Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Bill that hon members have before them contains proposals which are aimed in the first place at repealing section 16 of the Immorality Act, 1957, and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, 1949.

Scandalous! [Interjections.]

In the second place it contains proposals to accommodate the consequences of such repeal.

This Bill was submitted by the joint committee for consideration, together with its report, which was tabled in all three Houses on 15 April 1985.

At that stage, too, I stated the Government’s standpoint in regard to the report of the joint committee. What it amounts to in essence is that the Government associates itself with the findings and recommendations of the report, and accepts them. The committee satisfied the Government that existing measures were sufficient to ensure the continued social, educational and constitutional ordering of own communities. The latter was the built-in condition which was laid down by the Government in this connection from the start.

Attempts are being made from various quarters to derive petty political advantage from the proposed repeal of these measures. I wish to warn against this. The repeal of the measures will be a significant step on the way to a removal of discrimination. [Interjections.] To stigmatize it as being merely cosmetic, is politically naive or dishonest.

At the same time it must be emphasized that other measures exist which continue to assure the respective communities of the Republic of South Africa of a community life of their own. Because of this the measures concerned may be repealed without prejudicing group rights. Those who try to create a different impression are not taking the facts into account and are creating unnecessary confusion.

†Clauses 2 and 7 of the Bill contain the proposals for the repeal of the two measures. Due to the proposed repeal of section 16 of the Immorality Act, however, certain consequential amendments in the Immorality Act as well as the Criminal Procedure Act are necessary. These amendments are proposed in clauses 1 and 3 to 6.

The terms of reference of the joint select committee empowered it to investigate the desirability of repealing the two measures concerned as well as to consider the adaptation of other related legislation consequent upon a possible repeal. In this regard the committee did not deem it necessary to adapt the Marriages Act, 1961, but recommended legislation to validate mixed marriages which would have been valid in all respects had it not been for the provisions of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act.

In clause 7 it is proposed that such marriages be validated by the Director-General of the Department of Home Affairs upon receipt of an application from persons thus affected. This proposal does not involve a new principle in our law. In this regard hon members are referred to section 26 of the Marriage Act, 1961, where the power to declare valid a marriage between persons under certain ages is granted to the Minister.

The Legalization of Angola Marriages Act, No 47 of 1934, also made it possible to register marriages long after they had been contracted, in which event those marriages were considered valid in all respects with retrospective effect. The legal consequences of marriages so validated will of necessity be evaluated in accordance with the patrimonial arrangements adopted by the parties when the marriage was contracted. Furthermore, assurances were obtained that the validation of a marriage with retrospective effect would not affect the rights of third parties with regard to matters already concluded and neither would any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred, be affected.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Speaker, the repeal of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Amendment Act and of section 16 of the Immorality Act as embodied in the Bill before us is undoubtedly an important event. It may not be of direct importance to a great many people and indeed, in my humble opinion it does not even constitute the single biggest reform, even among those effected this year, but it is significant owing to the symbolism involved. It creates the opportunity for Parliament to destroy a cornerstone of the apartheid philosophy in full view of the media and the public, and after due debate.

I regard this distinction as important because reform has so often taken place in a concealed fashion—sometimes deliberately, sometimes not—by internal departmental instruction, by non implementation or selective implementation of discriminatory measures and, of course, by means of the notorious permit system which is implemented with regard to all manner of discriminatory laws. I have little doubt that it has been a deliberate technique adopted at least by certain elements in Government circles to act as inconspicuously as possible, and even to deliberately create a degree of political confusion.

Moreover, it is no secret that the delicate process of reform on the NP side has often in the past been characterized by endless denials of the significance of certain changes to the good that have been made, and of course by innumerable assurances that not an inch more progress will be made on the road of reform in certain directions, instead of stating forthrightly that the Government has adopted a new course with regard to racial discrimination and that it is being tackled with confidence.

This new approach in so far as it is represented here is of course to be welcomed. Specifically because this step we are now taking is taking place in the best democratic fashion it is to be hoped that the debate will be meaningful and that there will be forthright discussion not only of the repeal of the relevant legislation but also as regards its significance for the future. For positive reform, the Government and Parliament simply have to take the public fully into their confidence, and that being so, it is necessary for all of us not only to say where we stand today with regard to these two laws but also where we are going in respect of the consequences of their repeal.

It is perhaps also important to refer here to the fact that these two laws were in fact still applied until recently and that they have not, as is often believed and also often contended, in effect fallen into disuse. Last year, in the course of 1984, 144 charges were referred to the various Attorneys-General in South Africa in terms of section 16 of the Immorality Act, 160 people were prosecuted in terms of those charges and of these, 114 were found guilty. Therefore it is clear that these two laws, but particularly section 16 of the Immorality Act, are indeed still being implemented. In passing, it would perhaps be appropriate at this point to consider the lot of the 46 people who were found not guilty on this charge in the course of 1984; in other words, those of the 160 who were prosecuted but not found guilty. We think of the position of the 46 people who were found not guilty because one of the most tragic consequences of section 16 of the Immorality Act was specifically the fact that the publicity and the stigma arising from prosecutions in terms of this legislation often destroyed more lives than the penalties imposed as prescribed by the Act.

From our present vantage point, when we consider the period in which these two laws existed, we see three decades of wasted time, three decades in which these measures did endless damage to relations in our country—and of course damaged international relations, which is perhaps somewhat less important but is nevertheless a fact—but which achieved nothing positive for us. I say this with the utmost conviction: They achieved nothing positive for us.

These two laws undoubtedly represent the most unsavoury extremes ever achieved as regards statutory race discrimination in South Africa. By means of these laws we brought the apartheid ideology and governmental interference into the bedroom, as it were. Although I was too young to understand the politics of the late forties and early fifties I am nevertheless astonished, taking into account the historical perspective, that so shortly after the Second World War and after the revelations of the evils of the Nazi idea of the Herrenvolk and the essentially racialistically orientated and motivated genocide of the European Jews, the legislator was unable to perceive the dangerous parallel at that time and could place laws on our Statute Book to impose racial purity and, indeed, racial superiority, by way of Government authority.

In my opinion these laws are also an example of how officiousness and power-consciousness could combine and get out of hand; it is an example of how perspective as to the role of the authorities could be lost to such an extent that people could imagine that a mere parliamentary majority could give them the right to interfere in the most personal details of other people’s lives.

I have never believed that these two laws have contributed to any extent to the preservation of group identity. It is simply impossible to force people into such airtight compartments. No law will make a person a valuable member of a group unless that person wishes to be so. No law will succeed in keeping all its subjects within specific groups if they want to marry members of other groups or relate in other ways.

Mention will undoubtedly be made in the course of this debate of the consequences of the repeal of these laws for our constitutional future—and our future in other respects. All I can say about that is: Woe betide the policy, and woe betide the plan, the future of which ultimately depends for its success on this kind of miserable legislation.

†The parliamentary select committees—there were two of them—that led to the introduction of this Bill performed valuable work. I personally found it a thoroughly interesting and rewarding experience to have served on them, particularly on the first one which really did the lion’s share of the work and heard all the oral evidence. Most of the evidence presented orally was of a very high standard. Evidence was presented by most of the churches in this country and also by a number of other organizations. The committee even heard some genetic evidence from the University of Cape Town which significantly and indeed effectively dispelled all the freak theories about the ghastly effects of interracial marriages and procreation. Some of the written submissions, however, were absolutely frightful. They reeked of bigotry and were full of the craziest theories one could ever imagine seeing in print.

The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act acquire an even more unfortunate stigma if one realizes—and I think one has to admit that honestly—that these two laws owed their existence at least partly—in fact, I believe to a large extent—to political pandering to such unspeakable beliefs. No matter how political leaders wish to justify these laws on the grounds of lofty theories on the retention of national and group identity, the fact is that they knew, as we all know, that for the vast majority of the people and the vast majority of the followers of the protagonists of these laws, these laws were an expression of racism. That is probably the greatest tragedy of the existence of these two laws and obviously of several other racially discriminatory measures. The greatest tragedy is that they gave a cloak of intellectual respectability to one of the lowest notions of the human mind, namely racial intolerance.

Let me just quote some of the ghastly examples of pseudo-scientific wisdom and self-appointed discipledom to which we were subjected in the written evidence. I have here one submission—and I am not going to reveal the source—which reads as follows:

He is addressing the committee—

This submission comes from a person who actually claims to be a trained medical doctor. This person seems to believe that the disinclination of a sparrow to make amorous advances to an eagle has some great significance for the racial theories prevailing in this country, particularly for the retention or abolition of these laws.

There were other people who submitted evidence to us dealing with horses, dogs, sheep and their particular habits of associating with one another, their pro creational habits etc, conveniently ignoring the fact that black and white horses do not necessarily seem to be particularly adverse to mating with one another. They are always using these theories. It is amazing that the world of birds seems to be a particular favourite of the protagonists of these theories.

There are some others that are also quite remarkable, some of them actually from churches.

*There is one from a denomination which submitted evidence to us in regard to the dispersion at the Tower of Babel, which clearly also had to do with the beginning of the dispersion of languages. Such people very conveniently forget entirely the history of the origin of this nation in this country in which we live.

Then, too, there is another interesting example which I want to mention with more respect, but with some amusement. It is a lady who came up with the interesting proposal that as an interim step we should make an exception for people above 50, because then the problem of their bringing children of mixed blood into the world would not arise.

†All I can say in that regard is that as a person under the age of 50 I am delighted to know that people still care. [Interjections.]

There is another example. This is from a person who quite sincerely talks about the ghastly possibility of people marrying across the colour line, particularly White men showing some interest in Coloured or Black women, and who then talks about the fate of White women who may therefore not find enough White men to marry. This person says that if the number of prospective White husbands is reduced, the young White women will have to tolerate the unthinkable attentions of a non-White or accept artificial insemination. [Interjections.]

I quote these examples to give an indication of the sort of things that motivate the enactment and retention of these laws. We cannot deny it. There may have been a large number of very interesting and intellectually acceptable and well-sounding theories advanced at top level, but at ground level—make no mistake about it—there was racism, there was racial prejudice and there was a feeling of racial superiority. I think it would be idle to deny this. For that reason I am particularly pleased that we will be ridding ourselves of these legal provisions at the end of this debate.

