Order! In terms of Standing Order No 14, I have to inform this House that Mr Speaker is unavoidably absent today. He is attending the signing of the Nkomati Accord as an invited guest.

Mr Speaker, I think at this moment possibly the minds of most people in the House are far away from such almost mundane things as Post Office affairs. I think that everybody is possibly looking towards Nkomati. But be that as it may, I think it is also a moment to pause and reflect on the tremendous contribution that the Post Office has made to what we hope will be the successful conclusion and signing of the Accord of Nkomati.

It has been said time and time again by speakers on both sides of the House, echoed by the hon the Minister, that the Post Office has to keep pace with the infrastructural requirements of our country. There is just no other way, and that is the big must. I want to tell the hon the Minister that our concern will always be that this need for the infrastructural requirements of our society is always met in the most efficient and economical manner possible, and that is our appeal to the hon the Minister and to his department. They should constantly be seeking not only the most economical but also the most efficient way to meet the needs.

Obviously the sooner we reach what the hon the Minister has described the infrastructural saturation point, the better it is going to be. I am hopeful that that day will come—I congratulate the hon the Minister for suggesting that that may be the case— after 10 years. I think this is possibly a target towards which we should strive, the magical day when the 50:50 Franzsen recommendation is achieved in the best interests of both the consumer and the Post Office.

The last three years have seen an impressive achievement in the installation of telephones. The installation of 820 000 telephones is not, as the saying goes, peanuts. What is even more impressive is the stated target of 300 000 for the coming year which the hon the Minister has outlined. I sincerely hope that we do achieve this because it will go a long way towards realizing the additional income which is so desperately needed and can only be gained by providing saleable services to a market that is urgently wanting them.

I would like to say a few words about the Beltel/Prestel/Cept concept. There appears to be a little confusion in respect of this and I am pleased that we have had some of it dispelled by the replies the hon the Minister gave both at Second Reading and during the Committee Stage. I think we must understand that Prestel was originally the United Kingdom name for it, while Beltel is the name we have come to call it. I think it is quite a clever combination of words, if you take the word “Bel" from the Afrikaans, and word “tel" which is part of the English word “telephone”. Cept is of course the new German improvement on the original British Prestel idea.

The point I want to raise is somewhat different to that expressed by both the hon member for Bezuidenhout and an other hon member of that party. I want to say to the hon the Minister that he must appreciate, and I am sure he does, the growing personal computer market in South Africa. More and more people are becoming involved and aware of the computer age. The “PC”, as it is popularly named, is becoming something that is capturing the imagination of people. Our children in school are already instructed in the art of the computer. You find computers in almost all high schools in South Africa, certainly in the urban areas. To use them today, is to talk the language of today, which is the computer language. With the computer in the home, Beltel or Cept become something which the individual would want to get into, because of the features and advantages it offers. In order to do this you have to have an interface. Although I appreciate that the hon the Minister is doing everything he possibly can to get the commercial banks involved, to get commerce involved and to get the supplies involved who will put the information into Beltel which the consumer would want to buy, I appeal to him to turn his attention towards the computer market and to impress on them the importance of highlighting the capability of their particular product to have an interface with Beitel. This is a point of sale issue and I think that the Post Office should keep in constant touch with the suppliers of computer equipment. I understand that Cept is not in operation at the moment, but I understand that at the moment there is only one well-known computer make—and I think it is the thing that fell on Isaac Newton’s head—that actually has an interface facility with Beitel. If we can get the awareness at that level, I think we are going to benefit more from this potential market.

My final point in this debate is in connection with housing. I appreciate the hon the Minister’s remarks in this respect and the fact that he has outlined that bond repayment shall at no time be greater than 25% of an individual’s salary. Firstly, I assume that he is talking of an employee’s income and not of a joint income of husband and wife. Having said that, I want to say that our concern at buying “up market” is because of the relationship that exists between the rate of interest payable under the subsidized housing scheme and the rate of interest payable in the open market. I am sure the hon the Minister will appreciate that where, in the subsidized scheme, the rate of interest is possibly between 3½% and 4%, certainly not much more than that, it is much more in the open market. In the open market people are paying rates of 17½ and 18%. I do not know what the exact current rate is, but it depends on the size of the bond. This means that the 25% of income of a bond is something completely different in the Post Office or in any subsidized housing scheme, even from a commercial bank, from what it is in the open market.

We talk about being market related. The Post Office should also be talking and aiming at market-related ceilings in respect of the globular amount which the individual should be allowed to borrow in respect of his bond. If we are to be market related in all respects, let us then expand it to this field as well so that one does not have the situation—where people are buying above what they would have been able to afford had they not received a subsidy. I hope the hon the Minister will accept the spirit in which I put this forward.

Finally, and I hope hon members will alow me a little indulgence here, on an historic day like this I want to appeal to parties in this House, especially to the CP. In 1948 we had a change in this country, when the NP came to power and since then we have had a legacy which has not served us well in the world. I say this with humility. I am not trying to be funny about it. That legacy has been the concept “apartheid”. The phrase was coined to attract votes. It definitely put the NP into power, and today it is being used as a stick to beat us.

Of late we have had two Budgets in this House. My appeal to the hon members in the CP, and particularly to the likes of the hon member for Lichtenburg, who has had a wealth of experience in the seat of Government, in the real corridors of power and the Cabinet, is not to do South Africa a disservice by introducing another word that is not translatable into English, namely the word “verdringing”. Hon members must please not persist in bringing this word into debate.

Do you have a better word?

I do know that in 20 years’ time, maybe even in five years’ time, it will be a word in the international language which will be used as stick and a rod to beat our backs. We have used the word too much in the debates. There is no true English word for it. One can translate it as “crowding out”. In any event, there is no need for the introduction of this sort of terminology into the language of our country. I want to make an appeal to the hon members in the CP to address themselves to the problem that they have without that sort of terminology. It will only do our country a disservice. To the Government I say that they should ignore it. It is the best thing they can possibly do.

Mr Speaker, it would appear that I am the last speaker before the hon the Minister will be winding up a long debate on this Post Office Budget.

In my first reaction to this Budget I said that this was the worst Budget since 1968, and I stand by that. [Interjections.] I issued a challenge, and not one hon member, not even the hon the Minister himself, took it up. I challenged them to disprove my statement that this was the worst budget since 1948.

I want to refer to the question of overspending. The hon the Minister has neither explained nor justified his poor performance in overspending by R176 million, nor has he explained the deficit of R132 million. [Interjections.] The operating expenditure in this Budget is R740 million more than in the last Budget, which represents 23,8%. It is no good saying that he told us last year that tariffs were going to be increased. That is no excuse. He cannot go on doing that. The Post Office is a business. It is run on business lines.

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

No, Sir. If I have time afterwards, the hon member may put his question. Let me first make my speech. As I said, the Post Office is run according to business principles. However, what business in the world can have an Act of Parliament to support it, be a monopoly and be able to increase its prices and force the public to purchase at those prices? That is the kind of business the hon the Minister is running today. In other words, the policy he is adopting is first to spend the money and then to see how he can finance that expenditure.

He referred to the budgets since 1968. The budget for 1968 amounted to R46,3 million as compared with R3 800 million today. What he did not tell the House, with respect, is that every one of those budgets, except the current one, finished with an operating surplus. That is the big difference.

Then the hon the Minister says that, when we offer criticism, we are bringing politics into the Budget debate. I want to say, firstly, that I deprecate any amendment with racial connotations. The Post Office has to serve the whole population of South Africa and there should be complete equality inside the Post Office and outside the Post Office in respect of the total public of South Africa. However, when it comes to criticism in the House on the budget itself, that is a different matter. When Professor Leon Weyers, a member of the President’s Council, is quoted in The Star on 14 March as saying that this will trigger another record of increases or that inflation will shoot up even higher, or when the President of the South African National Consumer Union says that this Budget is depressing and horrific, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether that is political. No, that is not political. Mr Murray, the chairman of the National Consultative Committee on Post Office Affairs said on television that he thought the increases were reasonable. However, the SABC did not quote him on television—nor, incidentally, did they quote any other criticism of the budget—but they quoted him on the radio as saying that he was very worried about the increase in the rate of inflation the increased tariffs would cause.

The National Party are very keen on putting up skittles and then knocking them down. Let me give some examples. The hon the Minister said that I had stated that the increases were due to an increase of R20 million in salaries and that I was wrong because the figure was R133 million. Either the hon the Minister did not follow his notes properly or he did not follow my speech, because I said that the Minister blamed salary adjustments, which accounted for only R20 million since I January. I also referred to the fact that the operating surplus dropped to R35 million. I was talking about the last budget. In fact, the hon the Minister said the same in the Additional Appropriation and I have an official document from his department which says:

So, I did not suck this R20 million out of my thumb. I got it from this document. Then the hon the Minister had the audacity to turn round and say we did not want salary increases. How preposterous can one be! Of course we want the staff to get salary increases.How can one raise ridiculous arguments like that?

I come to the next skittle the hon the Minister put up. He said I referred to data equipment and he could not understand my reference to R20 million for data equipment. He said he spent half the night with four senior officials trying to establish exactly what I said. Again, either he did not follow the notes or he did not follow my speech. I said: “Will the hon the Minister also explain the increased expenditure on data equipment, from R51 million to R64 million, or 20,3%?” I never said R20 million. Perhaps the hon the Minister would take the trouble to look at his Estimates. On page 5, under Item 2.1.9, he will find the very item to which I am referring. Does the hon the Minister not know what his Estimates contain with regard to capital expenditure?

The hon member for Waterkloof also put up a skittle. He quoted me as having said that the main object of the Post Office is to install telephones. He quotes me as saying it is a main and vital function. He quoted me out of context. I had said in the previous paragraph:

That is a little bit different to what the hon the Minister said.

On the subject of telephones, I welcome the new approach. I think the hon the Minister has got the message that we should now concentrate on telephones. He now says that we are going to try to install 300 000 telephones. That is fine.

I gave you the message.

No, I made the suggestion and the hon the Minister got the message. I want to refer to the very poor show of last year—the hon the Minister did not refer to that—when only 180 000 telephones were installed, which is about 44% less than the year before. That he has not explained properly to the House. Perhaps, where it is easy and cheap to install telephones, it could be done and the rate therefore increased.

The hon the Minister made the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard since he made the statement on the R20 diet. He says the backlog in telephones is not a backlog. When is a backlog not a backlog? He says because there are current applications there is a backlog. In other words, if I have a bank overdraft and I keep on putting money through my account but I keep on running an overdraft, I do not have an overdraft because an overdraft is not an overdraft. He says a backlog is not a backlog. The fact that he has been running this backlog all the years and not coping with it, is all of a sudden not a backlog anymore. I really do not understand it.

Talking about telephone backlogs, I want to tell the hon the Minister that I have a letter with me, dated 25 January 1984, addressed to someone in Helderberg. I quote:

That is very nice. The person now has to wait until 1987. Is this the way we are going to tackle the backlog in telephones?

We were also criticized for saying that there must be a blitz operation. There have been two such operations in Soweto. The previous Ministers of the department were proud of the operations in Soweto. However, now when we call for blitz operation for South Africa all of a sudden “blitz” becomes a dirty word. [Interjections.] This we do not understand.

With regard to the question of what telephones will earn, he said that twice the R118 million which I predicted would be earned. I am only too delighted. I want to hold him to that. I want to see next year that we earn more than R118 million.

Then there were also a lot of petty argumerits that were raised. He asked why we agreed to the Additional Estimates. I will tell him why we agreed to it. When he presented the Additional Estimates it looked reasonable at that stage. Did the hon the Minister know at the time when he presented the Additional Estimates, only a couple of weeks ago, that we were heading for a deficit and tariff increases? If he knew that, why did he not tell the House honestly that he was going to ask for additional funds but that he unfortunately had to increase tariffs because he was expecting a deficit budget? I believe he did not know it, or he did not know what was going on, or else he kept it to himself and did not take the House into confidence to say that he was going to ask for additional funds and that he was going to have to increase tariffs. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister further said that I must lead a dreadful life because year after year I am shocked by the tariff increases. He is quite right, I am a citizen of South Africa, like hon members on that side, and the hon the Minister is causing me and every other citizen in South Africa to lead a dreadful life because year after year we are shocked by the tariff increases.

Further, I want to ask the hon the Minister something in regard to the 11c stamp. Has he considered the fact that the extra 1c, is going to cause problems? I do not know how many one cent and 5 cent coins are in circulation because there is going to be a great demand for change from 10 cents. I therefore want to appeal to the hon the Minister that before he makes things so awkward from the monetary point of view, he should ratherpostpone this increase in postage until at least October. By that time it will be clear if there is an improvement in the economic situation, and the hon the Minister can then see whether or not he can curb expenditure and perhaps cut this increase out. The hon the Minister said that the department must make profits. I cannot understand this because the department has always shown a surplus. But now all of a sudden the hon the Minister says the department must show a profit.

I was surprised to hear the hon the Minister, in reply to the hon member for South Coast, tell the House that we are now comtemplating buying a cable ship. As I understood hon members who spoke on this matter, the cable ship that we have is good for another ten years. So why is the hon the Minister contemplating buying another one?

When the hon the Minister dealt with the question of telephone tapping he twisted the whole argument, and said that I originally agreed to telephone tapping. I never said that we are against telephone tapping in certain circumstances. This matter arose because I had information that a certain person whose name was all over the newspapers, disguised himself as a general, went to a police station and obtained a list of people whose phones were being tapped. When asked about this, the hon the Minister of Police said he had no knowledge of it, and when I approached this hon Minister he admitted that phones were being tapped but that he did not have a list of the people who are involved. Somebody must have the list, and therefore it is necessary to raise this issue from time to time because we must guard against this system being abused. We must ensure that the system of telephone tapping is not extended beyond the period of six months. The hon the Minister must give us an assurance that no MP’s phone is being tapped and also that the post of MPs is not being tampered with.

The firms Allied Electronics and Siemens supply equipment to the telephone department. In France there was a rationalization of five firms, for example of Thompsons and Altech. I do not know where there has been a rationalization in South Africa, but I want the hon the Minister to tell us whether it is true that another overseas firm is entering this market.

To which market are you referring?

To supply telephone equipment, electronics, switching gear, cables, etc. Is another overseas firm going to supply additional equipment to that which is being supplied by Siemens and Allied Electronics?

The role of the Opposition is very clear. Since the Post Office has vast powers and since it has a monopoly, it is our duty to keep them on their toes and to see that the Post Office is run on business lines. We will support them where we can but we will criticize them where we have to and do our job where we feel it has to be done in the interest of both the Post Office and the people of South Africa. My final message to the hon the Minister is that he must curb expenditure, keep the tariffs down, watch the economy and not overspend again. We cannot fight inflation, the No 1 enemy in South Africa, if the hon the Minister is going to increase tariffs year after year, as he threatens to do.

Finally, and perhaps on a more historic note today is an historic day in the sense that our colleagues are at Nkomati today witnessing the signing of a very important agreement, an agreement which we hope will lead to peace, tranquility and co-operation with our neighbours and to peace in the whole of Southern Africa. We wish our Government well in these deliberations and trust that all will go well. I also thank the Post Office for the splendid job that they have done in a very short time in setting up all the necessary equipment to supply some 300 journalists with telephones so that they can report to their various countries. We also appreciate the work they have done to provide television and other telecommunications services. They have done a good job, and I thank them for it. I trust that from now on we will have peace and tranquillity within South Africa and beyond.

Mr Speaker, we have now reached the end of a very long debate; to a large extent it was also a wearisome debate, particularly since I have had to sit here throughout listening to what hon members have been saying. It was quite a relief not to have to sit here for quite so long this morning. The few things that hon members said here this morning were particularly good, and also interesting to listen to.

Right at the outset I should like to associate myself with hon members who have already pointed out that this is an historic day. It is probably one of the most important days in the history not only of Southern Africa but of Africa as a whole. It is the first time that an accord is being concluded in Africa in terms of which the hand of communism is rejected and that of an African Western power taken in its place. We can only hope that this initiative will bear fruit and that we shall be afforded the opportunity to maintain the accord. Hon members will shortly have the precise contents of that accord at their disposal.

At this moment we also call to mind the thousands of people who are present at that signing ceremony today, including the hon the Prime Minister and other hon members of all the parties in this House. This great occasion is not a political one; it is more concerned with the question of survival for Southern Africa. It could also lead to an economic boom for the entire area and could cause people to realize that it is unnecessary to pursue the same policy and ideology in order to be friends with one another. For example, I can be friends with the hon member for Bryanston when necessary, without us necessarily having to belong to the same political party. [Interjections.]

I should also just like to say today that we on this side of the House have tremendous appreciation for the role played by the hon the Prime Minister in the coming into being of the Accord of Nkomati.

Hear, hear!

It is an accord which did not appear out of nowhere. It is the product of an extended process of negotiations undertaken, by the hon the Prime Minister in an effort to forge links of friendship with countries in Southern Africa. It is, of course, just as much in the interests of those countries that are involved in this as it is in our own interests. The hon the Prime Minister set out to achieve these things. He has also sometimes pointed out that South Africa was concluding this treaty from a position of strength and not from a position of weakness. The hon the Prime Minister also emphasized this in order to indicate to the world that when we are in a problem situation we are strong enough to get out of it, although we are also capable of being sufficiently accommodating to make friends with people who do not necessarily think as we do.

I hope that when at a later stage we obtain fuller details of what is happening at Nkomati today, we shall realize that this whole undertaking redounds to our credit. This of course applies not only to us but also to Mozambique, a country with which we are now forging links of friendship. I also wish to express the hope that today’s events will go down in history as one of the greatest achievements of the present hon Prime Minister in the interests of South Africa, in the interests of Southern Africa, in the interests of Africa and also in the interests of the rest of the world. When there is no peace in Southern Africa there will never be peace in the rest of Africa. In conclusion I just wish to confirm that I believe that everyone present here shares the excitement and also the cautious optimism with which we shall take this matter further in future. We are cautiously optimistic because we realize that something of this nature must grow like a tree, like friendship, like love. This is not an accord which, merely due to its being signed today, will put an end to problems in Southern Africa. We must regard it as the starting point of the process of achieving stability in this part of Africa. I also wish to pay tribute to other Cabinet colleagues involved in the negotiations, but I congratulate the hon the Prime Minister in particular for his farsightedness.

Now I wish to refer to a few matters that hon members spoke about in the course of the debate. The Second Reading debate was such a hurried affair that I was unable to reply in full to all the matters raised by hon members. Accordingly I just wish to refer at this point to the hon member Mr Vermeulen who spoke about the possibility of converting the building Green Lodge in Bloemfontein into a post office museum. We are investigating the matter to determine whether it is a practical proposition. We shall see what can be done in this regard and I shall duly reply to the hon member in this regard at a later stage. I shall do so in writing.

The hon member for Hercules presented a very interesting historical survey of how the Post Office savings bank originated. It is interesting to realize that, as the hon member mentioned, the so-called “penny bank” was in fact the start of the Post Office savings bank. The hon member also referred to the share that Mr Sykes had in this and how the whole system, which achieved renown in England, was in due course established in South Africa as well. The Post Office savings bank is indeed the poor man’s bank. We are gratified that last year R320 million was saved in the poor man’s bank. This shows that those who really have a hard time do have sufficient insight to save their money with us. We hope that this will continue and that the future will continue to hold better things for them, too. I thank him for the exceptional piece of history he presented to us, because I do not believe that any hon member in this House was acquainted with the story he told us. It is not easy for an hon member to get up in this House and say something that another hon member does not already know or has not already said. [Interjections.]

