make a 180 degree turn to the left, they do not have a mandate in respect of the Constitution Act of the Republic of South Africa either. Five years have passed, and…

Order! The hon member need not react to that mandate any further.

I wanted to mention a further point in connection with the speech of the hon member for Jeppe about the escape from domination, which the hon member did not reply to either. I shall let that pass too, however, and shall go on to the question that a young hon member, whom I assume has been schooled and has grown up in the traditions, the language and the atmosphere of the NP, can use the arguments raised by him tonight about the fact that the Vendas, the Xhosas and the Tswanas or whoever, who are resident here in the so-called White South Africa, asked for their South African citizenship to be returned to them.

Born?

Yes, born too. Where are the figures? How did he come by that argument? [Interjections.] How did he come by that request?

It is his birthright. [Interjections.]

It is not the Vendas, the Xhosas, the Tswanas and others who asked for this legislation to be rectified. That was what the foreign countries asked for.

It was the UDF.

Yes, perhaps it was the UDF as well, but it was Dr Crocker who asked for it. Some of the leaders of the independent Black states want nothing to do with the legislation, but one can understand that. The hon member for Waterberg referred to Chief Minister Buthelezi who said: “Those are my Zulus.” Mr Mangope said that Tswanas living in White South Africa were his Tswanas. They were jealous of them, and wanted them to retain their citizenship, but that whole pattern is being upset. The hon member Dr Vilonel as well as another hon member said inter alia the policy had not quite succeeded, and that was only one aspect of the policy. No, it was the total policy. The total policy is the policy of partition. The total policy is the channelling of the Black man to his national state. The total policy is illustrated by the fact that Thaba Nchu, of which only a part is in the Free State, was regarded by the Tswanas as being so important that they insisted it remain in Bophuthatswana. That whole process can be repeated in other parts of the country.

Which parts?

I shall mention them to the hon member. Does the hon member for Bellville know that the growth of Blacks in the national states according to the 1981 figures has been 40% since the previous census? Did the hon member know that? Does he know that 64% of the Blacks of the whole Transvaal live in the PWV area? If one could effect a channelling from the Black states in some way or another, almost three million Blacks could be linked to their Black states. Did the hon member know that? After all, this is a policy that was succeeding. [Interjections.] This linkage to the Black states is possible, but to say it is one leg of the constitutional development and coincidentally there is another leg too, is the very sign of weakness on the side of the NP.

Mr Speaker, on the basis of the hon member’s argument, which national states does he want to link Soweto to?

We know Soweto is one of the few urban complexes in which Blacks live as a heterogeneous group, but what is the position here in the Cape? [Interjections.] What is the position of Durban with the Zulus? What is the position on the East Rand and Ga-Rankuwa? One’s whole approach should be to try to get the Blacks in the urban areas as homogeneous as possible and then to link them to the respective national states. That has always been our policy. That is the policy about which hon members of the NP such as Mr Hennie van der Walt became eloquent. [Interjections.]

This legislation of the hon the Minister is a further step on the way to the unitary state which the NP is promoting. It is another demonstration of a desperate Government which is making a complete about-face from a direction South Africa had moved in since the early years of the NP.

I have just read the speech the late Dr Dönges made in June 1949, and I should like to recommend that speech to the hon the Minister once again. The patriotism and conviction which radiated from the reign of the NP, that Minister and the Cabinet in those years of inception, is something which the hon the Minister can derive inspiration from once again. In that debate Dr Dönges was upset because the UP had stayed behind in the constitutional development pattern of the South Africa of the time. Hon members must remember it was only a debate about South African citizenship which unleashed such a storm in the United Party—the predecessors of the PFP—that that debate lasted 48 hours. We fought there for our own South African citizenship which we regarded as something we had cosseted. That citizenship was granted to the four independent national states by means of an agreement, something I shall come back to in a moment, but now the Government wants to take that citizenship away from those people without our having heard once today what the result was of the consultation with the leaders of those states. At the time Dr Dönges reprimanded the leaders of the United Party for being ten years and more behind the NP of the time, and it is strange that the NP has now reached the stage the United Party had reached in 1949.

I now come to the standpoint of Mr Hennie van der Walt in 1976 and in this respect I want to refer to what the hon member for Green Point said this afternoon about the question of an agreement which he said this Parliament and the standing committee do not regard as binding. The agreements concluded with the leaders of those states on independence were included in their respective laws and in the status laws which we passed here. This was part of an agreement which we assume two states conclude with one another, which bind two states for an indefinite period and which one does not simply revoke unilaterally Mr Hennie van der Walt said on 8 June 1976:

He spoke about the citizenship of people who had been born in the RSA and lived here and became citizens of the Transkei. Mr Van der Walt then also said:

That was the basic idea with the Status Act of the Transkei in 1976. I also want to refer to what the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said about agreements. He said the following inter alia about international agreements, not in 1976, but when we had already left the NP, viz on Wednesday, 9 May 1984:

That is priceless. I continue—

Those are the words of the hon the Minister who is still the Minister of Foreign Affairs at this stage. That was his standpoint in respect of international agreements. Yet an international agreement with four states is being swept off the table unilaterally.

That is not true.

If it is not true, no hon member of the NP has said yet that it is not true. [Interjections.]

In addition I want to refer to certain provisions in the Bill. When the hon the Minister replies to the debate, he can tell us the exact intention of clauses 6(1) and (2) that have been added in here. I quote clause 6(2):

What right does the Republic of South Africa have to make a law in respect of the citizenship of another country’s subject? That is the first question I have in this connection.

