Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, in this the Third Reading stage of this Bill we wish to place on record that we still believe that the correct way of handling this measure would have been by referring it to a commission such as we outlined in our amendment moved at Second Reading. In the course of the debate so far nothing has been said, and in particular nothing has been stated by the hon the Minister, that convinces us that that would not have been the wisest and best way of disposing of this Bill.

The value of the discussion one can have in such a commission is immeasurable. There is no question in connection with the opportunities this would create for people of gaining an understanding of the subject matter of this measure. It would also enable people to make inputs and ultimately to reach consensus on this matter. There is no other constitutional means, I believe, which is capable of bringing about a better opportunity for people of really producing legislation which is in the best interests of all the sections of our community. I would have thought that after all the drama and controversies surrounding the whole process of the coming into being of the new constitutional dispensation, hon members on the Government side would have used every possible opportunity of bringing about a calmer atmosphere and a spirit of real co-operation in respect of this matter. By rejecting our amendment at Second Reading, I believe, the Government missed just that very opportunity.

During his reply to the Second Reading debat the hon the Minister tried to make out that consultation had in fact taken place between the Government on the one hand and the Coloured and Indian political parties on the other hand, and that such consultations were still continuing. The hon the Minister further intimated that that, as far as he was concerned, was quite sufficient. In addition the hon the Minister tried to embarrass the PFP by suggesting that we never consult with those political parties on issues such as this one. The fact of the matter is that the PFP in this instance has tried to bring about the best possible instrument for consultation of that nature; and not only for consultation but also for a sensible debate, for proper negotiation as well as for a joint effort to produce satisfactory legislation in this respect. Be that as it may, our suggestion was turned down by the hon the Minister. In his attempt to embarrass the PFP by suggesting we had not consulted with the political parties in question, it was also very interesting to note somewhat later that the hon the Minister found himself in a tight spot and was compelled to admit that this particular Bill had never been the subject of any consultation with Coloured and Indian political parties. That was quite an important admission for the hon the Minister to make. Of all the things said during the course of this debate, including what has been said by hon members of the PFP, nothing could better have stressed the need for such a commission than that very admission by the hon the Minister. Final proof of this need, I believe, was furnished by the fact that during the course of the debate the hon the Minister received representations from one of the Indian political parties expressing their dissatisfaction with the fact that this measure was not based on the electoral legislation applicable to the White electorate.

I pointed out yesterday, Mr Speaker, that I did not agree with one of the suggestions made in those representations, namely the suggestion that the requirement for 300 signatories should also apply to Coloured and Indian elections. I do have to admit, however, that hon members of all parties represented in this House gave adquate reasons why that should not apply in this instance. Those people who are going to be affected by this legislation, however, because they have not had the opportunity of listening to this debate and of hearing the motivation given for introducing this legislation in its present form will not understand anything about the background and the protracted controversy surrounding this particular piece of legislation. They will also not be able to grasp its weaknesses or even the extent to which the Government has become embarrassed in the process. If the omission caused by the rejection of our amendment is indicative of a wish on the part of the Government to do away with that ridiculous condition in respect of White elections we would be only too delighted. It is true, however, that those people have not had the opportunity of taking part in such a discussion, and therefore of gaining a better understanding of this whole issue. That is the reason why, I submit, they will not yet understand why this is in our opinion a negative element contained in this legislation. The mere fact that the impression is created—that is possibly the more important aspect of their representations— that the legislation that will apply to them will not be the same as that normally applicable to White elections, is in our opinion sufficient proof of a serious failure on the part of the Government in this respect.

All hon members of this House will know that the differences between the framework within which the Coloureds and the Indians will conduct their elections and the framework within which the Whites normally conduct their elections are indeed marginal. The differences are marginal but then, Sir, it is not for us to tell them so. It is for them to be given the opportunity to find out about that, to make an input and to participate in discussions. Believe me, Sir, the issue raised during the Second Reading debate and subsequently as well of the anomaly that is going to arise as a result of delimitation taking place on the basis of the population register and the election being run on the basis of voters’ rolls is one that I am convinced will yet form the subject of a considerable number of complaints, of debating and of discussion, and will also cause a great deal of unhappiness and well-founded dissatisfaction.

At this Third Reading stage, therefore, we maintain that it would have been correct for the Government to have appointed a commission and to have referred this matter to such a commission. In view of the fact, however, that the Government did not see fit to accept that amendment, we shall oppose the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, as in the previous stages, the hon member for Green Point has now told us that the PFP will oppose this legislation at this stage. The hon member also spoke about the goodwill which we could have demonstrated, but I think that the debate on the Third Reading of this legislation affords us the opportunity of determining where we stand with the establishment of positive attitudes on the eve of the reality of elections which are going to be held among the Coloureds and Indians.

Everyone in this House—and I think the hon members of the PFP as well—took cognizance with a degree of disquiet of a negative attitude which is being stirred up to quite some extent in the electoral activities among the Coloureds and Indians. Of course it would have been far more acceptable to all of us if, in the course of these electoral activities, a more positive note could have been sounded in respect of relations policies and the reason for the election.

In the course of the debate on this legislation up to now, two concepts have, in my humble opinion, emerged, to which we shall still have to give a great deal of consideration in days to come, as we have recently been doing. Through this debate up to now the concept of “absolutism” has emerged— how absolutistic standpoints in respect of Coloured elections as well are driving us into a corner on the road ahead. In the second place, the concept of “force” has occurred repeatedly in the debate, particularly since we are now, at the Third Reading, discussing the implementation of this measure in order to set those electoral activities in motion.

During the Second Reading debate I told the hon member for Rissik—I think he should give consideration to this—that absolutistic thinking normally leads to absolute nonsense. In politics absolute thinking almost always, and consistently leads to absolute nonsense. When we review this measure, then we as members of this House must ask ourselves, in respect of its application, what the future requires of us in this connection. I do not think the future requires of any hon member in this House to remain behind. Rather I think that the future requires of all of us to proceed together. The question we have to ask ourselves as members of this House when we look ahead to the Coloureds and Indian elections is whether we should like to be runners-up or also-rans. I think that if we reflect honestly on this question, there will be no hon member in this House who will say that he would like to be an also-ran. Consequently we are dealing with these two concepts when it comes to relations policies. In view of this, I should like to elaborate for a while on how the concept of “absolutism” brings us to absolutely ridiculous standpoints in regard to a few concepts.

The question of democracy was repeatedly raised by hon members of the CP. When we reflect on this measure before us, the concept of democracy, namely political freedom, emerges very prominently. Irrespective of the facts and the reasons for it, we see outside this House that the UDF movement has stated that it is opposed to participation in the proposed elections. Through what they have said and how they have said it they demonstrated a boycott activity. Irrespective of the reasons and the facts—I accept that it was not done for the same reasons—the CP finds itself in precisely the same boat in respect of this measure. Whether they like it or not, whether it is right or fair, the factual reality is that we have in this House a party that, like the UDF, wants to shoot this measure down in flames.

The hon members of the CP must decide for themselves whether this measure of ours does not also require from us, as White politicians vis-à-vis the conducting of politics in the Coloured and Indian political arena, a measure of guidance and a measure of positiveness. I maintain that the concept of “absolutism” has brought the CP to a number of absurd standpoints vis-à-vis democracy. With the implementation of this measure, the holy cow of a homeland is going to be eradicated from the political scene for all time. In spite of that, hon members of the CP suggested repeatedly in their arguments as to why we should not have this measure that the alternative lay in a Coloured homeland. I maintain that their absolute standpoint brings absolute absurdity vis-à-vis democracy.

At times the debating absurdities which we witnessed during the discussion of this Bill astounded one. The hon member for Rissik—I did not expect this from him— tried to refer during the Committee Stage to an occasion at the University of Pretoria when he and the hon member Dr Vilonel were engaged in a debate. He actually tried to imply in this House that I was not there. I was not in seat number so-and-so, in row A, B or C, but I heard the hon member for Rissik speaking with my own ears. I was at the door. If the hon member for Rissik wants to deny—I shall let this one sentence suffice— the fact that he received a good trouncing, I want to tell him that he should rise to his feet in this House and tell all of us that on that occasion he emerged as the hero of the Tukkie students. He knows as well as I know who received the ovation that evening. There were students coming in and going out who told me that he had made a fool of himself.

I want to point out to hon members of the CP that it is not debates that determine the future; it is decisions that determine the future. Here we have a measure which implements Coloured and Indian elections, and I maintain that this decision that the Coloureds and the Indians should go to the polls according to the procedure laid down in this measure is of significance at this moment and in the annals of history. With the passage of time, this debate will fade into oblivion, but the decision will remain a reality. We are grateful to have been able to play a part in the establishment of an electoral procedure for the Coloureds and the Indians to give them a say in the new Parliament.

With reference to points raised by hon members of the CP, I want to say that unfortunately the absolute standpoints which they adopted vis-à-vis this measure also brought them occasionally—whether they like it or not—to the point where they arrived at racism. The hon members of the CP must ask themselves, as everyone in this House must ask himself, when we adopt standpoints which by implication indicate to other people that we think we are in a superior position to that of people such as those who are now going to hold elections, what kind of service we are doing our country with such standpoints.

On the outside as well—we see this now among the Coloureds and Indians—there is what I almost want to call Coloured racism. There are people who, on account of White prejudice, are absolutely opposed to consultation. There are people—fortunately we think it is a small minority—who are opposed to participation. There are people, too, who are seeking to further only their own interests in the holding of these elections.

The absolute standpoints of the CP in this debate have also brought them to the point at which they have repeatedly had to place their own interests vis-à-vis this measure before the interests of the country and the interests of other coloured groups. I want to tell the hon member for Rissik that in the political debate with an individual one repeatedly arrives at the truth that the blindest and the deafest of all interests are own interests. We on this side of the House, since we would like the Coloured and the Indian people to go to the polls, could not accept that our own interests, the blindest and deafest of all interests, should be put first in our discussion of the measure. It was simply not in the interests of our country for us to do so.

There is a second question we must ask ourselves in regard to this measure, and I think we decided this question among ourselves last year on the occasion of the constitutional debates. We must ask ourselves whether we as Whites want to grab everything for ourselves when it comes to the holding of elections as well. I believe that those who want to grab everything for themselves, run the risk of losing the most important things along the eay. That is why we are proud that we are also able to create the opportunity for the Coloured people to hold an election among their own number.

I want to advocate that we as politicians should keep the concept of “absolutism” out of our vocabulary, also when we are dealing with such a measure as this. We must get it out of our debates and out of our thoughts, because with such a word and concept as part of one’s political equipment one can inter alia never, in all eternity, argue meaningfully and realistically about such a measure as this. A second concept which I think we can establish, a concept which in my opinion has a tremendously positive meaning while in politics we frequently see only the negative meaning of the term, is the concept of “force”. In politics we see this concept for the most part only in its totally negative context, and therefore, too, when it comes to the holding of elections. We see how people rebel against authority; how they rebel against the structures of authority. But I believe that the word “force” also has a great positive meaning, and we must convey the message from this place to the Coloured people and the Indians who are now about to hold an election that they should illustrate the positive meaning of the word. Just think of the positive meaning of the force of acceptance, the fact that with this measure we are in the most tangible way illustrating to the Coloured and Indian people that we accept them, that we recognize them and that equality and the elimination of discrimination is part of the disposition with which we should like to see this legislation implemented. The force of that acceptance is of tremendous significance to us in this House and to everyone in the country.

Then, too, there is the force of belief and idealism. I believe that the force of belief in those things in which we all believe, including the Coloured people and the Indians, who are now about to hold an election, is greater than the force of the negative and dangerous messages which people are carrying around in this country. Perhaps it is even far greater than any one of us in this House may think. The force of belief, religious belief, the belief in democracy; the force of believing in what is one’s own, is the message which we must convey.

Another aspect of force which can be positive, since we are now about to have elections among the Indians and the Coloureds, is the force of power-sharing, in contrast with negative power isolation. We are now approaching these people and telling them that on the basis of power-sharing they can become participators in the political processes in this country. In this connection hon members of the CP must ask themselves vis-à-vis the concept of “aspirations” whether aspirations in this country, with its tremendous complexity, could ever be dealt with if we activate those aspirations in a negative and damping way. We believe not, and therefore we say to the Coloured people and the Indians that they may hold their elections according to this recipe and that we should like to see the force of power-sharing being activated in a positive way.

I should also like to refer for a moment to the force of freedom. If only we would think for a moment what positive significance is inherent in the force of freedom. To the Indians and the Coloureds I want to say that their political activities in coming to Parliament will have tremendous value for them and the force of freedom—the positive force of freedom is going to become part of their thinking. Then there is the force of the spoken word, and here I want to tell hon members of the CP that with the communications media which we have in South Africa, the newspapers which are read by all of us, the force of the spoken word can have a negative and a positive connotation. I want to advocate to hon members of the CP—I know there are hon members in their ranks who agree with us—that we should not stir up ill-feeling towards one another in South Africa. I know the hon member for Kuruman very well. Even though we have differed with one another on many points over the years, I believe that he knows in his heart of hearts that it is in the interests of everyone in this House that we should be well-disposed towards one another. I want to advocate to him and to the CP that in our spoken statements we should not hurt other people and that we should not, as a result of our statements, make a caricature of the Whites, but that we should with our statements respect people’s rights.

When I talk about positive force, I also maintain that with this measure we make possible the positive force of work, of generating instead of consuming. That is what we find fundamental to this measure.

In conclusion, I should like to tell the hon the Minister that we on this side of the House are not only grateful for this measure, but that together with the host of voters who said “yes” to the Government’s constitutional proposals, we say thank you for such a positive measure which we can apply to the holding of elections among the Coloureds and the Indians. On the part of the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister and the officials in the department, there was no sign of any negativism at all to be seen in the process. With the implementation of this measure we can look forward with interest to the practical functioning of what we asked our people to vote for on 2 November.

I gladly support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I only want to reply to one of the many questions the hon nember for Innesdal put. He asked: Who does one take along with one in South Africa nowadays? It is true that today the CP is presicely two years old. It is also true , however, that seldom if ever in the annals of history has it happened that a small and young party that is only two years old has had so may supporters to take along with it as the CP has during the past two years. I should like to mention two factors in support of this. I believe that another rare occurence in political history of the world took place in the two years since the CP was established, namely that the most powerful member on the Government side, the strongest person apart from the hon the Prime Minister, issued a challenge to this young party, the CP. That challenge resulted in the Government suffering two consecutive defeats against this young party. I am referring to the defeats the NP suffered in Water-berg and again recently in Soutpansberg. On the one hand one has an infant which is only two years old, which is growing in strength and is on its way to entering its prime, while on the other one has a powerful champion-party that has become punch-drunk. We see that every day.

As far af the legislation is concerned, having reached the Third Reading stage the measure has virtually passed through all its stages in Parliament. We can be certain that it is going to be placed on the Statute Book. As far as I am concerned the saddest thing about this measure is that the powerful NP Government is deviating from its idealism, its ideology, what it has proclaimed and successfully embodied in South Africa over the decades. I want to prove this. I want to do so with reference to what eminent Nationalists have written. This legislation is in direct conflict with what the NP has always set up as its ideal. I want to quote the following short paragraph in consequence of what has been written regarding the rights of the Coloureds and the Indians to elect representatives to Parliament:

The final paragraph reads:

Do hon members know whose signatures give their blessing to this historical piece of work of the National Party? I want to mention only three of them: The hon B J Vorster, the hon B J Schoeman and the hon P W Botha. [Interjections.] That is what they had to say about homelands and separate peoples.