†The hon members for Bezuidenhout and Umhlanga raised the question of housing. They both had problems in regard to housing. The hon member for Umhlanga referred particularly to Post Office housing while the hon member for Bezuidenhout went a little further and spoke about the co-ordination of the housing of the Post Office, the SATS and the Public Service generally. The Cabinet is very well aware of the problem. There is at the moment a Cabinet Committee composed of all the Ministers whose various departments have anything to do with housing that is considering this problem. The committee was appointed by the hon the Prime Minister and the idea behind it is to investigate the question of co-ordination in this field and to try to ensure, for instance, as was mentioned by the hon member, that houses do not become too expensive. This committee will cover the whole field including the question of safeguards, interest rates and so forth. Perhaps at a later stage the particular Ministers concerned will be able to report back to the House on possible recommendations by that committee in respect of the housing situation. I want to set the minds of those people who have these loans at rest by saying that this investigation is one of co-ordination to try to improve the situation. There is no question of dropping it or getting rid of it because that would be impossible.

I am just worried about the escalating prices.

I gathered that that was what the hon member had in mind—that there should be more co-ordination in respect of a scheme in the implementation of which everyone would share.

*The hon member for Springs provided an excellent explanation of the service and cost ratio of the Post Office. He also congratulated us on the Budget and I thank him for doing so. He pointed out very clearly certain factors that effect such a budget factors which perhaps bear repeating. There is the matter of services, there are rising costs, salary increases, etc. There is also the question of an increase in demand. As long as there is a demand for something, one has to meet that demand. Who would be so stupid as to curb expenditure so as not to be able to meet the requirements of a certain demand? The hon member for Hillbrow must bear that fact in mind. He also wanted to curb the capital budget. He also wanted tariffs not to be increased. Again today he came up with a desperate effort, like the man who fell into the river and grasped at a straw. He said that I should postpone the increase in postal tariffs to October and that in the meantime we should see how things went with the Budget. If things do not go too well, we could introduce the increased postal tariffs and then his problem with regard to the increase of 1c would be solved. How am I to solve my problem in the meantime? These are not arguments we should raise here. The hon member could have told us that he thought it was unnecessary to increase postage by 1c and that we should abandon the idea. He could have done so during the Second Reading debate. He is opposed to all increases, but nevertheless he still wants more services and more telephones. Since the other day he has been struggling to try and explain that he would like the staff to be given increased salaries although he has fought it throughout the debate.

You are becoming a clown. [Interjections.]

I do not know why the hon member for Groote Schuur is getting so excited. Usually he is a quiet fellow.

You are talking absolute nonsense.

Well, Sir, I am very pleased that at least I have moved the hon member to say something. If I am a clown, then at least I have been able to activate the hon member to that extent.

*I am pleased that I was able to stimulate that part of his memory so that he could perhaps perceive what is comical in himself sometimes. [Interjections.] I perceive it and it would be as well if the hon member could also perceive it.

As far as the influence of inflation is concerned, the hon member for Hillbrow has told us what certain professors have said in this regard. I gave the facts. [Interjections.] Now the hon member is talking non-stop. It is as if his needle is stuck. I did not interrupt him.

Just answer my questions.

If the hon member would just be quiet for a moment, I should like to do so. I must say that it is extremely difficult because the hon member covered such a wide field, as I shall indicate in a moment. One cannot quite grasp what the hon member is doing. I am informed by experts that that the rate of inflation is only being affected by this budget to the extent of 0,1%. [Interjections.] Yes, 0,1% and the hon member can go and consult my Hansard.

Is that what the Postmaster General said?

I do not know why that hon member is so talkative now. I think I should rather ignore him, but the fact is that one can only ignore someone who exists for one, and for me the hon member does not exist at the moment.

One should weigh up the question of inflation carefully. To a certain extent everything contributes to inflation, but it is necessary for us to try and determine in what way we must try to cut back expenditure to help combat inflation. Well, that is the reason we budgeted for an increase of only 9% in our revenue, because then we are below the rate of inflation of 10,3%. The hon member speaks so excitedly of runaway inflation, but over a period of two years the Government has brought the rate of inflation down from 16,8% to the present 10,3%, the rate which has been maintained over the past few months. That rate was not calculated by me; it was not my task to do so. We budgeted for an increase of 9% in our revenue specifically in order to remain below the inflation rate of 10,3%. In that way we make our contribution, while at the same time meeting the needs of the public.

The hon member for Nigel had better take it from me that we are just as concerned about reducing the rate of inflation. We also have voters that are interested in bringing costs down. We, too, would very much like to help the people, but we have an exceptional task to perform and that is to provide a service. There is a big difference between the cost of providing a service and the price of food. Here one gets a service for which one pays. The principle is that those who make use of the service must pay for it themselves. We cannot impose a tax to help pay for telephones. Surely such a tax would be most unreasonable tax imaginable. How can people be taxed so that someone else can have a telephone installed? We must help the person who wants to make use of a telephone to pay the cost involved. He must do so to the satisfaction of the budget.

The hon member for Waterkloof replied to the speech of the hon member for Hillbrow. He explained to the hon member that one cannot make the simplistic statement that telecommunication is only to do with telephones. A telephone is only the terminal point for speaking through a very complicated system. To the technical people it may be easy, but we ordinary people often wonder how it can happen that one can speak to someone else through the telephone. How is it possible that a person in Cape Town can dial another person in the USA and speak to him within a second, if the line is open? It is easier to have an electronic link from here to the USA than for me to get the idea of my Budget into the head of the hon member for Hillbrow.

The hon member for Waterkloof made a very interesting speech. He is a person who is well-versed in the economy and he knows what he is talking about. He is concerned that the Post Office Savings Bank should not enter the sphere of the banks. I want to give him the assurance that we do not intend making the Post Office Savings Bank a commercial bank. Nor will the Post Office Savings Bank compete in an indefensible fashion with private financial institutions. I have already pointed out that our share of the investment market is only 3% as against the 97% share of all the other institutions.

In this regard I can refer the hon member to the provisions incorporated in the Post Office Amendment Bill piloted through this House last week. In the first place, the scope and the activities of the Post Office Savings Bank are precisely defined therein. In the second place, it was provided that regulations whereby the Post Office Savings Bank will be bound and in which it will make provision for any facility it wants to present will be subject, in the finest detail, to the consent of the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance certainly will not permit us to do anything which may not be productive or which may embarrass the banks. Subjecting the Post Office Savings Bank to the control of the same authority as the body that exercises control over the rules of the private financial institutions will ensure that there is good order. It is for that very reason that the same registrars will also have a say in respect of our Post Office Savings Bank. I do not think I could give the hon member a better assurance than to say that we do not intend entering that sphere.

†I always find the hon member for Umhlanga’s speeches interesting, because I think he comes here with an open mind and an open heart. He wants to discuss things in order to promote efficiency and better control. I listened very carefully to his remarks about Beitel. We will investigate the matter of computers being interfaced with this system. We will consider what the outcome of such a discussion would be. I want to thank the hon member for complimenting the staff on installing 820 000 telephones during the last three years, and for putting their target at 300 000 this year. The hon member for Hillbrow completely ignores the figure of 820 000 telephones which were installed.

*He is obsessed with the word “backlog”. Perhaps the hon member for Umhlanga should go and speak to him so that he can forget about the word “backlog”. A “backlog” only gives us in the Post Office a bad name.

†If we want to reach our target of installing 300 000 telephones this year, we will need money to do it. However, the hon member for Hillbrow wants me to cut the Budget, because we are causing the inflation rate to rise by budgeting for a deficit. One hon member even suggested that the SATS should budget for a deficit, because it would help to reduce the inflation rate further. We are budgeting for a deficit, but are doing so optimistically. We do not have a long face about the matter, because we hope that by generating the income as fast as we can by installing the 300 000 telephones, we will benefit from an upswing in the economy.

*We are not submitting this Budget because we are despondent but because we have confidence in the consumer and because we believe that there will be another upswing in the economy. It must revive. In fact, every day that passes brings us a day closer to the upswing!

I will hold you to the 300 000 telephones.

Even if we install 299 000 telephones, the hon member will still be shocked. [Interjections.] We shall deal gently with the hon member because I cannot take it that he gets so shocked.

†The hon member for Umhlanga also spoke about the housing situation. I have already replied to that.

I want to come, finally, to the hon member for Hillbrow. It is an interesting form of escapism to say that he approved of the Additional Estimates—in fact, he did so with a lot of praise—but that I should have told him then what the Budget was going to be like. This is the most peculiar kind of reasoning I have ever heard of. The hon member wants me to tell him in the Additional Estimates what I am going to budget for. He asked me whether I knew then what my Budget was going to be. Does the hon member think that I worked out the Budget the day after the Additional Estimates were discussed in Parliament? In fact we are already busy with next year’s Budget. That is how we plan. I have the Hansard here of where the hon member for Hillbrow made an interjection. One must be very careful of interjecting. In this regard I should also warn the hon member for Bryanston. Sometimes they can be used against you. The hon member for Umlazi spoke about the R175 million provided for in the Additional Estimates. He said:

No, an amount of only R20 million was in respect of salary increases.

The hon member did not say anything about 12% to me: He said R20 million. The hon member repeated it again in a speech later.

Here is your list. [Interjections.]

Why do you not take this medicine which I am giving you to help with your shock?

You need the medicine, not I. [Interjections.]

The hon member keeps hammering on the Additional Estimates. I explained to him during the Second Reading that R133 million of the R175 million is in direct relation to staff services such as salary increases, etc. If the hon member did not want me to do that, I could have come with a much smaller additional estimate—I do not even need to come to Parliament if it is under 2% of the Budget. However, I did come to Parliament and the hon member was overjoyed at that stage. He now says that this is the worst Budget because we had additional estimates.

The hon member asked me whether there was another company such as Altech and Siemens coming into the field. I then asked him what field he meant. He then replied the supply of electronic equipment, telephones, etc. Altech and Siemens do not supply telephones, but only electronic digital exchanges. They supply two types, namely the German EWSD and the French type SA128E which is built under licence in South Africa. A wise decision was taken by my predecessors and the Postmaster-General that we should have only two systems in South Africa. I have no knowledge of a third system being considered. These two systems are gradually working their way into our total infrastructure and we are actually under contract with these two companies for 15 years. We chose two systems so that one is not stuck with one if something happens to the other. We install new exchanges monthly and I shall be opening three new exchanges in the Transvaal next week. We have them all over the country.

What happens if AT and T of America, who are doing a lot of research, come up with a better system than these two?

I cannot see them producing a better system. Our two systems are comparable with the best in the world. That is the dilemma in the electronic world today. We cannot change to another system because something better crops up. We have built these systems into our basic infrastructure and that is why, for example in respect of cables and exchanges, we plan 10 years ahead. That is one’s dilemma in the electronic age as one has to decide at a certain point how to plan one’s future infrastructure. However, one’s system must be able to take something new which comes out in the form of modums, etc, and that is the way our people have planned.

The hon member for Hillbrow was also upset when I said there are no blitzes in this department. We do not need blitzes in this department. This department moves ahead according to a firm plan. He compared our situation to Soweto. Soweto had no electricity or water and that particular Minister then decided to make a blitz on Soweto. It is completely different because there was no planning of an infrastructure over a long period. One cannot just plan and install an exchange as it needs to be coupled to the next exchange and the main-line exchange. It is very complicated and is done very well by our staff.

I do not want to refer to the whole question of the backlog again. I tried to explain to the hon member that the backlog has not been there for years. These are all new applications and I shall get a breakdown and supply it to the hon member so that I can tell him how long applications are outstanding. We receive applications the one day and a telephone is installed the next day. I want to refer to one of the letters which I received. It reads:

*Really, Sir, a finer letter than this will probably be impossible to find, and with regard to the installation of telephones I receive hundreds of letters of this kind in which people express their sincere appreciation. The necessary infrastructure must, however, be present.

†Last year we spent the major portion of our capital on providing the infrastructure so that this year we can concentrate on installing the 300 000 telephones we are aiming at. It is amusing to hear the hon member for Hillbrow tell me I am following his advice. He should read my Second Reading speech again. I mentioned that we now have 300 lines ready for telephones to be installed. It does not really make much difference which way one looks at it, but I think the hon member can at least give credit where it is due, namely to my staff, for the planning they have been doing and for the way in which they are tackling this whole problem.

*In conclusion, there is one final matter I want to raise. I want to ensure that this House does not have the idea that we spend money on things that are not entirely necessary. There is not a single item in the Post Office Budget which it is not vitally necessary to spend money on. There is not a single thing that we are not doing to provide the correct infrastructure so as to be able to provide the apparatus, for example be able to link up terminals, that will bring in money. We have a basic duty in terms of the Post Office Act. I said yesterday that we run this entire organization as a business in accordance with the best business principles. However, the Post Office Act does not permit us to make a profit that we can invest. We cannot go and invest several millions of rands anywhere. The profits are ploughed back immediately. I want to repeat that we are aim ing at the Franzsen Commission’s 50:50 ratic as far as self-generated revenue and loar moneys are concerned. Hon members will be aware that at one time, before we had made a start with the electronic systems, we were able to utilize up to 60% of our own revenue for capital. However, as long as we have such a high demand and that demand remains unsatisfied, we cannot, as I said before, maintain the 50:50 ratio. To achieve that, I should at least have to double or triple the tariffs. There are only two ways of reaching the 50:50 ratio: One has to curb one’s capital expenditure and increase one’s tariffs. It is as easy as that if one wants to maintain the programme one has to maintain in order to make the telephones available. One has either to increase one’s tariffs or curtail one’s entire programme.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister where one draws the line with regard to capital expenditure? Where does one set the limit?

The limit is drawn in accordance with what is reasonable with a view to one’s expansion programme. That is the first point. The second factor is how far one has got with one’s planning. Exchanges are being replaced and cables are being put in, and this is all done according to plans which have been drawn up well in advance. What does catch up with us at times—and that makes budgeting more difficult—is the rising costs, be it through the SATS, inflation or anything else. We have to meet those costs. However, our planning in respect of our capital stops at a certain level. It is, however, a very difficult matter. Because of inflation, world-wide inflation, and other considerations, one finds that one gets less for what one is paying. So, instead of reaching one’s goal quicker, one finds that it takes one longer to get there. However, in our budgeting we are aiming at reaching the point where we will be able to run on the level, as it were. That will be when, in respect of the provision of services, we get close to saturation point. I said to an hon member yesterday that that could take 10 years. In any event, I think it will be a sorry day when we reach saturation point because that will mean that there will be stagnation and we will not receive many more new applications for services. I do not think that that will ever happen, because the Black communities are coming up economically and they will in time become more self-sufficient.

I want to close with a word of thanks.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he can now furnish us with an answer …

Order! I am sorry, but the time for this debate has expired.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 69(2).

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, when the Second Reading debate adjourned I was explaining to hon members of the CP that there are two important principles for which we are making provision in the Bill. The first is the very important one of separate voters’ rolls for each of the three separate Houses of Parliament. We know of course, what the approach of the CP is. It came very clearly to the fore in the Select Committee. They wanted three separate Electoral Acts. One asks oneself how anyone with insight into our country’s problems could come up with such a principle. It would mean that there would be hundreds of other laws, too, that they would want to divide in three in order to apply the principle consistently.

I also referred to the question of provincial hospital complexes and explained to them very carefully how the complexes consisted of various parts but had separate wards. If they now want to announce to the public that provincial hospitals are ostensibly mixed hospitals then they can do so. How ever, if they want to announce that this House of Assembly is going to be a mixed one from now on they can do so, but then they will really have to live with their own consciences. I sometimes doubt whether they have any consciences. No Sir, we only give to people of colour what we have: An own House of Assembly, elected by their own people on their own voters’ rolls, by means of which they are getting a say in our country’s government.

The second important principle is to make the envisaged elections as streamlined as possible. We wish to do so because we want to allow as many people as possible to take part.

We shall put Arrie onto you.

If I had been that hon member I would be quiet. He is a person who champions homeland freedom for the White man. He will shortly be known as the hon member for Uhuruman. If I were he I should say nothing further. Moreover, he no longer knows whether it is the HNP, the AWB or the AVW that governs his party.

The PFP and the CP have said a great deal about everything that we are going to do wrong. Let us take a brief look at their arguments. In the first place it was asked why we cannot have the election along the same lines as the recent referendum for Whites. A lot of fuss was made of the idea that we should have it done in the same way as it was held for Whites during the referendum. By making this statement the Opposition is implying that we are going to use a second rate system. Surely that is untrue. That is far from the truth. All we are going to do is to use the very system that worked very well for many years for the Whites in their elections, except that we are effecting certain amendments in order to facilitate and streamline the entire election campaign. Not one of those hon members can tell me that they are opposed to such a principle. This is not a new principle; on the contrary, in the past they were very much in favour of us making elections as streamlined as possible. Why, then, should we not be able to do so for people of colour. But let me tell you why they do not want that done.

In the first place the CP wants to do everything in its power to place stumbling blocks in the way in order to ensure a small percentage poll because then they can say that people of colour are opposed to the new constitution and thus intimate that they are supposedly in favour of the CP’s homeland idea. On the other hand the Progs, when they lay stumbling blocks, and when there is a low percentage poll, will of course intimate that people of colour are in favour of their integration policy.

During this debate the hon member for Bezuidenhout launched quite a vehement attack on the firm Communitel. They are supposedly interfering with the politics of people of colour and here he referred specifically to the Labour Party and the Rev Hendrickse. However, what did the Progs do when, a short time ago, they appeared on the same platform with Chief Buthelezi and called in his aid to interfere in the White’s referendum? Then the principle was good enough; then they could drag in Chief Buthelezi. Then there was nothing wrong with that. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon member for Bryanston wants to make a speech, he can ask for a turn to speak. However, he must not try and make a speech by way of interjections.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. There was nothing wrong with involving Chief Buthelezi in a referendum for the Whites. Can you imagine anyone being more two-faced, Sir? If, according to the PFP, Communitel has committed a criminal offence why did they not lay a charge with the SA Police? Why do they not tell the police that this was a criminal offence and that they want to lay an official charge? Why raise the matter so vehemently in this House? I could ask another question: Does that hon member want to tell me that all PFP funds only come from White donors? They complained that the Rev Hendrickse and the Labour Party try to obtain funds from Whites, but can the Progs say to me today with a clear conscience that not a cent of their funds has come from people of colour? Can they also say to me that they have never given funds to the political parties of people of colour? Can they say to me that they have never contributed a cent towards the activities of other political parties? [Interjections.] The hon member went even further in his arguments and in his attack on the Rev Hendrickse, but I prefer to let the Rev Hendrickse himself reply, and I quote from Die Burger:

Therefore the Rev Hendrickse has himself replied to the hon member’s attacks. What are those hon members going to do now? Are they going to react to the Rev Hendrickse’s challenge? Are they going to accept the challenge? Is the hon member for Bezuidenhout going to make his allegations outside this House? Does he have the courage of his convictions to make his allegations there, too? Or will he rely on the protection of this House? The hon the Leader of the Opposition would do well to look into this matter and speak to his men. Apart from the fact that they are upsetting the Rev Hendrickse they are also really seeking confrontation.

Another question that occurs to me is whether they are not perhaps trying to cast suspicion on the Rev Hendrickse among the voters because they see how strong his support is? Is that not, perhaps, what they are trying to do? And what is more, they cast suspicion on him in this House, where he is unable to defend himself.