What now of the consequences of repeal and what does it mean for the future? For the moment I believe, as the report correctly states, that the results can be dealt with by existing law, by permit and by other administrative means. However, I have no doubt that tensions will soon develop round other forms of statutory apartheid. We cannot forever continue with a Group Areas Act that does not substantially recognize the existence of mixed married couples who wish to live somewhere and avail themselves of the facilities in their neighbourhood. We cannot be satisfied with an education system that stands on its head when a White father and a Black mother wish to become involved on a school committee of the school attended by their Coloured child.

In this very debate, Mr Speaker, I am sure there will be those who will deny these consequences because they may believe that it is inconvenient for them to admit that such consequences can come about. However, I sincerely hope that there will at the same time be many who will understand the realities of the situation and the fact that there will be consequences to be dealt with. I trust that these consequences will be discussed openly and debated as honestly as possible. If this can be done I believe that this Bill will constitute a significant and early step in the process of more substantial reform.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Green Point will excuse me if I do not respond directly to his arguments owing to the limited time at my disposal.

*To begin with I wish to apologize on behalf of the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning for his absence. At the moment his presence is required in the House of Representatives. However, he will enter the debate at a later stage.

The proposed repeal of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act was discussed in depth in this House during the discussion of the Home Affairs Vote. Accordingly it would be inappropriate to repeat all the relevant arguments at this stage. I therefore intend merely to emphasize briefly the considerations which pointed to the desirability of repeal, the possible or probable implications of repeal and the legal handling of the implications of repeal.

This legislation dates from the period shortly after the assumption of power by the NP in 1948 when it was necessary to unravel what had become interwoven in preparation for the implementation of the NP’s policy of separate development. Since then the policy of separate development has been implemented successfully and effectively. The South African society or community has been structured on the basis of separate population groups or communities. As a result the need for this legislation gradually faded, and eventually lapsed entirely.

This legislation, the repeal of which is being considered at present, did not in practice succeed in achieving the purpose envisaged—to prevent marriages and extramarital sexual intercourse between White and non-White. The fact is that even in regard to these matters these measures were counterproductive in important respects, as I shall indicate later on in the course of my argument. There is evidence that an increasing number of marriages have been and are still being solemnized between White and non-White, whether legally or otherwise. Statistics, too, have shown that extramarital sexual intercourse between White and non-White occurred on a large scale. These statistics are based largely on cases that appeared before the courts. However this source of information was not a reliable one because only a small percentage of all the cases of sexual intercourse between White and non-White ended up in the law courts. Therefore it can safely be assumed that this practice was widespread, despite section 16 of the Immorality Act.

Moreover the two measures in question were experienced by non-Whites as discriminatory, insulting and hurtful, and as such they constituted a serious obstacle to good ethnic or community relations. Furthermore this legislation seriously harmed South Africa’s image in the world. It was one of the most important weapons in the hands of South Africa’s enemies. It was a serious obstacle in the way of South Africa’s efforts to normalize its relations with relatively well disposed countries of the world.

In addition, there was no scriptural justification for the preservation of these measures.

How many laws do have?

In the normal course, scriptural justification for measures of this nature is not required. However, when we look at the kind of arguments advanced recently and at the efforts to justify the retention of these measures on Biblical grounds it is indeed of definite significance that this alleged Biblical justification is clearly totally unfounded. That is why the lack of scriptural grounds is indeed relevant in this instance.

Weak argument!

Sir, the hon member for Koedoespoort can shake his head until it falls off. A fact is a fact.

It is still a weak argument!

You advance a better one then; we shall be listening.

Helgard, do you really believe everything you are saying? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, let us consider for a moment the possible consequences of the repeal of these two measures. The one possible or alleged consequence is that there would supposedly be a drastic increase in the number of marriages between White and non-White. This, of course, is pure conjecture. There is no evidence whatever—and I challenge hon members of the Conservative Party to prove the contrary—to indicate that the repeal of this legislation will result in a drastic increase in the number of marriages between White and non-White. I am now of course referring to substantive evidence—not to mere chimaeras. My confidence in the White population of this country—and specifically the population group to which I belong, viz the Afrikaner people—and in their insistence on the preservation of their identity, is strong enough to cause me to believe that the social aversion to marriages across the colour bar in South Africa will be adequate to prevent large-scale intermarriage between White and non-White. Clearly, however, hon members of the Conservative Party have already abandoned all confidence in the Afrikaner people, on which they pride themselves so much. However I have not lost that confidence.

We have merely lost all our confidence in the National Party.

Are you speaking on behalf of the Rapportryers?

Yes, I am speaking inter alia on their behalf. The hon member Mr Theunissen knows nothing about confidence, however. He would do well to remain silent. [Interjections.]

Moreover, as regards the repeal of section 16 of the Immorality Act and the possibility of an increase in the incidence of sexual intercourse across the colour bar, it is pure speculation to assume that the repeal will give rise to a significant increase in practices of this nature. Once again I base my argument on the existing social aversion and stigmatization, as well as on the increase in the standard of living of non-Whites, the possibility of maintenance claims that could arise and the possibility of demands on the part of the non-White party that the White party should marry him or her. I wish I had time to develop these arguments.

Finally, what about the legal handling of the implications of repeal? The Population Registration Act, section 12 of the Group Areas Act, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, the existing legislation with regard to school attendance, the Prohibition of Political Interference Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act are more than sufficient to deal with the implications and consequences of the repeal of these measures. Accordingly I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting the repeal of these two measures.

Mr Speaker, I move as an amendment:

The Government, with unnatural haste and calculated guile, is breaking down what the National Afrikaner has built up over a period of more than 300 years. Thus far its speakers have neglected to explain why it is doing so, for unlike in the case of the NRP and the PFP which support the Bill and whose actions are in agreement with their historic principles, the NP has rejected its own history and principles today. The NP now evidences pontifical scorn for what the NP itself has shaped or created. The NP rejects chapter 7 of its Programme of Principles which is still in it today, viz:

In his second reading speech the hon the Minister says:

This acceptance brings two shocking truths to light. The first is that even before the select committee commenced its proceedings, the Government had decided to abolish these measures. My source for this is the Government’s ambassador to the USA. In February of this year the following was reported (The Cape Times, 15 February 1985):

In other words, the functions of the select committee were really only a pretence. Long beforehand the Government had decided that this legislation had to be abolished and the select committee was appointed only to bluff the public and to respect the democratic system to a certain extent.

The second shocking proof as far as the first select committee is concerned, is that the superficial and out-of-order evidence of an earlier select committee is now being used as the basis of the finding accepted by the Government. The loose evidence of a lot of old liberals has gained greater meaning for the NP today than the well-considered and tried principles which were legally entrenched and transmitted through generations by the former members of the NP and its congresses. Listen to what the Minister continues to say in his second reading speech:

Let me refresh the memory of the House concerning the very recent standpoints of the NP. When the present State President had to respond to the report of the Erica Theron Commission on behalf of the Government, he said:

That is what State President Piet Botha said. When I pointed this out to him a month or two ago, the State President said he had only said these things on behalf of the Government because Mr Vorster was not in the country at the time. But what does he continue to say? Listen to this:

He therefore says I, P W Botha as a Cape man—

The State President spoke of abominable miscegenation. In addition he said:

In 1982 the present State President ordered his private secretary to write the following in this letter:

I now want to speak to the Free Staters who are sitting here … [Interjections.] … and especially to the hon member for Winburg who did not have the courage to appear on a public platform with me in his constituency. What does the Orange Free State Congress of the NP say? In 1978 there was the following draft resolution:

The reply of the Government at the time, in which Mr P W Botha served; was:

At the time of its congress the NP said it was one of the mainstays of the policy of separate development, but in the name of the NP the hon member for Mossel Bay is destroying one of these mainstays.

And in the name of the Rapportryers.

Yes, he is the chairman of the Rapportryers. He said today he was speaking on behalf of the Rapportryers of South Africa. [Interjections.]

In addition the congress says:

In addition the congress decided:

At the end of this Free State Congress they said:

The hon member for Virginia who proposed that these Acts be abolished, was in the congress of the NP at the time and thanked the Government. He applauded the Government. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bloemfontein East is sitting at the back. Let us read what the hon member wrote about White identity:

I want the hon member to listen carefully today to what he himself wrote:

To which Acts is the hon member referring? I continue:

Then the hon member goes further and contrasts the old NP’s policy of the preservation of White identity with the PFP and the NRP and writes the following, which appears under the heading “Vernietiging van Blanke identiteit deur veelrassigheid—die Verenigde Party en die Progressiewe Party”:

He continues:

That is what that hon member wrote. The amazing and shameful thing is that the hon member for Virginia and the hon member for Bloemfontein East are laughing in this House today about things they stated categorically and adamantly towards the public and the people of South Africa. This is a shameful action by the hon members! [Interjections.] A political party which denies and betrays its own principles and history in such an unashamed way, is not worthy of mention.

The hon the Minister said these two Acts discriminated. Let me ask this Minister who has so easily become an instrument in the hands of the old Cape liberals: Are the so-called non-negotiables of the NP, viz separate residential areas, separate schools and a separate House in this Parliament, not also a form of discrimination? Are the non-negotiables he is still telling the White public about not a form of discrimination as well? He is still giving assurances to the confused, trusting NP supporters. He said that section 12 of the Group Areas Act will protect separate community life. He is still saying that today. It was said ad nauseam in Harrismith on the occasion of the by-election. It is said that section 12 of the Group Areas Act will protect separate community life. My question now is: Is residential separation, enforceable by law, not discrimination as well?

You did not quote my second reading speech fully. I deal with that question in it.

I cannot repeat the whole of the stupid little old second reading speech here. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether what I quoted from it is correct. It is correct.

Now the hon member for Mossel Bay says marriage and the relationship between members of two sexes are primarily private matters.

When?