In regard to the implementation of this legislation, I want to ask the hon the Minister a question. When this legislation is implemented and the Indian and Coloured representatives, sitting here with him or opposite him, say what they promised outside they would say here, I should like to know from the hon the Minister how he will deal with this. The Rev Mr Hendrickse has said inter alia that the Coloureds want a say in regard to the Strydom Committee Report, and I am quoting him:

He went on to say:

I have here another report which reads: “Woonbuurte sal volg na sakegebiede.” I want to tell every hon Minister that I am grateful that I am not in their shoes when, as a result of the Act, those people come to them and say that they now serve, with them in the highest council chambers in the country, help make laws, help to govern the country and are seated with them in the highest imaginable forum in the country.

How is it then possible that their people and their children may not live in the same areas and attend the same schools as the hon Ministers’ people and their children? How are hon Ministers going to reply to them? Here I want to give the PFP credit for at least being honest. How are hon Ministers going to tell these people that when business areas are thrown open, they may have a shop on the ground floor, but that they may not live on the second floor? How are hon Ministers going to tell them that they may not live on their premises? Why am I saying that we cannot agree with this Bill? If this election had been …

Order! I want to tell hon members that I have reread this amending Bill, and it is no use hon members referring to the Bill and then discussing aspects that have nothing to do with it and are not mentioned in it at all. I am quite prepared to allow an hon member to find some point of contact with some or other topic and then to elaborate on it. I cannot, however, allow a debate on general policy matters during the discussion of an amending Bill which deals with a specific Act. The hon member for Meyerton must now confine himself to a discussion of the Bill.

Sir, I respectfully abide by your request. I should just like to point out that I have tried to indicate, by implication, how our policy and standpoint differs from what is contained in the Bill. I just want to say that we cannot support the Bill because it is in direct conflict with our policy. If this election for Coloureds and Indians had concerned the election of representatives for their own Parliament, it would have been another matter. Because it is in direct conflict with our policy, however, we cannot support the Bill, and we therefore oppose it.

Mr Speaker, I should like to react briefly to what the hon member for Meyerton said here. He referred to the fact that his party was two years old today. I should like to say to him that in spite of the realities of the Republic of South Africa and the road taken by the National Party to ensure peace, prosperity and security for everyone in the Republic of South Africa, we have here a group of people who have given birth to a new party. Since we are giving final effect to the structure of a Parliament in which three groups will together govern this country, while we are now launching this final process, the Conservative Party is writing its own epitaph. [Interjections.] This afternoon the hon member for Meyerton referred to a document which bore the approval of inter alia the late Mr Vorster. However, the hon member forgot that the late Mr Vorster said at the opening of the ASB congress at the Aula in Pretoria on 29 June 1971 that the idea of a Coloured homeland was not practical politics and that it could not work. Did those hon members not take cognizance of that? The hon member went on to try and drag in the Group Areas Act here. I want to say that the CP will go down in history as the party that took its place in Parliament with the most seats while riding on the back of another party. We should take cognizance of that.

Mr Speaker, I am much obliged to you for your patience. I now turn to the legislation. [Interjections.] What the National Party is doing in this country is to give other groups the same rights as it demands for itself. I think it is important that we should also just consider for a few moments today what the standpoint of the Coloureds is in this regard. I should like to refer hon members to a report which appeared in Oosterlig on 13 March 1975 entitled: “Wit en Bruin sal moet saamwerk.” That was almost a decade ago. I also refer hon members to a report that appeared in Rapport on 16 March 1975 which reads as follows:

I now refer to a report that appeared in Die Burger on 17 March 1975. I quote:

That is the wish of these people. That too is the road we are taking. The Government will take full responsibility for that and the CP and the PFP must take cognizance of this. The PFP has consistently attempted to involve the Black man, to use Black politics, to act as arbiter in the White-Brown politics in the Republic of South Africa. We must get away from that.

I want to refer to another point and ask that the hon the Minister take full cognizance of this. The matter is intimidation. On 24 May 1983 (Hansard, col 7989) I brought to the attention of the hon the Minister the fact that intimidation of voters was taking place. We saw it in Germiston District and in the elections in Northern Transvaal. [Interjections.] We also saw it at the time of the referendum on 2 November. I think it is important that we should consider for a moment the relevant section in the Act. I refer to section 131, “Undue influence”. Subsection (1)(a) reads as follows:

I also quote subsection (3):

Moreover, it is expected of the Minister of Justice to table a certificate in Parliament every year in regard to the provisions of section 31(2). The latest certificate reads:

I should like to ask the hon the Minister that he give renewed consideration to that matter. It is a matter which is assuming serious proportions.

I now wish to refer to a report which appeared in Rapport on 8 November 1981. It reflects the standpoint of an Indian. It is these people who are going to be involved in an election on 22 August and it is those people in regard to whom I appeal that we allow them to proceed unhindered to exercise their democratic right as South African citizens at the polls. Let us hear what this Indian leader says:

Another Indian leader said in Durban that the Indian Council had an important role to perform. He placed the blame for the low percentage poll squarely on the shoulders of the Indian Congress.

The chairman of that party has been banned. I shall come back to that later. According to this Indian leader the degree of intimidation in Chatsworth was shocking. He went on to say how he and his supporters were attacked at his own home and that fistfights took place for two hours. I think we must take cognizance of this matter. I should like to go a little further and refer to a report which appeared in Die Vaderland on 15 March this year entitled “Boesak kap na die verdrag”. Reference is made here to the Accord of Nkomati. He was addressing a meeting of the Transvaal Indian Congress which was attended by about 1 500 people, and he said;

What else are we engaged in doing now, Sir? I also wish to refer to a report which appeared in Die Transvaler of 19 March—yesterday—in which we read the following:

We must take cognizance of this. I should also like to refer to two standpoints adopted by Coloureds. The title of a report in the Thursday 15 March 1984 edition of Die Vaderland reads: “Die PFP gebruik die Kleur-linge” and in this report a Coloured leader says the following:

I raise these points so that hon members may take cognizance of them.

Who said that?

It was said by the chairman of the Coloured Management Committee, Mr My nie Richard, and it is certainly no secret.

Once again I wish to refer to a matter touched on by the hon member for Innesdal. It concerns violence and bloodshed and in this regard I wish to address the CP this afternoon. The CP and its supporters also speak the language of Dr Allan Boesak.

Order! What aspect of the legislation is the hon member discussing?

Mr Speaker, it is a matter of intimidation and violence under section 131(1). If you would permit me, Sir, I should just like to indicate how these people are intimidating the voters. Prof Carel Boshoff said inter alia that hell would be unleashed in this country and we should prepare ourselves for the worst imaginable bloodbath.

As far as the election on 22 August is concerned, I wish to quote from Die Vaderland of Thursday, 15 March. A report entitled “Bruines praat oor knelpunte van die verkie-sing” refers to people who held a meeting in Pretoria. We must take cognizance of that, and accordingly I shall quote one paragraph from that report, viz:

In conclusion I just wish to say that the Government is not in favour of violence. We are not in favour of bloodshed. We are in favour of consensus, and what better proof could one have of that than the signing of the Accord of Nkomati last Friday? I therefore support the measure before this House.

Mr Speaker, I should like to deal, firstly, with the remarks made by the hon member for Green Point earlier this afternoon. Once again he stressed the need for a commission consisting of Coloureds, Indians and Whites to sit in judgment, as it were, on this Bill before it becomes law. I did, however, indicate during Second Reading our feelings in that connection. I pointed out to him then that we had supported just such a thought on a previous occasion when the Electoral Act was discussed in general in a select committee. That, however, is history, and I want to point out that whatever merit that hon member’s suggestion may have had, I believe it is now being completely negated by the lack of any call for this particular line of thought from any significant number of members of, or organized political parties as such amongst, either the Indian or the Coloured groups, other than, I believe—I still have not seen it myself yet— comments on other aspects from the group known as Solidarity, an Indian group in Durban. Those comments were apparently reported in yesterday’s Natal Mercury. The only serious reservation has come in respect of the closing date of the voters’ rolls. That is a reservation, I think, that was expressed by certain Coloured leaders.

Mr Speaker, I do, however, want to highlight the fact that this issue has been on the Order Paper since Wednesday of last week, when the Second Reading debate began. We have had all the time in the world for reactions, and I want to ask the hon member for Green Point whether he does not agree that this is true. We have had no reaction from the Indian party known as the Peoples’ Party. We have had no reaction from the Labour Party, which is a Coloured party. We have also not heard anything from the Freedom Party. We have not heard anything from the Congress of the People, and other than those instances I have just mentioned, we have heard nothing from any other Coloured or Indian leaders or parties. I believe the hon member must concur with what I say. This is a fact. What is even more significant, however, I believe, is this. We have in the Western Cape possibly 80% to 90% of the Coloured people; of the potential Coloured votes. We have in the Metropolitan areas of Durban and Pietermaritzburg between 80% and 90% of the potential Indian vote. In the Western Cape we have two major opposition newspapers, those belonging to the English-language groups—one belonging to SAAN and one to the Argus group. I am referring of course to The Cape Times and The Argus. Neither one, in its editorial comment, has come out with any, what I would call, strong reservations or observations about this Bill. Neither one.

Let us turn now to Natal. In Natal we have The Daily News, of the Argus group in Durban. We have The Natal Witness in Pietermaritzburg, and we have the The Natal Mercury in Durban. Of those three newspapers only one has come out with any editorial comment of any note. That was The Natal Mercury which went to press on Thursday, 15 March, with what I consider to have been a very, very valid argument. I spoke about it during Second Reading, and I think I also touched on it in the Committee Stage. I also intend referring to it here. That comment concerns the matter of the closing date for the voters’ roll.

Mr Speaker, is it not significant then that of those five newspapers only one supported a “yes” vote in the referendum? That is the newspaper that published the comment to which I am referring. Not one of the vociferous newspapers, that had a lot to say in favour of a “no” vote in the referendum has come out with any major editorial comment condemning this Bill. This, I believe, is tremendously significant in that…

Why?

I do not know why. The hon Chief Whip of the official Opposition should be able to tell me why, Mr Speaker. It is their Press after all. I cannot tell him why … [Interjections.] Surely to heavens, if I were a member of the PFP, I would ask myself where I have gone wrong because I think they have gone wrong. [Interjections.] I think hon members of the PFP are out of line with their own Press. [Interjections.] I want to repeat, Sir, that every Indian or Coloured who qualifies for a vote can ensure that his name is on the voters’ roll. We have gone over this before and we can do so again and again. There is nothing to prevent any Coloured or Indian person from ensuring that his name appears on the voters’ roll. I want, however, to make an appeal to the media, to the English and Afrikaans language Press in this country right across the board. I want to say to them that I believe it is important that they should play their role in publicizing this fact. I want to say to them that this is something in respect of which they can really demonstrate their bona fides. This is an occasion on which they can do their bit for the members of the Indian and Coloured communities, particularly the newspapers carrying special editions such as the Sunday Press, newspapers like Rapport and The Sunday Times. They can take this opportunity to play their part and to do their bit for the members of the Indian and Coloured communities. This they can do by publicizing the fact that those people must ensure that they are registered and that, as a result, their names are placed on the voters’ rolls timeously. As I said earlier, I sincerely hope that the hon the Minister will extend the date for the closing of rolls to 31 May. The hon the Minister will now be empowered to do just that because this Bill gives him those powers.

I also want to repeat what I said earlier. This is a once only Bill to cater for a once only situation. There are bound to be amendments to the Electoral Act subsequently to cater for the specific needs of the Coloureds and Indians, and also in fact for the specific needs of the Whites. These amendments will be introduced into the new parliamentary system. However, the most important thing of all is to put that parliamentary system into operation. I feel that each race group will then be able to express its opinion and introduce requirements of both a specific and general nature in respect of each particular race group. I feel that hopefully our Electoral Act will be improved. I think that it needs generally to be streamlined and I sincerely hope that in the not too distant future we will see the Electoral Act based on the population register in respect of people of all colours in this country. It is our urgent wish that the population register be given the attention it requires at this time and that it be updated. I feel that when we reach the stage where it is fully up to date, computerization will be able to take over and we will not then experience the difficulties that we have experienced in the past in regard to elections.

This Bill is undoubtedly a first step towards the achievement of the new constitution that was accepted by two thirds of the White electorate of the Republic of South Africa on 2 November last year. I want to say, that we in this party will do nothing whatsoever to impede progress towards the achievement of the ultimate goal which is the implementation of the new constitution. We shall also do nothing to impede the coming into this Parliament of members of both the Coloured and Indian communities.

We bless this Bill, we support it and we wish it well.

Mr Speaker, since the Third Reading debate is fundamentally concerned with the implementation and effect of the principles of the legislation we are debating here, I should like to make the central theme of my Third Reading speech the future, because that is what a Third Reading is really concerned with. It is not so much a question of where everything comes from, but of where we are going with this legislation.

On 16 March—last Friday—the hon the Prime Minister and his team struck a blow for the people of South Africa at Nkomati, a blow for friendship, peace, progress and safe co-existence with the emphasis on the foreign component. On that very same day we passed the Second Reading of this Bill here in Parliament, under the leadership of the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs.

The foreign occasion at Nkomati was more dramatic and very important, but the domestic matter, which we are still dealing with now, is perhaps less dramatic yet certainly just as important. Perhaps I could just say that at Nkomati the hon the Prime Minister, as captain of the A Team, had the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs close beside him as outside centre, but here the inside centre of that A Team was piloting this component through Parliament.

With this Bill we have now given practical expression to the franchise for Brown people. This is the instrument with which we are taking on the future. Paul Kruger said that one should take from the past what was fine and good, and build your future on it. At the Federal Congress of the NP at Bloemfontein in July 1982, that congress was concerned with the constitutional development and the franchise for the Brown people. For the purposes of the discussion today, I take “Brown people” to mean the Coloureds and the Indians, for then I need not define the term further every time. On the occasion of that congress, the franchise for the Brown people was also a very important theme.

The hon the Prime Minister then uttered his prophetic, symbolic words. This is a Prime Minister who will be known in the annals of this country as one of the greatest sons of this country. He said we were starting a wheel rolling, a wheel which would roll across South Africa for friendship, for peace, for peaceful co-existence and for security. I want to say that this legislation is one of the important spokes of that wheel which is at present rolling across South Africa for the sake of our future, for the sake of peace, friendship and peaceful co-existence. This legislation is one of the most important spokes, and in this connection I recall the winged words of the hon the Prime Minister that we are making an appointment with the future.

The hon member for Innesdal used the words “We are bidding farewell to the past and we are greeting the future.”

A lot like Paul Kruger, not so?

There one has heard once again that hon members of the CP have no feeling for the concept of “an appointment with the future”. They do not understand what the hon member for Innesdal is saying. I am not angry with hon members of the CP, and they know it. I feel very sorry for them, and I shall come back to this.

In my Second Reading speech I said, among other things—the hon members of the CP were also very vehemently opposed to this—that when the election which had to take place in terms of this legislation had taken place and the legislation was thus being implemented in practice, we would have here a Parliament in which the leaders of approximately 3,5 million people were represented, and they would then speak on behalf of their people. They would say what their standpoints are. The hon member for Meyerton has just asked how we are going to reply to Rev Hendrickse. Rev Hendrickse has said many things with which I do not agree, but he has also said many things with which I do agree. The point is that when we serve together in this Parliament, we shall have an opportunity to speak to one another and to try to iron out issues, because it is necessary for peace, friendship, security and progress in this country that we do so. But when that happens—and I am more convinced of this than ever after having listened to this debate—then the right-wing radicals, the CP, and on the other side the left-wing, pinkish Progressive Federal Party will begin to become of less importance.