I now wish to turn to the hon member for Brakpan. Just listen to what that hon member said. I have heard them speak of the hon member for Lichtenburg as “die lig van Lichtenburg”; I wonder what they would say of the hon member for Brakpan. Let me quote what the hon member said:

Mr Speaker, I should like this House to consider carefully this statement by the hon member. In fact, of course, I regard this as the words of a loud-mouthed windbag. What else? These are HNP slogans. These are HNP slogans that the CP is using nowadays because they are no longer able to show even a hint of originality. Of course, what the hon member for Brakpan really means by these words is to tell the Coloureds that they are political lepers. That is what he wants to tell them. He put it clearly to them that they are political lepers, that the CP do not know the Coloureds, that they reject the Coloureds politically. As far as the CP is concerned the Coloureds are good enough to be cleaners in this Parliamentary building, but never to have representation in their own House which can accept joint responsibility with the Whites. That is what the hon members of the CP are in fact saying. Coloureds can be cleaners in the Parliamentary building but they cannot come and sit with us in this Parliamentary complex and form their own House. [Interjections.]

This Bill, Mr Speaker, makes no provision for lepers. It makes provision for South Africans, and Coloureds and Asians are also South Africans. [Interjections.] Or did the hon member for De Aar perhaps suffer ill effects in the aircraft the other day when he had to sit in the middle section of the aircraft together with a Coloured family? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may the hon member for Sunnyside say if the hon member for Stilfontein that he is a fool (“gek”) and that he knows it?

Order! Did the hon member for Sunnyside use those words?

Yes, Mr Speaker, I did. However, I withdraw them. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Stilfontein may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I want to know from the hon member for De Aar whether he suffered any ill effects the other day when he sat with a Coloured family in the middle section of the aircraft. Hon members can ask the hon member for De Aar how those people conducted themselves on the aircraft. I must state here today that their behaviour was better than the behaviour of some Whites I have encountered on aircraft in the past. However, I just mention this in passing.

This Bill affords people of colour the opportunity to accept joint responsibility with us for the prosperity and welfare of our country. That is very clear. Accordingly I wish to appeal to the people of colour to grasp this opportunity with both hands, because two-thirds of the White voters said that they wanted the people of colour to share that responsibility with them. Because I for my part am also prepared to say to people of colour that they must come and share joint responsibility with me, I can only Support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, if ever there were an occasion which clearly illustrated how hon members on the Government side try to sit on two stools simultaneously, that occasion was the debate on this Bill. After all, this is the first opportunity for us to pass legislation in this House which must, in fact, give effect to the new constitutional dispensation.

The hon member Dr Vilonel contended that the policy of the CP was an archaic policy. He added that his diagnosis was one of rigor mortis and that the prognosis was nil.

That is quite correct.

Very well, in that case I want to put it to the hon member now that my diagnosis of his party’s policy is one of schizophrenia or, in layman’s terms, a double or split personality. Listening to some hon members on the Government side I want to make my diagnosis more specific and call it paranoid schizophrenia. The political prognosis for that illness is less than nil. [Interjections.] I want to mention a few examples of the split personality displayed in this debate by hon members opposite. The hon member for Stilfontein said the following (Hanzard, 14 March):

He is referring to the CP:

He goes on to say:

Will the hon member for Stilfontein say that a party leader like Arthur Booysen, the leader of the Freedom Party, is not a recognized leader of the Coloureds? He has often shown this very clearly in public. In this regard I wish to quote from Rapport of 26 February this year in which he said the following:

That is the policy of the Freedom Party of the Coloureds:

He speaks here about an independent people. Then it goes without saying that any people that wishes to be independent in the fullest sense of the word must have a territory of its own, to be able to exercise that independence. [Interjections.]

May I please ask a question?

No, Sir. The hon member for Stilfontein went on to try to indicate that that side of the House still stood for separate development. He said that the new Electoral Act was strictly in accordance with the Government’s policy of separate development because there were three voters’ rolls and three separate chambers; and that there would, so to speak, be three separate Houses of Assembly, one for Whites, one for Coloureds and one for Indians.

Is that wrong?

Give me a chance to complete my argument. The hon member compares this Government institution to a provincial hospital with wards for Whites and also for people of colour. I regard it as ridiculous to compare a hospital with this Government institution. That is about the same as saying that a mouse is exactly the same as an elephant. They both have tails, and therefore they are the same. [Interjections.] This morning the hon member for Stilfontein asked us to go and tell the public at large that this was not going to be a mixed House of Assembly or Parliament. I say to him that it is indeed going to be a mixed Parliament. The hon member also quoted the hon member for Brakpan’s words:

I repeat today that we do not support this and that we shall never support it in the future, but by that we are not saying that those people are lepers. We want to give them more than those hon members want to give them. [Interjections.] What absurd argument is that! [Interjections.]

May I please ask a question.

No, Sir. I have already indicated that I do not wish to answer questions.

I now come to the hon member Dr Vilonel. In his speech he made two important statements on the basis of which I can contend that whereas the hon member for Stil-fontein sounded one note, the hon member Dr Vilonel sounded exactly the opposite note. The latter hon member said (Hansard, 14 March):

What he means thereby is that the Coloureds and the Asians form part of one and the same nation and, he said, he preferred to regard people who came from England and open a shop here, as the “pale faces”. Thereby they illustrate once again how they are misleading the public at large about the significance of the concepts “Parliament” and “House of Assembly”. [Interjections.] The hon member went on to say:

I still stand by that.

The hon member should go and say that in Rosettenville so that the White voters can know where the Government is taking them. Then the incidental majority the Government has in Rosettenville will disappear.

I said it in Daan’s constituency and the people ridiculed him!

Order!

Mr Speaker, as far as the Government Party is concerned we have had in this debate the hon member Dr Vilonel on the left, as also the hon member for Innesdal. They represented the left wing of that party in this debate and abandoned separate development entirely. On the other hand there were the hon members for Stilfontein and Walvis Bay who tell our people that separate development is still the policy of the governing party. I think that those hon members should settle among themselves whether separate development is still their policy.

Albert, I am on your side.

Since the hon member for Innesdal feels so good because the hon member for Bryanston is on his side, I want to refer to what he said in his speech. He said, for example:

But what is petty apartheid? Do separate coaches for the races constitute petty apartheid? What does petty apartheid in fact consist of? Do three separate chambers for the Whites, the Coloureds and the Asians in one Parliament, constitute petty apartheid? Over the years petty apartheid has always been the concept used by the liberals to attack the policy of separate development. There is no distinction between petty apartheid and grand apartheid; it is separate development or it is not separate development.

I want to ask my good friends who are still sitting over there and who, not very long ago, felt exactly as we on this side did about principles—they are sitting there and they know who they are; I could mention them by name … [Interjections.] I hear them saying over there that I should not do so, but they know who they are. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to ask them whether they agree with the statement made by the hon member for Innesdal when he said (Hansard, 13 March):

Yes.

The hon members over there says “yes”. Does the hon member for Randfontein also say “yes"?

Did you not support the confederation?

The hon member for Innesdal went on:

[Interjections.]

The hon members opposite who are in such turmoil now—some want to reply and some do not … [Interjections.]

Order! What did the hon member for Swellendam say?

Sir, in reaction to the allegation that we were in turmoil here I said: “You are lying about that as well.”

Order! The hon member must withdraw those words.

Sir, I withdraw them.

Sir, I shall now come back to the Bill under discussion. The hon members opposite take it amiss of us that we adopt a very strong standpoint against the Bill which is a consequence of the Constitution. They say that it is a mandate they obtained due to the referendum on 2 November which was indeed won by a considerable majority, but it was won by the NP together with the NRP, and even the hon members of the PFP will concede the point that it was won with the vast majority of their supporters. That majority was achieved and we readily concede that—the majority is on record—but that still does not prevent us from putting up the strongest possible opposition to any implementation of legislation aimed at bringing about a mixed Government in South Africa. I wish to make a categorical statement. Go and ask any average voter on the street, even the average, ordinary Nationalist on the street, how this thing is going to work; he will tell you: It will remain as it is—the Whites will vote for the Whites in this House of Assembly just as they do now and everyone will decide on their own affairs, as is the case now too. The average voter will tell one that the self-determination and the sovereignty of our people are not being jeopardized at all. Even the hon the Prime Minister said in Pietersburg on 30 April 1982 that the composition and character of this House of Assembly would remain unchanged. Surely that is untrue. The composition as we sit here will remain as before, but the character is surely going to change totally and radically—the sovereignty of this House of Assembly will disappear, because it is going to become only one chamber in a tricameral Parliament. Where is its sovereignty? They are creating a Babel of confusion among the public at large as far as White sovereignty is concerned. I therefore agree with the hon member for Rissik when he suggests that the term ought to be “chamber” so that it may be clear that this is only one chamber of a multiracial Parliament.

This legislation provides for the election of members of two other Houses which, as far as legislative power is concerned, will be on a precisely equal footing with the future White Chamber. Together, therefore, they will form a tricameral Parliament. The election procedures in this measure differ in several respects from the procedures relating to the election of members of this House that have applied thus far. The hon member for Brakpan explained this at considerable length. I wish, for example, that we knew one and a half months before the time that the voters rolls would close. If that were to happen then hon members opposite would not have much of a chance of winning a seat in South Africa. The hon the Minister indicated that he intended coming back to this House with a uniform electoral procedure. I quote him (Hansard 13 March):

I now wish to ask the hon the Minister whether he will come back to this House with those proposals or whether those procedures will have to be approved by the various chambers of the tricameral Parliament. This brings one to the question whether the Electoral Act is a general affair or an own affair. Parts of section 4, 34, 41, 82, 123 and 187 will, in terms of this measure that is at present before us, no longer form part of the principal Act. Is it envisaged that every House will be able to determine its own procedures in accordance with its own Electoral Act? The hon member for Brakpan referred to various differences that do exist as regards the implementation of the Act in respect of the three chambers. In this regard I want to refer, for example, to section 5. This section relates to the appointment of a chief electoral officer and his powers. The chief electoral officer is an official of the Department of Internal Affairs who is designated by the Minister. He will have certain powers and duties. Is this official to be appointed by the macro-Cabinet, the mixed Cabinet, or will there be certain powers that this Chamber of ours will retain? Section 15 concerns the printing of voters’ rolls and section 16 the copies of printed voters’ rolls. Section 19 contains the penal provisions. The hon member for Brakpan clearly pointed out the differences that existed between the penal provisions that are being laid down now with regard to the elections of these two Houses and those that apply at present to the election of members of this House. Section 34 is being amended to provide that the election of members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates should take place on the same day. However, section 39 of the constitution provides clearly that it is the prerogative of the State President to make an announcement and therefore on who should decide on that. Section 128 is being replaced and will now provide for a date when an election is to begin. The date will be determined by the Minister and announced in the Gazette. In other words, the question is whether it would be possible for a House—and I wish to ask this specifically —to decide for itself on the procedures for its elections or whether the Ministers or the chairman of the Ministers’ council will have to decide whether an election is to be held or not. It seems to me the answer is no. There will not be such a choice for any of the chambers. I should be obliged if the hon the Minister could clear this up. It appears that it is an own affair. In his speech the hon the Minister said:

There is also the question of the funding of these elections. Surely that is not an own affair. The fact is—and in my opinion this is clearly illustrated by this Act—that there is no such thing as own intimate affairs of a group or people sharing the same territory. Nor is this the case here, where the Electoral Act of the population groups is at issue. This ought surely to be the most intimate of own affairs, but it is clearly illustrated here that this does not exist at all. Every so-called own affair also affects the interests of very other group.

Schedule 1, paragraph 10 of the constitution reads:

These are own affairs to which reference is made here. It appears at first glance as if this could be an own affair but when one considers the factual situation one sees that nothing remains of own affairs when it is a matter of one of the most important matters, viz the method of electing representatives to represent a specific people in this House of Assembly.

This is the dilemma of an integration policy. It means joint decision-making when it comes to the Electoral Act and it also means joint decision-making in every other matter of real importance to a people. Therefore the Conservative Party will at all times singlemindedly and determinedly fight every measure that threatens our own freedom and our own right. Accordingly we have no alternative but to support in the strongest possible terms the amendment of the hon member for Rissik.

Mr Speaker, when I came to this House, I came to know the hon member for Pietersburg as a quiet, decent, educated and even intelligent person. [Interjections.] Having listened to his speech, the question now arises as to why the hon member has become so bitter. If an intelligent person becomes bitter, one must infer that it arises out of frustration. The hon member will just have to work out his frustrations for himself.

The hon member was very vociferous, and I want to tell hon members in a lighter vein that he reminded me very much of the clergyman who forgot his sermon on the pulpit one Sunday evening. The next morning the sexton read the notes in the margin of the sermon. He saw that next to one of the points were the words: “Weak point; shout like hell”. The hon member reminded me very much of that.

We have heard about the split personalities that are apparently sitting on this side of the House. Since the hon member spoke about schizophrenia, I want to ask him who is the real schizophrenic. Is it I, who still stand by the same party and the same standpoints, or that hon member who sat with us and assisted in bringing things about to which he and his colleagues are now objecting? The hon member comes from Pietersburg, and I come from this part of the world. He quoted a report by Mr Booysens of the Freedom Party, and I want to say that I am really dumbfounded if that is the inference that hon member makes from that little report. Then I want to ask the hon member to make his speech in English next time, because apparently he does not understand Afrikaans. I must assume that this inference is the kind of inference that people make when they are clutching at the final straw, except that the straw is not there. I shall come back to this point at a later stage.

We have heard a number of questions. The hon member puts such fine questions to the hon member for Innesdal, but when the hon member for Innesdal wants to reply to them, he does not want the answers. One really finds this amazing. I thought we were conducting a meaningful debate here.

We also heard about the Black voters from the hon member. It was stated that politically, provision would have to be made for Blacks in some way in the future. There is a Cabinet Committee looking at this aspect. How many more times must those hon members be told that? I heard in Ellisras that this dispensation was meant to pave the way for a fourth chamber for the Blacks. Then one asks the poor uninformed voter: But where do you hear that story? Then he says: A man visited me last evening and told me that.

Wimpie told him that.

That was in Ellisras. I shall come to that hon member at a later stage, too. [Interjections.] Of course a political dispensation must be created for those people in some way or another.

The hon member for Pietersburg went on to speak of the dreadful confusion that exists. How do we get those two points to correspond? How can they say today that there is dreadful confusion outside, whilst the same hon members are complaining that we are using every possible means to inform the voters? We are supposed to have all the media at our disposal. We have been reproached terribly for this. Personally, I believe that voters have never been so well informed about an election. That is why we had the high percentage poll and that is why we obtained an overwhelming yes-vote. While the hon member was speaking the hon member Dr Vilonel remarked that it seemed to him that they were afraid. That is the only inference one can make.

I should very much like to associate myself with the introduction and conclusion of the Second Reading speech of the hon the Minister. Surely it is true that last year we approved a constitution with a two-thirds majority in this Parliament. Surely it is also true that a two-thirds majority voted “yes” in the referendum. This Bill is the first visible result of those two major events. Now the hon member for Green Point has said that we in South Africa have a sound electoral system. That is 100% correct. It has worked well over the years—let us say from 1910 until last year. What we want to do in this election, is to apply precisely the same principles and use the same electoral system so that the Coloureds and Indians can elect their representatives. All of a sudden this is not good enough. We, and the Coloureds and the Indians as well, would like to have an election shortly. If one wants that, is one not permitted to use a system that was perfect for 70 years, according to the hon member for Green Point? The reasons for our not being able to use the population register have been spelt out by the hon the Minister. Surely these reasons are understandable. Now the hon member has come forward and suggested that a commission be appointed. To do what? Just to delay the elections by six months or a year? What do they want to achieve by that? How long is the commission going to sit? How long do those hon members want to delay the whole process? Has the hon member asked the Coloured leaders whether they want a commission? The hon member stated that the Government should ask representatives of the majority of Coloureds. We think we have done that. Has the hon member’s party done that? I do not think so.

The hon member also stated that there would be fewer registrations. Granted, that may happen, but can we not say in all fairness that that could be part of the growing pains?

Having been born and bred in the Boland I attach particular importance to this legislation. It is extremely important to us and is close to our hearts. We who live in the Boland are no different from other people. Perhaps we drink a little more wine and we get quite wet in the winter, or we are blown about by the south-easter in the summer, but at least it brings rain elsewhere. We are the people who are closely linked to the new events. These changes are going to affect us in the Boland and in the Greater Western Cape the most, since we live here with these people. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon member can put a question if he wants to know something. I understand that he was at the University of Stellenbosch for many years and that he played rugby very well. Perhaps he did not have much chance of getting to know the Coloureds at that time as a result. Since then he has probably had even less chance of getting to know them. At the time when he and I were at Stellenbosch there were only 2 200 students. The University of the Western Cape has been established in the interim and at present it has more than double that number of students. What I am saying is that things have changed. We are building bridges and removing an unacceptable situation of the past. We want to try to get away from the confrontation politics of the past. We therefore really want to continue eliminating the spirit of confrontation—with this legislation as the place of departure—to the benefit of our country. We are seeking peace in Southern Africa and today we are seeing the manifestation of a fine peace effort in Southern Africa. We are also seeking internal peace, however. If external peace is a priority—which it is—surely internal peace and stability are an even greater priority. To dream that it is possible to achieve anything by way of confrontation politics, which are often insulting, attests to very little insight and petty politics. I want to emphasize that no country in the world can be governed meaningfully on a permanent basis by denying population groups, who have no other political home and who do not allow themselves to be forced into a dispensation they do not want, their rights.

This Bill is one of the most important materials for building internal peace. Peace is not something that comes of its own accord. It comes through hard work. Could I ask hon members of the CP: Why are you so bitter; why are you so opposed to everything; why not rather co-operate with us? Without the right attitudes peace cannot even be achieved within a single population group. If we do not have the right attitudes we quarrel amongst ourselves like the Irish, leave alone among people of different skin colours. Surely that is impossible. How can we establish a meaningful dispensation in South Africa if we are filled with hatred and distrust towards other population groups? How can we promote peace in South Africa if we are even insulting towards others and if we are so insensitive that we want to impose a homeland on them? What is amazing, is that the hon members of the CP advocate this idea, but they never really define borders or say precisely how many of that population group support the idea of a homeland. Those hon members have referred repeatedly to the letter the hon member for Waterberg is supposed to be carrying in his pocket. That letter must be very crumpled by now. The hon member for Pietersburg tried to take something from a newspaper report that does not even appear in the report. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I ask the hon member for Kuruman to rise and tell us how many Coloureds support his policy?

How many Zulus support your policy?

What is the hon member talking about now? [Interjections.] I am speaking about the Coloureds. We are really not getting any answers from those hon members, except for the one the hon member for Kuruman spelt out at a meeting in Maitland. There were only eight people at that meeting, however, and five of them were his own people. After the hon member had designated Mitchell’s Plain, Atlantis and an area in the North West as homelands, the following question was put to him: “D F Malan Airport is situated in one of the areas you have just spelt out, the Cape Flats; what are you going to do about that?” His reply to that was: "Oh no, we are going to set that aside”. [Interjections.] Over the past year or so hon members of the CP have made many speeches in which they have advocated a homeland for the Coloureds. Those hon members have every right to do so, but then they must at least grant us the right to question their ideas on the basis of the experience and knowledge we who live in the Boland have of the situation. Today a homeland for the Coloureds is still only an academic question. In order to conduct this debate meaningfully, however, the members of the CP must spell out their view of this issue to us. They are not doing so, however. Do hon members of the CP support a homeland because they are afraid of the Brown people?

No.

Do they support a homeland because they do not understand the Brown people? I say that they do not understand the Brown people. Do hon members of the CP support a homeland because they do not like the Coloureds, or perhaps because they hate the Coloureds?