Does the hon member not know that he said that? Does he deny saying it? But he was a member of the committee. I am taking these words from the debate on the Home Affairs Vote. The poor member does not know what he said. He does not know what he said yesterday or what he is going to do tomorrow. That is a mixed up member, and he is the chairman of the Rapportryers and wants to speak here on their behalf! He does not know what he said yesterday. In addition he said a relationship of this kind had a strong connection with religious and ethical views. The hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, Rev Badenhorst, says that love does not allow itself to be restricted, whereas the measures place a restriction on the love between two people. What about the relationship between two men? What about the relationship between two women? What about the love of an adult for a minor? What about the love of a father and daughter, a mother and son, and a brother and sister? Can these not also be regarded as private matters between two individuals? Are they not also private matters between members of the two sexes? Do they not have a strong connection with religious and ethical views?

If separation is discrimination, why is all separation not abolished? What about a woman who gives her body to a man for money? Is that not also a matter between two individuals?

What about a man who gives his body to a woman for money? [Interjections.]

Yes, that too. [Interjections.] If separation is discrimination, abolish all separation. If the Government does not want to use legislation to intervene in what is moral or ethical, keep all legislation from what is moral or ethical. At least then the Government will be consistent.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning says Afrikaner cultural organizations have criticized this measure. Which organizations were they and at which congresses did this happen? Did the FAK declare itself against these laws? Did the Broederbond declare itself against these laws? I am asking when and where this happened, for I was also a member of those organizations. [Interjections.] Naturally. I am now asking on which occasions these cultural organizations declared themselves to be against this. [Interjections.]

It is true that there was a small number of orchestrated, frustrated liberals in South Africa which had already begun towards the end of the fifties under the leadership of Dr Beyers Naudé and the famed guru who in the Wilgerspruit idiom engenders a sense of hopelessness, Dr Willem de Klerk. They did it.

The hon member for Virginia will probably remember the Ruiterwag meetings where Mr Chris Fismer and one of Dr Piet Koornhof’s sons, advocated the abolition of these Acts. This was never the official standpoint of Afrikaner cultural organizations.

The hon the Deputy Minister says these two measures are not based on the Scriptures. Let me ask the hon the Deputy Minister: What basis do the Scriptures have for the abolition of the Acts?

One must love one’s neighbour. [Interjections.]

If that is the hon member’s standpoint, I do not want him as my neighbour.

God created various peoples and nowhere does the Bible say that peoples may not protect their cultural distinctiveness and the borders of their fatherlands.

The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs said he did not need the two measures to protect his identity. I ask him now: Does he need separate schools to protect his identity? Does he need the Group Areas Act to protect his identity? [Interjections.] The hon member for False Bay asked me whether I needed these Acts and I replied to him upon that question. I now want to ask him: Do these two Acts frustrate your efforts at loose living? [Interjections.]

What other pretexts is the Government adopting to gain the favour of the outside world and its masters in America? The hon member for Innesdal says the Government is abolishing the measures because it cares about the world’s view of us. Which world does he mean? Does he mean America, Africa, the Russians or Europe?

The whole world! The whole of civilization!

Very well, then I ask the hon member for Innesdal whether he is also going to listen to what the world thinks of separate schools. Is he going to listen to the world when it says it does not like separate residential areas? Is he going to listen to the world when it says there should not be three separate Houses of Parliament? Is he going to listen to the world then?

Your world is full of apartheid, man! [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon member for Innesdal says: “Ons glo dat ons met die afskaffing van hierdie wetgewing ‘n simboliese handeling verrig, wat die basis lê vir toekomstige goeie rasseverhoudings.” What, however, does his hon colleague in the coalition Government, Rev Hendrickse, say? He says he is not going to stop at the abolition of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act; he also wants the ban on improper political interference lifted. He also wants the abolition of the Group Areas Act and the abolition of separate schools. His coalition colleagues and the world will not stop threatening the Whites of South Africa until they have given the Whites’ heads to the leftists of the world on a silver platter. [Interjections.]

Sir, I want to tell you why the NP is doing these things. I want to tell you why the NP is turning in its own tracks, and forcing South Africa back into a state of bondage and servitude, to the ideological standpoints of Jan Hofmeyr, Reed, Phillips and Van der Kemp. There is only one answer, and that is because the NP wants to see the meaning and the rights of the Whites destroyed. It wants to oblige its masters in liberal America. The NP’s spiritual and moral decline has enslaved it to liberalism and humanism. The NP can and will not even agree with the late General Smuts in accordance with what he said in 1949 during the second reading debate of this legislation—that in principle he was against mixed marriages. General Smuts did not support legislation that prohibited it, but said that in principle he was against miscegenation. In the select committee not a single member of the NP said that he was against miscegenation in principle. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon the Minister of Communication and of Public Works the old question, which the NP always asked its political opponents: Would he allow his daughter to marry a Black? [Interjections.] No, answer that; it is the question the Nats asked the Progs and Saps ad nauseum. Would he allow his daughter to marry a Black? Come, answer the question. [Interjections.] Those who have obtained D F Malan’s legacy reject not only this legislation, but also the ethical code and the national tradition. [Interjections.] The CP adheres to the principles contained in the second reading speech of the late Dr Dönges, on 19 May 1949, 36 years ago—for the principle that fires one to life, combat and victory never cools in the heart of the true Nationalist. We therefore vote against the abolition of these statutory provisions, for we regard them as mandatory and essential measures for the following reasons: Firstly, together with other measures they ensure the preservation of White identity—and we are not apologizing to anyone in this House, Parliament or in the world for this. Secondly, because they make a contribution to combating and controlling social problems and thirdly to protect the weaker brothers and sisters against their own weakness—these were Dr Dönges’ words. [Interjections.]

In the fourth place we do not shy away from the responsibility of intervening as bearers of the sword of order and justice by means of legislation on the ethical and moral levels. In the fifth place we do not ask for the world’s opinion when our continued existence and responsibility in the Republic of South Africa are involved. [Interjections.]

There is a golden thread which runs through the life of every people indicating where that people has come from and where it is going. We in the CP regard ourselves—together with some of our other fellow citizens—as the modest and humble bearers of that golden thread. We shall bear and protect the freedom of our people with justice.

Order! The hon member asked whether these two Acts were in the way of the hon member’s efforts at loose living. To which hon member was he referring?

Mr Speaker, the hon member for False Bay asked me on a prior occasion whether I needed these Acts for the protection of my moral life. I merely reversed the question by asking whether this hon member needed the abolition of the legislation for loose living.

No, the hon member said, “for his efforts at loose living”.

Mr Speaker, if you rule that to be out of order, I shall withdraw it.

The hon member must withdraw it. I do not mind his speaking about two Acts that are in his way, but when he speaks of someone’s “efforts at loose living” his statement is reflecting on an hon member of this House.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw it.

Order! The hon member must go further than that. He must also apologize to the hon member.

Mr Speaker, I apologize to the hon member. May I continue to address you?

Order! The hon member may address me. He has apologized and I am satisfied with that.

Mr Speaker, I am not quite satisfied, however—may I please have a ruling on this—that reference may be made in this House to the moral life of hon members of the CP as if we need these Acts to protect our morality. I want to request that if hon members of the NP repeat this charge against us, they will also have to apologize.

Order! I want to point out to the hon member that if anyone asks the question: “Does it stand in the way of your moral life?”, it is not a statement but a question. If, however, he refers to someone’s “efforts at loose living”, he has made a statement, and I cannot allow statements of that nature to be made by an hon member of this House. Any official of the House taking the place of the Chairman will deal with each case on merit, but as far as I am concerned, it is not the kind of statement I expect about an hon member of this House.

The hon member apologized, however, and with that the matter is closed.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Rissik is, above all else, consistent in his attitude. I want to say that we on these benches oppose and reject his point of view but respect his right at all times to express it.

I said earlier in a reaction to the select committee report that I did not believe that anything was going to be achieved, either then or now, by adopting an “I told you so” attitude in respect of the measure before us. This is a temptation that we must resist at all costs. I, like the hon member for Green Point, am grateful for the fact that I was able to serve on the select committee. I found it an invaluable experience. In fact, I found it a humbling experience. I do not mean humbling in the sense it could be meant; I mean humbling personally.

The hon member for Green Point quoted extensively from the evidence that was led on the earlier select committee on which my hon colleague the member for King William’s Town served. He will be joining this debate later in order to put his point of view. However, the evidence that we have all studied—all of us who served on either or both those committees—would indicate the turmoil that is still going on in respect of what we are doing today.

I want to go back, as other hon members have done, and take this House back into its own history because I think this is important for the record. Let us look at that history. Let us look at the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. Almost exactly 26 years ago today—in fact it was on 19 May 1949, a generation ago—a marathon debate was commenced in this House. It lasted for four day and four night sittings and occupied well over 130 columns of Hansard. All of this was in order to produce an Act that is printed on a single page in Butterworths. All of that was in order to produce the Act titled the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, No 55 of 1949 the long title of which states:

It was amended once by the addition of a short paragraph in 1968. The Minister in charge in 1949, Dr T E Dönges, in introducing this Bill, said something that could well be said today from the Conservative Party benches, and I quote from col 6164 of Hansard of 19 May 1949:

The late Field-Marshal Smuts, then the Leader of the Opposition, led the Opposition in its attack on the Bill, and I quote him from col 6175 of Hansard of the same date, and what he said then still applies. He said:

At that time all parties in this House had common cause in that they all objected to mixed marriages per se. It is interesting to note that, at the end of that long debate, when the House divided, there were 59 ayes and 56 noes. Pairing must therefore have been a very important thing among Whips. However, five members made the difference in having the motion agreed to. Let this be a little lesson to the people who sneer at parties of five members. There were five members in the Afrikaner Party led by one N C Havenga, who assisted the Government in getting the majority in that particular vote. There was Harm Oost, to mention another one of them. There were others too. There was a certain P W Botha among the 59 ayes. There was C R (Blackie) Swart, the late Dr D F Malan, T E Dönges, and many more.

Perhaps they were members of Parliament.

Yes, perhaps they were. [Interjections.] What an intelligent comment! That is worthy of that hon member’s normal standard! [Interjections.]

Among the noes there are the names of people such as Mrs Margaret Ballinger, Mr Harry Oppenheimer, Mr Alf Trollip who went across to the other side of the House, Frankie Warning, and even Sam Kahn who, I think, was quite a famous person. The members of the Labour Party were also among the noes, including Norman Eaton.