The CP won two seats in by-elections, and if an election were to be held today they may win a few more seats. But the further we move into the future, the fewer seats they are going to win, because they are a museum party, a party of the past. The point I want to make is that we will still come to realize that more notice can be taken of the representatives of those 3½ million people than of people who have so far won only two seats in this Parliament. They sit here and ask questions like: May a Coloured person serve on the State Security Council? May a Coloured person become Minister of this or that? As far as I know, a Coloured person may serve on the State Security Council even at this juncture. In any event, I have no objection to that. There are Coloureds who, if the hon the Prime Minister were to see his way clear to appointing them to the State Security Council today, I would have no objection to, and here I am thinking, for example, of Dr Quint. But, on the other hand, there are Whites in this House whom I should not like to see on the State Security Council.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permitted for the hon member to say that members of this House are not competent to serve on the State Security Council?

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon member Dr Vilonel may continue.

Take, for example, the hon member for Rissik. I trust him, but I think that he is quite simply incapable of doing that work. There are hon members who are more capable than the hon member for Rissik, but they, on the other hand, I do not trust—one example being the hon member who has just raised the point of order. If he thinks what I am saying is unparliamentary, I shall withdraw it and say it outside this House, because that is truly how I feel about this matter.

My point is that hon members of the CP will realize, in the new dispensation, what museum pieces they really are. The same also applies, in fact, to the PFP. Paul Kruger said that we should take from the past what is fine and good, and build our future on it. My father also taught me other words of Paul Kruger when I was still a youngster under his roof and my father was a great Afrikaner, chairman of the divisional committee of the NP. He taught me these words of Paul Kruger:

At that juncture the Afrikaners were still fighting for their freedom, for their political freedom. Since then we have won that political freedom, and now we say that we do not deny the Brown people the same freedom. In fact, hon members of the CP also say so. But it is of no avail to say something and do nothing about it. We on this side of the House not only say that they are welcome to it; we shall play an active part in helping them to achieve it, because only when they, too, have their political freedom, will we have peace, prosperity, safety and a peaceful co-existence in this country. We not only say that we feel they are welcome to it; we are taking an active part in the process. As Whites we say to the Brown people today: Bid farewell to those things in the past which were not good, fit and proper, but accept what is indeed good, fit and proper and join hands with us for that appointment with the future which the hon the Prime Minister spoke about.

Mr Speaker, before I refer to some of the remarks made by the hon member Dr Vilonel, I would like to refer to something said earlier by the hon member for Witbank when he was talking about intimidation. He quoted sources he had which suggested cases of assault and violence in this connection. I would agree with him that intimidation, assault and violence in respect of electoral or other matters are very serious indeed, but I would like to suggest to him that charges should be laid against people who perpetrate those crimes. Intimidation or alleged intimidation must not be used as a scapegoat for low percentage polls for people who reject various bodies. If there is intimidation, particularly if it involves assault and violence …

I merely quoted Indian leaders.

Yes, the hon member quoted Indian leaders. All I am saying is that if there is intimidation, particularly involving assaults and violence, charges should, be laid against those people, because nobody supports that. There is an inclination for people to use intimidation as an excuse for low percentage polls, which are often indicative of a rejection of the body concerned. In many instances intimidation has only played a very small role.

With regard to the hon member Dr Vilonel I want to point out that last week I agreed with the end of his speech, while today I agreed with the beginning of his speech, in particular his reference to the relationship between the Accord of Nkomati and debates in this House; in other words, what is going on in relation to the external affairs of this country and the internal affairs of the country. I would agree entirely that peace inside and outside South Africa are interdependent and inter-related, and we should bear this in mind. That thought of the hon member links with the part of his speech last week where he said that Coloureds are also our people. Arising from that remark, I drew some conclusions. The hon member asked me a question relating to politics being the art of the possible. In replying to that question, I gave him some examples of where apartheid could easily be scrapped, and then went on to say:

The hon the Deputy Minister has since advised me that he does not do so, that he has not done so, and I wish to put the record straight in that regard. I do wish, however, that the hon the Deputy Minister would jump up and down and agitate to have beach apartheid scrapped along with all other laws based on race discrimination. In this debate our criticism of this Bill has related to the lack of consultation and negotiation, or the inadequate nature thereof. The hon the Minister, in his reply at Second Reading and in the Committee Stage, indicated that there was not consultation and discussions specifically related to this Bill, or related to the Electoral Act as such, although he and some of his colleagues were available if comments were to be made. I think that illustrates the point we have been making, namely that one does not necessarily just wait for people to come and make comments because they think there is going to be an amending Bill.

In the Committee Stage the hon the Minister also said that the Bill from the Select Committee to do with the Electoral Act, which was completed before the 1983 session, would result in amending legislation based on that Bill and that he would call for comments from amongst others, Indian and Coloured people, before this House debates the Bill. He said he will invite people to send him comments. That in itself is not good enough. Either we need another select committee so that they can receive those representations, or a commission to look into it, or at least that all representations that are made to the hon the Minister in writing, be made available to all members of the House so that they can take those representations into account in debating that Bill when it comes before the House. In that regard I would also like to remind the hon the Minister that in the order appointing the select committee at that time it was stated that it was not a general investigation into the Electoral Act but an investigation of specific amendments that had been placed before this House in a Bill.

As regards the new constitution which is on its way and the electoral processes involved as a result of this amending legislation, it is unfortunate that the whole process is getting off to a bad start. It seems to be common cause that the voters’ rolls that will be used will be in a bad state. Whether they could be rectified in time or whether they could be better than what they will be, is a matter of opinion and has been discussed during the course of the debates on this Bill. Generally, compared with the rolls which are used in White elections, it has been accepted by the majority of hon members in this House that these rolls will be in a terrible state and not really indicative of the electorate or of the Coloured and Indian people as a whole. I believe that is an indictment of the hon the Minister as I believe there is no excuse to go into this new dispensation with rolls in that state. One wonders whether the unseemly haste and the makeshift and half-baked solutions which are a feature of this Bill and this process, are to be features of the implementation of the new constitution. I hope not. However, this Bill is not a good beginning.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Cape Town Gardens has again repeated all the arguments we have already rehashed so many times before. In any event, I take it the hon the Minister will deal with some of the matters he referred to.

I am not surprised that the hon member for Bezuidenhout, Communitel vendetta and all, has disappeared entirely from the scene and is not participating in this debate at all. This is further proof that this was nothing but a gossip-mongering story and that they do not have the courage of their convictions to pursue the matter in the Third Reading of this debate.

There is an air of eager anticipation among Whites on the one hand, and Coloureds and Asians on the other, now that the 1983 constitution is eventually going to be implemented. At the end of this debate we can tell each other that democracy has run its course. We can have no illusions about that. We heard repeated arguments here about consultation. Even the CP alleged that the Government supposedly did not hold sufficient consultations with the Coloureds and the Asians about this measure. I want to ask those hon members when and how they consulted the Coloureds and the Asians on the alternative they are suggesting. They must tell us that. It is no use one party criticizing another if it cannot itself say with a clear conscience that it has consulted those people and has convinced them that the Government is doing the wrong thing and that it has the answer for South Africa. I think we can tell one another that what we are implementing here today is the product of years of consultation. There have been years of negotiation on the new constitution, on how to accommodate the Coloureds and the Asians constitutionally in South Africa. [Interjections.] While that hon member is making such a noise, the Government is coming to light with solutions for this country. The Government formulated its standpoints in 1983 and then put forward the new constitution. Approval for this constitution was obtained by 119 votes to 35. Even that, however, was not enough. The hon the Prime Minister put his political future on the line and went to the highest authority in South Africa, namely the White voters, and asked them to endorse the two-thirds majority in the House of Assembly, and this was done with more than 1,3 million “yes” votes in the referendum. All the Government is doing, through the hon the Minister, is implementing a mandate that the electorate gave it. The question is not “whether”, but “when” we are going to implement this constitution. We now have that reply. After the Third Reading of this Bill there will be the necessary electoral procedure to regulate the drawing up of the voters’ rolls and, take note, every Coloured and Asian who wants to vote, who wants to participate in this new process, will then have every right in the world to have his name placed on a voters roll. This measure is definitive when it comes to the delimitation of constituencies, and all we then need to have is proclamation, nomination and election, hopefully somewhere around 22 August.

In the past the criticism levelled at the Government was that it appointed Coloureds and Asians to certain bodies and that they could not be elected by a majority of their own people. For the first time in history we now have a measure before us in terms of which Coloureds and Asians can elect their own people to serve in the highest authority of their communities, and we shall be seeing a House of Representatives and a House of Delegates, along with the duly elected leaders of the White people in South Africa— and that excludes the Conservative Party because, except for the hon member for Waterberg and the hon member for Soutpansberg, who have the mandate of the voters who voted for them, the rest of them do not have a mandate from the voters of South Africa [Interjections.] We are now being given the chance to give the Coloureds and Asians the opportunity to send forth their people so that they, along with the rest of the House of Assembly as the duly elected representatives of the people outside can constitute a tricameral Parliament in which we can jointly discuss matters in future.

This measure finally puts paid to the archaic standpoints of the Conservative Party. It does not matter what they want to do or say they want to do in future, because they cannot repeal this measure and negate the composition of the tricameral Parliament, not even if they stand on their heads. Their alternative is a still-born one and will finally shrivel up and vanish after the implementation of this measure. There is now nothing barring the way for this country to give Whites, Coloureds and Asians the opportunity to reach out the hand of co-operation to one another, in the interests of South Africa. South Africa is on the road to success. South Africa is irrevocably on the road to orderly reform. The CP’s futile arguments against this measure, for example their Coloured homeland and the like, are now finally taboo. If they want to they can participate in this process in future or else they can retire. The hon member Mr Theunissen, in particular, can go back to that little town in the Free State he has moved to.

The hon member for Meyerton again whined about the fact that the National Party has supposedly changed. In 1977 he was a member of the National Party, whereas I was not. At that stage the National Party supported a policy of three Parliaments, within one geographic area in South Africa. There was no suggestion of three geographic areas or of independence for the three Parliaments. At that stage the hon member for Rissik and the other hon members sitting there were members of the National Party. I came from outside and joined the National Party because I said to myself: “That is a worthwhile policy! I would rather support that policy”. When I arrived here, however, those hon members were showing a clean pair of heels. The hon member for Rissik and his colleagues are at liberty to quote what I said in the past. I want to add, however, that I came here as a confirmed Nationalist, unaware that there were so many people in the National Party who were really not there out of any sense of inner conviction.

Mr Speaker, I want to tell the hon member for Turffontein that I shall refer to him briefly in a moment. I want to begin by asking the hon the Minister whether he can give us the assurance that he is not aware of any money, originating from White organizations or associations, which has been given to the Brown political leaders and parties that are now going to participate in the election.

Not from the National Party; I cannot, however, speak on behalf of the Conservative Party. [Interjections.]

The CP did not give any. The hon the Minister must listen to my question. Is he aware of any other association or organization that has given money to the political parties of the Brown people?

Not any organizations of which I am a member.

We have now reached the Third Reading stage of this Bill, in which provision is being made for separate voters’ lists for Coloureds and Indians to enable them to send their representatives to two Chambers of the new Parliament. The principle of separation of voters’ lists is based on other standpoints of the Government, namely that the Government considers the principle that separate population groups shall have separate voters’ lists as unnegotiable. In addition it is also unnegotiable that there shall be separate residential areas and schools for the respective population groups. A portion of this legislation is therefore partly based on separation and separateness. Is the fact that separateness is an integral part of this specific legislation racist? The hon member for Innesdal said that the CP’s standpoint on this legislation was nothing but a racist standpoint. The liberals of the Western World have to a degree discarded the Ten Commandments and have made an eleventh commandment which reads: You may not separate on the basis of race or colour. All the other commandments may be broken, but not the eleventh commandment. They say that if a person is White and wants to remain White, or is a Caucasian and want to remain one, he may not do so because it is contrary to the law of mankind. [Interjections.] The hon member said:

I want to ask the hon member for Innesdal and the hon the Minister whether those aspects in regard to which the Government adopts a policy of separation, in respect of separate voters’ lists also in this legislation, are racist? [Interjections.] Is it racist if the Government says that there shall be separate Chambers, separate voters’ lists and separate residential areas? [Interjections.] If it is not racist, on what grounds is it racialistic when one wishes to carry the policy of separation further in respect of Parliament, a territory, and so on? When we as a party consistently wish to carry the policy of separation and separateness further, why is it then considered to be racist? [Interjections.] If it is not racist, why do hon members accuse the CP—not only here but before the whole world—of being racists when we wish to carry the policy of separation further? Would the hon member for Green Point consider the policy of the NP to be racist?

Yes.

Of course he would. In other words, there are people in this House who say that because the NP still has certain elements of separation in its policy, it is racist. That only goes to show the inconsistency of the Government. I want to tell the hon the Minister that this inconsistency will eventually lead to the downfall of the NP, just as it led to the downfall of the old United Party. [Interjections.]

The political philosophy of the hon member for Innesdal—recently he has been talking only about so-called philosophies here in this House—has only two trade-marks. The one is “Made in America” and the other is “Secondhand”. I shall leave the hon member at that now.

I want to come to the hon the Minister. In regard to the CP he said:

Then the hon the Minister went on to say:

The hon the Minister as well as the hon member for Turffontein must listen carefully now. When Mr Marais Steyn left the United Party and joined the NP, he said the following in his maiden speech in this House:

He went on to say:

What year was that?

It makes no difference. [Interjections.] That is what Mr Marais Steyn said at the time when he left the United Party and joined the NP.

Furthermore, I want to ask the hon the Minister, as a good ex-student of Potchefstroom, to read the works of Stoker once again, for example his books Oorsprong en Rigting and Stryd om die Ordes. These days, when one argues with the NP in this House, one must not refer to the past because according to them, people like Stoker are archaic today, it is museum politics, something out of the Middle Ages, and the politics of the dinosaur. Real truths, however, are as old as mankind itself, and those truths will remain until the end of mankind. I therefore want to tell the hon the Minister that in the evolvement of our culture in South Africa certain truths became established in our pattern of life, and only those truths ensured that we were able to survive until today as a people, as a White group in this country. I wish to address harsh words to the hon the Minister, because he has become sensitive.

Order! I allowed the hon member to digress a little from the legislation. I appreciated his absolute honesty when he asked the hon member for Green Point: “Would you say that the policy of the NP was racist?” However, the hon member is now making a policy speech, and I cannot allow that. I appreciate his quoting Prof Stoker, but can he indicate to me any connection between what Prof Stoker wrote and the legislation now before us? If he can do so I can try to understand his argument, but he must confine himself to the Bill now.

Mr Speaker, the Government levelled very serious accusations at the CP in regard to two matters: Firstly, that our opposition to this legislation is based on racism. That is a very serious accusation that was made against us, and on behalf of my party I must at least formulate what racism is, how consistent the Government is in respect of racism and what our view of racism is. That was all I was doing. In the second place we say that this legislation is leading us to a situation in which the sovereignty of the Whites is being impaired. The hon the Minister replied that that was not correct, and all that I am doing is to ask the hon the Minister to look up once again what the concept of sovereignty and all that goes with it entails, because we differ on that score.