Why are you giving them a separate chamber?

In order to give them a politically meaningful dispensation in the country in which they live. They do not have a homeland, nor do they want one. [Interjections.] Do hon members of the CP perhaps support a homeland because they claim everything for the White man?

No. [Interjections.]

Apparently they support it because they believe it is going to save the White man. Save them from what, I do not know. However, those hon members do not realize that this could in fact lead to the downfall of the White man. It would be appreciated if those hon members would reply to these questions. However, we do not want the old reply that has already become a tradition with them, viz—and the hon member for Waterberg always expresses himself so well on that score—that they support a Coloured homeland because the Venda, the people of Qwaqwa, and heaven alone knows who else, all have homelands. The Venda want their own country, however, whilst the Coloureds do not want their own country. It is as simple as that. [Interjections.]

Or do hon members of the CP support a homeland simply because they do not like us who live in the Boland? After all, they are not exactly brimming over with love for us. Meanwhile, those hon members are too afraid to stand up like men and say: “Here is the border.” Make it the Greater Western Cape. I do not care where it is. They must just say what they mean. [Interjections.] Would the hon member for Kuruman have the courage to stand up and tell us who live in the Western Cape where he is going to delimit the border? [Interjections.] I want to ask him where Hexania is.

You and I can hold meetings together in Wellington …

With pleasure!

Do you accept that?

Anytime! [Interjections.]

Wellington had a percentage poll of 95% in the referendum, and our organization there was so good that I could also begin referring to figures such as those the hon member for Meyerton is so concerned about. [Interjections.] Our organization in Wellington was so good that we know without a doubt that the minimum yes-vote was 85%. Would the hon member for Kuruman still like to come to Wellington?

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I just want to point out that to dream in these insincere and vague terms—like the CP are doing— that a single Coloured of note would support that homeland policy, is utterly futile. To me the best was when the hon member for Rissik said that the CP were going to conduct this debate into infinity. I am really extremely grateful that I will still be able to experience the real end of infinity during my lifetime. That will be in September this year. [Interjections.] When the present Act comes into effect, and the Coloureds and Asians have already voted, are the CP still going to debate about a Coloured homeland? They had only reply “yes” or “no”, Mr Speaker.

Yes. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the people in this part of South Africa, the Western Cape and the Boland, support the present legislation wholeheartedly. This Bill is the culmination of what we want. After all, this part of the country has always been National. It is National, and it will always be National. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Wellington scarcely referred to the Bill itself. He did at least refer to the possible delimitation of the so-called Coloured homeland. Perhaps it does have just a little to do with the delimitation of constituencies, for which provision is being made in the legislation before this House. If, as a person who lives in the Boland, he tells me that he does not know of any Coloured who wants a Coloured homeland, I accept that. When I as a Natalian tell him that I do not know of any Zulu who accepts a Zuluhomeland, he must believe that, too. [Interjections.] He must also believe me when I say that I do not know of a single Indian in Natal who supports the Government’s policy. [Interjections.] They will merely be participating in the new dispensation. They will go no further than that. [Interjections.]

When we discuss the Bill before the House at present, we must, of course, concede that it is a Bill that is not an end in itself. Consequently, this is legislation that cannot exist independently. This Bill does not determine that Coloureds or Indians must or can be elected. The new constitution of 1983 determines that. What is, in fact, determined is that Indians and Coloureds may be elected. The present Bill only determines how such elections should be regulated. Therefore this Bill is really only a means to an end.

However, to allege—as the CP are doing—that one wants to try to frustrate the end by not making the means available, is absolutely foolish.

We are simply taking the fuel out of the tank.

Nevertheless, it remains a foolish approach. [Interjections.]

Of course, it is no secret that the PFP does not like the constitution at it stands at present either. Nor do we think that the constitution is going to succeed in its aim. However, we believe that very soon the constitution will look quite different from what it looks like at present; that each subsequent step will bring us closer to the PFP’s ultimate goal, viz a non-racial, open society without discrimination, and by no means closer to the CP’s ultimate goal of complete segregation; complete segregation on the basis of race for some people, and on the basis of ethnicity for others.

Therefore, as far as the present measure is concerned, our criticism is not based on what is or what is not determined in the constitution; our criticism is purely of a technical nature. We therefore want to see that this legislation as a means will at best succeed in achieving its goal, viz to make the participation of Coloureds and Indians possible in the new constitutional dispensation.

Therefore, the CP says: “The end does not justify the means,” regardless of how good the means are. The NP says: “The end does, in fact, justify the means, regardless of how imperfect they are.” The PFP says: “The end, viz the first unsteady step on the road of constitutional reform, is very important. For that very reason we say that imperfect means should not contribute to making that road even more difficult.” As usual, the NRP says: “Maybe, and that is final.”

Mr Speaker, at this juncture I wish to indicate what our points of criticism are. I am referring to our technical criticism concerning this legislation.

If this legislation makes it possible for people—as many people as possible—to participate in the new dispensation, all the facts at our disposal tell us that as a point of departure the population register would be the best basis for the delimitation of seats, as well as the drawing up of voters’ lists. After all, all parties have accepted that this would ultimately be the best system in terms of which all elections would be arranged in future. Secondly, given the fact that the population register itself is incomplete, and, by the hon the Minister’s own admission, the fact that his department is experiencing problems regarding the manpower position in eliminating the backlog itself, we are prepared to accept that the registration of voters should still be implemented as a method in this case. Furthermore, there is no reason at all why it cannot be supplemented by means of the population register, just as in the recent White by-elections. We are therefore saying—as the hon the Minister also said—that although it will be quicker to register voters, this having been done, it should be supplemented by way of the population register. I am sure that the computers used for the White constituencies in the by-elections could also be used to add the names of Coloured and Indian voters in the same way.

Thirdly, we ask: Why so overhasty? Could the hon the Minister not have fixed another date for his colleagues, or could he not have fixed another date on which he would in fact be in a position to draw up proper voters’lists? If we consider what was done for White voters before the referendum and the speed with which the names of a large number of people were added to the population register, we are sure that if we postpone this a little we will be able to use proper lists not long after 22 August, and that the elections could possibly be held a little later this year, or even early next year with the aid of proper voters’ lists. Firstly, we think that the advantages attached to this would by far outweigh the disadvantages. It would give the parties who want to participate more time to do organizational and persuasive work. Secondly, this will rob those who say that the aim of the Government is to try to lend credibility to the election by an apparently high percentage poll of their ammunition. This will certainly not bluff anyone, Sir, and it is this kind of ploy of which we are speaking that will harm the credibility of the new dispensation, as well as the credibility of the elected members who have to come here as representatives of their people.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it Parliamentary to say that legislation that has been passed by this Parliament is a ploy?

The hon member for Greytown may proceed.

Or is it perhaps that the hon the Minister, as well as those wanting to participate, are afraid that the people who are encouraging a stay-away vote will gain ground quicker than the others? I think this overhastiness will only provide those people with the necessary ammunition.

As I have already explained, this legislation is not detached from all other laws. We as legislators have a duty to see to it that the provisions of this legislation are not in conflict with those of other legislation. If that is the case, we must remove those discrepancies.

The hon member for Bezuidenhout pointed out that by nature the election process had to do with politics and that is why the Prohibition of Political Interference Act also has an influence and must be taken into account. The hon member referred to the involvement of Communitel in the fund-raising and organization of the Labour Party. The hon member also pointed out that Communitel is linked to the NP, although only in that some of its directors are also members of the NP. Another point is that there are no members of colour in the NP and therefore those people are also White.

Consequently, the hon member for Bezuindehout was by no means aiming his criticism at the Labour Party as such. Nor, as is being alleged in the Press, did the hon member make insinuations concerning secret organizations; he called the organizations by name, since he said they were Communitel and the Labour Party. Surely that is no secret; that is what he said.

The matter has already been cleared up between Rev Hendrickse and the hon member for Bezuidenhout and Rev Hendrickse understands the position. There are no problems in that regard between the Labour Party and the PFP.

The hon member for Stilfontein also referred to Chief Buthelezi’s involvement during the referendum. He said that the PFP does not comply with the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. This simply goes to show that the hon member for Stilfontein is not familiar with the Act. Furthermore, it shows that he does not know what hon members of the Cabinet had to say with regard to the referendum. When the Referendums Bill was piloted in 1982 I asked the then hon Minister of Internal Affairs a few times whether that legislation would in fact apply to referendums. He assured me that it was not relevant because, in the first instance, the Bill had a bearing on elections and secondly, it concerned a party that wants to try to promote the standpoints of a political party. The hon the Minister said at that time that a referendum was not a political event. If he says so, we should probably believe him, in so far as the implementation of the Act is involved. In any case, that is what the Minister of the hon member for Stilfontein said and that is why, the PFP went ahead and did what it did.

The hon member referred in the first instance to the hypocrisy of the NP, the party that says that people of different race groups should not be involved in one another’s political activities across the colour bar. However, the NP is doing precisely that now. What the NP says or thinks, is still of no real consequence to us; we must look at what the Act determines. The Act simply says that no person—take note, a person, and not a business undertaking or something of that nature—of a different colour may become involved in the political activities of other parties.

This provision could perhaps be open to interpretation, but we say that such an Act should no longer be on the Statute Book. We are opposed to the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, since we have no problem with the idea that people can be involved in the politics of others across the colour bar. Everyone knows that this is our policy. What we are saying, is that there is an Act that prohibits this. We do not say what the hon member for Turffontein says: It does not matter what the Act says, the NP does as it pleases. We say this Act should be removed from the Statute Book.

Did he say that?

Yes, that is what he said. [Interjections.]

One can leave it at that now. I am saying that these are the technical problems we have with regard to the legislation when it concerns the how and the when as far as the elections are concerned. The PFP recommends that the Bill be referred to a commission. This is to make this measure as effective and acceptable as possible, as well as to make the first steps on the constitutional road as easy as possible. It is not aimed at frustrating the goal, viz putting the constitution into operation, as the CP wants to do. It is therefore ridiculous to claim—like the hon member for Witbank did—that this is a boycott action on the part of the PFP. On the contrary. We say: “Get the show on the road”, but with the greatest degree of acceptability. We are looking forward to the battle with the NP in the new dispensation. Hon members opposite must bear in mind that there could in fact be differences between the various parties in the ranks of the Coloureds, Indians and Blacks with regard to participation in the new constitutional dispensation, but that there is absolute agreement on the fact that the principles of the constitution are unacceptable to them as a solution, even in the short term. As regards future social, economic and constitutional reform, the NP is public enemy No 1. We are looking forward to consensus politics, since the NP will be in the minority in the new dispensation from Day One. They will be a minority government in terms of ideological standpoints, as well as with regard to the practical implementation of the new dispensation. All Coloured and Indian parties, as well as the PFP, agree wholeheartedly that we are going to work towards an open society without discrimination and without racial classification, as well as towards the inclusion of Blacks in Parliament.

Order! I regret that the hon member is deviating very far from the Bill now.

There is only one page of my speech left, Mr Speaker.

Order! The hon member must abide by my ruling.

Very well, Mr Speaker. We would like other groups to participate in the new dispensation. We would like it to be made as easy as possible for them to participate in terms of the Act. Then consensus can be reached as soon as possible about the next steps in the constitutional development process. We are looking forward to that, since every new step will be a step closer to our policy.

Mr Speaker, I should like to abide by your ruling and will therefore, confine myself to saying that judging by the remarks of the hon member for Greytown it is obviously extremely difficult for that party to face up to the fact that they no longer speak on behalf of the Coloureds and the Indians in this country. They are still trying very hard to get a blow in here and there and to set themselves up as the spokesmen of the Coloured and Indian population groups in this country. The hon member for Greytown said their approach was: “Get the show on the road”. This is an extremely peculiar approach. I do not agree at all with any of the standpoints put forward by the CP, but I can say of them that they are at least being honest when they say that they do not want this legislation, nor the new dispensation. The PFP is trying to achieve the same goal in a different way. The PFP is trying, as far as possible, to delay and block the new dispensation. They know very well that the Coloured and Indian population groups were witness to the event on 2 November 1983 when the White electorate of South Africa gave this Government a mandate, by a two thirds majority, to continue implementing the constitution that was also passed in this House of Assembly by a two thirds majority. In fact, on 2 November last year the Coloured and Indian population groups were given an undertaking, in the broadest possible terms, an undertaking this Government is prepared to honour. Now, however, we have the two political parties which, up to 2 November, did everything in their power to subvert this result. On the one hand there is the party which, in its blind opposition, is trying to fight 2 November all over again. On the other hand there is the party that is perhaps a little cleverer, a little more cunning, and is merely trying to block or delay the implementation of the constitution. Why? Because they realize all too well that the bonafides of the Whites may be jeopardized in this way. They realize that if they could get the implementation of this result postponed indefinitely by means of their technical objections—to use the words of the hon member for Greytown—they would be placing a question mark over the credibility of not only the Government, but also of the Whites in South Africa. They think that in this way they can create increasing suspicion among the Coloured and Indian population groups of South Africa as far as the new constitution is concerned. After all, everyone knows they are still opposed to it. If the hon member for Greytown wants to discuss the basis of this legislation on technical grounds, let us do so.

Our approach is that the Electoral Act should be used in the first elections, with the necessary adjustments, in the first place because the Electoral Act and voters’ rolls are more familiar to all South Africans than other instruments. It is true that the population register was used as a basis for the White referendum last year, but this was also a new experience for the Whites, and it was only possible to do this in November last year thanks to a tremendous publicity campaign. It would also be a new experience for the Coloured and Indian peoples to tackle an election on the basis of the population register, whereas in elections for both the old Coloured Persons’ Representative Council and for the South African Indian Council they were familiar with the workings of voters’ rolls and the requirements with regard to the registration of voters. Bearing in mind that we are encountering a new situation, and specifically bearing in mind that it is a situation far less familiar to their two population groups than to the Whites, it is desirable to move from the known to the unknown and not to increase the unknown component of this new experience.

I think that the most important reason why the use of the population register as a basis for the referendum was successful was the fact that the referendum was not constituency-orientated. The hon member for Greytown referred to the use of the population register as a basis, not only for the drawing up of voters’ rolls, but even for the delimitation of constituencies. If the hon member for Greytown had served on the Select Committee on the Electoral Act, as the hon member for Cape Town Gardens did, he would have known how may problems there still are in connection with the use of the population register for elections held on a constituency basis. One of the problems in connection with the population register that we have not yet…

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

No. The hon member had his time. If he was not able to use his time properly, he must not take up some of my time now.

One of the aspects in connection with the use of the population register instead of voters’ rolls for elections—an aspect which is still receiving attention—is the question of how to deal with voters whose addresses on the voters’ roll do not table with those on the population register.

As far as the voters’ roll is concerned, the position is less complex because a voter is registered in a specific constituency; he knows that he becomes a voter in a specific constituency and also knows that if he moves from one constituency to another he is under an obligation to re-register in the new constituency. That situation does not apply to the same extent as regards the population register. When, as we have in fact decided in principle, we use the population register as the basis for constituency-orientated elections in future, we shall have to give serious attention to this matter. For example, we shall have to consider enlisting the aid of local authorities to persuade citizens to get particulars changed on the population register when they change their addresses. We shall have to consider making things increasingly inconvenient for the ordinary citizens if his address does not tally with the particulars on the population register. There are many possibilities. I shall mention a few. One could make hire-purchase contracts subject to giving an address which tallies with the address on the population register. One could make the registration of motor vehicles dependent on address particulars tallying with those on the central population register. We could also consider making our election machinery far more computerized by making use of computer terminals to check the identities of voters. These are all possibilities which could be considered and which have been receiving the concerted attention of the department since 1979, when for the first time a select committee recommended the use of the population register as a basis for elections. However, then one is faced with a situation in which both population groups, which now have to elect their representatives for the first time, have indicated by way of their parties that even 22 August is a little late in the day as far as they are concerned, and that they would have preferred the election date to have been earlier, then there is just no possibility of completing all these investigations into a sound basis for the use of the population register properly before those elections have to take place. We agree with the PFP on the principle, but we cannot agree with them on its practicality, nor on it being imperative to test those voters no later than this year.

Sir, you will allow me to refer for a few moments to the arguments the hon member for Pietersburg used with regard to his homeland idea. I do not want to elaborate on it very much, but he referred here to a statement by Mr Booysens of the Freedom Party in which he referred to his people as an independent people. The hon member immediately came to the conclusion that Mr Booysens and his party could only envisage that independence embodied in their own independent homeland or in their own independent territory, as he called it. I think we on this side of the House can challenge the hon member for Pietersburg and his party to tell us whether they feel that Mr Booysens or his party, or any other Coloured political party, is in favour of their Coloured homeland idea. Can they bring us a single leading figure in the Indian population who is toying with the idea of an Indian homeland? If they cannot do that, may we then ask them, instead of making vague promises to the voters, to tell them how they are going to convince the Indian and Coloured population groups of the desirability or advisability of such a homeland idea? Or have they absolutely no intention of trying to convince those two population groups? Do they only intend to force them to accept a homeland?

How are you going to convince the Zulus?

I am very glad that the hon member for Pietersburg asked that. The hon member for Greytown also took it upon himself to speak on behalf of the Zulus when he alleged that the Zulu people do not want a homeland. The fact remains that the Zulu people share in the government of kwaZulu. That area has a form of government in which the Zulu people share. That is an area in which Zulu people have traditionally and historically lived. Does the hon member for Pietersburg want to tell us where the Coloured and Indian population groups have traditionally and historically lived? [Interjections.] Can they indicate to us—the hon member for Wellington referred very clearly to this—where their homeland borders are? [Interjections.]

Inaudible.]

Order! If the hon member for Kuruman wishes to put a question, he knows what the procedure is.

Sir, I want to ask the hon member for Umlazi … [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon member for Umlazi prepared to reply to a question?

No, Sir. [Interjections.] I digressed for a moment, but I want to get back to the question of whether the CP intends to convince the Coloured and Indian population groups of the merits of a homeland, or whether they want to force it on them. [Interjections.] Now there is dead silence from that side. Our problem with the CP is not that they want to maintain the right to self-determination of the Whites— we are in total agreement with them on that—but that they want to absolutize the White man’s right to self-determination at the expense of the rights of the other population groups in South Africa.

Let us give the CP members the benefit of the doubt and assume that they want to convince the Coloured and Indian population groups in South Africa of the necessity of a homeland for each of them rather than forcing them into it. Then they must surely first get a mandate from the Whites to convince those population groups. In other words, they must first convince the Whites, and then they can begin convincing the Coloured and Indian population groups. May I ask the hon member for Pietersburg: How long will that take? Five hundred years, 1 000 years or longer?

Five years.

Sir, you see what the CP actually has in mind. In November last year they saw, firstly, that they would never get a mandate from the Whites for their homeland idea and, secondly that even if they were to get it, they would still have to get a mandate from the Coloured and Indian population groups. In the interim the Whites can take it upon themselves to exercise complete authority in South Africa. That is the point, and it is on that point that the CP and the PFP agree. If they can impede all progress, they know the status quo will be maintained. I contrast, we on this siee of the House are being honest when we say we are no longer satisfied with the status quo.

Mr Speaker, in the course of my speech I shall be getting round to the hon member for Umlazi. He and the hon member for Wellington basically advanced the same arguments on CP policy.

Firstly I want to tell the hon member for Greytown that in my opinion the PFP will shortly have to work out a new policy for themselves. The hon member need not be concerned, however, because since his party’s policy is being implemented by the Government, its ideals for the Coloured people and the Indians will also be translated into practical terms by the Government. I shall be proving that statement at a later stage in my speech.