In 1950 the Immorality Act that was promised was introduced, and it amended the Act of 1927. That too was opposed by the United Party, the Official Opposition of the day. Then, in 1957, the so-called Consolidation Bill on Immorality was introduced, and the then Minister of Justice, one C R Swart, in his introduction to this Bill said:

A little later he went on to say:

In that Bill we had section 16 introduced into the Act. I make no bones about it that I am sad to say that the United Party did not oppose the second reading, but it requested that the Bill be referred to a select committee after second reading. However, as the National Party has learnt to say through the voice of the hon member for Helderkruin: “We can all make mistakes.” For the record, Dr D L Smit said (Hansard: col 314, 29 January 1957):

I want to just mention, also for the record, that among the members of the United Party on that day when they did not oppose this measure were the hon member for Houghton, and the then hon member for Zululand, Mr Ray Swart.

I made a mistake.

Well then, we all made a mistake together, did we not? [Interjections.] We made a mistake together.

Today a new chapter is being written. Section 16 is to be repealed as well as all other references to colour. I want hon members to note that in this new Bill all references to colour in respect of Whites and Coloureds are being repealed. All such references are being removed from the Immorality Act. The definition of a Coloured person is being removed and the definition of a White person is being removed. The relevant sections of both the Immorality Act and the Criminal Procedure Act are being amended to ensure that all references to race are removed.

The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act is being repealed completely. Furthermore, recognition is being accorded to those who entered into marriage contracts outside of this country or subsequent to the passing of this Act. We have come full circle. We have closed a most unfortunate chapter in our history. I want to say that I hope we have also opened a new chapter with the promise of better things to come.

In conclusion, let me say that we cannot wash away the sins of the past. However, I hope and pray that we can only learn and be strengthened by the recognition and rectification of our errors.

Mr Chairman, allow me to say right at the outset that it is a privilege for me to support the abolition of these Acts. I am making this known to hon members on the other side of the House immediately so that they know where I stand.

Allow me to say further that the hon member for Green Point began by saying that he hoped we would discuss this Bill frankly and openly. I think he would have wanted to add that we should not allow our emotions to run away with us, as the hon member for Rissik allowed to happen to him. [Interjections.] If the hon member for Rissik is choking with indignation because this day has come to pass, and if he attacks me because we on this side of the House are sitting here laughing because these Acts are being abolished, I want to say to him at once: Yes, I am laughing about it because I am delighted that they are being abolished. I should like to add that I was laughing at the hon member for Rissik and not at the abolition of the measures as such.

You are being frivolous.

No, we are talking frankly with each other in discussing these things today.

It is true that over the years there have constantly been days like this in this House, in other words, days on which Acts have been amended. These Acts have not been amended because they serve evil ends. There was a time that these Acts were very important and it is for that reason that they were originally introduced. However, circumstances do change and as a result of changed circumstances, the demands of the time have made it necessary for specific amendments to be made to specific acts, or for specific acts to be repealed. When we discuss the Acts we are dealing with now, the position is exactly the same. If we go back—and I unfortunately do not have the time to deal with this matter in detail—to the time the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, 1949, and the Immorality Act, 1957, were placed on the Statute Book, we find that at that time specific economic conditions prevailed. As early as 1939 Dr Malan submitted a petition by several thousand people in which he asked for legislation against mixed marriages and against immorality. What were the prevailing circumstances? The reasons for this were to ensure the security of all the different population groups under the specific circumstances in the country, and also to maintain the identity of an ethnic diversity within those circumstances.

From that time until today there has been no doubt that the circumstances in respect of the level of development of the Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks in the country have changed. There is no point in disputing that. Those are the facts.

You discovered that vertical differentiation does not prevent horizontal integration.

The hon member should give me a chance to talk and should listen so that he can become more intelligent. As a result of the change in conditions of the time, it is very clear that this Government, as a responsible government, had to keep its ear to the ground and decide for itself what was right and fair. Let me tell the other side of the House here and now that we are not sidestepping the fact that the policy trend in respect of specific matters has already been changed. While those hon members were in the NP, Advocate Vorster went from congress to congress and said: “Do not argue with me about whether we are changing the sports policy. We are changing the sports policy for this or that reason.’’ Those hon members supported him one hundred per cent. In respect of these Acts we are reiterating today that we are repealing the Acts, and it will not help for those hon members to tell us that this NP member said this and that that NP member said that. There were particular circumstances in which this was right, but this Party is saying today that it will be in the best interests of all the population groups here for these acts to be removed from the Statute Book.

I want to say immediately that section 16 of the Immorality Act was clearly for the protection of the Whites. That is why the section also specified that it would constitute immorality if intercourse took place between White and non-White. There is no doubt about that. Of course, today we could say that it is racist in the sense that it protected the Whites. However, the fact that that section is being repealed—and the whole Immorality Act is not at issue; only that specific section—it will not mean that immorality and indecency can simply take place. The recommendation in the report by the standing committee which is supported by the Government is also that the Government declares itself against indecency and immorality. That is why the President’s Council has also been asked to give further consideration to the rest of the Immorality Act, specifically with a view to the possibility of making penalties more severe. I therefore do not expect the repeal of that section to contribute to more immorality. I want to state today, without elaborating further, that less immorality will take place, particularly across the colour bar, for the very reason that community discipline will come to the fore should this take place.

In other words, your legislation promoted immorality. [Interjections.]

I now want to deal with the argument concerning the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. There is no doubt that specific circumstances necessitated this Act. The most important was that the community life of each separate population group had to be protected. At that stage it was necessary to protect separate identities. What happened after 1949 and 1957? In 1966 the Group Areas Act was passed. This Act took over the function of those two Acts, particularly that of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. The Group Areas Act in particular ensured classification on a social level. When this Government instructed a select committee firstly to investigate the desirability and the possibility of improving this Act, it was subject to the condition that the social, political and educational order would not be disturbed. That select committee reported, despite what members of the CP are saying today, that the vast majority of its witnesses indicated that these two measures could not be improved but should be repealed. Even the churches indicated that they could not be improved.

Which churches?

All the churches. [Interjections.] Hon members can quack as much as they like now, but all the churches were in agreement that there was no text that justified these Acts. Of course, the hon member for Rissik will argue that there is no text that does not justify them. The fact is, however, that the churches expressed their standpoint that there was no text to justify retaining these measures. Moreover, we simply cannot get away from the discrimination that necessarily occurs as a result of these two statutory measures.

Now, it is a simple fact that if legislation concerning mixed marriages disappears, in the first place it does not mean that we on this side of the House simply recommend marriage across the colour bar. Indeed, we on this side of the House still believe that particularly …

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

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kuruman knows I have only ten minutes at my disposal. It is simply not possible for me to answer a question from him.

The fact is that we on this side of the House are arguing that circumspection is necessary in cases of marriages across the colour bar. Why? Not on the grounds of the colour differences but on grounds of the fact that all sorts of social and domestic problems could develop, particularly, too, because of the existence of certain legislation that orders society. It is our view that cases of this nature should be dealt with with caution before a marriage across the colour bar is concluded. For this reason it is also recommended that the marriage officers explain the implications of such a marriage across the colour bar very clearly to a prospective couple.

Once we have pointed out all these things, the important thing still is that when section 16 of the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act are repealed, in the first place it does not mean that we are giving people carte blanche to practise immorality. We remain opposed to immorality. In the second place it does not mean that mixed marriages absolutely have to take place now. What we are arguing is that no one can choose for or on behalf of anyone else whom he or she should accept as a life partner. We still say that through the existence of specific acts—including the Group Areas Act and the Population Registration Act—this particular regulation of separate levels will still be maintained. I therefore also resent it when hon members of the CP try to bluff the public at large into believing that when the two measures under discussion are repealed it will mean that there will be mixed residential areas, that the right to own schools will fall away, and so on. This is simply not true, and that because there are other Acts that control these particular circumstances.

I therefore want to conclude by saying I am wholly convinced that the repeal of the two measures under discussion is essential; that it is in the best interests of the Whites, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Black people. At the same time I believe that the non-negotiables, as often spelt out by hon members on this side of the House—separate residential areas, own schools and self government of each group—is not affected at all by the abolition of these two measures because other legislation still exists in terms of which all these things are regulated and ordered.

Mr Chairman, I want to respond to what the hon member for Virginia said by simply telling him: “Zoo zijn de helden gevallen.’’ [Interjections.]

I also want to mention that the National Party now has a new motto which it has designed for itself. It is: “Circumstances have changed and in consequence we may just as well throw all our principles overboard! [Interjections.]

They have really become a bunch of old Progs!

The hon member for Rissik has said that we of the Conservative Party shall not support the Bill under discussion. We shall not support it because it is our standpoint that the joint select committee concerned did not carry out the terms of reference that it received from Parliament. The terms of reference of that committee were firstly to investigate the desirability of repealing the two pieces of legislation involved, secondly to investigate and to report on the desirability of adapting related laws stemming from such possible repeal of the two said measures and in the third instance to listen to further evidence and call for papers were it to regard it as desirable.

We contend that the committee concerned neglected its duty by not listening to any further evidence or calling for any further documents. We have concluded that the committee in so doing neglected its duty. We also argue that the committee could not have come to a warranted decision without further evidence—could not therefore have come to a justifiable decision in favour of the repeal of the two measures mentioned. We also say the committee should have carried out a proper and thorough investigation into each and every related Act that would stem from a decision to repeal the two measures. We say the committee did not carry out its terms of reference in this regard because if one takes into account the very short time, if any, which the committee spent on such an alleged investigation, it was really very superficial. We say that the joint committee, knowing full well that its terms of reference contained two separate areas for investigation, deliberately shied away from its actual terms of reference. Now the very important question is why the committee deliberately steered clear of its terms of reference. As I shall indicate, there was an exceptionally good reason why the committee had to carry out its investigation separately, particularly if one takes into account the serious consequences that the repeal of measures could have on the pattern of living of South African society. It is also illuminating to listen to what the hon the Deputy Minister, who could not be present here today, had to say about this a year ago:

That is how seriously the hon the Deputy Minister felt about this a year ago.