The hon the Minister said, moreover, that this House could change its composition, as the NP in fact wishes to do, and he also said that that was not going to impair the sovereignty of Parliament. If the PFP, however, argues that the Black people should also be incorporated into Parliament, the NP maintains that that would impair the sovereignty of Parliament. I do not wish to disregard your ruling, Sir, but I must say why this legislation is an instrument which the Government is using to impair the sovereignty of Parliament. Moreover, sovereignty does not mean only the sovereignty of a State.

Order! Is the hon member still addressing me, or has he now resumed his speech?

No, Mr Speaker, I am still addressing you. [Interjections.]

Order! I have now allowed the hon member quite a lot of time in which to address me. I should now like to put my side of the matter as well. The hon member is weighing up certain standpoints here. He has made it clear that his party has adopted certain standpoints and that as a result he believes that he should emphasize that aspect in this House. I, too, now want to put something to the hon member for his consideration. If he takes into consideration now that he began speaking at precisely 15h44, and it is now just after 15h50, he must now tell me whether he did not, during the last six minutes, have a proper opportunity to motivate that statement of his very clearly; to make it very clear to this House what the point of departure of his party is in regard to this matter. I want the hon member to understand clearly now that if this had been the Third Reading debate of the Appropriation Bill, I should have allowed him to continue. We are now discussing a Bill, however, and if the hon member would look at the long title of the Bill, he would realise what this measure entails. I am now weighing up my standpoint against that of the hon member, and I put it to the hon member that it is my standpoint that he is now going to discuss the Bill and nothing else. If he does not from now on confine himself to the Bill, he can keep the rest of his speech for the Third Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill. The hon member may now proceed.

Mr Speaker, I accept your ruling. If you would, however, allow me to address you once again on the ruling you have just given, I merely want to point out …

Order! I am not going to permit the hon member to make a political speech.

Mr Speaker, I find it very difficult when my party, and I specifically … [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, if you were to read in Hansard the speeches of hon members who participated in this debate you would observe that they consisted virtually throughout of attacks on me. All I am trying to do …

But what did you do during the Second Reading, Daan?

Mr Speaker, just listen to what the hon the Minister is saying now. [Interjections.] During the Second Reading, Mr Speaker, you also called me to order and said that I had to same my arguments for the Third Reading debate. All I want to point out, is that I— not that I mind; that is after all what politics is all about—have been personally accused of being a racist. Surely that is an accusation to which I have to react. The reason why we initially moved by way of an amendment that this Bill should be read this day six months, was because we believe that this was one of the instruments by means of which the sovereignty of this Parliament was going to be impaired. I want to obey your ruling, Mr Speaker, but I nevertheless want to ask you …

Order! I am satisfied that I am dealing justly and equitably with the hon member.

Mr Speaker may I then conclude my speech by reading a quotation? This is a quotation which does not bear directly on matters of constitutional law, but I should nevertheless like to conclude my speech with it. I wish to do so, because I believe that it contains much wisdom. But before I read the quotation, Mr Speaker, I just want to make it clear to hon members of the NP that I am by no means finished with them. [Interjections.]

Order! I honestly want every hon member of this House to be satisfied with the rulings I give. The fact that the hon member is now telling other hon members that he is by no means finished with them is a very clear indication to me that he therefore knows that there is another opportunity at which he will be able to do so. Consequently the hon member must simply wait until then, and not try to deal with them now.

Mr Speaker, I shall simply leave it at that. As I have already said, I want to conclude my speech by reading the following quotation from a little book by Kahlil Gibran. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, you could just tel! those hon members not to keep on interrupting me.

Order!

Mr Speaker, Kahlil Gabran returned to his own country from foreign parts and then wrote as follows, and I quote:

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May an hon member, even by way of a quotation, imply that the leaders of his people in this House are jackals? [Interjections.]

You ought to know. You yourself are a renegade jackal (“draaijakkals”). [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Rissik may proceed.

Mr Speaker, the last part of the quotation reads as follows:

Mr Speaker, we know there is a first time for everything. In this connection we are also dealing with a Bill which is a first. I also agree with the hon member for Umhlanga who said it is probably a Bill that is not going to be used more than once. The purpose of this legislation is to have the members of the other two Houses elected and to get the new dispensation off the ground. There is, however, always an exception to the rule. A vacancy could arise within three months. Before the new Houses have convened and it has been possible to draw up a new Electoral Act, a vacancy could arise, and then a new member would have to be elected in terms of this legislation. For that reason the hon the Minister could not insert a provision in this legislation stating that it would only be implemented once.

If the no vote had triumphed, this legislation would not have been before us today. If the PFP and the CP had won the referendum, this legislation would not have been before us now. The yes vote won, however, and the Government obtained an overwhelming mandate to introduce the new dispensation. I have been in this House for a very long time now and I must say that over the past few days it has seemed to me as if delaying tactics were being used. Hon members know there is not much time. The Government must get to work, and here delaying tactics are being employed in regard to legislation that is quite straightforward. Clause 1(2) of the Bill virtually provides for the fact that it will not be implemented more than once.

The PFP’s chief argument was that a select committee or a commission should have been appointed. A select committee is constituted of experts in this House, people who deal with electoral matters. From their ranks a select committee is appointed. Where in this country are we going to obtain knowledgeable people from the ranks of the other groups to appoint to commissions of this nature? They have never dealt with matters of this kind. This is the first time that free elections are taking place amongst the Coloureds and Indians in the country. They have never had an opportunity of gaining any experience in this connection. I think this is the best way of achieving unanimity amongst the various parties. That has also been the policy throughout the years. One wants the greatest degree of unanimity when one is dealing with the Electoral Act. Let me reiterate that we are dealing here with a non-recurring phenomenon. When those two Houses have been elected, a select committee of members of all three Houses will probably be appointed in the course of next year to draw up a new Electoral Act for South Africa.

One cannot really blame the PFP for its attitude, because the PFP has had no experience of government. There is not a single hon member opposite who has had the privilege of belonging to a government party. The hon member for Houghton has been here for 31 years now, but in her favour I must say that I have learnt that later this year she will be celebrating her seventeenth birthday. [Interjections.] What I am saying is that they have no experience of government. They do not know how government works.

I do hold it against the CP. For many years its members had seats in the governing party. They were members of this party. They know how these things work. They know how the group system works. The Ministers sit on our side. Hon members of the CP know how legislation is honed down; they have assisted in the process. It is honed down in those groups. Now they come along and profess to know nothing of it. They have learnt nothing. I bitterly resent their not having done so. They know how a Government party works. Legislation is not simply dealt with any old way.

I want to remind hon members of the PFP of the fact that I frequently heard General Smuts saying that the dogs were free to bark; the caravan goes on moving. That is a Government’s task. The dogs can bark, but the caravan must go on. The Government has the mandate, and it must implement that mandate as quickly as possible. [Interjections.] The dogs are free to bark, but I think there are too many who only yap. Those people must just stop yapping.

I should like to talk on a personal level to the hon member for Rissik. My request to him is to stop being so bitter. When he arrived here, I thought he had some future in politics, but when he left the NP, he pulled down the curtain on his future. He is bitter and as surly as a bear. He turns each and every debate into a political debate. He should stop doing that now, because it really is not necessary. There are many debates in this House in which one can talk politics.

There is something else I have found. In the course of debates in the House passages are quoted from discussions that have taken place outside. This puts me in mind of legis-children—the one says “is” and the other says “isn’t”. I do not think it is fair and proper to drag private discussions, which took place elsewhere, into the House.

I think this is a good piece of legislation. It is fitting and proper in the circumstances. It is the only way to set the wheels in motion and have the new dispensation introduced.

Mr Speaker, the hon member Mr Van Staden said that the legislation contributed towards binding Coloureds and Indians closer together. In the course of my speech I shall briefly be discussing the unanimity, or lack of it, amongst Coloured and Indian political parties.

In the course of the discussions the hon the Minister said that the PFP was supposedly bedevilling the new dispensation because we were employing delaying tactics and sowing suspicion about the electoral legislation now before us. That there are in fact problems, and are going to be problems, with the first election is, of course, a certainty. That the PFP is to blame for this is, in my opinion, nonsense of course.

It is ironic—I would say even tragic—that the new dispensation, at its inception, will not be a memorable event uniting the people of South Africa, not even those people who can be elected as members in the future. The dissention in the ranks of Coloureds and Indians in regard to elections does not, unfortunately, involve the legislation now before us either, nor the mistakes which it contains and which the PFP would like to put right. The dissension concerns participation or non-participation in the constitution that all political parties reject. They reject the constitution as such, and hence the divisiveness about participating or not participating.

The Government had an opportunity of eliminating the problem of participation or non-participation by way of referendums amongst the Coloureds and Indians. Even parties or people who for fundamental reasons—or what they say are fundamental reasons—do not want to participate in elections, did in fact say they would be prepared to take part in a referendum to indicate to the Government what the will of the Coloured and Indian communities was. It would have lent so much more credibility to the elected members if the communities had decided that they wanted to participate, and this includes participation in the new dispensation.

The fact that there is dissension in Coloured and Indian politics and that people are dismissed as having sold out on the one hand or as boycotters on the other, is a direct result of the constitution itself not being the product of consensus. The second factor involves the way in which participation, rather that acceptance of the principles, is now being made the point at issue in Coloured and Indian politics. This divide-and-rule politics may indeed win the NP a bit of time, but I fear that it is not in the best interests of South Africa. The political debate ought to be conducted in the political forums and not on factory floors or in the streets. The fact the the majority of South Africa’s people— also amongst the Coloureds and the Indians—are working for change outside the framework of political structures is a great pity. This is a burden that the Government has placed on the shoulders of South Africa’s people, and we shall have to live with it.

The PFP has decided to participate in the new dispensation. It does so, firstly, because sovereign power remains firmly entrenched in the White House. If we were to act any differently, it would be to acknowledge that change by way of constitutional political structures was no longer possible. The question about whether Indians and Coloureds should participate or not is not a very easy question to decide about. There is no theoretically correct standpoint, no theoretically correct decision, not even in marxist revolutionary theory. Trotsky, who was the father of the revolution, said “Participate”, but other students of Marx say “Do not participate”.

Whatever the case may be, that point is still going to be argued for a long time to come, but in the meantime the Coloured and Indian members are going to be elected. Coloured and Indian members who will be taking part in politics here do indeed occupy a minority position and cannot force the Government to adopt other standpoints merely by virtue of their numbers. Consensus is, however, a position somewhere between two different standpoints, and the new position always becomes the basis from which further efforts are made, and I think this is the dilemma the NP is faced with. It is either a system of consensus which would, step by step, bring matters closer to the standpoints of the Coloured and Indian parties, and also that of the PFP, or it is domination. That is where the NP’s dilemma lies.

In its opposition to the legislation the PFP has said that it is a pity that even the electoral process should now have to contribute to a dispute at the commencement of the new dispensation. In the course of the discussion of the legislation the hon the Minister said that during this session he would be introducing comprehensive legislation in the House to regulate the electoral processes, etc. Apart from the shortcoming that no provision is being made for by-elections for Coloureds and Indians, and that that shortcoming will have to be rectified, I wonder whether the hon the Minister should not rather postpone such legislation till next year so that it can be debated by all three Houses of Parliament.

Mr Speaker, in reply to the question asked by the hon member who has just sat down, I want to refer him to what I have said during the debate, also in reply to the question of own affairs.

In the first place, there must be a uniform Electoral Act which can serve as a point of departure when we introduce the new dispensation. After that, any facets of this matter which do not require general legislation will be own affairs, and every House will consequently be able to amend the electoral procedures subject to general legislation and to the basic facets contained in the Constitution. I have already dealt with the matter, and if the hon member for Greytown had listened, he would have realized that this final question of him had already been answered.

The hon member advocated that politics should be practised from public forums, and I agree with him. The new Constitution creates the possibility of new political forums, while this legislation lays down the method which must be used to establish new political forums for the Coloured and Indian population groups. Listening to the speakers of the PFP, the question occurred to me—and it is a fairly simple question—whether they want the new dispensation to succeed.

No. Not for long.

There you have it, Sir. The hon member for Greytown says “no”. Does the PFP’s chief spokesman on internal affairs, who has also spoken on this Bill, want the new dispensation to be a success? Does he want the Coloured and Indian elections to be as successful as possible and does he hope for a high percentage poll?

That has nothing to do with us. [Interjections.]

You see, Sir. An hon member of this House is not prepared to say whether he wants the opportunity which is now being afforded the Coloureds and Indians of playing a meaningful political role, although not in precisely the way they would have wanted, to succeed. In the light of this, surely we are justified in inferring from their whole attitude that they are negative and that they have approached the whole debate on this matter in a negative spirit.

I want to quote another example in this connection. The hon member for Cape Town Gardens said: “We are off to a bad start and the voters’ rolls will be bad.”

†I want to ask him this. If the Government were to announce an election for the White electorate now and if it were to say that there was time until 31 May for political parties to register voters and for voters to register, in what state would he expect the voters’ rolls to be by the time of the election?

Not bad.

They should be in a good state. That same opportunity is now being offered to the Coloured and Indian communities. [Interjections.] What more can a community ask than the opportunity to know more than two months ahead that voters should be registered and that the facilities are available? We invite them to register and we publicize the fact that they should register. The opportunity is therefore there. It is for the people who want to participate to grasp that opportunity. I want to reiterate my plea to them to grasp the opportunity now offered. They should not let themselves be put off by the negative attitude of the PFP. The PFP is of no account in White politics.

*This was proved by the referendum. Just like the CP, the PFP has not really accepted the outcome of the referendum. They do say that they want to participate in the new dispensation, but they do this so reluctantly and with such a bad grace that it cannot really be called participation. They will be an albatross around the neck of progress and political development in South Africa if they are going to persist in this attitude, and if they want to carry on in this way, they should rather not participate, because they are wasting everyone’s time.

The hon member for Green Point requests that a calm atmosphere should be created. I agree with him, but I disagree with his contention that this Bill does anything to hinder the creation of this calm atmosphere. In fact, this Bill introduces electoral procedures which have stood the test of time and which were good enough for us from 1910 to 1981. It does not impose any inferior procedure whatsoever on the Coloureds and Indians. It does not contain any procedure which was not considered good enough for the Whites for all those years. The hon members themselves advocate that postal votes should be abolished. There are quite a number of hon members in this House who advocate this. Is this necessarily a retrograde step, therefore? That is one difference. The other difference is that 300 signatures are no longer required. Surely the hon members themselves have advocated that this should be abolished. Therefore they should regard it as an improvement.

The hon members have not advanced a single argument concerning any other facet in respect of which we could effect any improvement to the Bill. No amendment was moved, except the amendment by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens, on which I congratulated him and which brought something back which had been omitted because of a legal technicality. With regard to the actual procedures, however, not a single amendment was moved. The PFP was not able to improve the Bill, therefore. In spite of that, they adopt a negative attitude. They talk about “off to a bad start” and “the voters’ rolls will be in a bad state”.

The hon member for Cape Town Gardens also said that we should not hide behind intimidation even at this early stage in order to justify a low percentage poll. I want to ask him whether he would like the percentage poll to be high or low. What does he believe to be in the interests of the Coloured and Indian communities, a high or a low percentage poll?

I think it is in their own interests to express their opinion without interference.

This is exactly what this amending Bill enables them to do.