That is not true, Jan.

The hon member for Roodepoort says it is not true, but I want to prove to him that it is indeed true. [Interjections.] In the new Parliament, which is going to be constituted in terms of this Bill, the Coloureds will have 85 representatives in their chamber and the Indians 45 in their chamber, with 27 PFP members in this House.

In terms of the constitution?

Yes, in terms of the constitution. In this chamber there will be 27 Progs and eight NRP members who agree with the Coloured and Indian standpoints to open communities only, in terms of the admission of Blacks, the Group Areas Act and separate schools. Although they will be in separate chambers in the new Parliament, there will be 175 members in favour of admitting Black people to this Parliament, the abolition of the Group Areas Act and the abolition of separate schools. [Interjections.]

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon member. Speakers on both sides of the House ranged very widely in their discussion of this Bill, but I think the hon member is now deviating too much. From what I have heard of the debate, there have been no arguments like the ones to which the hon member is now referring.

Mr Speaker, I am speaking of people who, in terms of this Bill, will be in a position to be elected to the new Parliament.

Order! Is the hon member reacting to speeches made by other hon members?

Yes, Mr Speaker.

Order! I would appreciate it if the hon member would refer to the hon member who made the speech and then indicate that he is reacting to it.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Greytown said that in the new dispensation the governing party would realize its ideals for an open society.

Order! The hon member will recall that I stopped the hon member for Greytown from elaborating on that point. I nevertheless want to give the hon member a fair chance.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In the new Parliament, which is to be constituted in terms of this Bill, 143 members—ie all the NP members opposed to an open society plus the CP— will be in the minority. That is why I agree with the hon member for Greytown that the majority of the members of the new Parliament—although they have seats in three separate Houses—will focus their endeavours on the ideals of the PFP. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Wellington and other hon members, too, referred to the CP as racists, as people who looked down on the Coloureds, who begrudged them everything and who did not want to consult them either. He and the hon member for Umlazi shot down the CP’s policy of a Coloured people’s state. They said that the Coloureds did not accept the idea of a people’s state. I wonder, however, whether those hon members read, in the report of the President’s Council, that the Coloureds said that if they did not obtain meaningful representation in this Parliament, they would support the idea of a Coloured people’s state. [Interjections.] The hon member for Umlazi and the hon member for Wellington say the Coloured people will not accept a homeland. Because the Coloureds do not want to accept a people’s state, the NP is going to give them seats in a joint Parliament in which they will have an equal say with the Whites. [Interjections.] When the Zulus say that they do not want to accept a homeland, however, is the NP also going to tell them that they will simply have to be accommodated in some other way? [Interjections.] You know, Mr Speaker, what the hon member for Umlazi is saying by implication? He is saying by implication that the Coloureds have a say in their own future, but that the Whites of South Africa have no say in their own future. [Interjections.] The Whites do not have the choice of their own state and their own Parliament.

Order!

Mr Speaker, I should like to put it to the hon member for Wellington that with each argument he used to shoot down the idea of a people’s state for the Coloureds, could equally be used to shoot down the NP’s homeland policy for Blacks. [Interjections.] Every single argument the hon member advanced can also shoot the Government’s policy in regard to Black homelands down in flames. [Interjections.]

Hon members will remember that the NP … [Interjections.] I know those hon members opposite now disagree radically with us. The hon the Prime Minister said the Coloureds were not a people. He added that the Coloureds were not a people in the making either, being in fact part of the South African nation. [Interjections.] For the benefit of the hon member for Wellington, who is a Bolander, I want to quote what another Bolander in this House, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, said on occasion. On Wednesday, 23 June 1976, he said here in the House, and I quote (Hansard, Vol 63, Col 10440):

Please note that he speaks of a “volk”. I quote further:

Again he refers to the Coloureds as a “volk“. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon the Minister of Internal Affairs, who is dealing with the Bill under discussion here in the House … [Interjections.]

You read all the old Hansards because you have nothing to do.

Order! The hon member for Ermelo must please take heed when the Chair calls for order. The hon member for Kuruman may proceed.

Mr Speaker, in an NP information brochure the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs wrote the following, and I quote:

That was in 1979.

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

No, I am not answering any questions now.

The hon the Minister of National Education said:

So the hon the Minister of National Education also referred to the Coloureds as a “volk”. That was the NP’s view.

What, Jan?

That the Coloureds are indeed a people. It is, of course, clear to me that since the hon member for Turffontein joined the ranks of the NP, that party has changed tremendously. The hon member can feel very satisfied that his old plan of racial federation, which he abandoned in 1973, when he was still a member of the old United Party, is now being incorporated in the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, I do want to tell the hon member for Turffontein, who is now sitting there making so much noise, that his erstwhile leader, ex-Senator Piet Swanepoel of Kuruman, who has now joined the NP, has still a bit more than a month …

He is going to oust you in Kuruman.

Oh, is that why he joined the NP? Is he going to be the NP candidate in Kuruman?

Order! Where does the hon member see that in the Bill?

But, Mr Speaker … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Turffontein asked me a question.

Order! The hon member for Kuruman should really not allow himself to be misled that easily.

What I do actually want to say, Mr Speaker, is that the old United Party’s race federation plan has now been built into the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act. For that reason the hon member for Turffontein can rejoice even now. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, this brings me to the hon member for Wellington.

The hon member for Wellington challenged the CP by asking where the borders of the Coloured homeland are. [Interjections.] Sir, the NP has been governing for 35 years now, and I want to challenge any hon member on that side of the House to tell us where the final boundaries of the Black homelands are going to be, even though some of those homelands have already become independent. Bophuthatswana became independent in 1975. The Commission for Co-operation and Development is at present engaged in recommending, amongst other things, an additional 162 000 ha of land for Bophuthatswana, and Bophuthatswana is already an independent state. [Interjections.] Hon members are asking the CP to indicate final boundaries, but over a period of 35 years they have not yet been able to determine the final borders of the Black homelands. [Interjections.]

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

Mr Speaker, may I please ask a question?

The hon member for Kuruman has indicated that he does not want to answer questions. The hon member for Kuruman may continue.

Sir, the hon member for Turffontein is welcome to go swimming from the mixed beaches.

The hon member for Wellington directed his challenge at me, and today I also want to direct a challenge at the hon member for Wellington. I challenge him to join me in holding public meetings at Kuruman and Wellington—I shall pay the costs—at which the hon member for Wellington can explain the Government’s constitutional plan and I will set out the CP’s homeland policy. [Interjections.] I am telling the hon member for Wellington that I am prepared to issue him with that challenge. He can convene a meeting on a date to suit him—I shall pay the advertising costs—a meeting at which he explains the Government’s constitutional plan and I set out the CP’s Coloured homeland policy. [Interjections.] The hon member must tell me whether he accepts that challenge. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I want to point out to you, with the utmost respect, that hon members opposite are not heeding your repeated calls for order.

Order! The hon member for Kuruman may continue.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Wellington, as befits a Bolander, said that they would like to have progress. He said that we had both studied at Stellenbosch and added, amongst other things, that when we were there, there were 2 000 White students at the University of Stellenbosch. I just want to tell him that when I was there the total had reached 6 000. The hon member also said that one of the fruits of the NP’s development policy at that time was that today there are 4 000 Coloured students studying at the University of the Western Cape. I want to tell the hon member for Wellington that I was at the University of Stellenbosch when the legislation in connection with separate universities was piloted through Parliament. At that stage we had a crisis in the student council at that university when four members of the student council refused to support the legislation on separate universities. We Nationalists saw to it that those four chaps were ousted from the student council, and I was elected a member of the student council on the strength of the fact that I supported separate universities. What I am saying today is that we do not begrudge the Coloured people their own university at which a Coloured person can study in any field he wants to study in in South Africa. The CP is opposed to Coloureds taking degree courses at the University of Stellenbosch.

I spoke of the development.

Order! The hon member for Wellington must pay heed to my appeal. The hon member for Kuruman may continue.

The hon member for Wellington said that Bolanders were very grateful for the new constitution. I want to tell him, as a Bolander, that if this Bill is implemented and the three Houses are filled by virtue of the members of the three Houses being elected, the Cape would have 56 White members of Parliament in the House of Assembly. The Coloureds would have 60 members and the Indians three. For that hon member from the Boland let me say that approximately 80% of the South African Coloureds live in the Boland. Approximately 45 of the constituencies of the Coloured Chamber will be situated in the Boland. Within the larger area represented by the hon member for Tygervallei at the moment, there could possibly be five Coloured constituencies.

What are you trying to say?

Just give me a chance to say what I mean by that. The hon member must not be so nervous. When my district relinquished 600 000 morgen to give the Tswanas a homeland, and his district also had to relinquish thousands of hectares to give the Tswanas a homeland, the hon member for Wellington drew his cross in favour of separate development, but because we are now getting nearer the Boland, in the sense of wanting to give the Coloureds a homeland, he is objecting. He drew his cross in favour of separate development when Kuruman and Rustenburg had to relinquish land to the Tswanas, but because he is afraid that the Boland might have to relinquish land to the Coloureds, the hon member for Wellington is making all that noise. [Interjections.]

Order!

As I have said, within the boundaries of Tygervallei there will perhaps be five Coloured constituencies. The development association that has to look into development for the Western Cape— planning is, after all, a general affair—is accessible to members of the House of Assembly, and we participate. It is interesting to note that in the Western Cape development association the Coloured members of Parliament will virtually outnumber the White Western Cape members of the House of Assembly by two to one. They will also have the support of the overall majority of the PFP members living in the Western Cape and serving on that development association. [Interjections.] I hear an hon member saying “so what?”

I am saying that you must draw the boundaries.

And you want to give everything away.

No, I am not the one who wants to give everything away. The hon member for Innesdal says I want to give everything away, but at present there is an hon member serving in the Cabinet who, when he still believed in a homeland, wanted to incorporate Stellenbosch in the land area for the Coloureds. At the time I asked him please to leave Stellenbosch out of it. That hon member is still in the Cabinet.

Where is your boundary?

My boundary, the boundary we have drawn, relates to the fact that this Parliament must remain as it is because we are not prepared to accept political power-sharing with Coloureds and Indians. That is where we have drawn the boundary. [Interjections.]

Order!

If we look at the number of Coloureds living in the Cape—more than 80% of them live in the Cape—we find that there representation, as a percentage, will be greatest in the Cape. Their numbers are growing, and by the end of the century their numbers will perhaps outstrip those of the Whites. The Coloureds can then say: The President’s Council has so many Coloured representatitves, and in the electoral college that must designate a President there are only so many Coloured representatives, and since you speak of fairness, a just and Christian approach, we are now asking you to change the formula so that we have more representatives. Is the answer then going to be “no”?

To what clause does the matter you are now discussing relate?

To what clause does a Coloured homeland relate?

Order!

There is something I want to tell the hon member for Wellington. The hon member for Wellington is grateful for the constitution which does not spell out the implications of the second tier of Government. If we look at the implications of second-tier Government in South Africa, we see that in the Cape there are 56 White provincial councillors …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Surely the number of seats are not being fixed in terms of this measure.

Order! I agree with the hon the Minister that the hon member is not speaking on the legislation before the House now. During the debate, however, other speakers have been allowed to speak about these matters, and that is why I have asked the hon member, in speaking about these matters, to refer to the hon member who spoke about them. The hon member for Kuruman is apparently delivering his entire speech in this way and I appeal to him to confine himself to the Bill.

Mr Speaker, the Bill makes provision for the election of members of the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives. The hon member for Wellington is jubilant about this Bill, without realizing the implications that the establishment of these three Houses embodies for South Africa.

I also want to refer to the hon member Dr Vilonel and the hon member for Innesdal. In my heart of hearts there is a great sense of peace when I contemplate those two hon members. The hon member for Innesdal and I had many discussions when I was still a member of the NP. He is a very honest politician and always put forward his standpoints frankly and honestly. As far as I am concerned, over the past three or four years the hon member has not done a somersault. He honestly means what he says. The same applies to the hon member Dr Vilonel, and I pay tribute to them for that fact. The hon member for Innesdal said that with this Bill we were taking leave of the past and embracing the future. What he is actually wanting to tell us is that with this Bill we are taking leave of apartheid or separate development and saying hullo to integration. The hon members for Stilfontein and Walvis Bay said that the legislation implied separate development. The hon member for Stilfontein advanced, as an example, that there would be separate voters’ rolls. He surely knows, however, that one can elect multi-racial bodies with separate voters’ rolls. The hon member for Randfontein said here, on occasion, that in terms of NP policy there would be more Coloureds sitting in the new Parliament than would have been the case in terms of the PFP’s policy. By way of separate voters’ rolls one can therefore ensure that Coloureds and Indians have a seat in Parliament. The hon the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs tells his people in Oudtshoorn that this Bill actually still means separate development. He says that the new constitution specifically confirms separate development.

Of course!

The hon the Deputy Minister…

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister did not speak during this debate.

I am just referring to him in passing, Mr Speaker.

Order! The hon member must now co-operate with me. I have allowed him to speak in general terms, but he must confine himself to what has been said in this debate. I cannot allow the hon member to quote here what the hon the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs said at Oudtshoorn.

I shall then simply omit what the hon the Deputy Minister said. The hon member for Stilfontein and the hon member for Walvis Bay said that having members of the three Houses still meant having separate development. I want to make the statement today that even though those hon members said that the National Party still stood for separate development, they have thrown separate development overboard. Those hon members say it is separate development, but what did the hon the Minister of Law and Order say last year? I quote (Hansard, 7 September 1983, cols 13438 and 13439):

Some hon members of the Government party say it is separate development, and some say it is integration. The National Party has become a “You want it, we have it” party. If one wants integration, they have it. When the Conservatives want separate development, the National Party also has a little apartheid.

That is why the Conservative Party says that we cannot in any way support this Bill because it makes provision for the establishment of a multi-racial Parliament which is to consist of three chambers and which is doing away with the right to self-determination of the Whites.

Mr Speaker, it is very difficult to react to the speech of the hon member for Kuruman, since all the arguments he raised apparently proved the opposite of what he wanted to say.

For example, he referred to the numbers in the chambers, but he conveniently did not refer to the composition of the President’s Council and Parliament, nor to the rights of the Houses. He said that this new dispensation was pursuing the racial federation of the old United Party, which is obviously not true. He also drew a comparison between the Black homelands and a Coloured homeland, which is obviously also not true. He used the usual refrain that hon speakers of the CP have been using recently, viz that the CP are the champions of the Whites and that the National Party is selling out the Whites in South Africa. If there is one thing that is far removed from the truth, it is that. The National Party is the party that truly stands for the interests of the Whites in South Africa. Why do I say that? Because this party does not run away from the issues and the realities with which we in this country are confronted. We do not spend our time on phantom solutions to our problems. The National Party wants a future for all the people in our country, not only for the White man, but for all the others as well. If we look after the interests of the Whites, we must look after the interests of the other people. We simply do not have a future here if we do not build our future on justice.

I believe that the dispensation being heralded by this legislation is in the best interests of the Coloureds and the Indians, but also in the best interests of the Whites in particular. It will strengthen the position of those groups, but it will also strengthen the position of the Whites. I am saying this because this measure will usher in a dispensation that will offer a solution to the Coloureds, Indians and the Whites, which would otherwise lead only to friction and discord. This will afford these three groups who have the potential to co-operate an opportunity for co-operation. It will establish a dispensation which will enable the White man to hold his own fairly. Otherwise this could only lead to massive conflict, and that would not be in the interests of the Whites, nor of the other groups. I should like to put the actions of the Conservative Party to the test. I want to test whether their actions are in the interests of the Whites. I want to refer to how the solution being introduced by this measure came about. It was not easy to find this solution. It took years to find it. After serious consideration it was put forward by this party, and many of the hon members of the CP were involved in it. No one can say that this party and its leaders did not work at it with the utmost earnestness. A solution was found and a referendum was held, and it took courage to hold that referendum. Now the question is whether the Conservative Party also acted in this way, whether they, too, treated this matter seriously and whether they gave the matter due attention. I would suggest that this was definitely not the case.

Order! I regret interrupting the hon member but I must ask him to come back to the Bill.

Sir, I am speaking about this measure that is going to usher in that dispensation. In order to usher in that dispensation, it is necessary to carry this measure through.

Order! The hon member must just not cover too wide a field in his argument.

My argument is that the hon members of the CP must come forward with an alternative. If they shoot this measure down, they must come up with an alternative. If they are in earnest about the situation, they should already have come forward with specific alternatives in the referendum. They should have told the voters: “This matter concerning the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites is a serious and urgent matter and we must find a solution; here is a solution.” That solution must state specifically where that homeland should be. It must state specifically how that homeland should be implemented. It must state specifically what the government institution in such a homeland should look like. We are not being told anything about that, however. All we get is the casting of suspicion and criticism of leaders. This was the case once again today. Arguments are not advanced on merit. No alternative is being offered.

I also want to refer briefly to the fact that the CP pretend to be the people who adhere to true Afrikaner principles. I want to put their attitude towards this measure to the test. I suggest that an Afrikaner does not allow himself to be painted into a corner, that he does not act in a panicky way, but that he acts with confidence. Nor does he spend his time on solutions that cannot stand the test of justice.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member has deviated too far from the Bill.

Sir, I suggest that this measure is necessary in order to implement the new dispensation and that it will effect a reasonable and necessary change in order to implement it. I therefore take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Speaker, the hon member Mr Schutte will forgive me if I do not continue along the lines of his argument this afternoon, because I have no desire to become involved in the cross-fire between him and the Conservative Party. What I should like to do is to return to the Bill.

There is one particular item I should like to raise and that concerns the registration of voters. Chapter II of the Bill provides for the registration of voters and all items incidental thereto, for example the electoral officers, how the application forms are to be filled in, the gathering of information and the fact that it will be available free of charge. All those items I should like to bring to the attention of the hon the Minister and in particular the difficulties that we in the White parties have experienced in this regard. You may remember, Sir, that last year during the debate on the Referendums Bill we warned the hon the Minister from this side of the House about the consequences of combining the records of the voters’ lists and the population register. We cautioned him to exercise a great deal of care in this programme.

In passing I should just like to mention that in an exchange that the hon the Minister and I had he spoke of writing to the people who were not going to be allowed to vote in the referendum because they did not appear to have their identity documents, and that he had not been able to make contact with them. I think we were talking of some 160 000 people. When I returned to my constituency in early September I wrote to all the people who were registered in Johannesburg North and advised them that they appeared to be in danger of losing their votes in the referendum and asked them to contact me. I was inundated with requests for assistance to get identity documents. Somehow the addresses I have and the addresses the hon the Minister has are completely different, or mine are more effective.

It is part of your job.

It is also part of the hon the Minister’s job. [Interjections.] What happened subsequent to that? AH our offices were inundated with lists of additions and deletions that threw the party offices into an almost state of panic. We had lists of thousands of additions and thousands of deletions that arrived in our offices in August, September and October. That was an extremely difficult situation to handle.

All parties keep an up to date list of voters in their particular area. It is a laborious process to keep check of each voter in the constituency. In all the regions there is a very good relationship between the parties and the officials of the Department of Internal Affairs. The ladies that do voluntary work in our offices keep control of these records and they keep in touch with the department, who deeps in touch with the voters who disappear. They liaise very closely with the department and there is an exceptionally good understanding and a very good working relationship.