I now come to clause 8. In clause 6(2) the Bill determines that a person loses the citizenship of a particular country when he becomes a South African citizen, but with a view to the Diplomatic Privileges Act, when we are dealing with immunities, paragraph (a) of clause 8(1) determines as follows inter alia:

In terms of clause 6(2) he can no longer be a citizen of a state which was formerly part of the RSA’s territory, but in terms of clause 8 certain immunities are applicable to such citizens. On the surface it appears that the Bill is contradicting itself here.

I also want to refer to the obtaining of South African citizenship by birth, descent and registration. It is stipulated that the wife of such a Black citizen who was born in South Africa, is resident here or registered here, also obtains South African citizenship. Which wife? Which wife, in cases in which polygamous marriages are recognised? The hon the Minister must make that clear to us too.

I also want to refer to the status laws of the four independent states in view of the Status Act of the Republic of South Africa, formerly the Union of South Africa. Sir, can you imagine that the Parliament of Great Britain would ever change the Statute of Westminster unilaterally without the co-operation of the British Commonwealth countries? This Bill is a violation of the status laws of the various independent states.

In this connection I want to refer to what Mr Thomas said when he moved the Second Reading of the Statute of Westminster, which was the forerunner of the Status Acts of the Union of South Africa. He said:

In the case of the Transkei one does not even have to deal with dominions. There has always been wrangling about the question as to whether or not the dominions were really independent. We conducted debates here about the divisibility of the Crown. We conducted debates here about the right to secession and that kind of thing. The problem with reference to the status laws was in fact that there was a dual loyalty and a dual citizenship, but there has always been a yearning for the protection of Britain, a pride among our friends of English descent in their involvement in and loyalty to the British and Britain. That bond was cut off in the case of the status laws in the first place, and later also in the case of the citizenship laws. The point I want to make clear in this connection, is that when one takes the citizenship of their four countries away from the citizens of the Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and the Ciskei, and replaces it by the citizenship of the Republic of South Africa, one is causing an inherent conflict in the loyalties of those people. That is precisely where I differ with the hon member Prof Olivier about the question of ethnicity.

That problem we had with the English-speaking people between 1910 and 1939 about loyalty to South Africa and loyalty to Britain, about the question of neutrality and the question of participation in Britain’s war, is the same problem this hon Minister is perpetuating. We know we have had problems with Pres Matanzima in the Transkei about territory and so on. Who will eventually have the loyalty of those people who are now obtaining South African citizenship, while they are Xhosas or Tswanas or whatever the case may be?

That fine process in the direction of beautiful ideals and their realisation is having its neck wrung by the Bill under discussion. We are back at those same problems we had with the status laws and the arguments related to them—problems and arguments which lasted until 1939. The question therefore is where the Government is heading with this citizenship legislation—this legislation with reference to identification, this legislation with reference to the abolition of influx control measures. In this respect I can do no better than to refer to a speech made by Dr the Hon Connie Mulder in the President’s Council on 13 September 1985. I want to present that to the hon the Minister in conclusion. In his speech Dr Mulder said:

Hear, hear! Old Connie is “verlig”!

No, you are not listening to his argument!

Oh, I might have known! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, we reject this legislation just as we rejected the legislation with reference to identification and with reference to the abolition of influx control. We reject it because, while the National Party is so obsessed at this stage with solving that one part of its problem, viz that the independent states do not provide the only solution, they are making that part they are trying to find a solution for, into such a Frankenstein monster that it is completely destroying the other part—that of the independent states with an own identity. This is going to be destroyed by a uniform unitary state, in which the White identity and the Whites’ self-determination over their own people will disappear completely—will be destroyed completely by superior numbers of Blacks whom we will not be able to control in this connection. For that reason we cannot support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Brakpan will forgive me if I do not follow upon the arguments he has been using in his address here this evening. To some degree his arguments were a continuation of the battle that broke out between the CP and the NP on Saturday. As I indicated then, I do not really want to become involved in that argument. [Interjections.] However, I will be referring to one of the themes he explored in the latter part of his speech when he spoke about one citizenship and one country.

I am sorry the hon member Mr Kritzinger is not here at the moment. When he addressed us earlier this evening he spoke about the fellow who stumbled across a group of people who were telling old jokes and gave them numbers. Unfortunately, the hon member Mr Kritzinger did not finish his story. The punch line of that story is that when the newcomer discovered how the game was to be played, he asked whether he could take part as well. The other members of the group, meanwhile, had been calling out all these numbers and laughing each time. When the newcomer asked if he could take part, he shouted out “No 149!” Laughing hilariously the rest of the group slapped their sides and rolled about the place. When they had stopped laughing he asked them what was so funny about that joke.” They replied that they had not heard that one before! [Interjections.]

The discussions on Saturday and today in respect of the Identification Bill and the Restoration of South African Citizenship Bill, as well as the rugby match that everybody was interested in on Saturday afternoon, made one think of another story which obviously has a number as well. Hopefully, this story will now fade into South African history. The story was popular at the time the first Black man was selected to play for the Police team. He was playing at centre. As the ball was coming down the line the first centre threw the ball out to the second centre and shouted to him: “Pass!” He immediately dropped the ball and rummaged through all his pockets for his reference book! [Interjections.] Obviously that story has a number as well, but hopefully, as I have said, it will fade into South African history.

I want to agree with the hon member for Umhlanga about the wheel having turned full circle, and about this Bill restoring to certain categories of people their citizenship rights. That is absolutely correct.

I also agree with him that this is not the final Bill regarding citizenship. Many amendments will, no doubt, have still to be brought before this House since this Bill, I believe, is ill-conceived and contains many shortcomings.