†We are offering them the opportunity to express their opinion by going to a polling booth and voting within their own group for their own candidates. They can form parties, because there is still time to do that. They can register as voters and they can vote for whomever they like. They can vote for a party which says: “I do not like this Constitution at all; I reject this Constitution.” A party can participate by saying: “I am totally against participation in the new system.” The voters can then vote for that party. There is full opportunity for the Coloureds and Indians and that opportunity is ordered and is made practically possible in terms of the procedures laid down in this Bill. Therefore, the opposition and negative approach of the PFP to this just proves to us that they are not interested in the new Constitution accepted by the electorate we represent in this Assembly. The hon members of the PFP want it not to succeed and they have, by their reaction to my specific questions, proved that conclusively today in this Chamber.

The hon member for Green Point made a third point. He argued that Coloured and Indian parties, by not being present during this debate, may misunderstand some of the issues involved and that the misunderstanding that may arise as to why we are adopting this measure and why it is phrased in the particular way in which it is phrased may result in the disturbance of the calm atmosphere for which he pleaded. I want to assure him that all misunderstandings will be cleared up. As is customary, we will call a conference—we have already had a conference with regard to the delimitation procedures—which will be addressed by impartial specialists with regard to the Electoral Act and all parties, Coloured and Indian, will be invited and all procedures will be explained to them. Any questions they may have in regard to the Electoral Act will then be fully cleared up and they will have every opportunity early on in the campaign …

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister to tell the House whether or not during the passage of this Bill he has had representations from either the Indian or the Coloured community objecting to aspects of the Bill?

During this debate there was communication from one party, Solidarity, I referred to it yesterday in the Committee Stage. I apologized for having been forced by circumstances to reply to their representations here in the Chamber and not by telex or telephone. These were the only representations per se that I had received since the Bill was introduced into Parliament. But before that there was consultation. As I have explained—I do not want to go into the matter again—there was consultation, not with regard to this Bill in its present form but with regard to important facets contained in the Bill, inter alia, facets such as the 300 signatures and the question of postal votes. There was therefore consultation on a wide front. Certain parties have been formed very late and certain parties may still be formed. In the final analysis consultation does not only take place in a select committee. We on this side have a high regard for a select committee as a vehicle towards good legislation, and we use the system quite often. We also have a high regard for the constructive work that can be done by commissions. However, on fairly simple matters such as this, where we are really re-enacting an Electoral Act which has served us well over decades, where only minor facets are being changed and where time is of the essence, consultation cannot be done effectively within a select committee or commission system. Therefore we have had to rely on consultation on the executive level. We also foresee further opportunity for consultation with regard to the Bill which we intend to introduce later during this session.

*I want to convey my sincere thanks to hon members on this side of the House who have supported the Third Reading of the Bill so effectively. I am referring to the hon member for Innesdal, the hon member for Witbank, the hon member Dr Vilonel, the hon member for Turffontein and the hon member Mr Van Staden.

The hon member for Witbank asked me a question in connection with the Bill, with regard to intimidation. I endorse his rejection of intimidation and the emphasis he placed on the fact that we dare not allow the normal democratic process in South Africa ever to be clouded by intimidation. There are two ways of acting against intimidation. The one is reactive. Intimidation takes place; a complaint is lodged; the complaint is investigated and this results in a prosecution, conviction and sentence. However, one should also take preventive action in respect of intimidation. We are only too aware of the risk of intimidation, and I wish to give the assurance that the Government will go out of its way to ensure that the police in particular, whose task it is to maintain safety and order, as well as officials of the department whose task it is to control the voting processes, will try to prevent any intimidation. I want to make an urgent request that anyone who feels that he is being intimidated should avail himself of the opportunity of lodging a complaint. At places where it would be appropriate, the police will be present. I have the permission of the hon the Minister of Law and Order to emphasize this. We are not making any threats, but we do want to say that the democratic process must be allowed to operate in a calm and peaceful manner.

I want to make a further remark in this connection. I believe it is time that the silent majority made its influence felt, among the Coloureds and the Indians as well. Intimidators are basically cowards, and as soon as people assert themselves and say that they refuse to be intimidated, intimidators very soon turn round and are the first to run away. If there is one thing I am convinced of after approximately two years in this portfolio, where I have wide and frequent contact with the Coloured and Indian communities, then it is that the silent majority does not seek confrontation in this country, but that they seek rather to participate in an orderly way and are prepared to get involved in an evolutionary process of political and constitutional development. I am not suggesting that they support everything that the Government does, but I submit that they are prepared to adopt the course of order, negotiation and participation, so they should really stand up and assert themselves. There comes a time when the silent majority in every population group, in every people and in every community in all countries has to assert itself and to silence the noisy minority. I believe that with the introduction of this new dispensation, we have reached such a phase in our development in South Africa. I want to assure them, therefore, that if they wish to stand up and assert themselves in the interests of good order and of orderly development, they will have all the support of the Government that they can reasonably lay claim to.

†The hon member for Umhlanga reiterated his party’s well-motivated support for this Bill. He once again underlined the need for information, and I should like to say that I agree with him that now is the time for the media to play an informative role, apart from the legitimate right to criticize which they often exercise. Now is the time for them also to assume the responsibility to give clear-cut information with regard to the coming elections for Coloured and Indians. I fully support him on that.

The hon member once again referred to the closing date for voters’ rolls, and I want to repeat the assurance I have already given. It is possible to ensure that voters’ rolls will close on 31 May. The most logical way for me to do it, if I adhere to the 22 August, would be to amend the normal minimum periods between proclamation, nomination and polling day slightly. If I have wide enough support I am prepared to do this in order to give the assurance that voters’ rolls will close on 31 May.

That decision could rest with the Coloureds and the Indians?

That decision will be influenced by their reaction and by their needs.

*I come now to the hon members for Meyerton and Rissik, and I take it that you will allow me, Mr Speaker, to reply very briefly to what you allowed those hon members to say in the Third Reading debate. The hon member for Meyerton quoted from old NP documents. I believe that book was published when the NP had been in power for 20 or 21 years. I could also quote from NP documents which would prove that when Dr Verwoerd announced that the NP had changed its policy and decided that Black national states could become independent and sovereign, he was deviating from statements made by Strijdom and Malan. This proves nothing, however. The hon member knows, after all, that after those statements had been made, we went through the whole process of a caucus, to which all MPC’s were also invited. Congresses were held in all four provinces in 1977, and a general election was subsequently held precisely in order to change the NP’s policy on this point. The hon member also knows that he and all the hon members sitting there were a party to this. Quoting in this House what was said about the Coloureds before 1977, therefore, is the same as quoting what Gen Hertzog said about the independence of Black states to prove Dr Verwoerd’s deviation from that standpoint. That hon member must accept joint responsibility for having helped to change the policy of the NP. Of course, I deny that what he is suggesting has ever been the policy of the NP. The hon member is quoting selectively. However, if it has ever been the policy of the NP that the Coloureds should become independent and sovereign in a separate territory—something which I dispute, in any case—I want to put it to the hon member that this was changed in 1977. Since 1977, all doubt has been removed in this respect. Since then the NP has been saying categorically that an independent homeland of their own is not possible for the Coloureds. [Interjections.] The hon member for Rissik agreed with this from 1977 up to 1982. The hon members of the CP are the ones who have changed, not us. The hon members of the CP are the ones who have taken over, in this regard, the policy of the HNP which they used to fight so effectively, together with us. Now they can …

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

No, I am not going to answer any questions now. My time is very limited. [Interjections.]

That is why I am telling the hon member for Rissik that producing quotations from before 1977, and selective quotations at that, in an attempt to prove his allegations, will get him nowhere. It means absolutely nothing. It proves absolutely nothing. [Interjections.] The principles of the 1977 policy are also contained in this Bill. After all, this Bill provides for the introduction of an electoral procedure for the election of two of the three Houses which will form part of the new constitutional system. The Whites have already held a referendum about this. This will give the Coloureds and the Indians a political power base of their own, within which they will achieve self-determination, just as we have self-determination in this House, with regard to, firstly, their own affairs, over which they will have the final legislative authority. Secondly, they are being involved in a process in which they will obtain self-determination within a system which will be based on co-responsibility with regard to decision-making on matters of common concern.

Do you really believe what you are saying?

It is as simple as that. Mr Speaker. I really believe what I am saying. I know that the hon member for Brakpan does not really believe in his own cause.

No, I believe in my own cause with all my heart. [Interjections.]

Well, just as every man has his own way of kissing his wife, every man has his own beliefs. I have the comfort of knowing, though, that I still believe exactly what I have always believed. I have not changed my beliefs. [Interjections.] In this matter I still stand by the policy which hon members of the CP used to defend along with me. They are the ones who have changed. [Interjections.]

Before he started talking politics, the hon member for Rissik asked me a practical question. However, he gave a political connotation to this as well. He wanted to know whether I was aware of any money that was being given to Coloureds and Indians by any political or other organizations. I am the Minister of Internal Affairs and a leader of the NP. I can assure the hon member that the Department of Internal Affairs is not giving any money to any political party under the counter. The NP does not give any money whatsoever to any political organization of any kind. However, I cannot give the assurance that the CP or the PFP or the NRP are not donating money to others for political purposes. This is something which only they can tell. I do not control their books. I do not control their affairs either. Nor can I say whether the cultural organization which is to be formed by Prof Carel Boshoff is going to contribute any money, or whether any other cultural organization. Afrikaans or English, or even a single business enterprise is going to contribute any money or not. I can only tell the hon member for Rissik what the Prohibition of Political Interference Act provides. With regard to financial contributions, the Act provides the following, and I quote section 3 of that Act:

The Prohibition of Political Interference Act does not prohibit the CP from making a donation to anyone, therefore. [Interjections.] I can only give the assurance that the NP’s standpoint is absolutely clear. I have already stated categorically that the NP only raises funds for the NP itself. I also want to repeat that this is the position at the federal level, at the provincial level and at the constituency level. Not one cent of this party’s money will be given to any other parties, of whatever population group or whatever colour. We believe that every political party must find its own sources of finance.

The hon member for Rissik went further. He asked why we were accusing them of racism while we ourselves advocated separation. The hon member’s question arises from an error of reasoning, and that is to equate all forms of separation with racism. We on this side of the House have never done that in our lives. [Interjections.] If those hon members are accused of racism, then the accusation is not based on the fact that they advocate separation. It is based on the CP’s refusal to accept at the same time that we must also have co-operation in this country with regard to matters of common concern.

But you have not answered my question.

The other day, when the hon member for Rissik was away, not one of his colleagues was prepared to say that the CP still stood for a confederation of states, for example. [Interjections.] Once again, none of them wants to say this. Those hon members shrink from any form of structured co-operation with people of colour. The CP turns colour into an absolute, into the only basis for separation. That is what racism is. When one attaches such supreme importance to colour that one is not prepared to sit around the same table with people of colour and to accept co-responsibility in a meaningful way with regard to matters of common concern, as the Constitution enables us to do, then one is turning one’s back on reality, because one feels or says or alleges or insinuates that colour is the be-all and end-all. One is turning colour into an absolute, therefore. That is the definition of racism.

May I ask a question, please? On what basis is the hon the Minister putting the Coloured people in a separate House in the new Parliament?

Mr Speaker, we are putting the Coloured people in a separate House because we regard them as an identifiable separate community and because this party has firmly and irrevocably committed itself to the maintenance of a separate community life for each group, to self-determination for the various peoples. This is why— and in saying this, I am also replying to the hon members opposite who have spoken in the debate—we are irrevocably committed to separate residential areas as an important and fundamental facet of the separate community life of each group and to separate schools as a fundamental facet of the separate life of such a community. To distinguish between identifiable communities and to enable each one to maintain its own identity, its group security and its group interests, and to enable each community to cherish those things that are precious to it, to preserve its language, to raise its children in its own traditions, and to ensure that groups will be able to maintain their identity in this way is good, proper and wise. We believe that it is in the best interests of South Africa. [Interjections.] With separation for its own sake, separation merely on the basis of colour, without the test of separate community life, without asking whether the group from which one wishes to separate oneself will be accommodated in an acceptable way, the CP wishes to relegate the Coloureds to a country they do not want. The CP wishes to turn them into a people, which they are not. [Interjections.] There is a difference between being a separate community and being a people. The other day I discussed with hon members the question of the Afrikaans people which is politically fully integrated with non-Afrikaners. Surely this is true. The hon members over there do not have any policy with regard to the various peoples.

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

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr Chairman, I am glad to see that the hon the Minister of Defence is in the House because this Bill is predominantly a Bill aimed at providing national servicemen for the Defence Force. In fact, there is something I want to suggest to him during the course of the Committee Stage and I would therefore be grateful he would stay for the next 10 minutes or so.

The particular case I want to put to the hon the Minister while he is here is that of those people who are called upon in terms of this clause to do their national service but who are not qualified to do it at the moment because they have not been in the country for five years. It may be that they will leave school at the age of, shall we say, 18, and that if they were South African citizens they would to their national service then and there. However, they are not South African citizens and they will only become South African citizens when they are, let us say, 23 or 24 years old, and will only then become liable to do their national service. I believe those people should be given the right to volunteer to do their national service when they leave school, even though they are not South African citizens. I see the hon the Minister of Defence agrees but I want to go a little further. I understand that these people who are not South African citizens and who volunteer to do their national service are in some instances favoured over South African national servicemen and that in other instances they are at a disadvantage. I understand that they can sometimes be at an advantage in relation to border service and being sent to the border. I do not think that should happen. Secondly, I believe they are at a disadvantage in that if they are not South African citizens, they cannot qualify to become officers in the South African Defence Force. That is an important point. I believe that they should be able to become officers if they fall into the category of volunteering for national service. They are in any event to become South African citizens subsequently and it is only fair and just that they should be able to start their national service at 18 years, finish it and have all the normal benefits and disqualifications that any South African citizen may have. If they have to wait until they are 24 years or 25 years, it will mean that they will be 37 years old before they finish the national service they owe to their country. To ask a man to keep going until he is 37 years of age is asking a lot when everybody else has finished his national service on average at the age of 32. I realize that there are some university students who only start their service when they are 24 or 25 years old because they take long degree courses such as medicine, but these people then practice medicine in the Defence Force. They are in any case a remarkably small number.

The next point to which I want to refer regards the people who have to take South African citizenship in terms of this clause. What will their position be in regard to the passports of their countries of origin? The present situation is that if a person with permanent residence wishes to take out South African citizenship after five years, he can do so but he has to hand in the passport of his country of origin. He does not lose the citizenship of that country but he does lose the passport. I know that the hon the Minister can then give him permission to have the passport back, but is it just that a situation is created where they have to take citizenship willy-nilly or leave the country and also be forced to hand back the passports of their countries of origin? The hon the Minister should make the intention clear here and let us know what the situation is. I certainly believe that it would be equitable if they were entitled to keep the passports of their countries of origin.

Finally, in terms of the drafting of legislation, I must say that the proposed new section UA(1)(ii) is extremely difficult to understand. It reads:

One assumes that this refers to the commencement of the South African Citizenship Amendment Act, 1984, the very Act which we are in the process of passing, but I would like confirmation of that. The subparagraph states further:

I will be very grateful if the hon the Minister can spell out exactly what this provision means. I discussed it with my colleagues and we had extreme difficulty in understanding what precisely is meant by this provision. Let us assume that the date of commencement of this Act will be 19 April 1984. Does this then mean that the only people who will be effected by this provision are those who become permanent residents at any time after 19 April 1984? I do not know if it does or does not and I would appreciate clarification by the hon the Minister in this regard.

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

1. 1. On page 5, in line 20, to omit paragraph (c).