What has happened now? We have this incredible shambles with these thousands of voters who have been added to our lists. The voluntary workers are busy each day, even at this stage—I was in touch with my constituency this morning—in offices around the country, sorting out the mess that has been thrown into our laps by the hon the Minister. I have a letter here from one of my voluntary workers who wrote to me in February saying:

This is in the centre of Johannesburg:

There is no such address in my constituency.

It is in my constituency.

Maybe it is in Groot Schuur. Mistakes like this do happen, but there was an enormous number of them because of the marrying of the voters’ lists and the population register.

Now you want us to use that system for the Coloureds and Asians.

Not at all. I will come to our amendment. The hon member should rather listen to what is going on in this debate.

We had to fight the recent Pinetown by-election on a roll of 18 000 voters. I am sure that the hon the Minister will agree with me that that was an intensive campaign. Our party, in particular, did a very careful convass of all the voters that we could possibly find. We went from door to door, to some of them two to three times. In that constituency we found more than 3 000 people whom we could not contact. As is well known, we were able to register more than 1 000 postal votes because we were able to contact them. 3 000 people were simply not contactable. Some two weeks ago there was a by-election in Ward 16 in Johannesburg, which the hon the Minister’s party also contested.

How did they do? [Interjections.]

They were unsuccessful.

It was the NRP that failed to win.

Yes, they did not lose. In that ward we went into the election with a voters’ list of 6 000 voters. That is following the vast addenda that were received towards the end of last year. Again, after an intensive door-to-door campaign to trace voters, we ended up before the election with almost 2 000 voters who were ineffective because they were dead, they had not lived there for 10 years or they had moved, some of them up to five or six times. This is a direct result of marrying the voters’ list with the population register. I submit that each constituency has been turned into a mini Hillbrow where, in terms of the roll, people move every month. I am told that in the Peninsula, in one polling district of a constituency which is very well organized, there are 14 people on the roll listed at addresses which they left years ago. Their names were deleted and now, because of the population register, they have been re-instated at that address. There are six cases of girls who have married and have moved away from the addresses at which they were registered. In fact, their parents have moved away from those addresses, but these girls have been reinstated at those addresses under their married names.

I also find that not only in the Cape but in Johannesburg as well there is now a delay in the processing of RV 1 forms. The hon the Minister told us some time ago that the last address would be used, irrespective of whether it was a change of address for the population register or whether it was an RV 1. However, that does not seem to be the case. It would appear that there is a delay in the processing of the RV 1 forms. We also found that there is a large number of anomalies. For instance, we came across art instance in the Cape where two voters were registered and their occupation was given as “mentally retarded".

Those must be PFP voters.

No, our records indicate that they vote Nat. After visiting the offices in Pretoria, our people maintain that the programming needs to be re-examined as there is a great deal of duplication. It is therefore clear that the department obviously cannot keep pace with all the political decisions that are being taken by the Cabinet and the Government. The department has an unfortunate history of Ministers who do not know the workings of that department and the department itself has had to implement decisions taken by the politicians who are not aware of the full implications of their decisions. All I am therefore asking is that one should move very carefully in this respect. I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the hon member for Green Point.

Mr Speaker, I wish to reply immediately to the hon member who has just resumed his seat. I am not holding it against him, but throughout his speech he did not once really touch upon the issue before the House at the moment. His speech would have been appropriate under the discussion of my Vote. As a matter of fact, the hon member has added an additional argument to those advanced by myself why we should not in the case of the Coloureds and the Indians with a view to their first forthcoming election add names to their voters’ lists taken from the population register. The hon member has just made the point that he himself experienced that this adding on of names from the population register to voters’ lists is creating almost insurmountable problems for a well-organized party like the PFP. However, the hon member for Greytown suggested that we must add names from the population register for the coming election for the Coloureds and Indians. I really cannot find any co-ordination between the two arguments advanced. In the one instance it is said that it causes additional problems, but on the other hand it is said that it is absolute discrimination if we do not place this heavy burden upon the Coloureds and the Indians as well. This is what the argument really boils down to. [Interjections.]

*I shall try to reply in a logical way to all the arguments that have been advanced, although we have had a long debate. However, allow me, for a change, to begin with the speakers on this side of the House who have spoken in support of the Bill. Each of them made a positive and constructive contribution and highlighted a facet in the debate which was really worthwhile.

I want to begin with the hon member for Witbank, who made an interesting and practical contribution in connection with certain practical facets. The fervent and convincing appeal made by the hon member for Innesdal for a responsible and realistic approach to South Africa’s problems came across loud and clear. The hon member for Walvis Bay put in its proper perspective the value and dignity of the franchise, as well as the development of the franchise as the foundation of democracy. The hon member for Turffontein mercilessly exposed the petty politics indulged in by the hon member for Bezuidenhout, and also showed up effectively the PFP’s delaying tactics in this debate and with regard to the forthcoming elections.

The hon member Dr Vilonel entertained us by recounting a lucid moment experienced by the hon member for Brakpan when he was still loyal to the policy in terms of which he was elected. In quoting those words used by the hon member for Brakpan, he gave me a new insight into the deeply dishonourable nature of the about-face performed by hon members of the CP in South African politics. [Interjections.]

Late in the evening, shortly before we adjourned last night, the hon member for Stilfontein effectively exposed the negative attitude of the Opposition parties. Today he went on to dot the i’s and cross the t’s. The hon member for Wellington also exposed to us the double talk of the CP. I have not seen them look so embarrassed for a long time. The hon member for Wellington calmly described the good balance and the good intentions of the NP; good intentions towards the White community, but also towards the Coloured and Indian communities.

The hon member for Umlazi made an interesting and constructive contribution about the population register. I want to assure him that the network of administrative aids devised by the department is already having positive results. I think that the other ideas mentioned by the hon member could be fruitfully discussed when my Vote comes up for discussion in this House.

The hon member Mr Schutte unfortunately ran into a bit of trouble with Mr Speaker, with the result that he could not fully develop his argument. At that stage, however, it was necessary to cover a somewhat wider field than the Bill actually allows. Even within the restrictions imposed on the hon member, I believe, he nevertheless got in a few good blows.

The one subject that was mentioned by quite a number of speakers was the question of consultation. Several speakers referred to this, including the hon member for Green Point, the hon member for Rissik, the hon member for Cape Town Gardens and the hon member for Brakpan. Therefore I should like to say a few words about this, beginning with a few general remarks.

If ever there has been a period of thorough and continuous consultation with the leaders of other population groups, the past two years have been such a period. By virtue of our portfolios, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and I have been—and still are, of course— engaged in regular and continuous consultations with Coloured and Indian leaders. In the course of these consultations, there has been ample opportunity for every party and every individual to raise every relevant matter, including matters concerning election procedure and the form it should take. Indeed, parties and individuals have drawn attention in several cases to matters concerning election procedures and practices. In the same way, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and I have tested facets contained in the Bill whenever the opportunity has presented itself, and when the matter has been raised among us.

I want to give the assurance, therefore, that all representations received in this connection were thoroughly considered in drafting this Bill. Furthermore, I want to give the assurance that quite a number of views relating to election procedure were in fact put forward in this process. To sum up, there was consultation over a wide front with everyone who wanted to make an input, which many people did in fact do. At the same time, I want to say that the Bill itself was not distributed and that specific comment on this Bill as a document was not invited. This was not necessary, for the following reasons: Firstly, there was adequate opportunity to comment on the Bill before it was finalized and that opportunity was sufficiently utilized. Secondly, the Bill contains no material deviations from an electoral procedure described by the hon member for Green Point himself as one of the best in the world. Thirdly, the Bill is substantially in agreement with electoral procedures which have been successfully implemented during previous Coloured and Indian elections, and to which, I may add, no special objections have ever been raised. Fourthly, the Bill is only intended as an instrument to be used on one single occasion in order to constitute for the first time two additional Houses of the new Parliament. Before the end of this session, a new and uniform Electoral Act will be introduced with a view to the future. It will contain recommendations made by the select committee under the able chairmanship of the hon member for Tygervallei and accepted by the Government. That Bill which is to be introduced will be submitted to Coloured and Indian parties and leaders for their comment before it is finalized, as recommended by the select committee, and will form the basis of future elections. [Interjections.] Sir, I have listened to those hon members for eight hours, and now I want to have a turn to speak. If they want to ask a question, they should simply make a note of it, and I shall try to answer it at the end of my speech.

I want to plead that the Bill which is before the House should be seen for what it is—a measure which is to be used on one single occasion and which has been adjusted to enable Coloured and Indian elections to be conducted effectively and expeditiously without sacrificing any proven or established principle of our experience, which goes back almost a hundred years.

While hon members of the PFP and the CP are making such a fuss about consultation, I want to say that we did not hear, listening to their lengthy submissions on behalf of the Coloureds and the Indians, which Coloured and Indian leaders they had consulted before deciding on the delaying tactics which they have been using in this debate. In their argument, the speakers of the PFP are urging us to adopt an approach which, if we were to follow it, would mean that elections would only be held in 1985. The CP wants to prevent the elections altogether. Which Coloureds and Indians are they speaking for when they present this argument to us? Does the PFP support the UDF in this matter? Did they consult with the UDF and did they then introduce the standpoints of the UDF into this debate? Or do they support a resolution passed by the Labour Party Congress in favour of an election being held before 22 August? Do they attach any importance to the clear statements by two other Coloured parties in favour of an election being held at the earliest opportunity? However, they ask me whom I consulted. Surely they know what these people feel and what they want.

What about the Indians?

As far as the Indians are concerned, the PFP should also wake up. Indian parties have already begun fighting the election in all earnest. The election fight is on, public meetings are being held, and the PFP sits here harping on the question of a referendum, which is no longer an issue at all in the political debate of South Africa. Whatever the Indians said at whatever stage, they are now fighting an election. A conference was arranged by the Department of Internal Affairs yesterday at which 12 parties were represented, I believe, to be briefed on electoral procedures, among other things, but more specifically on the delimitation. These people are getting their delimitation documents in order. A momentum has begun to build up which neither the PFP nor the CP can or will stop. Our task is now to allow that momentum to take its normal course, and the Bill does this in a responsible and justifiable way. It is actually a tragedy that a moment which should have been an important and a positive one for the Coloureds and the Indians, those who are not radical, those who wish to ensure order, those who are in favour of peaceful co-existence, should have been spoilt and soured by delaying tactics used by these two Opposition parties. [Interjections.]

Order!

I come now to the population register and the question of voters’ lists which have also been mentioned by various hon members, including the hon members for Green Point, Bezuidenhout, Cape Town Gardens, Johannesburg North and Greytown. They say that delimitation based on the population register and the compilation of voters’ list by registration could and would have absurd results. They allege that in certain urban constituencies, there would eventually be far fewer voters on the voters’ list than there would be on rural voters’ lists. That is more or less what their argument boils down to.

When we examine this, we must distinguish between two separate procedures: on the one hand, there is the delimitation of constituencies, which is a separate procedure in terms of the Constitution, and on the other hand, there is the compilation of voters’ lists for the constituencies, something which is done in terms of the Bill. Surely the purpose of delimitation is, in the first place, to divide the provinces into constituencies, and to do it in such a way that each member of Parliament potentially represents a more or less equal number of citizens, subject, of course, to loading.

The Constitution actually provides that delimitation should take place on the basis of the population register, and the reason for this provision is that the population register is at the moment the best easily accessible and available source of information on which delimitation can be based. Existing voters’ lists for the SA Indian Council and the Coloured Persons Representative Council are not better sources. The new voters’ lists will not be completed before the work of the Delimitation Commission has been completed. In fact, we cannot compile voters’ lists before the delimitation commission has completed its work, for how does one know whether to place A’s name on the voters list for Elsies River, for example, if one doe not know where the boundaries of Elsies River are going to be? Delimitation must be based on information from a different source, therefore, and in the debate on the Constitution, the population register was identified as the best source for this purpose, a standpoint which is reflected in the Constitution itself. [Interjections.]

Order!

It has never been done in this way.

Order! The hon member for Bezuidenhout must give the hon the Minister an opportunity to make his speech.

Sir, I really listened calmly to all the hon members and I am going to try to reply to each of them. I can assure them that I have anticipated most of the interjections such as the one which the hon member for Bezuidenhout now wishes to make. I have prepared myself rather well. I think the hon member should rather hear me out and then ask any questions he may have in mind.

Who typed out your speech for you?

No, I first wrote it out and then had it typed. I write my own speeches.

Why are you in a bad mood?

Oh, I am in a bad mood because I have had to listen to some very poor speeches all afternoon. [Interjections.]

The compilation of voters’ lists for every constituency is a new and separate action with a different purpose from delimitation. A list must be compiled of persons entitled to vote in the constituency, so that it will be possible on election day to determine whether a prospective voter may vote and to cross out his name when he has voted, so that he cannot vote more than once. That is the purpose of voters’ list. In view of the present state of completeness of the population register—I shall explain why it is in this state—the best way of compiling a voters’ list for a particular constitution with this end in view is not to transfer names from the population register to that voters’ list. Under the circumstances, as these have been explained, a much more effective way of ensuring that every Coloured and Indian person who is entitled to vote and who wants to vote can do so is to require him to have his name placed on the voters’ list himself. Between 1910 and 1951, the White system maintained exactly the same distinction. I am replying now to the hon member for Cape Town Gardens. Delimitation was done on the basis of census figures and voters lists on the basis of registration. Surely this could also have given rise to absurd results.

Not the delimitation …

Order! I want to repeat my request to the hon member for Bezuidenhout to give the hon the Minister an opportunity to reply.

It could have led to the same absurd results. If one had relied on the census figures, a given number of people could have lived within the boundaries of a projected area which had to be divided into constituencies. There could also have been a political campaign in the cities or in the rural areas in terms of which people could have said that they did not want to register there. There could also have been fewer voters in one kind of constituency than in another kind of constituency. However, this did not happen, because the White voters regarded the right to vote as a wonderful privilege and made use of it. What is happening now among Coloureds and Indians is that the right to vote for meaningful participation in all decisions affecting their lives, whatever anyone may say, has appealed to the imagination of those people. Organizations and institutions of which hon members in that party would never have predicted it six months ago are now advocating participation. The hon members sitting over there know this. I have no reason to suspect, therefore, that Coloureds and Indians are not going to register. We do not prosecute a White person who fails to register either. This is regrettable, perhaps, and it is also laid down in the Act that the authorities must be notified of any change of address. When a person attaches so little importance to the right to vote and does not want to go to the trouble of filling in a form, the responsibility and reliability of such a person’s vote is really not worth taking trouble over. Every Coloured person and Indian who wishes to vote in the forthcoming election will be able to register at least up to 30 April. I shall come to the question of the date. All he has to do to register is to fill in a form and to hand it in. I want to tell the hon member for Umhlanga that if there is a great demand for forms, and if a need arises, we shall create more points where those forms can be handed in. We shall go out of our way to ensure that enough forms are available at the necessary distribution points. Anything possible will be done in this connection. Every Coloured person and Indian who wishes to vote has to do only one thing, and that is to perform the simple action of completing a form. No White has ever been able, in the past or in the present, to vote on the basis of the address at which he lives without having gone through that process as well. So there is no discrimination in this. The same applies to the population register. If one wishes to vote on the basis of one’s address, one has to complete a form to change one’s address, and one has to go through the same process. This system has worked for the Whites. We must also look at what happened between 1951 and 1981. During this period, delimitation was done on the basis of the voters’ lists themselves, because there were good voters’ lists. People were able to vote on the basis of registration alone. Surely this did not deprive anyone of the right to vote. Surely it was not onerous. Surely it did not affect the quality of democracy in South Africa when we had that system between 1951 and 1981. Why conjure up all these spectres now, as though this Bill were suddenly calling into question and compromising the quality of the election and turning it into a sham, as certain hon members have said?

If the best method of delimitation and the best method of compiling voters’ lists leads to a situation where there are far more names on the voters’ lists in certain constituencies than in others, then this is not an absurd result of either the delimitation or the compilation of voters’ lists. Then it is only an indication of the number of voters who wish to vote in each constituency. You can take a horse to the water but you cannot make it drink; and every horse will be able to drink in this forthcoming election. Hon members must remember that every person who is 18 years or older will be able to register up to 30 April.

†I want to give the assurance to the hon members for Umhlanga and Cape Town Gardens that each and every individual who submits the simple registration application before 30 April will be able to vote.

I now want to refer to the cut-off point for voters’ rolls. I indicated in my introductory speech that it might be 30 April. I note that criticism has been expressed with regard to this projected date. It should be understood that the closing date for registration, as members well know, is determined by the date of proclamation of an election. The target date announced by me will result in 30 April being the closing date. The only way to extend this date to 31 May would be either to change the projected election date or to reduce the periods between proclamation, nomination and election, and this Bill enables me to do so. A combination of these possibilities can also be applied. I therefore inivite interested parties to furnish me, in writing, their views in this regard and I want to state that it is possible to extend the date to 31 May, but then I need support either to extend the date for the election—I already know that there is strong resistence to that amongst some of the parties involved—or to shorten slightly the periods between proclamation, nomination and election dates which will enable me to shift it to 31 May. I therefore invite comments from all interested parties in this regard. If there are any questions on this subject, the hon member may put them now.

Mr Speaker, I have a question with three parts to it. The hon the Minister mentioned that, historically, a delimitation had been done on the basis of census figures. Would it not be correct to say that a division of seats between provinces was done on a census basis but that the actual delimitation within the provinces was based on voters’ rolls? Secondly, if that were the case, did the hon the Minister or his department consider using the 1980 census figures for the delimitation for the Coloured and Indian elections as opposed to the Book of Life or identity documents? Thirdly, in terms of using the voters’ rolls and the procedures which the hon the Minister claims are the same as those that have always applied to Whites: Surely the State itself has in the past undertaken general registrations of White voters on a fairly regular basis and with a considerable amount of effort? This has not happened with the same regularity in respect of the other population groups.

The reply to the first question is that I think voters’ rolls were to a certain extent also used in the period before 1951, but that census figures were also the basis for delimitations. Secondly, in 1910 there were no voters’ rolls, and we are now more or less in that position. One therefore needs to use another data base. The best data base—that brings me to the second question—at this point in time is the population register. At that time there was no population register on a computer. The consus figures are handled in a different manner. The population reigster is almost organized on the basis of addresses. An address is important. A census is not so important vis-à-vis addresses. It is not in an address order or arranged in blocks, areas, etc. To arrange census figures in order to present them to a delimitation commission is a long, tedious and expensive job. The population register now holds a vast amount of information. It at least records the residence, etc of a large percentage of the people involved. One can make logical deductions from that, as the hon member for Green Point has actually argued. The information is there in almost the right form. It is computerized and fully ready for easy and quick submission. Therefore, from a practical point of view and from the point of view of good management, we regard it as the best source of information.

As regards the question of general registration, I can say that we have had much criticism in the past about the results of a general registration. Once again, time is of the essence. We are not shying away from anything, but time is of the essence. We are faced with decisions and requests that we should have had this election in May already. The people involved for whom we are enacting this Bill say time is of the essence and I am convinced that they reflect the feelings of the majority of their people in this regard. We do have a practical way of getting a good and scientific result. It might have been better to have a full general registration and thereafter allow a further two months for parties to check on mistakes and undertake additional registration where someone has skipped a house where the registration was not done, but we do not have that sort of time. The hon member will realize that we have never undertaken a general registration a few months before a general election. We used to do that, where necessary, in peace-time, if I can put it that way, when there was no risk of a general election coming up or looming on the horizon. In this case we have an election. The people for whom this election has been called are anxious to participate in it. They want it behind them. They want to get the show on the road, as the hon member for Greytown has said, and we have devised a Bill which gets the show on the road as quickly as possible without taking away from the effectiveness of, or reducing in any way adherence to, the standards and principles to which we are accustomed in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister a question arising out of what he has said? Will he ensure that at every post office and police station throughout the country these forms will be available as quickly as possible so that people will not have to go and look for these forms? Secondly, in view of the fact that problems will arise from differences between the delimitation figures and the general registration figures, will the Government consider amending the Constitution Act which provides that the seats are fixed for ten years? With a view to the difficulties which may arise, I think that a period of ten years for the delimitation in respect of the Indians and Coloureds is too long, particularly since the Whites will have one within a five-year period.