One of these concerns the introductory speech on this Bill which the hon the Minister delivered in one of the other Houses. I refer to the same paragraphs which the hon member for Jeppe, I think, quoted. I quote these two paragraphs again:

1. (i) a large number of TBVC-citizens are permanently resident within the borders of the Republic;
2. (ii) the legitimate political aspirations of these TBVC-citizens regarding own and general affairs have to be satisfied through structures in the Republic…

I hope the hon the Minister will explain to us in his reply how effect is going to be given to this concept. As far as I am aware Black affairs fall under general affairs. Blacks having own affairs is a totally new concept, and so I hope that when the hon the Minister replies to this debate he will explain to us how he sees Blacks—particularly Blacks from the TBVC-countries—controlling their own affairs “through structures in the Republic”. It opens new vistas I believe and I hope that he will be able to tell us what he had in mind.

The hon member for Waterberg quoted from the Oxford Dictionary and explained to us the definition of citizenship. There were three main definitions he gave us. The one related to political rights; I cannot recall the second; the third that he emphasised was, however, that citizens are entitled to the protection of the State. This is a very valid argument indeed. While we are discussing citizenship and the rights and privileges of citizens it is a pity that we are not also concerned about the rights, not only of our own citizens but also the citizens of other countries who are performing valuable services in our own community. Some of those in the past, unfortunately, have been detained or have gone missing. There are three Catholic priests in particular, Father John Bouma, Father Corryn and Father Edgar Weinman, who I understand went away to Pietermaritzburg on Saturday to see some of their parishioners and while they were visiting their parishioners they were detained. They are not South African citizens; they are citizens of Holland, Belgium and West Germany. It is very sad indeed that they have been detained while we are discussing the concept of citizenship in this House.

We will support this Bill even though it does not go nearly far enough. My colleague the hon member for Green Point made that quite clear. We want citizenship restored to all those who had it taken away from them at the time of the independence of the TBVC countries. Their citizenship was removed arbitrarily and those citizens had no say whatsoever when their South African citizenship was taken away from them. We believe therefore that it should be restored unconditionally. That includes all the citizens of the TBVC countries resident within the boundaries of those countries. This has nothing to do with the independence of those countries as the hon member for Umlazi suggested earlier today. It has to do with citizenship and, as we pointed out during the meetings of the standing committee, there is absolutely no reason why South Africa cannot grant citizenship to the residents of those countries. It will then be up to those individuals to claim it or to make use of it. We believe it is their right and has nothing to do with the independence and the sovereignity of the TBVC countries. It also does in no way reflect on the four Status Acts.

The hon member for Innesdal was not correct to say, as he did earlier today, that all on the standing committee were satisfied with the Bill. I think it is correct to say that hon members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates accepted the explanation that the Bill provided for automatic restoration of citizenship. However, we in these benches are not convinced and we will therefore be moving amendments at the Committee Stage which we hope will place the matter beyond any doubt.

In addition to that we believe there is a contradiction in the Bill. We have been told that one cannot force South African citizenship on residents and citizens of the TBVC countries without the consent of their governments. Yet the amended clause 6(1) of the Bill provides:

The four Status Acts are reflected in the Schedule—

I think that when one is referring to people that were born in this country of parents from the TBVC countries, that is a contradiction in terms of the argument that was given to us that one cannot force the citizenship of South Africa onto the citizens of those four countries. Clause 6(2) reads:

It again refers to the four Status Acts—

[Inaudible.]

I guarantee the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament has not read that clause…

Of course I have.

… of the Bill and I would like to commend it to him for his attention.

I want to tell you that I have read the Bill over and over.

I am very pleased he has done that. He obviously does not, however, understand it, because it is in direct conflict with the reasons given to us about not being able to force citizenship on those four states. [Interjections.] I know exactly what it is all about. That hon member was not on the standing committee and did not have the explanations given to him that we did, and we believe it to be in contradiction to those arguments.

We are always right.

So I hope the hon the Minister will ignore the hon member for Tygervallei, take this apparent contradiction into account and refer to the matter in his reply. [Interjections.]

We believe the Bill to be a complicated one, in fact a fairly difficult document to follow. It is typical of the NP, in its present crisis, that it is not able to spell out matters clearly and unequivocally. It has to resort to the smokescreen of words and, in the process, sow confusion and misunderstanding. For that reason we shall seek to simplify the Bill and will be moving substantial amendments if we get to a committee stage.

There are two matters, in particular, which I should like to raise with the hon the Minister, and I hope he will respond to these when he replies to the debate. The first relates to the residents of the TBVC countries as opposed to the residents of kwaNdebele. In terms of the Bill, the TBVC citizens resident in those countries will not be granted South African citizenship automatically, but if kwaNdebele becomes independent, indications are that all the Ndebeles will retain their South African citizenship, because that is the promise made to them on 4 April 1986 when the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs opened and addressed their Legislative Assembly. He said, among other things:

So that is what is going to apply to the kwaNdebele citizens, for one assumes that when a senior Cabinet Minister issues pronouncements ex cathedra, so to speak, he is speaking on behalf of the Government. The hon the Minister did not distinguish between those resident outside or within the boundaries of kwaNdebele. He said that the citizens of kwaNdebele would not sacrifice any rights or privileges in the Republic of South Africa. I must ask the hon the Minister to give his attention to this matter, since if the intention is to allow the residents of kwaNdebele to retain their South African citizenship, there is no reason why the same principle should not apply to the TBVC countries. I have therefore asked the hon the Minister seriously to consider accepting the amendments proposed by my colleague, the hon member for Green Point.