I take it that between yesterday and today the hon the Minister has thought about the argument I advanced. I have also thought about his arguments, and I want to tell him that he has not convinced me or this side of the House. He said that the reason why it was unnecessary to advertise, on a quarterly basis, the fact that a person had lost his temporary or permanent right of residence, was that his department did not actually receive many inquiries about that and also that he wanted to rationalize the Gazette. The latter reason is a praiseworthy one. One realizes that it is desirable to have a look at the type of notices that appear in the Gazette and at who the people are who read the Gazette.

Here we are dealing, however, with a very important matter, ie the fact that in certain circumstances an employer could run into a great deal of trouble if he were to employ an immigrant, conclude a contract with him or carry out any other act in which he is involved, only to discover subsequently that he was associating with a person who had lost his right to residence. For the hon the Minister’s benefit I just want to reiterate what the hon the Deputy Minister said yesterday— I am quoting from his Second Reading speech (Hansard, 19 March):

How is a person, negotiating with such an immigrant in this manner, going to know that that person has not accepted automatic citizenship, having exercised the right not to accept citizenship and therefore, in point of fact, no longer being entitled to remain in the country? How is the person negotiating with such an immigrant going to know this if he does not read about it in the Gazette? That is the first point.

Secondly, this affects the relevant person’s status in terms of international law. In this connection I want to refer to what the hon member for Pretoria West very wisely said in 1978 (Hansard, Volume 72, col 2208)—I take it he will now still agree with me about this point:

I think the hon member for Pretoria West was quite correct. It is a change of status, and the creditors are entitled to know this.

There are consequently three sound reasons why the relevant section in the Act should be retained. The fact that the hon the Minister’s department did not receive any inquiries about this is understandable, because a prospective employer, contracting party or anyone wanting to negotiate with such an immigrant has his Gazette to hand and can obtain the information he wants. That is why I think that this approach is a logical one, unless the hon the Minister can explain to the Committee how someone, who could possibly be committing a very serious offence, could find out that he was dealing with an immigrant who was not entitled to be in the country.

Mr Chairman, I think I must support the opinion expressed by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central with regard to the unusual wording of the proposed subsection (1) (ii). I also found it very difficult to follow and I am still not absolutely certain as to the full meaning. I rather think though that I have a rough idea of what it means. I would therefore also appreciate a clear explanation so that I have it clearly in my mind as to what in fact is meant.

I want to go a little further in respect of this clause, which of course is virtually the meat of the whole Bill, and ask the hon the Minister a question as to the position of a young man who becomes a South African citizen by virtue of his parents accepting that he is a South African citizen The young man’s parents accept the fact that he is a South African citizen at the age of 15 and then whilst he is still a minor, they go overseas and the youngster goes with them. He is then a South African citizen while the parents probably are not South African citizens but merely permanent residents. Would he still be obligated to military service in South Africa? Would he be expected to come back to do his military service as would be the case normally with a South African citizen?

Again, another peculiar situation could develop where a guardian could refuse to accept citizenship for a young permanent resident while at a later stage the youngster himself might want to become a South African citizen and stay in the country, in other words, there would be a difference of opinion between the minor and the guardian. He may even have left the family home and be living somewhere else. As I believe he would still be a minor at the age of 18, would he have to wait until the age of 21 before literally defying his guardians or his parents and saying that he was going to become a South African citizen? These are quite relevant points because in both instances I know of circumstances which could apply. In the one instance the youngster did not want to leave the country but his parents forced him to do so. He might have wanted to come back to do his military service. These are a couple of points to which I feel the hon the Minister could perhaps reply. In principle, of course, as at the Second Reading, we support the Third Reading as well.

Mr Chairman, several questions have been asked about the effect of this legislation on military service. I think the correct way of approaching the matter is to realize that this Bill regulates how immigrant children acquire South African citizenship in specific circumstances. The moment they become South African citizens, military service is exactly the same for them as for any other South African citizen.

†The reply therefore to the hon member’s question on the position of a young person who leaves after having become a South African citizen is that his position would be exactly the same as if I emigrated from South Africa and took my minor son, a South African citizen, with me. The position of that immigrant boy will be exactly the same as that of one born of South African parents when they leave the country. [Interjections.] This Bill regulates how one becomes a citizen under particular circumstances. I state clearly that one of the main objects is to ensure that children of immigrants who enter South Africa before a set date—Parliament has already made provision for those who enter after that date—will do their military service in the same way as all other South African citizens. We have chosen, for reasons which I have explained, to do this by ensuring that they attain South African citizenship. However, the details of what a South African citizen has to do with regard to national service is not regulated by this Bill. In any event I think it would be wrong for me to give answers pertaining to the national service scheme as it is applied by the Department of Defence.

*However, I shall see to it that all the problems raised here and all the speeches of hon members are brought to the attention of the Department of Defence. It is clear to me from the liaison that has already taken place with the Department of Defence that they are giving attention to some exceptional cases mentioned inter alia by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens. For example, that hon member asked how those people were treated who, as a result of this legislation, only become liable for national service at the age of 24 years. Such a person would not have had the opportunity to perform national service earlier if he had not been in the country earlier, but the hon member must bear in mind that at that stage he will already have been in the country for five years. Ten to one the answer will be along the lines of more dynamic utilization of joining on a voluntary basis, and the volunteer basis does apply. Indeed, we have ascertained that since 1971, 5 288 non-South Africans have performed national service on a voluntary basis. Therefore it is clear that this basis is being made use of. Since yesterday when the questions were asked we have been in contact briefly with the Department of Defence and I gain the impression that they are indeed prepared to give attention to specific problems which could arise in exceptional circumstances, and deal with them on a practical basis. Apart from that, we are also all aware that they are reasonable about special circumstances applying in individual cases. We know, too, that as far as the procedure of exemption is concerned, anyone who is not entirely physically fit is utilized in such a manner as to make provision for his physical problems. Therefore, whereas hon members support the principle that immigrant children should perform national service, I think that they should rather try to rectify the practical problems relating to national service which they foresee may arise from this decision, in the system of national service itself and not in this Bill. After all, this Bill does not seek to regulate the system of national service. It would surely be very inappropriate and wrong to incorparate in citizenship legislation, detailed facets of national service arrangements. However, if there are amendments that hon members wish to advocate with a view to circumstances of immigrant children who have become South African citizens and are still liable to national service, they must raise them under a discussion of the national service system and not under this legislation, which concerns citizenship. One could mention innumerable examples in this regard, but I am unfortunately unable to give hon members an authoritative off-the-cuff answer concerning all the problems because I am not an authority on the system of national service. It does not fall under me and in my opinion it does not belong here either. However, we know that as far as national service is concerned, immigrant children need not in any respect do anything more than any other South African citizen. That then, is the key to the answers to all the questions that have been asked. No more will be asked of any immigrant child who becomes a South African citizen under this Bill and who, as a result, is liable to national service than will be asked of other South African citizen.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to the question of passports.

†He asked whether it was fair to ask these immigrants to hand back their passports. However, in terms of this legislation they are not being forced in any way whatsoever to assume South African citizenship. They have a choice and they have six months within which to make a final decision. If therefore they attain South African citizenship by virtue of this legislation, they are part and parcel of the decision in that regard. It is not a unilateral action on the part of anyone compelling them to accept citizenship. If they do assume South African citizenship in this way, they should of course fall under the same rules and regulations as any other South African citizen, I believe. The hon member referred to it too. There are procedures available to someone who in terms of the laws of another country is also entitled to a passport of that country, to make use of that passport with ministerial permission. Permission of that nature is readily granted if a good case can be made out. If it could for instance be proved that it is in the interests of the person concerned, of his business or of South Africa, he will be allowed to make use of the passport of his country of origin. On the other hand, however, a person who readily accepts South African citizenship—and there is that element of acceptance out of own free will contained in this— should rightly be proud of using the passport issued to him by his own country wherever and whenever he can. Speaking from my own experience with all immigrants that have attained citizenship in the past, I am convinced that they prefer to use their South African passport wherever and whenever possible.

The hon member, as well as one or two other hon members, wanted me to explain the exact meaning of clause 1(1)(c)(ii). I am not sure whether I can explain it more clearly than it is already worded. I do realize nevertheless that it has been formulated very intricately. I can, however, give hon members the assurance that it is essentially true that when one tries to simplify something which has of necessity been stated in a complicated manner it is very easy to create misunderstanding. When I try to explain this I want hon members to realize that I am trying to do it as a layman, and that they should therefore read my Hansard again at a later stage and compare what I say now with the wording of the particular subsection in order to make sure that I have not made any mistake. They should do so before communicating to other people what I say now as the final word spoken on this subject.

Can you give us the assurance that you really understand it?

I can give the hon member that assurance. I cannot, however, give him the assurance that I am good enough a teacher to make everybody else understand it. [Interjections.]

*If one reads the clause as a whole and sees it in the right context, it is evident that provision is being made here for an alien to whom a permit was issued before 19 April 1978, obtaining South African citizenship when this measure comes into effect if he is 15 years and six months old or—if he is younger than 15 years and six months— when he attains the age of 15 years. This is the concise interpretation of this that I wish to give hon members. I am of course also relying on the technical advisers in this regard because I have not had the time to sit down and formulate it myself.

What does the Bill in fact say in this regard?

†As I said in my Second Reading speech. Mr Speaker, the proposed amendments will have the effect that all immigrants between the ages of 15 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 was obtained before 19 April 1978.

*This brings me to the hon member for Brakpan and the amendment he moved. The fact is that we have recognized in practice that since 1978 no significant facts have come to our attention indicating that employers do consult the Gazette and check the details and information contained therein. We know that a Gazette appears every week. If a person approaches such an employer, where will he begin and were will he end, if he is not a legal expert who is very well acquainted with this legislation? The best way of helping an employer is to see to it that all persons have documentation. If a person is a South African citizen then he must be in possession of an identity document which reflects that. If a man is here on temporary residence only, then his passport plus his other documents will indicate it. If a man has a work permit here, he will be able to obtain documentation in this regard. I have never had any evidence—and I, too, represent a workers constituency—to show that employers experience any significant problems in identifying the status of immigrants, whether they be citizens, people with work permits or only temporary visitors. This may be determined from documentation that they are entitled to, and which they are compelled to have if they are not South African citizens. They must then be in possession of a permanent residence permit, a temporary residence permit or a worker’s permit. For that reason I do not really deem it necessary.

I want to say to the hon member that between 15 and 20 names are published every quarter. This is done quarterly, not every week. Then the employer has to know in which weekly edition of the Gazette a quarterly list is published. I really think that in practice we are dealing here with a service which is not utilized and which, in so far as a need exists for it, is already provided for in a different way, namely by way of documentation. After the repeal of this provision, if a need were to arise, the hon member may rest assured that we should give very favourable consideration to creating a different procedure; rather, say, creating an answer service that a person can telephone and ask what the status is of a certain person, so that we could tell the person that we would return his call within 24 hours, rather than to ask such a person to page through all those Gazettes and obtain legal advice as to precisely when a person qualifies and when it is suspected that such a person obtained South African citizenship, etc, etc. I agree that employers are entitled to some form of assistance to be able to determine what the status of a person is, but I certainly differ from the hon member’s contention that the way he proposes is the best way.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to delay the hon the Minister for any length of time. The problem is, however, that here one is dealing with someone who is going to be guilty of an offence, and not only if he employs such a person. The hon the Minister has only mentioned an employer who wants to employ someone. I may possible want to rent my house to a certain person. Must I, on each occasion, first ask him where his passport and identity documents are? My agent in Pretoria or Brakpan may rent my house to a certain individual, in consequence of which I could possibly get into trouble because I am unaware of the fact that such a person is a disqualified person. In point of fact, the offence that is being created has no meaning in the Bill the hon the Minister is dealing with, because such a person can merely attest to the fact that he had negotiated a lease with a certain person and really did not know that such a person was a prohibited immigrant. He can say that he had never met him before in his life and that he had negotiated with him through his agent. How he finds himself in trouble because he rented a house to that person who was a prohibited immigrant, or perhaps entered into some other contract with him. That is the problem I have. I can understand that no one wants to page through a whole batch of Gazettes, but how are we going to protect an individual who has, in good faith, committed an offence for which the penalty, in terms of the new legislation now before the House, is being increased?

Mr Chairman, if I have heard the hon member for Brakpan correctly, I think that publication would rather tend to aggravate circumstances for the person he wants to protect. By implication the hon member is adopting the standpoint that one would not be able to prove an offence unless one published. If one published, however—so his argument could be interpreted—the State would be in a position to claim that one could not say one did not know who a certain person was, because one could have read it up in the Gazette. I do not think that what he is actually advocating is that we should find people guilty merely on the grounds of their not having taken the precaution of going through three of four years issues of the Gazette to determine someone’s status. I really do not think the courts would adopt so unreasonable a standpoint as to require unreasonable steps to have been taken by an accused. I think there are many other reasonable steps that an employer, or one leasing a property to someone, or whatever the case may be, can take to determine someone’s status.

The first point is the moment at which it becomes clear that someone is an immigrant. If it is clear that one is dealing with an immigrant, one could ask him to produce his documents. He must have documents. No immigrant may be without documentary proof in regard to his presence in South Africa. If he is a sojourner, he must have a visa. One is, in point of fact, only an immigrant if one has a permanent residence permit.

But how does one know that someone is an immigrant?

How do you know even if it is printed in the Gazette? It is a practical problem that is, in fact, irrelevant when it comes to the question of whether it is printed in the Gazette or not. If someone says he is Koos van Wyk, one cannot know whether he is Koos van Wyk who is an immigrant, or Koos van Wyk who was born here, except if he happens to talk with an accent, or if one has reasonable grounds for assuming that he was not born here. One is not going to determine that from information published in the Gazette, but rather on the grounds of his appearance, his accent and specific circumstances, for example who sent him to one and what he tells one. That is how it would work in practice.

I think the hon member for Brakpan’s idea is a good one, and I am therefore not attacking him. I do not believe, however, that his proposal is in any way a solution to the problem. We must rather look at ways and means of ensuring that people in South Africa can be identified, and that is the ultimate purpose of an identity document.

In the course of the debate on a previous Bill a plea was lodged for us to move towards the idea of having a person’s identity document actually making it possible for him to carry out certain acts, for example having his electricity supply connected, etc. The plea was that one should first present one’s identity document before such acts can be performed. We have not yet gone to those lengths. We have cast a net, but we would like to have this done on a voluntary basis. When all is said and done, it is important, for the sake of good order and for the preservation of the laws of the land, that it should be possible to identify each and every individual in South Africa on the basis of documentation that he can produce upon reasonable request. This is already being done in the case of immigrants and non-South African citizens coming here from abroad. It is not yet the actual position in the case of South African-born citizens, but I think there is sufficient documentation.

I would have liked to accept the amendment if I thought it could really help, but I do not think it helps anyone.

Amendment I negatived (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Mr Speaker, before the adjournment last night I said that assurances that this kind of legislation would not be applied to the position of Black former South African citizens could not be relied upon. This is so because the hon the Minister or the officials of the department can speak neither on behalf of their successors or bind them nor on behalf of any department of State which may wish to use the terms of the legislation to apply them to Blacks within that particular category. I also referred to the situation where Black former South Africans were deported in terms of this sort of legislation. It is common knowledge that this happened up until last year for a period of about two or three years. It happened regularly that legislation which would normally be applicable to aliens was applied to these people where legislation which had in fact been designed to deal with aliens in the normal sense of the word, was used against people who were formerly citizens of this country and who had been deprived of their citizenship against their will. This legislation was specifically used to circumvent the courts in those cases of deportation and to escape the need to obtain the agreement of the court for such deportation, as is required in terms of legislation that is normally applied and administered by the Department of Co-operation and Development. Our fears that the provisions of this Bill may be applied to that group of people, namely the Blacks who were formerly citizens of this country, are therefore not merely theoretical or based on speculation but on bitter experience in the recent past. It goes without saying that the existing legislation can be used to an extensive degree in dealing with such Black people. However, it also means that any amendment which strengthens such legislation or affects that legislation in any way must now be seen in the perspective of the possibility of such application.