Why then the obvious superficiality and overhastiness with which the investigation was completed? The overhastiness in wanting to complete the investigation is confirmed by the minutes of the first meeting of the joint committee on 26 February 1986. There is only one reason why the committee went about its work so over hastily, because the coalition partners of the Government, in the House of Representatives as well as in the House of Delegates, held a gun to the head of the Government and said, “Repeal, or …!” They demanded that time should not be wasted. “The Acts must disappear”, they said inside their Houses and in public and we know they were vociferously supported in that demand by the PFP, the media and that Government lackey, the SABC and its television service, in a way that would have made Dr Goebbels of the former Nazi regime look like an amateur.

The hon member for Sandton was only too eager to hold the gun to the head of the NP on behalf of the claimants. Let us take a look at the minutes of the first meeting and particularly the motion of the hon member for Sandton on that occasion. Commissioner Dalling inter alia moved the following:

Order! Did the hon member refer to the hon member for Sandton and, if so, what did the hon member call him?

Yes, Mr Chairman. He was a member of the committee and in that capacity he is called a commissioner.

Did the hon member use the word “commissioner” or “commissar”?

I merely called him a commissioner, Sir.

The hon member may proceed.

That hon commissioner further moved:

these two Acts.

That motion was heartily supported by the NP. Remember, it was only a month later. If I therefore speak of overhastiness and superficiality, it will be conceded because the hon commissioner had missed the mark by only one day in his calculation because the return date fell on 27 March and not on 26 March as demanded by him.

The hon member for Sandton, I think, was himself surprised by the urgent way in which he had deceived the NP. Talk about previously planned action and co-operation in the best tradition between good partners such as took place between the NP, the PFP and the representatives of the other Houses! It is unbelievable that the Government allowed itself to be shunted around on such a serious matter and just for appearances at least not to make the complete surrender of the NP too noticeably disgraceful, commissioner Dalling in paragraph (4) came up with this little afterthought:

I contend that he came up with that afterthought for appearances’ sake. Consequently the stunning naïvete and good faith of the hon the Minister we find when he says in his second reading speech:

What nonsense! If everything had been so understandable and clear and satisfactory and so thoroughly thrashed out, can the hon the Minister not give the House an interpretation of the nonsense his colleague the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs disseminated in his great dramatic world dialogue in the radio programme “It is Your World”? It may be the case that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs again let the cat out of the bag with his statement, as reported in Die Burger.

He either let the cat out of the bag or he had the wrong end of the stick—the hon the Minister of Home Affairs had better decide on that.

After this I wish to suggest that the hon the Minister should appoint a further joint committee to draw up guidelines and parameters for the NP, its Ministers and members of the House of Assembly to be followed when they have to speak on all the problems after the abolition of the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. I also wish to request the hon the Minister not to forget to appoint the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to that committee.

Let us examine paragraph (4) of the hon member for Sandton’s motion. This little dangling carrot of an afterthought was unnecessary because, before the joint committee had commenced sitting, the NP had already given up. A further question surrounding the hon commissioner Dalling’s motion is the following: Why did the NP succumb to this hit-and-run motion of the hon member’s without any resistance? The answer is obvious: It was purely for political expediency, for the sake of the new dispensation, that they fell in with it. Yes, Sir, for the sake of political expediency the NP is jettisoning all its pious intentions and standpoints based on principle and policy. The NP is permitting itself to be blackmailed by its coalition partners into cancelling the Acts summarily.

Let us come out with it now: In the acceptance of the hon member for Sandton’s motion, the PFP has won a victory over the NP for the umpteenth time. The Progs were not excessively concerned over the so-called hurtful Acts or scriptural justification. No, Sir, they wanted to destroy the system; they wished to demolish the policy of separate development. That is why their present leader said in 1978:

That is the true PFP motivation and strategy behind that hon member’s motion.

That is why I say the Progs knew the NP has such a serious guilt complex nowadays that it would do anything by way of restitution. It would even publish a booklet of admission of guilt to serve as a textbook for credulous Nats …

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

Unfortunately not—my time is too limited. As I was saying, it issued this textbook for credulous Nats to go and hawk this new dispensation and what is to come, for example the abolition of these Acts, on their wrong roads in South Africa. No, Sir, the NP did not see that the terms of reference of the joint committee were properly carried out. They did not even see that an in-depth investigation was made into related legislation. They wished to execute the demand of those who want to destroy the policy of separate development.

I wish to return briefly to my statement that the committee neglected its duty to take further evidence. When the select committee agreed at the time to listen to the evidence of what I shall call the abolitionists, those in favour of the abolition of the Acts, it was a mistake. I say today it was a mistake. I was a party to that mistake and if I admit to a fault now, surely I am in fashion together with the NP which so heartily admits to past mistakes nowadays. That evidence was entirely irrelevant as the hon member for Mossel Bay as a member of the legal profession well knows. The evidence of the abolitionists was entirely irrelevant to the first terms of reference we had, namely to see whether the Acts could not be improved. We permitted it with our approval, however, and I say it was a mistake. Nevertheless there should have been another opportunity for taking further evidence to give those in favour of the retention of the Acts the opportunity of giving their evidence. Surely we know there was overwhelming evidence nationwide among Afrikaans-speaking people that these two Acts should be retained. I shall not enlarge on the HSRC report at the moment; I merely wish to say the Pretoria News conducted a similar survey and came to the same conclusion as that reached in the HSRC report. It is of no use for the hon member for Virginia to shake his head.

The fact that there was therefore no opportunity in the initial select committee or in the later joint committee for the taking of further evidence from those who wished to have the Acts retained makes the entire report of this select committee unacceptable.

With the further evidence plus the fact that one could not ipso facto accept that Black people, Coloureds and Indians in general were or are in favour of the abolition of these Acts, I think the joint committee would have arrived at a very much more balanced and considered finding.

Let us take the evidence on the standpoints of the Coloureds. Naturally there was the evidence of leaders of the Coloured community such as Dr van der Ross, Rev Hen drickse and other leaders of the Labour Party. Nevertheless there was also the evidence of other knowledgeable persons on the standpoints of the Coloureds and I am now referring to the evidence of the now well-known Dr Heese. When he testified before the committee, he said it was, in fact, a very small percentage of the Coloured community which was offended by these two Acts. The hon member for Prieska then asked him what the attitude was of the group to which he had not referred, namely the larger group. Dr Heese then replied that the lower group was not affected by it; the average lowest group, like farm labourers, was not placed in a situation where it associated with Whites or was on the same level of social intercourse. He said this applied only to the higher and altogether the highest groups.

Arising from this, the hon member for Green Point told Dr Heese that he, Dr Heese, had made the point that the Coloureds of the middle class and those above the middle class had a definite feeling against these Acts because they regarded them as humiliating. The hon member further told Dr Heese that he had made the point that the lower class, the working class, was not affected as such. To this Dr Heese replied that the working class, including farm labourers, had no standpoint on these specific Acts and, if it were to have one, in our opinion it would have been in favour of the retention of these Acts.

Mr Chairman, I would like to respond briefly to the speech by the hon commissar, Mr Theunissen. [Interjections.] He spoke as though he came straight out of the pages of a book written by Herman Charles Bosman. I would say he is more likened to oom Schalk Lourens today than ever he could be to an hon member of this House. I give him credit for one point. He certainly had a sense of humour in what he said because it is very difficult for any of us to take him seriously.

I would like to thank him very much for ascribing to me the single-handed privilege of having moved for the abolition of these provisions but I want to assure him that that is not the case; many people on that committee as well as outside the committee felt the way I did, even hon members of the NP. The hon member most certainly cannot ascribe to me that singular privilege. [Interjections.]

The hon commissar Theunissen … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, you called me to order?

Yes, I did indeed and I think the hon member knows why. The hon member referred to the hon member Mr Theunissen as a commissar. Is there any reflection in the word “commissar”?

Mr Chairman, it is a translation of the word “kommissaris” from Afrikaans into English … [Interjections.]

Why do you not say “comrade”? [Interjections.]

The hon commissioner Mr Theunissen—just to satisfy you, Sir—says that the committee neglected its duty and that it failed to consider further evidence. It is very interesting to look at the minutes of that committee at the time. I admit with pride to the fact that I proposed the resolution that no further evidence be heard. I proposed that on 26 February and after a very long debate this was accepted by, interestingly enough, all members of the committee. That resolution was passed unanimously. That resolution was passed without any dissent whatsoever from the Conservative Party. The CP was not even present and did not even deem that meeting sufficiently …

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

Sir, I think the hon member must just take his castor oil quietly now and sit down. [Interjections.] I cannot answer his question now. All I want to say is that the CP were not present at that meeting.

What was the reason? [Interjections.]

The hon member wants to know what the reason was. I have no idea what the reason was.

It was normal procedure at the first meeting. [Interjections.]

However, when they were present at a later stage, they did not object to this resolution formally. They did not propose any amendment to it, neither did they ask that this resolution be rescinded. They also did not propose any resolution that any further evidence be heard. They went along with it. Why do they come along now and make this huge fuss in this House, saying that insufficient evidence was heard? I did not hear the CP on that issue in the committee, before its meetings or subsequently, until now when we are in a public debate. I say that that is quite wrong. [Interjections.] It is quite wrong for a political party to come here and to try to pretend that they adopted one attitude in a committee, and then to stand up in public and say that they adopted another attitude. That is hypocrisy in the extreme. [Interjections.]

That resolution was proposed and after a long, serious and very considered debate it was accepted by all members of the committee—all members of the committee. Sir, the hon member Mr Theunissen says we did not have enough evidence before us. I ask him if this report does not represent enough evidence to him. Over a thousand pages of evidence— both in writing and orally—was led before the first select committee. Does he consider this evidence to have been irrelevant?

We know how irrelevant that evidence was.

The hon member says that this evidence was irrelevant. Do you know why, Sir? He says it is irrelevant because 99% of that evidence contradicts every single attitude put forward by that party. That is why he says it is irrelevant. He wanted the Kappiekommando to come back again. That is what he wanted. He did not want evidence from responsible South Africans. He wanted evidence from the Kappiekommando, the Afrikaanse Weerstandsbeweging and such people.