The second matter I want to raise with the hon the Minister relates to whether it should not be written into this Bill that citizens of the TBVC countries shall not be regarded as aliens when they enter the Republic of South Africa. At present it is at the discretion of the hon the Minister, in terms of section 7 bis of the Aliens Act of 1937, to exempt citizens of the TBVC countries—and, in fact, any other country—from the operation of the Aliens Act. My hon colleague, Prof Olivier, addressed this matter in the course of this debate, and I ask the hon the Minister to give it his attention. He referred to the occasion on which it was decided to send a number of residents of Crossroads and elsewhere back to the Transkei. In terms of the Admissions of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act of 1972 they were “aliens” and did not have the necessary permission to enter and remain in the Republic. Following a public outcry, the then hon Minister apparently exempted all citizens of the TBVC countries from the operation of the Aliens Act. Section 7 bis of the Aliens Act reads as follows:

Now, it is implicit in that this is at the discretion of the Minister. In addition to this the Minister may therefore in terms of section 7bis (3) withdraw any exemption granted under subsection (1). My point is whether it should be left to the discretion of the Minister to grant exemption to the residents of the TBVC countries. If we are not to grant them automatic South African citizenship, we should at least enforce their rights in law and I would ask the hon the Minister to consider this possibility.

Finally I would like to set out our approach to the question of citizenship. This point was touched on by the hon member for Brakpan. We believe that the current Constitution is inadequate and we have made that quite clear since 1983. It should be scrapped as it will lead to increasing conflict and polarisation. It has to be replaced by a Constitution based on one citizenship in one country. When the Constitution is replaced with one that is free of the shackles of apartheid, South Africa will become a prosperous and dynamic country once again. That is what one citizenship means.

It also means that, since all who helped create the prosperity will share in it, all will uphold the new system. All forms of statutory discrimination will go when we accept the concept of one citizenship and the individual becomes the touchstone of value, the bedrock on which we build. In the new South Africa full and equal citizenship rights will be given to all South Africans regardless of race, colour, religion or sex.

Mr Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the debate. In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister said:

This is in connection with the Bill under discussion. I find it interesting that neither the hon the Minister nor any government speaker has tried to state or indicate in favour of the Bill that this Bill is the result of a request by the governments of the four TBVC countries.

I shall reply to that.

We are looking forward to the reply.

The governments of those four independent countries were elected in a democratic way, not only by their citizens who live within the geographic areas of the particular countries, but also by their citizens who are resident in the RSA. I daresay that there were higher percentage poll in those elections than there were in the elections for the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives in this Parliament.

I now want to refer to something interesting. Ten years ago, give or take two weeks, we had a debate on the same subject here in the same House. At that time we saw that particular debate as the pinnacle or culmination of the NP’s ideal of separate freedom, also for all the Black peoples in South Africa.

I am reminded that the then Chief Whip came to the hon the Minister of National Education, who was still a fellow backbencher then, and said he expected that the then United Party would join battle with the NP on the question of citizenship. He told us he expected us young men to meet those arguments. What did we say then? I quote from Hansard:

Who said that?

The hon member asks who I am quoting. I think he suspects I am quoting myself, but I want to correct him. It is the present hon Minister of Education, the leader of the NP in Transvaal.

Is it F W de Klerk?

Do you agree, Dawie? [Interjections.]

I take it that the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry was slightly confused, and that he perhaps thought that it was the hon member for Barberton speaking. [Interjections.]

That was quite a few years ago. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister speaks of a few years! This is not part of our history; it was only 10 years ago! [Interjections.] Ten years in the life of a people is nothing. [Interjections.]

Nine months can be important.

He will know! [Interjections.]

I now almost said something really dreadful, but fortunately I thought better of it. Some pregnancies are terminated too early.

That is really a revolting statement.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon member for Kroonstad say the hon member for Barberton is revolting?

I did not say that, Sir. I said he said a revolting thing, and I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Open your ears!

Take the plugs out of your ears and you will hear. [Interjections.]

I also heard it. [Interjections.]

I quote further from the hon the Minister’s speech:

This is the example which the then hon Minister of the Interior used, but the present hon Minister of National Education went further in 1976 as follows:

Hon members will remember that the UP opposition at the time argued that the Xhosas should be given the choice of being granted citizenship of the Transkei or not. We in the NP of 10 years ago said there could not be a choice for them because they were part of the Xhosa people. The hon the Minister argued on that as follows:

[Interjections.] At that time we regarded the passing of that law as the pinnacle in the unfolding of the NP’s policy, as far as the practical realisation of it was concerned. Whereas the NP saw the final unfolding of the constitutional development of all the peoples of South Africa along the road of separate freedom and separate constitutional entities for every separate group, the NP has now doubled back on its tracks with this Bill. For me this is a tragic day, because the NP is now murdering that ideal. We ask ourselves whether this was necessary.

It may be history, but I now want to call to witness how the late Dr Hendrik Verwoerd, the philosopher and statesman, saw the future of our country. He said:

The NP also says this today! They say it is all very well that there are now four separate, independent Black states. The rest of the country is the communal fatherland for Whites, Coloureds, Blacks and Indians according to them. What was Dr Verwoerd’s reply to such an argument? His words were:

[Interjections.] In the same speech Dr Verwoerd also said:

This Dr Verwoerd spelled out as the policy of the then United Party! [Interjections.] What did Dr Verwoerd go on to say?

[Interjections.]

I think the hon member for Umhlanga is correct: Apart from a few exceptions—I should perhaps exclude the hon members for Turffontein and De Kuilen and a few other members who came along later on—all the hon members of the NP who sit there owe the United Party of that time an apology. [Interjections.] After more than 20 years the NP has taken over the old United Party’s policy completely! The UP then said that it was all very well that there was talk of separate, self-governing Black areas, but insisted that we have a communal fatherland—Whites, Coloureds, Indians, Blacks, the whole lot.

But then Daan should surely have to come back! [Interjections.]

Flippant remarks are no reply to an argument. [Interjections.] I should like to know—from the hon the Minister in particular, because we came to this place together—what the difference is between the present policy of the NP on this matter and the policy of the United Party of two years ago. Why has the NP wasted the time of the historians and of South Africa? Why the sacrifice? Why have we worked all these years to achieve that ideal of separate freedoms, which we now have to hear the NP saying is no longer the answer? [Interjections.]