We have therefore done just that. In addition to studying the legislation from a purely technical point of view, we have also looked at the possibility of how this Bill could affect Blacks in the category I have mentioned before; In other words, Black people who are now citizens of Transkei. Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei and who became citizens of those countries against their will and who were also deprived of their South African citizenship against their will. Such a study reveals that this legislation can in fact be used to deal with Blacks in ways that were not possible before. I would like to refer to one or two of these possibilities.

*I should like to refer to clause 3 of the Bill, which contains several prohibitory provisions. It concerns acts that cannot take place in connection with aliens who are not in possession of permits or who are not deemed to be in possession of a permit under either section 4 or section 5 of the principal Act. There are several extensions of the prohibitory provisions. It is now being provided that section 5ter(1)(d) of the principal Act will now read:

No persons shall—

This is a fairly important prohibition, if one sees it against the background of the possible application of the legislation to such Blacks. What is “fixed property” in these circumstances? I am convinced that it will be interpreted to include any housing or shelter that is made available to such persons, not necessarily for business purposes only, but also for accommodation. I am convinced that this may also, for example, be applied to servant’s quarters in a block of flats or to private dwellings. It could even be made applicable to that category, and I do not believe that this is a far-fetched possibility. Therefore this is something that one must bear in mind when legislation of this nature is dealt with.

There are further extensions, such as the one that provides that no one may enter into an agreement with such an alien for the conduct of a business or the carrying on of a profession or occupation. This is new and is now being incorporated in the legislation. Clause 3(a)(1)(b) provides that no person shall—

Once again this is an extension of the prohibitory provisions of clause 3, the clause that amends section 5ter of the Aliens Act, 1937. One should read in conjunction with this the applicable penal provision which appears in clause 7. It provides:

This is a considerable punishment that is being imposed in these circumstances. When one speaks about anyone in South Africa who deliberately offers shelter to an undersirable immigrant in the classical sense of the word, knowing that such a person is a prohibited immigrant, then this punishment can be seen in perspective, but if it may be applied at some stage in the future where we are dealing with many thousands of Black people who are present in many parts of the country and have the status of aliens due to the independence of their various homelands, then one has to see this in a totally different perspective. Clause 3 can then, in fact, be used as a very effective measure of influx control and in that instance the worst fears expressed by certain journalists are indeed well-founded. Clause 4 of this Bill provides:

Such a person can be guilty of an offence for which the punishment is also serious, if such a return is incorrect and he/she knew that it was incorrect. He can also be guilty of an offence if the return is not submitted. Once again, if this is seen against the background of the definition of an alien that we have become accustomed to over the years, and that is internationally acceptable, one could perhaps understand the situation to an extent, although at a later stage I shall level criticism at this aspect as well. Once again, if the situation is at any stage applied to Black people who are citizens of other countries and who were formerly citizens of the Republic, then clause 4, which amends section 5quat of the principal Act, has been converted into one of the most effective and drastic forms of influx control ever applied in South Africa. It then becomes a drastic form of influx control because once again the penalties imposed in this regard are severe penalties, far more severe than have ever before applied to a similar situation in terms of any legislation administered by the Department of Co-operation and Development. This creates an untenable situation for employers in those circumstances. In fact, what this amounts to is that such an employer must be extremely careful about whom he employs, and if he were to submit one of his returns to the Director-General one day and it was evident that he had a person in his employ who was, say, a Transkeian, who was not welcome in South Africa in terms of any legislation, then in fact that employer would be obliged to render a return of evidence that was self-incriminating. An obligation is imposed on him to provide the department with self-incriminating information. As I have said, this is a more effective measure of influx control than we have ever had on our Statute Book before, if it is applied to such Blacks. Therefore I think that our fears in this regard are well-founded fears. If we are proved wrong at some stage in the future we shall greatly welcome it, but I want to say that our fears are based on bitter past experience. Accordingly I wish to move as an amendment:

Mr Speaker, on the very issue of the rights of people of what are now independent national states we have over the years smashed into smithereens all the arguments of the Opposition. Nevertheless the hon member comes to the House today and claims that this measure is intended to achieve certain things, despite the assurance given by the hon the Deputy Minister …

I never said “intended”.

No, but that was the drift of his argument, despite the fact that the hon the Deputy Minister explicitly said that the Government does not intend using this measure in respect of influx control whatsoever.

*The hon member for Green Point is a good friend of mine and I am sympathetic to his amendment. I can understand it. In fact, if I had thought that the intention with this measure was to apply it to Black people who come to South Africa from the independent Black states, I would not have been very happy about this Bill in my own mind. The very first time our group discussed this Bill, without us even having brought it up for discussion, the Deputy Minister explicitly gave us the assurance that the measures concerned would not be used in respect of that category of Black people. Even though one could interpret it in this way statutorily, I want to state categorically from this side of the House that I think that in view of the assurance given by the hon the Deputy Minister, it was not fair of the official Opposition to have put their amendment.

I have with me information concerning Black people from independent Black states who work in South Africa. It includes states such as Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia. Zimbabwe, etcetera. As a matter of interest, let us look at the number of Black people from those states who work in the various sectors in South Africa. These are the figures up to 30 June 1981. There were 420 in agriculture, 239 000 in the mining industry. 8 041 in the manufacturing industry and 6 600 in the construction industry. One could go on in this vein. In total there are more than 300 000 who are legally registered. I should like to refer in this regard to the hon member’s own argument in respect of clause 3. If he links clause 3 to the penalty of a fine of R5 000, and if, in addition, we assume that a considerable percentage of people from these states, as well as from the independent Black national states may be living and working here illegally, I want to say that in view of the realities with regard to employment and economic development, any Government that would use such a penalty to exercise influx control, would be disregarding the economic realities. In my humble opinion, this would be extremely unfair in view of the realities in Southern Africa. I therefore want to assure him categorically that although he may be right statutorily speaking, that is not the intention on our part.

There is another clause in the measure—I am not sure precisely which one it is—that has been inserted in this Act on the recommendation of the Rabie Commission. The Rabie Commission recommended that certain of the restrictive measures should be dealt with under legislation on immigration rather than under the legislation mentioned in the report. That is why an amendment was effected in this regard. The Rabie Commission felt that provisions in other legislation that could be used to place certain restrictions on people—they deal with deportation—should not be used, and that is why we are introducing this particular amendment to make this possible.

I now want to address hon members of the PFP. Whilst in the past we have quarrelled a great deal and tear their arguments with regard to influx control apart—the hon member for Houghton will recall that—today, when we are discussing this measure, we are speaking to them frankly and from the heart when we tell them what are and what are not our intentions. Although it is not their intention to stir up emotions, there is no doubt that emotions have, in fact, been stirred up. One need only look at a few of the newspaper reports that have appeared concerning the possibility that this legislation might be used for influx control. Yet there are contractual agreements with these states in terms of which employment and other matters are regulated. There are a number of other measures in terms of which we restrict people in this category. It is therefore not our intention to use this legislation for that purpose.

The hon member for Green Point referred to the question of housing and the letting of property. Apart from the fact that that is not our intention, I also think it is absolutely impossible, with the administrative machinery at the Government’s disposal, even to dream that the Department of Internal Affairs would be able to make legislation of this nature applicable to Black people from the TBVC countries. The mere administration alone, for example, with regard to statements that could be required in terms of these measures the hon member regards as being restrictive, is an absolute impossibility in view of the addisional work the Department of Internal Affairs can cope with today. If this would perhaps convince him further, I would be grateful.

I would concede that in his speech yesterday the hon member for Green Point perhaps did not mean it so definitely and that he was perhaps only skimming lightly over the whole problem of refugees—as he put it— throughout the world. Perhaps it would be as well for us to dwell on this for a moment and look at the extent of the problem of refugees, people who apply for asylum and claim citizenship in various countries of the world. I wish this legislation was not being discussed now, since when I read a few of those reports, I was itching to enter into a discussion with the hon member for Houghton with regard to the question of discrimination so that she could tell us how she feels about many of the things that occur in other countries which we read about here. Most hon members in this House receive the magazine German Tribune from Germany. From this magazine it is abundantly clear what kind of problems are being experienced in West Germany with regard to citizenship, the control of aliens and control over the presence of more than one million Turks.

Do not worry about them. You look after yourself.

I want to tell the hon member for Groote Schuur that that is very important. The hon member for Green Point has pointed to a small problem, as he put it, that exists in the world concerning this matter, and he related it to this legislation. This is important to us in this House when we introduce legislation that places restrictions on people who come to South Africa since world problems should make us wary. The hon member for Green Point spoke about an immigrant and an alien “in the classical sense of the word”. If we look at an alien in the classical sense of the word, we have an extensive problem in every country of the world—the whole of Europe. America, as well as the Middle East—with regard to refugees and people seeking asylum and citizenship in other countries. This is a problem of tremendous proportions.

Many of us could perhaps regard this as being negligible, and seen in terms of the total world population it may well look negligible. However, one must look at the practical problems in a country like the USA with its large population, where between three million and six million illegal people flock into the country from Mexico, and where they already have more than six million documented aliens. One must also take cognizance of the calculation by the UN Bureau for Refugees that there are approximately 10 million aliens throughout the world, including Africa. Then one realizes that this is an extensive problem of which every Government must take cognizance, and for which restrictive measures such as these are proposed. We on this side of the House, and I believe the PFP as well, are 100% happy that we ought to restrict the entry of aliens “in the classical sense of the word”—to use the words of the hon member. In fact, in my opinion, in a certain sense, the hon members of the PFP are not being true to their nature with regard to this matter, since over the past few years they have repeatedly placed questions on the Order Paper with regard to some individual or another whom the Government had supposedly permitted to enter the country and who, in their opinion, for some reason or another, whether it was a criminal background, or for whatever reason, was an undesirable immigrant who posed a danger to South Africa. If one were to take them up on that point alone, viz that in a democratic system they are continually and consistently vigilant and exert pressure—and rightly so—to see to it that only the right people come to South Africa, I should like to make the point that the extent of this problem is so vast that it is important that the Government should consider measures such as those before us at present.

The intention of this Bill is to amend the Aliens Act of 1937, the Aliens Registration Act of 1939, the Departure from the Union Regulation Act of 1955, and a number of other statutory measures. Similar definitions are used throughout the world to identify aliens who are in violation of the statutory provisions of a country. As a result of newspaper reports, I went to the trouble of trying to ascertain whether it was perhaps only our Afrikaans-language newspapers that were giving unnecessary negative attention to this world-wide problem, ie the problem of aliens who, for whatever reasons, but mainly for economic reasons, flock to other countries. However, it is surprising to see how many reports in this regard also appear in English-language newspapers such as The Star in South Africa, the Christian Science Monitor, and practically every other newspaper in the USA. Apart from that, over the past few years there have been many reports in magazines such as Time Magazine, the German Tribune, Newsweek, etc. Furthermore, there is also the UN’s involvement in, and publications on, this issue.

In view of the above-mentioned facts, I suggest that we in South Africa have no choice but to step up control over aliens considerably, as embodied in our legislation, so that we can be prepared. When this category of people is referred to in various countries, they are generally referred to as “refugees”. In the USA they speak of those flocking in as “illegals”. In Europe these people are referred to as “foreigners”, whilst in other countries they are referred to as “migrants” and “illegal aliens”. These designations and the identification by the media of the problem surrounding them, indicates that we are dealing here with problems that strike a sour note in the emotions of people whose prospects of employment may be threatened. Due to the conglomeration of aliens in European countries and elsewhere, this problem unfortunately also acquires a racial connotation, but I do not want to speak about this legislation in a racial context, since this is not our intention with it, after all.

As a result of the problems arising from the presence of large number of aliens in the different countries of the world, the Governments of the USA, West Germany and France, for example, had to introduce measures in many fields, eg education, usually in the form of financial grants from the Treasury, to assist these people. Millions of dollars are voted in the USA annually to assist in the education of the so-called illegals and strangely enough, inter alia, to see to it that they are taught in their mother-tongue.

There is a heated debate on this issue taking place in West Germany. For example, the Government of Chancellor Helmuth Köhl wanted to introduce legislation last year by means of which further restrictions would be placed on these so-called foreigners. The West German Government also wants to place restrictions on the children of those aliens, as they are called, from the age of six. Frau Fumke, who has been put in charge of this specific matter by the West German Government, as well as a number of other members of Opposition Parties, are continually opposing the intensified measures with regard to the alien question.

The measure we are discussing at present, however, is of a restrictive nature with regard to the traditional and typical foreigner or immigrant we have to deal with here in South Africa, and about whom hon members of the Opposition have repeatedly put questions here over the years. Therefore, to come back to the problem with regard to the Black people of the TBVC countries, as set out by the hon member, I must concede that we in South Africa are naturally affected by this in every respect. We in South Africa are also affected in the field of education, in social matters, with regard to Third World problems in the broad context, and in many other ways, by the precise groupings to which the hon member also referred. However, we accept this as part of the South African reality. That is why, in our negotiations and agreement with the independent states, we have expressly excluded these people from legislation such as this. We have repeatedly told them that it is not our intention to regard them as aliens in the international context. We therefore do not see them as aliens, foreigners, or illegal immigrants in the traditional sense. We have repeatedly told the Government of Transkei, the Government of Venda, the Government of Ciskei and all the other governments concerned what our standpoint is in this regard—the hon the Ministers who have dealt with the piece of legislation concerned have also done so. We put our standpoint to all those people by way of an agreement. I think it would be fatal for the Government of South Africa to try to use a measure such as this to exercise control which it exercises in any case in terms of many other measures and in addition, to exercise it by using excessive fines as a deterrent. This is by no means the intention with this legislation.

I have tried to indicate the extent of the measures in the present Bill in general terms. When we say that we want to step up our control over the traditional and possibly illegal immigrant, we are speaking of fines being increased in the present measure, and in addition, we categorize those we regard as being illegal. We categorize them as people whose actions are, amongst other things, in conflict with the morale of South Africa, and as people who could cause problems with regard to the broad social pattern here in South Africa. In terms of the present measure, certain deposits are also being increased. Specific reference is also made in this measure to how people may be employed. The way in which employers should go about employing such people is also determined. The sale or letting of property to such people is also restricted by the present measure. Then there is another provision with regard to a list that has to be presented to the Director-General concerning the kind of employee a particular employer can have in his employ, and who possibly belongs in one of these categories.

I think it is extremely important that we take cognizance of all these provisions. There are also provisions with regard to declaring illegal certain equipment being used. Unfortunately time does not permit me to mention all the various provisions. I therefore do not want to burden hon members any further. However, we find all kinds of measures in this Bill which lay down restrictions with regard to this problem, which, of course, also occurs in Africa, in Europe and in the USA. I happened to read something in Time Magazine concerning restrictions that are laid down for people who process documents in order to afford immigrants the opportunity to enter the USA illegally. The category of officials who can exercise this control is being strengthened. For example, messengers of the court will in future also be permitted to assist in implementing control measures. All things having been taken into account, I believe that in the past the PFP were not true to their own actions in this House by regularly advocating that a government should not deal lightly with new immigrants and temporary sojourners having a classical alien status. This attitude of the PFP has also been manifested historically in the questions that have historically been put by them to the hon the Minister. If they are true to their attitude that there should be beter restrictions and stricter control in this respect, I do not understand why they do not support the present measure.