No, I am sorry. In-depth evidence was placed before both select committees and, quite honestly, that hon member is whistling in the wind when he makes such a statement.

I want to look back now at the speech of the hon member for Rissik today. He was loud in his protestation about the passing of this legislation. Loud he was, but I ask him—and the hon member Mr Theunissen, both of whom served on those two select committees—why, during the select committee meeting did the CP remain silent? Why did the CP not inject any input into that select committee? Why were no questions asked by them? Why was not a word said by the CP during the deliberations? Why did the CP in that select committee not make a single statement? I say that that party is not interested in reform; it is not interested even in retaining the status quo; it is not interested in making an input. It is only interested in grandstanding. That is what it is interested in. It is interested in stirring up racial feelings—hopefully to the benefit of that party. I want to say that I have absolutely no respect for the standpoint of the CP on the select committee and in this debate—none whatsoever! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Mossel Bay said that the motivation for the repeal of this legislation was the fact that the Coloureds, Blacks and Indians perceive it to be discriminatory and hurtful. I would like to tell the hon member for Mossel Bay what a pleasure it is, seldom though it may be, to associate myself with these remarks.

I want to express my gratitude to my colleagues who served on both select committees which investigated these laws. I want to thank them for their goodwill, and for their sensitive approach to this subject-matter. I particularly want to thank the chairman of the committees, the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. I believe that he deserves praise for his patience and expertise which, over almost three years of deliberation, was heavily tested from time to time but never found wanting.

I should like to thank the churches of South Africa, virtually all of which presented evidence and shared their advice and experience freely with the first committee. The senior officials of the Department of Justice also deserve praise. It was the memorandum of the Department of Justice which pointed out that it had been argued in the past—and probably would be in the future—that section 16 of the Immorality Act was aimed purely at the upholding of moral standards insofar as it prohibited the enticement, soliciting or importuning to commit unlawful carnal intercourse. On this argument the department had the following to say. I quote from page 3 of the report which they put through to our committee:

Then they say it is—

The department, in its submission, outlined the background to the introduction of the two laws and elucidated the findings of the 1939 commission of inquiry and subsequent parliamentary debates, but which views are clearly outmoded and, quite frankly, obsolete in modern society. I should like to quote two more paragraphs from the Department of Justice memorandum which I found encouraging. Firstly, on page 6 it says:

Then again on page 8 it says:

However, let there be no doubt. In the end result, it was the evidence of the churches of South Africa—English and Afrikaans, Black and White—which was decisive. I cannot speak highly enough of the overwhelmingly authoritative evidence presented by nearly all the clerics who appeared before us. In particular, they crystallized, confirmed and reinforced views which I have held for a long time.

Here I want to ask the hon members of the CP, the hon member Mr Theunissen and the hon member for Rissik, to pay attention, because I should like to ask the CP—and they are going to speak again in this debate—whether they agree with some of the views that were presented by the churches of South Africa.

The first important fact which the churchmen imparted to the committee—and in this they were unanimous—was that these two laws had no bases on scriptural or biblical grounds, and that they could not be justified in that sense at all. Now, the churches—and I ask the hon member for Rissik to pay attention here—were unanimous before us in the committee when they said that these laws could not at all be justified on scriptural or biblical grounds. They were unanimous and the CP cannot deny it. In doing this, the churches of South Africa performed a great service for any religious or ethical morality which might, in the minds of some, have clad these laws, has been stripped bare by the churches of South Africa for all to see.

Whether these churches be churches who may consider or believe in conservative viewpoints, or liberal viewpoints, they were totally unanimous. However, that was not all that the churches had to say. All of the church witnesses were asked a particular question, and it was this:

Once again, the answer was a unanimous “no”—not one of the churches of South Africa said that these laws could be amended or improved. Every witness, whether he was for or against the laws, stated unequivocally that it was a question either of retention or abolition. There could be no question whatsoever of improvement or amendment. The Conservative Party cannot deny that. The overwhelming majority of people who made that statement were in favour of the abolition of those laws.

But you did not allow other witnesses to come forward. This is new.

The hon member says that we did not allow other witnesses. There was ample opportunity given for witnesses to come forward. [Interjections.]

One-sided!

The hon member says that the witnesses who came forward were one-sided. Where were the witnesses that hon member wanted to bring?

We did not call for witnesses at that stage, because it was not necessary for them to come forward.

Order! There are hon members who have already made their speeches who are making too many interjections.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. The point I am trying to make and which the hon member is obviously contesting, is that there was ample opportunity for witnesses to come forward. The chairman of that committee, Mr Badenhorst, certainly did not bar anybody from coming to that committee. Every single person of any consequence who wished to give evidence and who represented anybody of opinion, was invited to appear.

The churches emphasized another point, and that was that these laws could not be dealt with separately. They were, as the churches said, an indivisible package either to be retained together or abolished together. It was inconceivable, for instance, that sexual intercourse between persons of different race groups could be allowed while marriage was barred, and it would be ludicrous to bar intercourse while allowing interracial marriages.

It would have been worse to allow marriage but to bar intercourse! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I shall ignore that remark! [Interjections.]

Two other points which found their mark, were firstly the assertion that love and marriage was a church concern and not a State concern. Secondly, love and marriage was the concern of the individual and not of the Government. Certainly problems of marriage across the colour line were not brushed aside. They were acknowledged as being real, and the potential difficulties were recognized, but it was felt that these were problems to be dealt with within families, with the guidance of the church, but never with laws laid down by Government. Most churchmen felt that the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act constituted unwelcome incursions into the domain of individual privacy and into the realm of the concern of the church.

Not unexpectedly, the very title of the Act and the terminology used in discussing the Act gave rise to debate. What, after all, in the eyes of a theologian, is a mixed marriage? Is it a marriage across the colour line, a marriage between persons of different nationalities or races? The churches said no, that is not a mixed marriage. There was little or no scriptural basis for regarding such a marriage as being either mixed or undesirable. A mixed marriage, in the eyes of the church—and here I ask the hon member for Rissik whether he can contradict this—is one between a believer and a non-believer, or a marriage between persons of different faiths. That is a mixed marriage. [Interjections.] Clearly there are a number of factors affecting the contracting parties such as education, social background, mutuality of interests, and even colour, which play roles in the shaping of a marriage, but almost all the theological witnesses agreed that compatibility of religious beliefs was far more critical than any issue of colour. The contribution of the churches of South Africa—the Afrikaans churches, the Protestant churches and the Catholic churches—to the demise of these two unhappy pieces of legislation was most significant, I believe.

However, it was not only the churches that gave evidence before the committee. Several other bodies, institutions and persons came forward, not least of all were the Coloured academicians and the Labour Party. The evidence given by these people strengthened my viewpoint on at least three issues. Firstly, the laws are grossly discriminatory, insulting even, for while they prohibit sexual contact and marriage between White and non-White, they do not prohibit sexual contact and marriage between Coloured, Indian and Black. This the Coloured witnesses saw as being an unacceptable form of racial discrimination imposed by Whites upon all other race groups in the Republic. Indeed, who can deny that? I do not believe that anybody, not even the CP, can deny that charge.

Secondly, through the evidence submitted to the first committee, and during the deliberations of the second committee, and also in discussions of the issues with the representatives of the LP, the NPP and the Solidarity Party, it was starkly brought home to everyone that the continuance of these laws gave rise to feelings of deep resentment and ill will, and that the retention of them would perpetuate and exacerbate race relations in our country.

Finally, the LP asked the question: Do we regard the Coloured community of South Africa as being “undesirable”? After all, they pointed out, that community was no more and no less than the product of Black/ White contact over hundreds of years. Names like Curry, Hendrickse, Adams and Booysens do not come from outer space. Those are names which come from the very heartland of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I want now to say a few words concerning the contribution of the LP. Certainly, their contribution was important, and their members on the second select committee played a crucial role. However, it would be wrong and untruthful to suggest that they, the LP, were the alpha and omega of the repeal of these two laws. Many good people of other political persuasions—whether they operate within the parliamentary system or stand outside of it—have over the years done their bit. Thus for any one political party to claim exclusive credit for the destruction of these two laws is churlish and, quite frankly, is pushing the truth. All of us in politics have a job to do, and we must try to do it to the best of our ability and within our consciences. For most of us—countrywide—the elimination of apartheid stands high on our priority list. For any one group to claim exclusive credit for any move towards reform is both fallacious and lacking in respect for the genuine efforts of others.

I return, however, to the subject matter of the debate. I did not need to hear or to read evidence of the international opprobrium which has been heaped upon the heads of South Africans as a result of these laws. There was no need for anyone to tell me of the heartache which these provisions have brought about. It has been evident for all of us to see and to experience. The suicides, prison sentences and broken hearts which have occurred are common knowledge to all of us. These facts, quite apart from the international pressure or press publicity, have been known to many of us for many years and have in fact been my motivation.

The NP Government may talk today of reform—and I want to say that we are grateful for their reluctant acquiescence in the repeal of these provisions—but we should not forget—although we must forgive—that many good South Africans are dead today because of their past policies; and numerous people—and thus their talents—have been lost to us because of NP prejudice. I say that is a heavy cross to bear.

There are a few more points which I would like to make and which I believe are important. I address myself now to the hon the Minister of Justice, and I thank him for being present. Only a few days ago the hon the Minister of Justice revealed in answer to a question that six people were presently serving prison sentences pursuant to convictions of contraventions of section 16 of the Immorality Act. A day or two earlier, upon the publication of this Bill of repeal, it was announced that no further prosecutions would take place in terms of the Act.

Who announced that?

I forget. Was it the hon the Minister?

The hon member has conveniently forgotten.

The hon the Minister of Justice announced it. This was announced because the Government had accepted the finding of the select committee that section 16 could not be justified on scriptural, biblical or “any other grounds”. Here I quote the report in making that statement.

There are people sitting in prison today because of their contravention of a law which the Government itself says cannot be justified in any moral or ethical terms. Every day that goes by without those people being released is yet another day of injustice in South Africa. It is not good enough to say that each case will be considered on its merits or that they broke a valid law pertaining at the time. I call upon the Minister of Justice to release those persons immediately without further red tape or procrastination. [Interjections.] I also call upon this Minister, the hon the Minister of Home Affairs, to tell this House what he has done or what he intends doing to secure the release of those persons.