To simply come and say they are now restoring some people’s citizenship without telling this House, the country and the voters in general what content is going to be given to that citizenship, I think is irresponsible. We are waiting for an answer. They say those Black people’s citizenship is being restored, but what is the result of it going to be? Are those Blacks going to receive citizenship—in the words of the State President—which is also equal to the citizenship of the Whites? If this is in fact the case, are those Blacks also going to receive a franchise which is equal to that of Whites in South Africa?

Not now, only 10 years later.

If not, they should spell out whether they are going to give them full citizenship or second-class citizenship. If it is only second-class citizenship, I want to argue that with this measure the Government, unasked, is taking away the citizenship of their own fatherlands from Blacks without giving them full citizenship of South Africa in place of it. It is not us who are asking for this; on the contrary, we shall fight the Government.

I do not want to talk for much longer, but I just want to tell the NP they may think that they have ended a period in the political and constitutional development of South Africa and that the direction they are now taking is the answer, but all the Whites who still value the maintenance of White identity and White government in South Africa will fight them on this road.

All these measures of the Government by means of which measures that have been introduced since 1976 are being repealed, shall one day be reinstated on the Statute Books of South Africa by us. [Interjections.] I am not bluffing myself. It is going to be much more difficult than it was in 1976 and afterwards, but in the struggle which lies ahead, those who hold the sceptre in the present Government today must know that they are going to carry the responsibility of knowing that they were co-responsible for subverting possibly the finest ideal my people have pursued throughout its history, ie the liberation in every aspect of every Black people in South Africa, also accompanied by the eventual liberation of an own White people.

Mr Speaker, we have almost come to the end of the first part of this year’s debating. Over the past few months, the NP has repeatedly spelt out and explained its political policy. However, it is clear to me that we shall simply have to do so again.

Firstly, as far as the independent states are concerned—with reference to what happened years ago and the desire of those states to become independent—I want to point out that the members of the NP also wished those states to become independent. It is not surprising, therefore, that hon members on the other side are able to quote the statements made by the hon the Minister of National Education in this connection. It does not surprise us. It was the wish of all of us, as it still is today, that these independent states should prosper.

However, we also took account of the realities. [Interjections.] That is why we faced the facts. We knew that it was not fully practicable. However, this does not detract in any way from the fact that we are still fully in favour of independent states.

That is not what the hon member for Innesdal says. He says we should dismiss the whole idea. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Jeppe should read the hon member for Innesdal’s speech as a whole. Then he will see what that hon member meant when he said that. [Interjections.]

We are still fully in favour of the upliftment and greater autonomy of national states. The NP Government is doing everything in its power in this connection. We have passed legislation which gives greater autonomy to national states. These are all concepts that we still support, but we also take account of reality. Reality made us decide to come to this House with this legislation.

What is this legislation concerned with? It is concerned with Blacks who were born here in South Africa, who have been in this country just as long as all the hon members sitting opposite—and they are all very young—and who no longer have any ties with those independent states.

Hon members of the CP asked whom we had consulted about this. We consulted many Blacks. Among them were people who explained to us that they had no more ties with those independent states, and that it was meaningless to them…

Was it Bishop Tutu?

I am not talking about the Winnie Mandelas now. I am talking about the constructive, good Black people in this country, and there are many of them. This group includes many people who are just as proud of this part of the world as any hon member on the other side of the House could be. [Interjections.] These Black people told us that they did not even know where the capital of these independent states was, and that they did not even have any family left in these states. They were born here, and now their grandchildren are getting married. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Brakpan always advances good arguments. He asked which wife of the Black man would be affected by this. We considered the matter carefully. In terms of the laws of South Africa, we do not recognise bigamy. Consequently this Bill can only be applicable to a legal wife. I only mention this in passing, however, because it is impossible for me to reply to all the questions that hon members may ask me. [Interjections.]

I just want to quote to hon members the status Acts that elicited so much comment. This Parliament passed those Acts. I have here the relevant section from the Status of Venda Act of 1979. Section 6(3) reads as follows:

They lost only their citizenship. They retained all other rights in this country. The same applies to the other independent states. [Interjections.] Hon members must listen to me now; I had to listen to them all day.

Let us take the question of pensions. I have been asked how much it is going to cost us. However, these people are here and they have always been here. Since the days when these hon members were members of the NP, pensions have been paid to those who qualified for pensions. Since those hon members’ days in the NP, housing has been provided for them. The same goes for education. The argument advanced by hon members that this is such a dramatic and drastic measure is not correct, therefore.

I want to refer the hon member for Brakpan in particular to a court case in the Transvaal provincial division. Acting Judge President Boshoff was the judge in this particular case in 1979. The case dealt with an application for admission to practise as attorney. I read:

This is the Status of Bophuthatswana Act passed by the RSA Parliament in 1977—

I mention this, Sir, merely to indicate that the Bill which is before the House is by no means a drastic step which is being taken. It simply recognises a factual situation. These people have been and still are in this country, they have had and still have the right of residence in this country, and they carry the “dompas” at the moment. The things that these hon members are making such a fuss about have all been in existence for a long time.

Are you going to give the same rights to all the Portuguese who have been in this country all these years?

They must first become citizens. [Interjections.]

Order!