In conclusion, I just want to point out once again that there is by no means any intention of using the provisions of the present measure for the purposes of influx control in this country. This would be a dreadful disservice. Even if the Opposition should have problems with regard to the statutory provisfon—which I can understand—if they should say that it may not be implemented today, but, as the hon member for Green Point argued, that there could be other officials in the future who will not abide by the hon the Minister’s assurance, even if this were possible, I want to tell the hon member for Green Point that he ought to know that we as the Government party give the assurance that that is not the intention. Therefore, their standpoint could only cause trouble outside. Through the media, this could only create discord and tension amongst Black people by their coming forward with such a proposed amendment and creating the impression that this legislation could possibly be used for that purpose.

We on this side of the House are honoured to thank the hon the Deputy Minister for this intensified measure and to support the Second Reading.

Mr Speaker, I take pleasure in informing my friend, the hon the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs, that we in the CP support this measure. There are really 20 provisions contained in this Bill.

With regard to the amendment of the hon member for Green Point I want to say that as I read the Bill, the opposite of the allegation he makes in this regard is in fact true. If the hon member looks at clauses 9 and 10, and particularly at clause 24, he would see that certain provisions apply to the citizens of the TBVC countries which really make it easier for them, under certain circumstances, to come to South Africa than for aliens from other states. This is particularly the case with clause 24, which deals with treaties and agreements entered into, and with clause 9, which provides that an identity document is acceptable in certain circumstances. It is therefore palliatory the TBVC countries in comparison with the position of citizens who come to South Africa from other foreign states. The argument of the official Opposition in this regard therefore does not hold water and we cannot accept it.

It is true that in a world which is becoming increasingly smaller, it is absolutely essential that every country should make very stringent and scrupulous arrangements with regard to aliens entering that country and that they should abide by those arrangements, and South Africa is no exception. I think that according to international law it is acknowledged that a country can take the necessary steps domestically to arrange matters of this nature as it sees fit, and that with regard to such matters where, as I have just said, we are living in a world which is becoming smaller, it should make those measures as stringent as possible; and not only that, but that those measures should be implemented as stringently as possible. Very often this is where the problem lies—that one’s measures are stringent enough, but that it is sometimes difficult to implement them. Since the country’s prerogative is being used to make these measures regarding the entry of aliens to this country more stringent, we support the Government wholeheartedly.

As far as the provisions are concerned, I think it is really a matter that could be discussed more productively in the Committee Stage. I do just want to bring a few matters to the attention of the hon the Deputy Minister. Firstly, the word “Union” is still being used. I know that past laws have always used the term “Union” and that perhaps it is necessary for the purposes of legal interpretation and practical purposes that when one wishes to effect an amendment to one of those laws, one uses the term “Union”. Perhaps this could be rectified.

Certain offences are determined in clause 3. It is provided that if a person should assist an alien to conduct a business or to carry on a profession or occupation or does anything for him or on his behalf, in connection with such an alien’s business, profession or occupation, one could be found quilty of an offence. In the proposed subsection (1)(c) the provision is simply “harbour any such alien …”. The words “assist in harbouring such an alien” are not consistently used. To assist an alien by harbouring him, is therefore not an offence, but to assist an alien in conducting a business or carrying on a profession or occupation, could perhaps be regarded as an offence.

I now come to clause 4. The proposed section 5quat provides that;

furnish certain details.

I should like to know why an employer is not always obliged to do this and why this only has to be done when such a request is addressed to such an employer. I would be pleased if the hon the Deputy Minister would give us his standpoint in this regard.

With regard to clause 6 I wish to point out the Afrikaans term “opgehou” is used both in the clause and the existing Act. I refer, for example, to the proposed section 8A(2), which reads:

In the English text the word “sojourned” is used to translate “opgehou het”. I find the word “ophou” a little odd, and I think the word “vertoef ’ is more descriptive and correct Afrikaans.

Clause 6 makes provision for the insertion of a new section 8B. Since this provision is being introduced, it is important that it be implemented stringently in practice.

I now come to the penalties as contained in clause 11. We find it odd that when reference is made to an offence with regard to section 2, the penalty is a fine not exceeding R5 000, or imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years, whilst the penalty in the case of an offence with regard to section 3 or 4 is a fine not exceeding R5 000, or imprisonment not exceeding one year. With a view to the fact that the value of money has depreciated and more stringent measures have to be implemented, we can understand why fines have to be increased, but why does the same not apply to imprisonment? Why is it a fine of R5 000 or imprisonment of two years in one case, and a fine of R5 000 or imprisonment of one year in the other?

That is a very good question, and I agree with you.

I am pleased about that. I have always thought that the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs had a little sense, although he does not always want to show it. [Interjections.]

Clause 26, which deals with the crew of a ship, is a very important provision, and we truly welcome it.

We also welcome clause 28, which deals with the admission to provinces of persons who come to such provinces by way of a permit. Those provisions are also being made more stringent. I hope the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs also agrees with me particularly when I refer to the problem the Government is facing at present—ie the admission of Indians to the Free State—and I say that those provisions are being made even more stringent and that even heavier penalties are being imposed. We hope the Government is going to implement those provisions more stringently, just as they are being made more stringent here.

With these words the CP supports the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Green Point spoke very highly of South Africa at the beginning of his speech. He referred to the need for a country to have laws to limit the influx of illegal immigrants. The hon member referred to the natural beauty of this country as one reason why such laws were necessary. He also spoke about wealth, resources, etc, as well as the fact that chaotic conditions might develop in neighbouring countries, and said that all these factors could give rise to a need for such legislation. The hon member also conceded that South Africa formed part of a small group of countries in the world which deemed it necessary to have legislation of this nature. He said that a state actually had a duty to its legal citizens to have such legislation. So far I fully agree with the hon member. However, I disagree with what the hon member said in the rest of his speech. In my opinion, the hon member made statements which were unfounded because he is probably still blinded by the obsession of his party to discredit the Government when we are dealing with the rights and position of individuals.

†He is blinded by an obsession to project an image of a regime which deprives people of rights and privileges merely for superficial reasons. I would like to discuss with the hon member certain words he used in his speech. The hon member did not use the word “regime”, but he implied the word. He used the word “deprived” when he said:

*With all due respect to the hon member. I do believe that this is an oversimplification of the situation. In order not to attack the hon member without cause, I looked up the meaning of the words “deprive” and “merely”. The word “deprive” is a very serious word to use. In Webster it is defined as follows:

It goes on to give synonyms for this word, namely “to dispossess, to disinherit and to bereave”. The following description is given of it:

“Disinherit” means “an heir being deprived of the right to inherit an estate. In extension it often implies a robbing or a divesting of a right.” “Bereave” means, according to Webster, “to deprive something as by robbery, stripping or seizing, implying suddenness and surprise”. “Merely” means, according to this dictionary, “without admixture or qualification”. What the hon member has in fact said is that a certain group of people in the country were disinherited and bereaved in a sudden way of rights and privileges that they had had and that it was done without admixture and unqualified. With all due respect to the hon member, I want to say that this is not correct. As a lawyer, the hon member really should not indulge in such oversimplifications and then base a whole argument on them.

I want to refer to what has happened in this connection. These aspects were regulated by the Status Acts, after all. I suppose the hon the member is aware of the Status of the Transkei Act. Section 6 of this Act provides that persons who have become citizens of a new state do not forfeit any existing rights, privileges or benefits by reason only of the other provisions of the Act. In the second place, this change in citizenship is the result of an agreement and of negotiations between the leaders of two countries. In other words, it is based on agreements reached by leaders who must certainly have been supported by their communities and on agreements entered into as a result of mutual trust between people. After all, one does not enter into agreements with people whom one does not trust. I cannot share the hon member’s view and concern in this connection. In particular, I cannot agree with the grounds on which he bases his concern.

Especially in view of the assurance given in this connection by the hon the Deputy Minister, it is regrettable that the hon member should have said:

It is most regrettable that the hon member is not prepared to accept the hon the Deputy Minister’s assurance in this connection.

I want to conclude by endorsing the remarks made in this connection by the hon member for Innesdal. This legislation is in fact a compliment to South Africa. The East Germans, for example, have to build concrete walls to keep people inside the country. We actually form part of a small group of countries that have enacted measures of this kind to keep people outside their borders. In this connection we are not ignorant of the type of measure which exists in this connection in Europe and other advanced Western countries.

The hon member also referred to clause 3 and the “enormous” restrictions that are being imposed. We are concerned here with the protection of legal people. The hon member will understand that a person who enters the country with a temporary permit or a visa can acquire a certain degree of quasi-legality by buying property, for example, or practising a profession, and on the basis of the quasi-legality, such a person may later apply for legal residence. This could create a difficult situation for the State, because one would not like to allow an undesirable person to place one in the dilemma of actually having to accommodate him by reason of a quasi-legality which he has acquired while living in this country on a temporary permit.

Clause 4 deals with the returns to be furnished by employers. The hon member is probably aware of the highly sophisticated arrangements which exist in Europe, by means of which a European government is able to keep a check on the movements of illegals within its country’s borders virtually from day to day. The hon member for Innesdal referred to the position of the Turks in West Germany. I do not believe that our control measures with regard to aliens even approach the sophistication which one finds in European legislation of this nature. I think that this Bill is timely and well-considered. One envisages that as our society becomes more advanced in future, this legislation will have to be streamlined even further and will have to attain an even higher degree of sophistication to bring it more into line with the European circumstances. That is quite possible.

We are unfortunately unable to support the hon member’s amendment. With these few words I should like to express my support for the Bill.

Mr Speaker, this is a fairly complex Bill which amends four related Acts dealing with aliens and the admission and departure of both citizens and aliens to and from South Africa. Upon a first reading, as there is no reference to colour anywhere in the Bill, one gets the impression that the intention is that it will affect our traditional aliens, in other words, the Whites who come into South Africa. As has been pointed out by other hon members, this is however, not the case as it also affects the citizens of self-governing and independent Black states which were previously part of South Africa. We in this party have always accepted the fact that, for the benefit of all, a certain measure of influx control is very necessary, particularly in respect of the urban areas, because if it were not for influx control—this is where perhaps some of us differ—there would be considerable difficulties in those urban areas. Chaos would result and there would be various other problems.

It would not be as bad as the position in the rural areas.

I am indicating that I believe it would be more chaotic in the urban areas.

Ask him to make a speech.

Well, I have, several times, but he never does. The point is that we believe that there would be more trouble in the urban areas. Furthermore, if one did not have influx control, we believe it would jeopardize the jobs of those presently employed in those urban areas. We also accept the fact that it is not desirable to have large numbers of aliens wandering around the country without being under control.

However, as we see it, the position of the citizens of erstwhile parts of South Africa must be considered in a totally different light to those of states which never were part of South Africa. I believe it must also be borne in mind that, in so far as the first-mentioned are concerned, they were born South Africans and lost that citizenship not throught any conscious act of their own but because groups of politicians, sometimes Black as well as White, made decisions on their behalf. I think it must also be borne in mind, however, that if one applies these rules affecting aliens too harshly in respect of the citizens of the erstwhile parts of South Africa, one is going to contribute to turning those areas into vast slums. There would then be enormous degradation in those areas. It is therefore going to be essential in my opinion to ensure that this Bill is not used to preclude these people from being part of the economic structure of South Africa. It is particularly advisable if the Government wishes to pursue its further objectives. If one makes life difficult for those who are presently in the independent self-governing states and they are precluded from taking the maximum possible advantage of the economic benefits of White South Africa, then one is certainly not going to be able to persuade the other homeland states that are self-governing but not independent to follow on along those lines. Such being the case I believe the Government would be doing itself a disservice in prosecuting this matter too heavily.

Furthermore, I believe that as an additional part of the Government’s plans for the future it wishes to create a constellation of states, possibly something along the lines of the EEC. It is very necessary therefore to ensure that we maintain and build up goodwill and certainly do not destroy it. I believe that by not allowing these people reasonably free access to the economic development of White South Africa we would be doing something which would be both unforgivable and dangerous. I am very interested to hear what the hon the Minister has to say on this particular point. I know other hon members have also mentioned it.

The next matter of interest in this Bill to which I want to refer is the somewhat harsh punishments that have been laid down for employers who aid and abet a non-permanent resident or illegal permitholder in obtaining work. There are also heavy punishments for employers who do not co-operate with the department in exposing illegals. Whilst we accept that alien control by the State is very necessary, is it really the function of the businessman to get involved in this? I have grave doubts about it. Very large firms possibly have staff control officers and all sorts of functionaries who can be assigned to do this kind of work. However, in the case of medium to small organizations this is going to be a very difficult problem. I realize that the intention is to call for this information from certain firms and that it is not an automatic thing with every organization. I do not believe that the way in which the Bill makes provision for this is a fair sort of way, and I do not believe that the average business man is going to be in a position to do this and be certain that the information he gives is correct; in other words, he could be placed in a position of giving false information although not necessarily deliberately. The Bill contains a presumptive clause which states that regardless of whether it is deliberate or not he has to prove that it is false and, until such time as he does so, he is considered to be guilty of making a fraudulent statement. I am not over-enthusiastic about that either.

The same applies to the heavy punishments. I accept that in certain instances where it is done with deliberate intent and where people are commercializing on a heavy scale, there may be some merit in heavy punishment. I realize also that the punishments laid down are maximum, but I feel that they are, certainly in the first instance, very heavy indeed, although I also appreciate that at least in this Bill one gets the advantage of being able to pay a fine whereas originally one had to go to jail.

Another aspect of the Bill that give us some cause for concern is in respect of clause 14 where messengers of the court and a considerable number of other officials are appointed to perform the functions of immigration officers. In this regard we are again not at all happy. It is assumed that the people who were doing this work originally, the passport control officers, who will now be immigration officers have been properly trained in the intricacies of their work and the various possibilities within the framework of the law itself. However, we have grave doubts whether messengers of the court and various other officials who are likely to be appointed—it has been suggested to me that possibly parks board rangers, fisheries officers and all sorts of people could be appointed as they are officers of various statutory bodies—are going to be properly trained in the intricacies of the Act. These officials will be taking people to the police where they will be arrested and, because of their ignorance of aspects of the law, they could be causing people considerable embarrassment, people who in fact are not guilty at all of the offences. They may be guilty but they may also not be guilty. Under these circumstances I feel that an immigration officer who is properly trained is more likely to ensure that there is no humiliation or embarrassment caused to people who are in fact not breaking any law. Frankly, we believe that with this sort of appointment we really are entering an era of not knowing who is spying on whom. This sort of thing is rather worrying. We are living in Orwell’s 1984 and we do not know now who is going to be going around tapping one on one’s shoulder and asking: “Do you have your permits?”

Have you got a licence?

I have no quarrel with these powers of the immigration officers because over the years I have had considerable experience of these people and in most cases I have found them to be intelligent people who know their job. However, as I have already said, I am very worried about the extension of the powers and authorities of an immigration officer as widely as is proposed here.

We support the main principle inherent in this Bill; in other words, that we have to control the situation of aliens entering South Africa. Any self-respecting country has to update its aliens control measures from time to time and therefore we cannot quarrel with the concept of this legislation. However, there are a number of matters about which we are not too happy, as I have indicated, and in the Committee Stage we will be raising them unless, of course, the hon the Minister can give us satisfactory responses in his reply to the Second Reading.