There are no doubt a few hundred South Africans, Black, White, Coloured and Indians, who today bear the stigma of having criminal records as a result of breaking this law now acknowledged as having no base in morality. I call upon the Government to expunge from the files of the State the criminal records of all those who have suffered convictions under this unsavoury legislation from its inception. There is no ethical reason why ordinary citizens who have fallen in love across the colour line should have this mark entered against their names.

In order to reach consensus the select committee agreed to recommend that changes to other laws were not essential and that existing laws and practices were sufficiently flexible to ensure that family life with racially different partners and children could be maintained without—and here I quote the hon the Minister—”disruption to the ordering of our society”. Let there be no error, Sir, that that was a compromise recommendation, one designed to achieve maximum unanimity on the committee. It was and is not my personal conviction. For what does it spell out? It means that residential rights will only be obtained in terms of the Group Areas Act by permit. It means that children of such marriages will attend neighbourhood schools only if special permission is granted. It is the discarded and disreputable permit system all over again. The hon the Minister has had experience of the permit system from the time that he was Minister of Sport and Recreation. He knows the implications of applying such a system. All that will result is private hurt and national and international publicity every time a permit is refused or a mix-up occurs. Incidents and anomalies will be highlighted, and not only in terms of residence or schooling. A husband will be entitled to enter a cinema or restaurant but not his wife and child. A wife will be allowed to swim in the sea off a particular beach or in a particular public swimming pool, but not the husband and their children. The message is clear: Whatever the select committee report may attempt to rationalize, the abolition of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act will impact upon the racial laws in this country. The repeal of these legal provisions will put those other laws under pressure, which pressure I welcome and which pressure I will support.

The Government cannot deny that there is very real personal confusion among people at this time as to residence. What do they do? Where do they live? What do they do about schools for their children and about amenities? I ask the hon the Minister today …

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Mossel Bay is not the Minister. I ask the hon member for Mossel Bay to try to restrain himself. I ask the hon the Minister today to give some lead to those people who are married or who are living together or who are going to be married in connection with what we are going to do about residence and about schooling and also in connection with what is going to happen about amenities. That is the very least that this Government can do while it is in the process of repealing this legislation. [Interjections.]

I believe too that until we abolish all racially discriminatory laws in South Africa we will remain a country of private tragedy, a land of lost opportunities, a country of repression. It is ironic in the extreme that every step forward, every retreat from self created National Party ideology, every withdrawal of National Party legislation, is viewed as a major victory for reform. There must certainly be a message in there somewhere. If we continue at the rate of change upon which the Government is embarking at the present time, Sir, I believe that within three years we may find South Africa as it was in 1948. It think it will be a major achievement if South Africa can, within the next three years, get back to the situation in which it was 37 years ago, before the introduction of these obnoxious laws. [Interjections.] What an achievement that would be, Sir!

So you want to go back in the past; back to the oxwagon!

Mr Chairman, I want to put it to the hon the Minister and to the Government that there is little to fear. Change and reform, normalization and de racialization are unstoppable. The dynamics of our population make that inevitable. The right wing will react, the radicals will push, but the caravan will march on. The choice facing the Government is not difficult to perceive. Either the National party will lead enlightened change or it will be dragged kicking and screaming into our new society. If the National Party leads I want the hon the Minister to know I will support it. If, however, it baulks and hinders I will, in my own small way, fight it. The choice is not mine—it is that of the Government.

Mr Chairman, we listened attentively to the hon member for Sandton. I should like to put it to him that the leaders of the National Party have repeatedly pledged themselves and the party to the removal of discrimination in South Africa. I believe personally that in the abolition of the two relevant measures today we have provided a very dramatic impetus and stimulus to the removal of statutory discrimination as regards many other matters in South Africa as well.

By this we naturally in no way contend that the National Party is a party in favour of a chaotic society; on the contrary, we accept that in South African society the ordering of groups and group interests is very important. Simultaneously we believe, however, that all forms of discrimination which are regarded by individuals or groups as hurtful or humiliating should be deleted from the Statute Books of our country.

Mr Chairman, hon members of the Conservative Party have convinced me incontrovertibly today that in the repeal of the two measures in question we are really taking the correct step and that the White voters of South Africa are absolutely closing their ranks behind the governing party in defence of the measure we are discussing in this House today. I should like hon members of the Conservative Party to distribute every single speech made by each member of that party in this debate in this House in book form among the voters of South Africa. They should distribute it from house to house and from province to province among the voters of this country. The voters of South Africa will then be able to see what the attitude of hon members of the Conservative Party embraces.

In saying this now, I also wish to emphasize that the hon member for Rissik attended the meetings of that last select committee without uttering a single word. Not once, ever, did he open his mouth; he made no proposal; he did not utter a single word; he put forward no recommendation. In the previous select committee the other hon members of the Conservative Party never once on a single occasion said whom they still wished to call as witnesses.

These arguments they are putting forward that there are supposedly many people against the repeal of the measures in question and that more witnesses should have been called are therefore nonsensical. I ask them in this House today why they did not—merely by encouraging individuals or organizations to come forward—request that people should give evidence. Mr Chairman, I shall tell you why they failed to do so. The hon members of the Conservative party were covered in confusion on account of certain radical people and those of the extreme right who gave evidence before that committee. I have no doubt that even the hon member Mr Theunissen was embarrassed on hearing certain evidence before the committee. Some of it bordered on racial insanity and other on the most flagrant racial discrimination imaginable. [Interjections.] I wish to say to the hon member for Rissik who is issuing challenges in this way that in the past I constantly asked him to appear with me before the hostel students of the University of Pretoria and that he refused. I now challenge him across the floor of the House to accompany me to his own electoral division so that we may debate the abolition of these measures in front of the students there. I wish to tell the CP that the more one has to say what one is, the less one is what one says. A man who has to spend the entire day saying what he is, is not what he claims all day to be. When I was involved with the beautiful amateur sport of wrestling, I learned a certain lesson, namely that one could never win or achieve success if one could not change one’s stance. I wish to tell the CP that a person and a party with feet so firmly fixed to the ground should know a fall is inevitable as sure as twice two makes four. [Interjections.] The hon member for Kuruman can attempt to abuse me as he likes, but no one will be able to call me or any hon member on this side anything but what we are. We are proud of what we are and in that spirit of self-pride we say to the other people of South Africa we can appreciate that these measures make them feel humiliated and insulted and consequently we are removing them.

I wish to associate myself with what the hon member for Sandton said. There is a long history attached to these measures. I have no quarrel with our forefathers who adopted the Acts but today I wish to say I associate myself wholeheartedly with the sympathy expressed for the sorrow, heartache and humiliation suffered by families and individuals in South Africa in consequence of these measures and which have caused them to drain the cup of suffering.

Once I attended a luncheon in the company of the hon member for Houghton, the hon member for Lichtenburg, the hon the Minister and a few other people. It was a luncheon given by the American Ambassador at which the renowned Mr Walter Cronkite of the American television services was also present. I experienced something there which made a tremendous impression on me. All the political parties had the opportunity of putting their standpoints to Mr Cronkite who was to be granted an interview by Mr Vorster that afternoon. Mr Japie Basson, who at the time was still a member of another party, was then asked to put the standpoint of his party. What I am about to say is with respect because I have great appreciation for the person of Japie Basson. He started by saying it would take him half an hour to explain the policy of his party which caused all at the table to erupt in spontaneous laughter. This Government wishes to cut down increasingly on explanations; that is what we are accomplishing by means of this Bill. How often have we as leaders not had to spend hours in our constituencies explaining why these measures were necessary and had to remain on the Statute Book. Every change effected which assists in our having to make fewer explanations is very important. Every time discrimination loses in South Africa, the White man wins. The Government cares about the White man; we care about all population groups in South Africa. Because we care, this measure is of specific significance to us from the point of view of humanity.

The hon member Mr Theunissen spoke about opinion polls. We should not cherish any illusions. I find it strange that people argue about these measures as if Black people, Brown people and Indians were desperately eager to marry Whites.

I wish to speak out in this debate that we should not humiliate other population groups in such a way as to place ourselves on a platform of self-assumed godlike glorification so that other people gain the impression that we Whites believe they do not care for their own identity.

I wish to say to the hon the Minister of Home Affairs I still well remember that in my days in the Kerkjeugvereniging we had a heated debate whether an NG Churchman could marry a “Dopper” girl. It was a very long debate. A debate was held in our church whether someone could marry a person from one of the sister churches. [Interjections.] We Whites have reached such a stage of maturity that these matters are no longer necessary. [Interjections.]

Order!

I regret not having the time at my disposal to quote a very interesting piece of history in full on the case of the late President Seretse Khama who wished to marry Ruth Williams in 1948. History has it that the government of the United Kingdom which controlled the Bechuanaland protectorate forbade them at the time to live in Botswana. A large part of the Bamangwatu tribe of which he was the leader utterly rejected President Seretse Khama at one stage he then returned to England where he lived for some years and only subsequently did he and his wife come to live here.

The point I wish to make is that there is a natural order in every society and we are not affecting that natural order of the joining, the residing together and the living together of people in South Africa with this measure. We say we have absolute confidence in the White man of South Africa. We say proudly to all our voters that we have included this measure in the Statute Book in the interest of the White electorate because we know the sting we are extracting, the hurt we are removing with this measure, will result in good relationships for us internally with the other people of South Africa. That provision removes the stigmatization of us Whites as a type of master race from South Africa. We are proud to call our own our own. Our identity survives in us; we are proud of this. We no longer wish to have anything inscribed in the Statute Book which can give other people food for argument that we think we are superior and that we consider other people inferior.

In these few words I should like to thank the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who acted as chairman of our committee. We also thank the hon the Minister and especially a man like our President P W Botha who had the courage of his convictions to refer a most sensitive matter to our standing committee and a president who is unafraid to step into the breach for his people and his country, South Africa. We take great pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I can appreciate the almost childlike excitement of the hon member for Innesdal. Like a child he almost jumped up and down in his joy that these Acts were being abolished today. He has been announcing this for a long time. He did not utter a single word of criticism of the hon member for Sandton; in fact, he heartily concurred with him—he is in the same boat.