Hon members, beginning with the hon member for Soutpansberg, quite rightly referred to talks with the TBVC governments. Such talks did take place. It is the policy of this Government to try to maintain the best relations with these independent neighbouring states, because we wanted them to become independent. It is in our interests as well as in the interests of the whole of Southern Africa that they should prosper. Therefore we naturally consulted them on this sensitive matter. These consultations were not simply an empty gesture. We had talks with them, and we discussed two aspects. The one aspect was that according to reports we had received, inquiries had been made from which it appeared that they wanted South African citizenship to be restored also to those TBVC citizens who were permanently resident within their borders. In that connection, it is the standpoint of the Government that if they are able to make out a case, the Government will listen to it and will then give due consideration to the matter and decide whether or not this will be done. Of course, it will never be done on the understanding that they are to obtain political rights in this country. After all, they are citizens of the country in which they are permanently resident, and that is where they will exercise their political rights.

In respect of those people who have been living in this country all these years, they showed great understanding. I cannot now furnish the particulars of all the discussions, which were confidential, and I believe that hon members will understand that. It would be improper. [Interjections.] However, there is a great deal of understanding, and the particulars of all these matters were investigated. A great deal of trouble was taken. The Bill which we have before us has been studied by the governments of those other countries.

Was it requested by them? [Interjections.]

It was requested by various people. The hon members must really show some understanding. [Interjections.] Those governments are very sympathetic about the fact that such a need does exist among people who do not have any ties with them.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?

No, I do not wish to answer any questions now. [Interjections.]

This dual citizenship was proposed by the Whites, and you know that!

As I said in my Second Reading speech, the people who are to regain their South African citizenship in terms of this Bill are regaining it in order to exercise their rights in this country, but within structures on which we are working at the moment and about which we wish to negotiate with them. Surely there is nothing sinister about that. If they choose to exercise their political rights in those independent states, they are free to do so. However, we know that they are not likely to do that, but that is their problem: They have no contact with those independent states. [Interjections.]

We in the NP firmly believe that the interests of all the people in the Republic will be served by carefully protecting the group interests of each group, and we differ from the PFP in that…

Not noticeably!

… we say that a person’s identity must be established. One cannot leave it to chance and voluntarily allow oneself to be classified with other people as a member of a particular group. That is why the NP has never found it difficult to recognise the rights of all the various population groups. That is why there are own and general affairs.

The hon member for Johannesburg North said that he did not believe that there were own and general affairs in respect of Blacks. He is mistaken, however, because there are. What does the hon member think the kwaZulu government does, for example? They conduct their own affairs and they are very proud of that. We are glad that they are also proud of their group.

What about Soweto? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister about the TBVC countries? [Interjections.]

Hon members advanced a number of arguments which were really not relevant to this legislation, such as the scare stories about people who are going to cross our borders. [Interjections.] We are aware of those people who have been crossing the borders illegally, but they are doing it now, they did it last year and they will do it again next year. We must monitor it very carefully. That has nothing to do with South African citizenship, however; it is a question of aliens entering our country.

They are illegal and the Government is unable to keep them out of the country.

That is a different matter. If the hon member for Soutpansberg would only go and see for himself what the situation is on the border, he would understand. I have been there and I have satisfied myself that our measures in that connection have become very effective. Hon members must be aware of the fact that we have taken certain measures. Many aliens who have crossed the border are taken back by the department the next day. [Interjections.] We have taken other measures as well, but it still has nothing to do with the Bill which is under discussion. These are problems with aliens, which belong in another debate, and hon members must then keep us on our toes in such a debate.

It affects this situation as well.

No, because these people are already here. They are people we already have to care for. They live here; this is not a new problem. [Interjections.] Furthermore, I want to point out to hon members that they must not confuse this matter with the question of contract workers either. The contract workers are not permanent…

We do not have to talk about it, because we have already done so. [Interjections.]

Very well. I just want to ask hon members on the other side of the House to tell us what they would do with the Blacks in terms of their policy. Do they have a magic wand which they are going to wave to make the Blacks and all other problems disappear? Hon members must remember that we also cherished the dream that these people would fully identify with the independent states. It is a dream. The Government felt the same way about it, and we are very sorry that it did not work out that way in practice. Those hon members must tell us, therefore, what they are going to do with those Black people. What is their policy? They have peppered us with questions all day, but what are they going to do about the matter? The people are already here. They are not entering the country now; they are already here. [Interjections.]

I want to convey my sincere thanks to hon members on this side of the House for their contributions. I am sorry that I had to waste so much time replying to hon members on the other side of the House on Bills for which I was responsible that I did not give hon members on this side of the House enough credit for their excellent contributions. [Interjections.] Hon members on this side of the House acquitted themselves well of their task and I really have nothing to add to their arguments.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

Order! We have had enough interjections now. The hon the Minister is replying and I forbid any further interjections until after his reply.

I thank hon members of the PFP for their support, but there was a sting in the tail, as usual. The hon member Prof Olivier showed that he was an expert in this field. It is a pleasure to listen to him, but I would not want to get involved in a wide-ranging argument with him about this matter now. From a political point of view, his view is sometimes not correct, but he made a good contribution, as did the hon member for Green Point. The best part of the hon member for Johannesburg North’s contribution was the jokes he told us. Unfortunately, I cannot accept the amendments moved by the PFP, and I hope they are not going to make a big issue out of it. There are many good reasons why I cannot accept them. We cannot unilaterally grant citizenship to the citizens of other independent states. In my opinion, that would be a gross insult, whatever technical reasons hon members may advance. Apart from anything else, I believe it would not be a neighbourly act. Under no circumstances would the Government do it in that way. The discussions with the other states have not been concluded yet and ongoing talks are being held with the independent states.

I think I have now replied to most of the important points and I thank hon members once again for their contributions.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the Question,

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, certain amendments in my name have been on the Order Paper since Saturday morning. The effect of those amendments would basically be to bring about such changes in the Bill now before the House as to allow for all those citizens of the TBVC countries who were deprived of their citizenship at the time of those various countries attaining their independence from South Africa automatically to have their citizenship restored to them. That means, Sir, that no positive action would be required from any of those citizens in order to have their citizenship restored to them.