With regard to the first question, I can say that, if anybody brings to my attention or to the department’s attention any need for forms at any particular point, we will obviously react to that. Thus far I think the distribution of forms has gone according to plan and no insurmountable difficulties or bottlenecks have been experienced. Initially there was a small shortage, but I think that that has been rectified. With regard to the second question, I want to say that I do not think it will be necessary to amend the Constitution because the period of ten years is not a fixed period but a maximum period. It would therefore be quite possible, within the framework of the existing section of the Constitution, to have a new delimitation before the expiration of ten years.

I now come to the hon member for Umhlanga. I want to thank him for his support. Of all the Opposition parties participating in this debate, the NRP was the only party which really fathomed the true meaning of the deviations in this Bill from normal procedures which are followed in White elections at the moment. I want to thank him for his approach and for his understanding, not of what the NP wants, but of the need which exists in the Coloured and Indian communities. He pleaded for a high-powered publicity campaign in this regard. I want to assure him that there will be continuous publicity and encouragement to register. As a matter of fact, I think this debate in itself already high-fights the need for Coloureds and Indians to do so. The Department of Internal Affairs will make such facilities as are dictated by demand available for Coloureds and Indians to register. I think the high power we must leave to the political parties involved. Basic publicity and effective services will be provided by the Department of Internal Affairs.

*I come now to the more irrelevant part of the debate. I think I have already dealt with the contributions to the debate that were truly and directly relevant. Perhaps it is a good thing that we were able to get things off our chest again at this stage of the session. The debate also covered a wider field than just the technical provisions with regard to elections, because elections affect politics. Therefore I come now to a few of the more party-political contributions.

I want to begin with the hon member for Bezuidenhout. He delivered an absolute tirade in this House.

†He used strong language. “Utterly disgraceful”, he cried out. He said elections will be “a farce” and “completely immoral”. This he said of a system which served the White electorate extremely well for more than half a century. This he said in the face of the shadow Minister, the hon member for Green Point, who with pride said that this is a remarkable system and a system which we can be proud of. His main criticism, apart from the aspects which I have already dealt with, was aimed at the status and the state of the population register. He tried to make out a case that we are discriminating on the basis of colour.

*The hon member for Brakpan also said it was discriminatory. While the hon member for Bezuidenhout said it discriminated in favour of the Whites and against the Coloureds and Indians, the hon member for Brakpan said, with reference to exactly the same Bill, that it discriminated in favour of the Coloureds and Indians and against the Whites. [Interjections.] The reply to both these statements of the hon members is simply the following: Because of circumstances, various practical problems in respect of only a few matters, it is essential that the existing provisions of the Electoral Act be modified, but it has to be done only this once, in the short term, with a view to the forthcoming election. I discussed these particular circumstances in my introductory speech and I have just referred to them again. I have also emphasized that legislation will be introduced during this session to bring about basic uniformity with a view to the future. The crucial fact which both hon members and their parties choose to ignore is that the Bill which is before us prescribes fair, effective and well-founded electoral procedures. These are procedures which are based on the same priniciples as ours and which on the whole provide for the same practices as those that we followed until 1981. These procedures are tried and tested. There is no discrimination in this, only a realistic adjustment to factual circumstances, and the most important circumstances which necessitates this is the state of the population register. The hon member for Bezuidenhout almost had a fit about this, and I was really worried about him at one stage. The fact is that the Department of Internal Affairs is to be congratulated on the tremendous effort it has made to complete the population register. Until the referendum procedures focused attention on identity documents, members of the public, White, Coloured and Indian, were reluctant to apply. We struggled to get applications and often the forms were badly and improperly completed, and political parties did not bother with identity documents as such, but concentrated on registration. However, when the importance of the identity document was recognized for the first time with the referendum, when it became the most important document for anyone who wanted a say in the future of South Africa, it resulted in a flood of new applications, from the Coloured and Indian communities as well. They also responded to the publicity given to this matter. We were inundated with applications; applications which we could not process in time for an election to be held at a date which was acceptable to the Coloureds and the Indians after consultation. We were faced with a problem, therefore: We could not process all the applications in time, with the result that we could not update the voters’ lists from the population register, for as soon as we did that, the man whose application had not yet received attention would say: “You are discriminating against me, because I applied for an identity document four months ago; I cannot vote, but the next guy can, because he does have such a document. The other guy who has completed a registration form can also vote, so I am being discriminated against, because I applied in good time, even before the man who completed a registration form." This would lead to quarrels and reproaches, and that is why we have decided that everyone should be given an equal chance to vote and that a registration form had to be completed.

As far as the population register is concerned, more has been done over the past six, seven or eight months than had been done for a long time before that, because there have been so many applications. We appointed additional manpower and we are processing 40 000 of these applications every month. I am proud of what the officials have achieved, and I thank them, as the Opposition ought to do, instead of alleging in this House that there is an absolutely chaotic situation due to poor administration. Highly mechanized and effective attempts have been made to perform this task properly, as swiftly and as thoroughly as it could be done anywhere in the world. In fact, if we go on in this way, the population register will have been completed to such an extent before the next general election in which all three groups have to participate that it will be able to play its proper role.

Mr Speaker, may I put a question?

No, Sir. We still have a Committee Stage and a Third Reading when the hon member will have further opportunities of raising whatever points he wishes to raise.

I now come to the hon member for Bezuidenhout’s effort to link the NP to fund-raising for the Labour Party.

Not the NP …

Oh yes, the NP! I want at the outset to state categorically that the NP is not involved in any way whatsoever with fund-raising for any political party other than the NP itself. This is true at the federal, provincial and constituency level of the NP. Secondly, I want to emphasize that it is a blatant untruth to state that—and I quote fron the hon member’s Hansard—(Hansard, 14 March 1984):

That goes for what the hon member for Greytown said as well when he spoke in defence of what the hon member for Bezuidenhout said yesterday evening. He made two specific points. Firstly, he said it was an undercover action, and, secondly, that it was being done from the offices of the NP. The firm Communitel is a professional firm, duly registered as a company. It is doing its business quite openly and it is doing so totally independent of the NP.

Just like To The Point.

No, not like To The Point. When I say totally independent, I mean totally independent, and if the hon member has any evidence whatsoever with which to dispute what I am saying now, I challenge him to bring such allegations to the fore. If the hon member does not have the guts to do that and to come forward with any facts whatsoever, I ask him please to keep his slurs to himself. [Interjections.]

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

No. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I was speaking to the hon the Chief Whip of the PFP, who never delivers a single speech in this House, but who, by way of this sort of cutting interjection, tries to create the impression that he knows more about this matter, while there is nothing more to know in this regard. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, has the hon the Minister taken legal opinion, formally or informally? The facts as given by the hon member for Bezuidenhout constitute an offence under the Prohibition of Political Interference Act.

Mr Speaker, I am still coming to that point. I am dealing with a factual allegation made by the hon member for Bezuidenhout that an undercover action was run from the NP offices in Bezuidenhout. I say it is untrue.

I shall deal now with the point raised in this question put to me by the hon the Chief Whip of the PFP. The hon member for Bezuidenhout gave an interpretation of this matter in terms of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, and he quoted what a predecessor of mine said in 1968. I do not intend to discuss the Prohibition of Political Interference Act in depth during this debate. I do not believe this is the time or the place for such a discussion. I have looked at the matter and, while I have not taken legal opinion as such, I have asked people for whom I have high regard to give me a basic opinion in respect of this matter. We do not agree with the interpretation specifically given by the hon member for Bezuidenhout in the debate yesterday.

Our legal advice is different.

Well, we might differ on it.

All right, so we differ on that.

What I want to say is that the best way to test that would be for the hon member to lay a charge with the SA Police. I can give him the assurance that such a charge will be fully investigated, and if it should be found to be of any substance whatsoever in law, it will be submitted to the Attorney-General, who can then take a decision. What I do want to say, however, is that, if the interpretation of the hon member for Bezuidenhout is correct, I believe it would lead to absurd results. I believe one might argue then that no Coloured political party, for instance, would be entitled to employ the services of, let us say, the hon Chief Whip of the PFP or the hon member for Green Point as an advocate to represent them in a court of law in a hearing involving a specific election.

*It would mean that no political party would be able to make use of the services of any bona fide business undertaking or professional firm if members of other population groups were involved in such an undertaking. [Interjections.]

But that is what the Act states.

That is not the intention of the Act in question. I want to give hon members the absolute assurance that it has never been the idea to act in such a way. What is basically covered by the Act in question is election campaigns, and we must read the Act in its full context. However, I do not wish us to start a legal argument on this aspect now. I would even say that it seems to me, when I take a good look at this Act, that it is time to re-examine these specific perturbing aspects. Then hon members must give us an opportunity to do so in a peaceful way.

Mr Speaker, in all the circumstances, would the hon the Minister not be prepared to recommend to the Cabinet that the Prohibition of Political Interference Act be repealed?

If one experiences one problem in connection with legislation surely it is not always necessary to go overboard and repeal the entire Act. I believe that there are certain principles in this legislation which are fundamental to the conducting of politics on an orderly basis within the framework of the new Constitution Act. If the present wording of the legislation does perhaps lead to absurd consequences, however, I want to say at this juncture that I am quite prepared to have it investigated. This legislation falls under my Department and no one wants absurd consequences. No one wishes to prevent any parts from obtaining professional advice and professional assistance. What we do want to prevent—and hon members would do well to read my Hansard when we debated this matter last year on the occasion of a private member’s motion—is members of the White population group, manipulating the politics of other population groups, or vice versa.

The whole of the new Constitution Act is based on each population group being able to arrive at a majority opinion within their own political sphere of action, on each population group being able to elect its own representatives and on those elected representatives, within their own House, being able to arrive at a majority opinion on a specific matter, and on there being other mechanisms if those three majority opinions are not in precise agreement. [Interjections.] That is why it is necessary to prohibit outside interference and manipulation.

If we examine the entire history of the Coloured population then we know that they were the victims of manipulation by White politicians. No one sitting here who in any way knows his history in this connection, will deny it. I think members of all parties were guilty of this.

All voters are manipulated by politicians.

That is why each group should be allowed to conduct its own political processes in its own way. That is what it is all about. Hon members should read my Hansard. There is nothing in this legislation which prohibits cross-pollination of political ideas or which provides that the hon member for Bryanston, if they should ever invite him, cannot address a congress of the Labour Party on a specific subject. It is concerned with elections, candidacies and the promotion of a person. That is the essence of this legislation.

May I please ask a question? I fully accept that one does not wish to become involved in various interpretations of legislation. However, I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether he accepts the fact that his interpretation of the Act as it stands on the basis of the facts given by the hon member for Bezuidenhout involves the proposition that action which by individuals would be unlawful suddenly becomes permissible if they form themselves into a company?

Mr Speaker, that really has nothing to do with this legislation. I should like to consider this idea, but at present I am not prepared to reply to that question. I do not like giving legal opinions off the cuff.

I just want to repeat that the hon member for Bezuidenhout is at liberty to lay a charge with the police. I can assure him that the police will accept such a charge and institute a proper investigation.

May I please ask a question? I just want to ask the hon the Minister, since he has denied categorically that the NP had anything to do with that firm, whether he can also deny categorically that his department or any other Government department had anything whatsoever to do with that firm?

Mr Speaker, I remember that a question in that connection, pertaining to another department, was placed on the Order Paper and that the hon member has already received a reply to it.

In respect of that department, yes, but not in respect of the hon the Minister’s department.

In respect of my department the answer is no, and if there is any such involvement in regard to any Government department—something which I am not aware of at all—it would merely be in a professional capacity. As far as I know this company acts as publicity adviser, communication expert, etc. I know of no involvement. My department has no contract of any kind whatsoever with that company, nor has it ever had one.

Finally I want to say in this connection that we should not associate people in their professional capacity with political parties simply because of their activities in respect of any political party during their private time. If we were to do that we would get the absurd consequences which I pointed out a moment ago by way of an interjection when I said that because the hon member for Bezuidenhout had had a very important interest in Melrose Cheese—I do not know whether he still has but I know that it was the case at one stage—the PFP was now involved in the cheese industry. It is absolutely absurd if one begins to advance such arguments.

I come now to the hon members for Brakpan and Pietersburg who referred to the question of own affairs and general affairs. The CP makes a habit of trying to dismiss own affairs as being insignificant and negligible, and with what they consider to be clever arguments they try to indicate that in respect of a specific item, for example in Schedule 1, own affairs are a bluff. That is their style and they tried to do so in this case as well. Very cleverly, he thought, the hon member for Brakpan came forward with an argument—today the hon member for Pietersburg followed him in that argument—ostensibly aimed at demonstrating how the inclusion of elections as an own affair was actually a bluff.

They omitted—I have sufficient respect for the legal knowledge of the hon member for Brakpan not to wish to accuse him of having done this deliberately—to analyse and to argue this entire matter within the context of the entire Constitution Act. What is happening here? The hon member did not say that the Constitution Act, firstly, contained another very important section, apart from Schedule 1, on own affairs. This is section 14(1), the section which the CP did not want to see included because they realized that it demonstrated our earnestness when we pointed out that own affairs were important. I want to dwell on section 14(1). It provides that matters which specially or differentially affect a population group, ie the maintenance of its identity and the upholding and furtherance of its way of life, culture, traditions and customs, are subject to the provisions of section 16, own affairs in relation to such population group. Consequently it is not only the affairs which are specified in Schedule 1 which are own affairs.

But it specifies “subject to”.

The words “subject to” make sense, because one must read section 16. There must be a procedure otherwise chaos can arise. There must be a procedure. Section 14(1) states that in regard to any matter not specified in Schedule 1, for example, and which complies with this test, only this House of Assembly may come forward with legislation for the Whites. The hon members must stop omitting to mention this, for if they omit to mention this they are not conducting an honest argument on this matter among the general public.

What else are hon members omitting to mention? They are omitting to mention that there is such a section as section 98, a transitional section, in the Constitution Act, which one should read in conjunction with section 26 of the Constitution Act. What does this section 98 provide? Summed up, section 98 provides that a law of Parliament relating to a matter referred to in section 14—elections in this case because elections are identified in Schedule 1 as an own affair—is considered to be a general affair until its implementation in terms of section 26 is entrusted to a Minister of a Government Department or the own affairs of a population group. It cannot be done in any other way. All legislation will therefore at its inception be a general affair in a sense until when the State President, as a first step, states that he is entrusting that Act to a specific House because it is an own affair in terms of the Constitution Act itself. In that way he will basically assign elections per se, except insofar as the general principles of elections are rooted in the Electoral Act— that is the general Act on elections and it can only be amended as general legislation can be amended—to them for administration as an own affair. Section 26 also provides clearly that he need not assign the entire Act. Consequently, if there are two or three sections in such a general Electoral Act in respect of which it is of fundamental importance that there should be uniform provisions for the sake of good order, he will be able to assign only the remainder of the Act. If one reads it within the context, the Constitution Act makes full provision for elections, but the CP’s argument misleads the uninformed voter. I do not think the hon member for Pietersburg realizes that he is participating in a misleading argument. One needs to have a little technical knowledge of legal matters to be able to understand these things. It is the easiest thing to deceive a voter in this regard if one does not explain all the facts to him in simple language. The CP stands accused of having bruited distorted arguments on this matter abroad, and we are ashamed that they should descend to that level in this House.

May I ask the hon the Minister a question?

I just want to complete my argument on this matter, then the hon member may put his question to me.

There are other methods which one would be able to apply. As far as the Constitution Act is concerned, I first want to say that the Constitution Act is concerned with the structuring of the constitutional dispensation in which all the South African groups have to realize themselves politically, and in regard to one another as well, and also in which each group has to find its protection from domination by any other group. In the Constitution Act the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians, therefore, find their protection against domination, as well as their guarantee for self-determination. The Constitution Act cannot and will not be an own affair. It regulates intergroup relations and gives each group the right of self-determination over its own affairs. Consequently I do not think that constitutional affairs can be own affairs. This is our contract in regard to how we are to maintain self-determination and how we are to maintain group rights and group security. Giving only one group the right to decide about something like the Constitution Act will give that group the right to decide in regard to the other groups. One will find the common elements in regard to elections in the Constitution Act. There may be a few facets which, for the sake of good order, may be declared to be common elements. Electoral Acts as such, however, are an own affair and provision to this effect is made in Schedule 1. The State President is committed to Schedule 1 and to allowing what is specified in Schedule 1 to be administered as own affairs. For that reason the House of Assembly will acquire specific, material and meaningful powers over the electoral procedures of its own people, as long as these are not in conflict with the basic provisions of the Constitution Act. The hon member for Lichtenburg may now put his question.

Will the White Chamber be able to amend its Electoral Act so that it is worded completely differently to the Electoral Acts of the two other Chambers, and will the other two Chambers also have the right to alter their Electoral Acts so that there can eventually be different sets of Electoral Acts for the elections of members of the various Chambers?

The whole impact of what I have been saying was that in respect of the fundamental things, this will definitely not be the case. We shall not be able to éf-fect amendments in respect of the provision that every person who is 18 years of age may vote, and the other provisions which are contained in the Constitution Act. These are entrenched provisions which cannot be amended by one Chamber.

However, I believe that in respect of procedures there will be room for the development of own practices. There are many variations of what it will be possible to do. Another arrangement could be that a general Electoral Act may prescribe alternative procedures for various aspects and that the Chambers or Councils of Ministers may then exercise their own and a free choice in regard to the alternatives which they wish to use. In this way, for example, one Chamber may prefer postal votes and special votes, other only postal votes and a third only special votes. The one may prefer voters lists compiled from a population register, the other voters lists compiled on the basis of registration and the other no voters’ lists at all. Fundamentally that is an own affair. The State President is committed to granting own, meaningful powers over electoral procedures, but the entrenched elements from the basic contract which also guarantees the rights of the Whites, as it simultaneously guarantees the rights of the Coloureds and the Indians. This I regard as general legislation which will remain in force in regard to this matter.

The hon member for Brakpan maintained that we should not have given the Coloureds in the Transvaal, the Free State and Natal any seats and that we should not have given the Indians in the Transvaal and in the Cape any seats. His argument was that we are not giving the Black States any seats outside their normal, traditional places of abode. He said that the Cape was the traditional place of abode of the Coloureds and Natal of the Indians, and for that reason they should obtain seats only in those provinces. This standpoint is based on a totally unjuridical and unjustifiable basis. Surely a province is not comparable to a state. Our country was subdivided into provinces in 1910, when we became a Union. At the time we decided against a federal system which would have given each province autonomy as though it had been a state, just as even our independent Black States as self-governing States already have a high degree of full-fledged autonomy. It is an absolutely fallacious argument to compare a province to a State.

What is it based on? I now want to refer to a key argument which members of the PFP and the CP are constantly using against us. Mr Speaker, you must please give me a little leeway now, for virtually every member discussed this matter. The moment we say a Coloured homeland cannot work, they ask why a Black homeland can work. As soon as we say that a Coloured homeland cannot work because the Coloureds do not want it, the PFP says that the Blacks do not want it either, and for that reason our Black policy cannot work either. So they are trying to say—as the hon member for Kuruman said this afternoon—that we are vacillating, and that there is no solution.