I should like to remind the hon the Minister of a question put to him by the hon member for Johannesburg North and by me. To the best of my knowledge I cannot remember him ever replying to that question. Sir, I am referring now to the very important question in connection with the undertaking given to the legislative assembly of kwaNdebele by the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs to the effect that in the event of kwaNdebele becoming independent the citizens of that state would be allowed to retain dual citizenship. That is certainly the way in which I interpret what the hon the Minister of Transport said. I should like to quote from that speech of his.

*I have before me a copy of the speech of the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs in the exact form in which it was issued. It is therefore not just a Press report. I quote the following important part of that speech:

Then comes the very important part:

No qualification can be detected in this statement by the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs. If one interprets his words in the usual manner, it seems that the hon the Minister and/or the Government was undertaking to allow all who were citizens of kwaNdebele to retain their South African citizenship when kwaNdebele became independent.

The question which I put to the hon the Minister during the second reading debate, and which the hon member for Johannesburg North later repeated, is whether this is a correct representation of the Government’s standpoint regarding kwaNdebele, and whether the Government intends to keep to it. If that is indeed the case, I suggest that it is not consistent with the measure under discussion and that, in the circumstances, the hon the Minister should really consider seriously the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper. There is another question which is also very important in this regard. It is the question regarding the reaction during the course of negotiations with the TBVC countries. During those negotiations, what were the reactions of the respective countries of the TBVC group? According to our information, the only one of those four states which actually had any objection to the idea of dual citizenship, and was therefore against the idea that their citizens should retain their citizenship of those countries while also being able to obtain South African citizenship, was, in fact, Bophuthatswana. The other three TBVC countries were apparently quite amenable to this idea, however. I should like to know from the hon the Minister if this was indeed the case. If so, I suggest that it is a matter which is quite clear and for which a solution can be found. It would perhaps require a little further negotiation to persuade the Bophuthatswana government.

Hon members have had much to say about our international obligations. It is gratifying to note that hon members on the Government do indeed take our international obligations seriously. I must say that there have been times, for example the incident concerning the “Coventry Four”, when those hon members gave the impression that they did not take those obligations seriously. I appreciate the fact that the hon members are now expressing their intention to take them seriously.

We do not want to suggest that those obligations should not be fulfilled or honoured. What we are suggesting is that some of the measures concerned can be renegotiated.

When we speak thus of obligations, we are actually referring to obligations created by this Parliament. What, then, of our obligations towards those former citizens of the RSA who, through no fault of their own and without their assent, were deprived of their citizenship? I believe this to be a very serious consideration which should be taken into account in this respect. It is in itself sufficient reason to regard this as a case of sui generis. The amendments we have proposed demand, therefore, the attention of the Government, and of the hon the Minister in particular.

In addition to that, there are without doubt international precedents for the automatic awarding of citizenship by certain countries to citizens of other countries. It has happened in the past and it is happening at the moment. It is, therefore, not such a strange practice.

One cannot simply say, because a particular country may be sovereign, that another country cannot make laws which apply to people who reside in that sovereign country. If there is some or other legitimate connection between the country which makes a particular law concerning citizenship and people living in another country, I suggest that one can indeed make laws which affect the citizenship of such people, especially in the specific case we have here, viz where the people have previously been citizens of that country.

There are, in all, 10 amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper. If they are passed, they will simply boil down to the fact that all the citizens who had to give up their citizenship of South Africa in terms of the four Status Laws will regain that citizenship automatically without being required to take any positive steps themselves.

Mr Speaker, I understand the standpoint adopted by the hon member for Green Point. Considering the principles of his party as well as the hon member’s contribution both on the standing committee and in this House, it is very clear to me why they want the House to go into Committee on this Bill.

I want to tell the hon member that I agree with him in one respect. I agree that the hon the Minister and his colleagues made no further contributions whatsoever to the discussion of this Bill in the debates. On that I agree with the hon member. In his whole reply to this debate, this hon Minister was even more vague than in his Second Reading speech. [Interjections.] This leads me to believe that there is no point in having the House go into Committee on this Bill. I have looked at the hon member’s amendments, and they will actually make a very bad measure even worse.

I want to conclude by saying that—as we said four years ago—the NP has lost three things in life as far as politics is concerned. They have discarded firstly their principles, secondly their moral basis and thirdly their historical basis. In addition, they have completely lost their credibility. They remind me of a man who has lost his way in the heart of Africa and ended up in a swamp. The more they struggle and the more they talk, the more deeply they are drawn into that swamp. In all likelihood, we have only to wait a little while to see the final chapter of the NP. I therefore want to tell my colleague, the hon member for Green Point, that I regret that we cannot support him. For our part, we devoted a great deal of attention to the Second Reading debate, and I do not think there is any point in spending any more time on this party which does not know where it has come from and where it is going.

Mr Speaker, I find that for once I rise in agreement with what the hon member for Rissik has said but for a different reason. [Interjections.] I rise for the reason that in the years that I have been here I have never once had…

A hundred years!

No, I do not look like a hundred years old. That is something the hon member may be suffering from.

I say that in the time that I have been here I have never yet come across an instance where any hon Minister in this House has ever shown the lack of courtesy of not even acknowledging—no matter how small or how insignificant the party—a party’s support or otherwise for a Bill. I have never come across that before. I have sent the hon the Minister a note which I think he has seen fit to show to a few of his cronies in the bench behind him and they had a good laugh over it. If that is his attitude to a party in this House I do not think that he is really going to grace those benches for too long. With those few points I just want to say that I concur with what the hon member for Rissik has had to say.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member allowed to refer to hon members behind the hon the Minister as his cronies?