I now wish to put a few questions to hon members. They were very brave when they spoke and said that they adhered to an ethnic policy (Volkerebeleid). Is that correct? It seems to me the hon member for Kuruman is saying “yes”. This afternoon he himself spoke about a Coloured people’s state policy (Volkstaatbeleid). He and the hon member for Pietersburg argued that a people should have a state and their own territory and should be able to become sovereign.

You are probably going to ask me now whether the Afrikaners should have a homeland.

Yes, I am going to ask that, but then the hon member must reply to me. The Afrikaners are a people. Does the hon member deny that? The CP is not advocating—and I agree with them—that the Afrikaners should have their own territory. Why not? There is only one reason for that, and I shall help the hon member with his reply. The policy of the CP is not that the Afrikaners should have a state of their own and a territory of their own, because they realize that in the historical context and according to the realities of South Africa it would be an absurd policy. That is why, and that is the only reason. As Afrikaners, what they would have preferred was that we should never have lost the war in 1902, and that we still had our own Afrikaner republics in the Transvaal and the Free State. I see the hon member for Meyerton is smiling; that is what he would have liked to have. Then we would perhaps have had fewer problems. We lost the war, and a Union was established, and as a result of Union an interdependence developed which united English-and Afrikaans-speaking Whites in an indissoluble bond with one another. In spite of ethnic differences between Whites belonging to different peoples, we have achieved total political integration between Afrikaansspeaking and English-speaking people in South Africa. Consequently the CP is not applying its ethnic policy consistently. I agree with them that it would be absurd, since reality requires us to develop a new feeling of unity …

Mr Speaker, …

No, I am speaking now.

Reality requires us to develop a new feeling of unity, and since we became a Republic we have done so. Since we became a Republic a new spirit of cohesion has developed among the various language groups and ethnic groups existing among the Whites. However, this did not cause the Afrikaners to cease to exist as a people. Therefore we do not have a people’s state (volkstaat). One cannot get away from that. We do not in South Africa have a people’s state for the Whites.

Just as one approaches this question of the Whites in a realistic and sensible way, so we approach the question of the Coloureds and the Indians in just as realistic and sensible a way. We say that historically they are distinguishable from the Black peoples. They have never had their own country and, just like English-speaking South Africans, they have never had any other country than the whole of South Africa. They have never had their own sovereignty, just as the English-speaking Whites in South Africa have never had their own sovereignty. They do not have a language of their own. The hon members know that they do not have a language of their own. They share English and Afrikaans with us. They do not have a real, identifiable nationalism of their own either. The hon members can say that they do have this until they are blue in the face, but they do not have it. There is no scientifically considered evidence from their own ranks whatsoever to the effect that they do have this.

Then why are you putting them in a separate Chamber?

I shall tell the hon member why.

Simply on account of the colour of their skin.

No, because it fits in with the reality. [Interjections.]

Order!

The realities therefore indicate that their position is different to the position of the Black peoples. At some stage in their history each Black people—this is also in reply to the members of the PFP— has had its own country and to this day one finds, within the boundaries of what used to be their own country, the heartbeat of that people. Each of those Black peoples still has its own royal house today. Each of those Black peoples has its own language. Each of those Black peoples has its own nationalism, and hon members can say that it is not true until they are blue in the face, but it is true. Every farmer who works with them, is aware of this. Every person born and bred in this country and who has a feeling for Africa knows that the Black peoples in South Africa each have their own nationlism.

That is why they cannot be compared to the Coloureds and the Indians. For that reason, too, the policy which is natural in their case and which in their case does not run counter to the reality within which the Blacks find themselves, cannot be applied to the Coloureds and Indians of South Africa. The policy of those hon members for the Blacks is just as absurd as an Afrikaner peoples’ state would be at this stage of history.

Our policy, however, is not absurd, it is realistic. The facts prove that it is realistic. Surely Bophuthaswana became independent without compulsion. It is not even contiguous, but consists of a number of pieces. The hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development can tell hon members how many pieces it consists of. I think there are four or five. [Interjections.] It became independent. Did hon members read the speech made by President Mangope in which he stated that in future history would indicate that Bophuthatswana and the Tswana people would be an influence to be reckoned with? Venda, the tiny Venda, also accepted independence because a majority of its people said they wanted it. The same thing happened in the case of Ciskei, and right at the outset of course, the Transkei. [Interjections.]

Order!

If hon members therefore say that we should draw a comparison with our policy of independent Black States, and that it cannot work because the Blacks do not want it, that is not factually correct because it has been demonstrated that in four of the cases they did want it and decided by a majority of votes to proceed with independence.

I now want to ask the hon members of the CP whether their policy accommodates the political aspirations and the constitutional political position of the Blacks.

Of course.

“Of course”, says the hon member. However, if the hon member for Innesdal says that we do not have a future in this country if we do not accommodate Black political aspirations and rights, they denounce him as being a liberalist. Anyone’s policy in South Africa—that is, if you are not in the loony bin—must make provision for giving Black people full political rights.

Within their own father-land.

But that is the recipe, and that is our recipe too. Our recipe says: According to nationhood (volkskap). We initiated it. The hon member must not pretend that we no longer adhere to our policy in respect of the Blacks. However, there are certain problems surrounding the logical implementation of our policy in regard to Black people. There are certain unsolved problems in this connection. Nor are we flinching from those unsolved problems, but within the framework of principle to which the National Party has always adhered, we have accepted the challenge of coping with those unsolved problems.

The hon member for Rissik becomes annoyed at us when we say that they do not have the good of the Coloureds at heart. When one makes a person an offer which one knows full well he does not want to accept, that offer is not worth the paper on which it is written, particularly if one does not even take the trouble to persuade him to accept it. Since the inception of the CP, what action has been taken by that party to really get through to and market their policy among the people for whom it was intended? They have devoted all their time to hurting the NP. They have done nothing in respect of the Coloureds and Indians. There has been no real attempt at communication or consultation. They are not interested in them. They are interested in one thing only—it is their only priority at this stage— and that is to hurt this party which they ran away from. [Interjections.] That is why we do not believe them when they talk sanctimoniously about the rights of others.

Mr Speaker, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether the Whites, which include Afrikaans-and English-speaking people, do not also, on account of their history, have a right to sovereignty over a part of South Africa?

The basic pattern of those members is that of building up an argument around words. I want to present a few of these key words. One of the key words is “sovereignty”, other key words are “mixed government” and “power-sharing”. They receive the advice somewhere, perhaps from Communitel—I do not know where— that they should simply pick on six simple points and keep on repeating them and that the uninformed voter will then become so confused that he will eventually begin to believe them. They are toying with the concept of “sovereignty”. The sovereignty of the RSA and the means of self-determination of the Whites are being strengthened by this constitution. Let me tell hon members why. The road of that party is one on which frustration has to be aroused quickly in the hearts of people who cherish fair aspirations—I am not talking about far leftists, insurgents and anarchists—and by means of which people are driven straight into the arms of those who want to see a conflagration and a bloodbath in South Africa. If the White voters were to make the mistake of putting that party in office, then White self-determination and White security—which that party has so much to say about—-will have been thrown right into the middle of the arena, and we would be threatened with destruction. We do not cease to participate in a self-determinative way in all decisions which affect our lives by participating in the new dispensation. We have absolute say over our own affairs, and in regard to common affairs we decide on a basic of co-responsibility.

Sovereignty is a concept which belongs to the Westminster system. It is a concept— hon members can go and discuss this with political scientists—which one cannot simply transplant holus-bolus onto a unique, indigenously designed system. Sovereignty as a concept is applicable to the RSA in the case of the new dispensation. If hon members had listened today during the lunch-hour to the rebroadcast of the signing of the peace accord this morning, they would have heard how it was emphasized on both sides to what extent the sovereignty of our State was taken into account in this accord. I want to ask the hon member a counter-question which he should go and consider. The moment one asks such a question as the one he asked, one is renouncing one’s claim to the whole of South Africa. The moment one, together with Prof Boshoff, begins to advocate an own White state, one states that one is renouncing the remainder of the state. [Interjections.] That is the implication of their policy. I love the whole of South Africa and I want to preserve the whole of South Africa for those who come after me. However, I am prepared to share the whole of South Africa, which also belongs to others, in a fair way with others, because that would not deprive me of my rights.

What about Bophuthatswana and Transkei?

Bophuthatswana and Transkei are independent states; they became independent of their own free will. If Kuruman wishes to secede and, after a referendum, applies to become independent, we shall make Kuruman a republic. First, though, the hon member must persuade the voters to make such a request. [Interjections.]

I come now to a final question from the hon member for Rissik. He asked what costs were involved in this institution. I do not know whether the hon member meant the costs involved in the election, but they are just as much, or less, than they would have been under the CP or under the Progs. The respective parties all say that they are in favour of a poll, therefore the cost of elections is not a factor or an argument. If the hon member were, however, to ask what the costs of the institutions are, I can simply tell him that they are a fraction of the cost of own homelands with their own capital cities, and so on, which is what the CP is advocating in its policy.

The hon member for Pietersburg as well as the hon member for Kuruman had a great deal to say about some hon members having ostensibly spoken about separate development and how we were in favour of that, while others on the other hand emphasized that there were common interests as well, and that it was therefore essential that there should be co-operation among the various population groups. But those hon members have short memories. They know, after all, that these two facets are an integral part of NP policy; in fact, they defended it vehemently from one platform to another, together with us, against the HNP. They also know that they defended the fact that the reality of South Africa requires that there should be self-determination in this country, separate power bases for each group and separation of power in every possible sphere. In addition they also know that we said at the same time that we should also accept co-responsibility and a joint say in respect of matters of common concern. Consequently, when an hon member rises to his feet here and emphasizes the necessity for a joint say and co-operation, it is because the CP is implying that this is not necessary. If another hon member should rise to his feet to say that we stand for separate development, then he is replying to the CP because they are implying that we are integrationists.

The CP does not present the NP as it really is, but tells untruths about us. We are not integrationists, nor are we separatists in the sense that the CP are. We stand for a reality-oriented solution which provides that an equilibrium should be maintained in this country. It is our own course, which runs on its own wheels, which has its own momentum, and it is the only course which has any chance of succeeding in South Africa.

While we have to accept what is unique to each group, and have to equip each group with the ability to maintain itself, to uphold itself so as to be able to aspire to what is precious to it and to satisfy those aspirations, we must at the same time build structures in this country which make co-operation in regard to matters of common concern a realistic possibility. These structures will consequently appear to be dissimilar from one case to another according to the needs and the realities prevailing in particular circumstances. They will also appear to be dissimilar for Whites, Coloureds and Indians because their collective circumstances are different. In addition the machinery for co-operation between ourselves and the Black states and peoples must present a different appearance because they have different circumstances—an aspect which I have already dealt with.

I want to ask hon members of the CP whether they still stand for the development of collective liaison machinery between ourselves and the Black people? Do they still stand for confederation? Not a peep out of them! [Interjections.] By that I mean what the NP has always meant by it, and what those hon members endorsed. Do they still stand for that? We want replies from them. We also want replies from those hon members on how they see co-operation on matters of common concern. If the unattainable, against all expectations, were to become a reality and a Coloured state were to come into existence, we should like to know how the hon members of the CP are going to deal with their co-determination with them.

We should like to know whether the Indians will have full sovereignty—if we may now play with the same words as hon members of the CP do—in regard to their immigration policy. [Interjections.] Can hon members of the CP give us a reply to this? They have such a lot to say about sovereignty. [Interjections.] Or will it be as their leader put it at their congress: “No, but we shall at least keep a watchful eye on that aspect”? Therefore their sovereignty will not be complete. It will be subordinate—according to their leader himself—to White sovereignty. [Interjections.] No, do not try to distract me now. I am now putting questions to hon members of the CP on their policy. You see, Mr Speaker, how inconsistent they are? They are so inconsistent that they cannot reply to such a simple question as this. They do not have the courage to state in this House that they still advocate a confederation in Southern Africa. [Interjections.] With such a party … [Interjections.]

Order!

Now the hon member must not, by way of an interjection, say “in five years’ time”. He should rather admit that it will never happen, because without the courage to say that one wishes to build up truly meaningful machinery for co-operation in Southern Africa, one does not have any means at all of ever obtaining the support of the majority of voters in South Africa.

I want to conclude by referring to an argument which the hon member for Kuruman advanced in regard to the University of Stellenbosch. He kicked up a great fuss about the CP being radically opposed to Coloured students studying at Stellenbosch. Am I quoting the hon member correctly? Am I quoting him correctly? Was that his standpoint? [Interjections.]

I said we would phase them out and create other facilities for them at the University of the Western Cape. [Interjections.]

Our policy is also to expand the University of the Western Cape. The hon member for Kuruman should read his Hansard.

That is what I said.

No, the hon member only said he was opposed to Coloureds studying at Stellenbosch. If we had adopted the same style as the CP we would have stated on the front page of The Nationalist: “The CP says no to Coloured students at Stellenbosch.” Then we would have gone on to prove how the hon member for Waterberg, when he was still Deputy Minister, admitted hundreds of non-White students to White universities. But we do not do that kind of thing. We give the hon members a chance to explain their policy here. [Interjections.] I do not sit here making notes of isolated sentences with a view to publication in Die Patriot, by means of which something which the hon member Dr Vilonel or another hon member said here may be contrasted, out of context, with what the hon member for Stilfontein said.

This Government—and with this I conclude—is working with the harsh realities of South Africa. We do not have any more time for the CP’s playing with words. They ought to make their priority, too, the interests of South Africa, and then they may perhaps be able to realize their second priority one day, namely that of ousting the NP from office. As long as it remains their first priority, however, to hurt and to bruise their fellow-Afrikaners and fellow-countrymen sitting here, they have no contribution to make to the welfare and interests of South Africa.

Question put: That the words “the Bill be” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Bill was published in the Government Gazette, for general information and comment, on 15 December 1983. Comments and representations were received from various persons and organizations, and I shall presently be reacting to this in the course of my speech.

The underlying principle in this Bill is the automatic acquisition of South Africa citizenship by an alien who has been permanently settled in the Republic for a specific period. This is not a new principle. This princple was introduced as far back as 1978 when section 11A was inserted in the South African Citizenship Act, 1949, with the support of the political parties then represented in Parliament.

The measure, as incorporated in the Statute Book at that stage, provided that an immigrant who was 25 years of age or younger, acquired South African citizenship through naturalization after two years’ permanent residence in the Republic unless he made a declaration stating that he did not wish to become a South African citizen. In 1980 and 1981 this measuré was further amended. Provision was made, inter alia, for those persons who stated that they did not wish to acqure citizenship, to forfeit their right to permanent residence in the Republic. In addition the maximum qualifying age was lowered from 25 years to 23 years.

When the measure was placed on the Statute Book at the time, it only applied to immigrants who had entered the country after the commencement of the Act. Immigrants who were already in the country—ie immigrants who entered the country prior to 19 April 1978—were therefore not affected by the measure. The purpose of the measure was to give immigrants who would have been liable for national service if they had been South African citizens, the choice, after a qualifying period of two years’ permanent residence, of acquiring South African citizenship. By becoming citizens of the country, they were given the opportunity to contribute to the maintenance of peace, law and order in the country in which they decided to live. The requirement that a person can only be subject to national service if he is a South African citizen stems from an approach, based on international law, that citizens of a foreign country who are not also citizens of the country in which they are residing, cannot be subject to compulsory national service there.

Immigrant children who entered the country prior to 19 April 1978 are not at present affected by the measure. They are not subject to national service unless they otherwise acquire South African citizenship. There is thus an untenable situation because these immigrants and South African citizens, including those persons who acquired South African citizenship on the strength of the 1978 measure, are not treated equally. Those immigrants are not only not subject to national service at present; they do not forfeit their right to permanent residence if they do not become South African citizens either.

It has been reported that some of these people boast of their privileged position and even confront national servicemen with it. National servicemen are becoming increasingly and justifiably dissatisfied because they are compelled to render defensive services, and have to undergo two years’ basic training, whereas young immigrants continue unhindered with their studies and careers and in that way build up an advantage. In addition employers frequently give preference to people who do not have to do national service, while after their two years’ basic training thousands of national servicemen still have to fill the gaps in the ranks of the defenders caused by people not having to do national service.

†Mr Speaker, for these reasons the status quo can no longer be maintained and it has therefore been decided to revise the 1978 measure. Presently young children from the age of two years and older, can become South African citizens in terms of the existing provisions of section 11A(1). It was consequently regarded necessary to propose a minimum age restriction of 15 years so that only those children who qualify for registration for military service will be subjected to the provision of this section.

The proposed extension of the qualifying period of permanent residence from two years to five years will bring the measure on a par with the existing requirement in section 10 of the Act. This section requires that an alien can only apply for citizenship by naturalization after he has stayed in the country for at least five years. Due to the proposed extension of the qualifying period, it is necessary to increase the maximum age level from 23 years to 25 years. The proposed amendments will have the effect that all immigrants between the ages of 15 years and 25 years who have completed a qualifying period of five years’ permanent residence in the Republic, will automatically become South African citizens by naturalization, unless they, or their parents if they are still minors, declare timeously that they do not wish to become South African citizens. Anyone who makes such a declaration shall forfeit his right of permanent residence even if that right had been obtained before 19 April 1978. Mr Speaker, the proposed measure makes provision for a period of grace of six months during which the persons concerned may decide whether or not they want to become South African citizens. If the proposed measure is adopted the Minister of Internal Affairs can still, in terms of section 11A(2), exclude any person or category of persons from the provisions of subsection (1) which is now under consideration. Section 11A(3A) also makes provision for the withdrawal of a declaration contemplated in subsection (1) under certain circumstances.

The proposed amendments were discussed on a very wide front with immigrant leaders, and the proposals were widely accepted. The persons and bodies who have responded after the Bill was published in the Government Gazette, did not make any constructive proposals that could assist in the redrafting of the proposed legislation. The main objections raised against the proposed measures, were to to effect that the citizenship of origin of the immigrants must not be jeopardized when they become South African citizens; the legislation must not be retrospective; and the legislation will encourage immigrants to leave the country and could also discourage prospective immigrants from immigrating to this country. These considerations were also applicable when the 1978 measure was introduced, and serious consideration was given to them. However, Mr Speaker, Parliament found it necessary to adopt the measure, and for the reasons I have already stated, the introduction of a measure of retrospectivity has now become necessary.

I have also received representations regarding senior personnel employed by international firms. These people, when transferred to the Republic, sometimes apply for permits for permanent residence, because they may stay in the country for a number of years. Most of them will, however, not be affected by the Bill as they are already older than 25. However, their children that accompany them could well be affected. This problem can perhaps be solved by the exercise by the Minister of Internal Affairs of his power to exempt persons from the provisions of the Act. The Department of Internal Affairs is also prepared to issue work permits in certain circumstances for periods of up to five years. This may make it unnecessary for this kind of personnel to apply for permits for permanent residence.

*Mr Speaker, I have thus far confined myself to subsection (1)(a) and (b) of clause 1. In subsection (1)(c) it is proposed that the provision, in terms of which once in every three months a return has to be published in the Government Gazette of persons who have made declarations that they do not wish to become South African citizens, be repealed. This would seem to be a superfluous requirement because it has been found that no other persons or organizations have an interest in this. The Department of Internal Affairs has not received any reaction to the furnishing of the return, and it is in the interests of everyone to avoid the unnecessary use of money and manpower.

Mr Speaker, I move;

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.