Yes, I heard that. The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw that, Sir. I want to compliment the hon member Dr Vilonel. That is the first time that he has risen and taken a point of order successfully! [Interjections.] He has been rising and taking points of order in this House over the past few days at a rate of knots. It quite honestly amazes me that his Whips sit there and put up with it. Obviously the NP Whips are not capable of taking points of order. That hon member does it ad nauseam. However, I congratulate him on at long last achieving his goal. I wish the hon the Minister well and I trust that he will learn some of the little niceties of this House. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I want to make a serious appeal to the hon the Minister to reconsider the matter in spite of his initial negative attitude to the amendments moved by my hon colleague. We on this side of the House want the hon the Minister to know that although we basically support this measure, we are in fact trying to make a positive contribution, not only to the legislation itself, but also with regard to the future, which is a matter of concern to us all in this country.

With reference to the question asked by my hon colleague about kwaNdebele I want to say at once that I hope the hon the Minister and the Government will not take it to mean that we are at all in favour of the granting of independence to kwaNdebele. I want to express the serious hope, arising from what the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs said, that this problem of citizenship will not arise at all if the granting of independence to kwaNdebele is not proceeded with. It is in that sense that I want to make this serious plea, for in view of the resistance which already exists, that question of citizenship is once again going to create a problem for kwaNdebele. The hon the Minister can understand the anomaly that would be created if we made citizenship arrangements for kwaNdebele that differed from those applicable to the people in the other TBVC countries. If we want to avoid conflict in South Africa, it would appear to me that we should set aside the whole question of citizenship, which is bound up with the independence of kwaNdebele.

There is a second question I want to put to the hon the Minister. When we draw a distinction, for the sake of argument, between Tswanas or Xhosas living, say, in the Cape Peninsula, and Tswanas and Xhosas from Transkei or Ciskei—in other words, people who are not South African citizens—does it not create a potential for all kinds of conflict and discrimination, because there may be Xhosas who are South African citizens and other Xhosas who are not South African citizens working in the same factory? I wonder whether that problem of possible conflict in this situation has been fully taken into account. The matter is aggravated, of course, by the fact that those people from Transkei and Ciskei are technically aliens in terms of the Aliens Act.

I come back now to the matter that has been raised here in connection with section 7bis. Even if those people are not treated as aliens in terms of section 7bis, the question still arises, especially in view of all the other legislation we have repealed, such as the influx control legislation, whether we are not going to be faced with impossible situations in implementing this legislation, owing to the fact that some people will be South African citizens, while others will not be South African citizens. I just want to ask the hon the Minister whether due consideration has been given to that problem of conflict which may flow from this legislation as a result of discrimination or potential discrimination.

Then I want to repeat a question to which the hon the Minister has not yet replied. Instead of the administrative discretion which can be exercised in terms of section 7bis, would it not be better—and this is our request—if it were written into legislation that for the purposes of residence and movement, and for any other purpose in South Africa, those people should not be treated as aliens? This would go a long way towards eliminating that problem of possible discrimination—the distinction which is drawn.

I just want to refer once again to section 11A of the South African Citizenship Act, and I want to remind the hon the Minister of the fact that during the period between 11 April 1984 and 11 October 1984—a period of approximately six months—no fewer than 46 000 people automatically acquired South African citizenship by naturalisation in terms of section 11A, as amended. That information was furnished in reply to a question asked by my colleague, the hon member for Green Point. This brings us back to the anomaly that we are granting citizenship to those people automatically in terms of Act No 34 of 1984, while we are not prepared to do so for people who have in fact always been South African citizens and who happen to be living in the TBVC countries today.

Mr Speaker, I have listened to what the hon members of the PFP have said. I have already taken cognisance of the arguments advanced by them in the course of the debate. Reference was made to kwaNdebele, a matter which is being negotiated, of course, and certain aspects of which still have to be finalised. The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs referred to the matter, as the hon member for Green Point said. The Government does not want to prevent independence in the sense that loss of citizenship would be a condition for it. If the people concerned do not wish to give up their South African citizenship, the Government is quite prepared to consider the matter, but this certainly does not mean that the people concerned could exercise political rights in South Africa. The situation would therefore be very much the same as the one which is spelt out in this Bill.

Questions have been asked about negotiations with the other independent states. Unfortunately, I cannot disclose confidential matters in this House and say what the result was. I shall not even speculate about it, because the discussions are not over yet, as I have indicated. It would therefore be totally presumptuous to do such a thing at this stage. More discussions must take place, and these discussions will be held in due course. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accede to the hon members’ request.

I have taken cognisance of the hon member for Rissik. Furthermore, I am sorry if the hon member for Umhlanga feels upset about the matter.

†I apologise if I have missed out on him. However, he must take into account that I have been sitting here since quarter past two.

So have I!

But you did take turns and you could go out and have supper.

We sat here all Saturday too!

Are you apologising? [Interjections.]

I did not refer to a single hon member on this side either. Under these circumstances, I cannot accept the amendments at all.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister a question? I do not expect him to disclose to us confidential information about negotiations which are in progress. I was referring to such negotiations as had already been concluded. I take it that the negotiations which led to this Bill have now been concluded. All I am asking, therefore, is whether he can give us any information about the negotiations which preceded this legislation. If some of the TBVC governments were in fact prepared to go along with the idea of dual citizenship, we should like to know more about it.

This Bill deals with a particular matter, namely those Blacks who are permanently resident within the RSA. The PFP’s amendments relate to those who are permanently resident in the independent states. The discussions that took place dealt with the subject of the Bill, and no finality has been reached about any other matters.

Some of those matters have not even been mentioned yet.

I cannot tell the hon member anything more, therefore, but I adhere to my refusal to accept the amendments.

Question negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.