The hon member for Sandton held up that thick wad of evidence but what was all that evidence actually about? [Interjections.]

Order! There are hon members of the hon member’s party who are making it difficult for him to speak. It would be appreciated if they would give the hon member an opportunity. The hon member for Pietersburg may proceed.

That evidence dealt with the question of whether improvement could be brought about in that legislation. Here is the final report of the joint committee and in fact it dealt with the question of whether the Acts should be repealed or not. That is a totally different question.

I wish to refer hon members of the other side, who have accused hon members of this party that we did not adopt a stand, to that thick report because in it they will see that on Monday, 13 August 1984, the leader of this side of the House most decidedly and clearly adopted a stand. We have done it subsequently on every platform and on every occasion wherever we have been.

If there is one example of the helter skelter flight of NP members from separate development, it is the amending Bill we are now discussing. I wish to ask them: Why the hurry? Why the hurry with this? Who is chasing them so that they cannot take their time? Is it the United States of America or is it their coalition partners in the Cabinet or perhaps both? I wish to ask them pertinently: Was it a coalition agreement which was concluded with Coloured and Indian leaders before the referendum or was it part of the “delivering of the goodies” mentioned by Minister Hendrickse? According to an article in Die Vaderland of 13 March, in addressing the students of the Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit, Rev Hendrickse said—and I quote:

Let us not underestimate these capabilities because they are succeeding in a frighteningly effective manner.

Now hon members on the other side are taking refuge behind section 12 of the Group Areas Act but there is also a section 21(9) by means of which these people can be accommodated by permit. Now a straight question to the hon members of the other side: Do they think their coalition partners will be satisfied to continue being moved from White group areas in terms of that section? In the Free State they will hide behind section 12, but for overseas consumption the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as indicated by the hon member Mr Theunissen, says that these people will live where they are living and their children will go to school where they live.

The Prohibition of Political Interference Act and the Group Areas Act are the next to be mentioned. How could it be otherwise? The day the hon the Minister appeared on television the political correspondent of Die Burger said to him: “Hierdie goed is mos soos ‘n spinnerak: As jy in die een roer, kom al die ander.” That is a fact—the hon the Minister knows this. This amending Bill affects the cornerstone of the policy of separate development: If one snatches it out, as the hon the Minister is proposing here, then the entire policy of separate development will tumble down and has to influence every other separation measure of our society. The hon member for Rissik referred to the congressional decision on the occasion when the hon the Minister said that these two Acts formed one of the main pillars of the policy of separate development and good reasons existed for the retention of this pillar. This is the very pillar the Government is prepared to demolish in arrogant fashion against the will and desire of the White population represented here. I am referring to the well-known HSRC finding last year that the bulk of Afrikaans-speaking people and of Whites are not in favour of the abolition of these Acts.

The method adopted and the run-up to this amending Bill are simply shocking. The Whites of this country and in particular the conservative Whites were caught napping. Why? Just examine the reprehensible way it was done. The terms of reference were clearly defined so as to investigate whether these Acts could be improved or amended without prejudice to the underlying objectives of their enactment. In the same report it is stated that the preponderance of evidence before the committee on the advisability of the repeal of the two measures indicated that they were unjustifiable on scriptural and other grounds. [Interjections.] No new evidence was called when a totally different matter was involved which was totally irrelevant when the initial evidence was submitted to the committee. In this way these Acts were destroyed with the stroke of a pen under the chairmanship of the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and with the consent and assistance of men like the hon member for Virginia and the hon member for Mossel Bay, the Chairman of the Landsraad van die Rapportryers. He also officially bound the Rapportryers to this step in this House today. [Interjections.] They have all formed a united front with the PFP, the NRP and members of the Houses of Representatives and Delegates. On a proposal by the hon member for Sandton, supported by all the hon NP members, it was decided on 12 March that the committee would take no further evidence. The hon member Mr Theunissen also referred to this.

I now wish to say the following to the hon the Minister or the hon the Deputy Minister: He incorrectly asked that written and oral evidence submitted to the select committee in 1984 should be considered by this joint committee with totally different terms of reference from those of the original select committee. Further, resolution No 4 of 12 March was not executed, namely that the committee should also pay attention to the adjustment or repeal of other related legislation. The hon member for Sandton gave examples of this. The hon the Minister gave no consideration to it.

A decision was, in fact, made that no further evidence would be heard but I want to ask the hon the Minister pertinently whether he did not take note of the thousands of petitions sent to his commission pleading for the retention of these Acts. I wish to ask the hon the Minister if he is aware of them because I personally am aware that more than 2 000 petitioners from Pietersburg submitted their signatures. Thousands of people from other places …

Did the hon member assist in canvassing them?

I ask the hon the Minister whether he took note of this. It makes no difference who assisted in canvassing the signatures, but I am asking the hon the Minister whether he has knowledge of this. [Interjections.] That hon Minister therefore took no notice of this; he swept it from the table in a single gesture. In particular, he simply ignored the documents bearing the pleas of thousands of White women. The hon Minister would do well to remember the hands that put their names to paper to appeal to him are also, as the poet expresses it, “die hande wat die kruisie maak, is die hande wat aan die toekoms raak”. The hon the Minister should not be surprised if they are going to ignore him in the same way and sweep him and the coalition government from the table at a coming election. [Interjections.]

I wish to refer to a specific finding of this joint committee, namely the fourth finding of 12 March, that there was no scriptural evidence in support of the legislation. It is ironical that among all the Acts in the Statute Book scriptural justification should now be sought for this one. I read in a debate of 1957 that the late President C R Swart argued against the then leftists and asked them for scriptural proof of the law relating to illicit diamond buying. Today that side of the House is arguing just like these leftist parties of those times. [Interjections.]

There is something else which astonishes me. The hon the Minister’s own church leaders in the Gereformeerde Kerk have been firm proponents of these Acts over the decades. It was also the standpoint of that hon Minister’s own father and the hon the Minister rejects it now to oblige liberalism. Time is catching up on me but one should just read again what Prof Dr J D du Toit, Totius, said in a paper during the Volkskongres in 1944 and what his son Prof Fanus du Toit said in a later paper. Today it is the NP which is obliterating racial boundaries.

The media and other institutions are still disseminating the blatant untruth that our churches and especially our Afrikaans churches requested the Government to abolish these Acts. The hon member for Sandton also insinuated this. Take the case of the Gereformeerde Kerk for instance. When the synod of this church sat earlier this year, Die Burger reported that the church was in favour of the abolition of these Acts and requested the Government that this be done.

What is the truth? The hon the Minister would do well to look at the minutes of the synod. Nowhere will he find this request. Only on page 425 of the minutes is it noted that the minister Rev P W Bingle who gave evidence before the committee held that opinion according to his own judgment. Nevertheless it is also recorded in the minutes that that judgment was for his own account. The synod of the Gereformeerde Kerk and this church itself have never put such a request to the Government. Hon members can look up page 54 …

What was the decision of the synod? [Interjections.]

It is recorded on page 54; the Minister may read it there. There is no mention anywhere that the synod officially requested the Government to delete those Acts.

What was the standpoint of that synod? [Interjections.]

The standpoint of that synod was that the Church and the State had a duty in this respect—the State as well—to see that there would be no social abuses. The hon the Minister is free to look it up. [Interjections.]

I wish to take my argument further that mixed marriages, from a purely scientific viewpoint as well, are so undesirable and have such a slim chance of success that these Acts ought to remain.

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

Sir, I do not have sufficient time. The differences between the marriage partners are too great—culturally, psychologically, sociologically and biologically speaking. Read what experts write about it, for example Robert Gayre on page 162 in his book Ethnological Elements of Africa and Prof Carleton Cran on page 662 of his book The Origin of Races. LBS Leakey, a well-known anthropologist, also writes about this in his book The Progress and Evolution of Man in Africa. I can continue quoting how Sir Julian Huxley and Prof Dr R Gates, as well as the late Prof J D J Hofmeyr, who was a famous geneticist at the University of Pretoria, pointed out the fundamental differences on a scientific basis between the different population groups and the disadvantages and real dangers which intermarriage held for the children of such marriages.

If the Act intervenes in marriages of close blood relatives or certain degree of consanguinity and in marriages between minors or between people of the same sex, why not here? This is not discrimination; this applies both ways to the various groups and holds scientifically based sociological benefits if members of various races do not marry each other.

I wish to close by saying that in 1939 Dr D F Malan submitted the largest petition of all times—it contained 230 619 signatures—to request the institution of these Acts. Since then every South African leader—including General Smuts and the present State President—has expressed himself against miscegenation among the respective races. Now this party comes, these integrationists, and they legalize miscegenation as part of their integration strategy and as part of a master plan to obliterate White civilization at the southern tip of Africa. [Interjections.]

Sir, I wish to say to those members that they—perhaps unwittingly—are the pawns on the chessboard of the world on which world powers are making the moves. [Interjections.] I wish to warn them that they will stand in the dock when their children call them to account one day when they are no longer a White people and no longer have a fatherland.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Turffontein permitted to say the hon member for Pietersburg is mad.

I did not hear him saying that. Did the hon member for Turffontein say that?

Mr Chairman, I said the member was half mad, but I withdraw it, and say he is entirely mad! [Interjections]

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietersburg, just like the hon members of his party who preceded him, delivered an extremly emotional political tirade. There was precious little question of a constructive contribution. He stressed particularly that the electorate was caught napping; that action was taken too hastily. But when did this all begin? When the State President was Prime Minister in 1979 he had already invited people to come along with proposals to improve these Acts. Thereafter two select committees were appointed to investigate the matter. For the past three years select committees have sat to discuss that topic. Therefore, for at least the past six years the subject has been deliberated in depth. The way we dealt with this legislation is the last thing that we in South Africa have to be ashamed of.

Action was taken in the full resolution of the sensitivity of these Acts. For years now various investigations have been carried out, all implications have been taken into consideration and—this is particularly for foreign consumption—this legislation has been dealt with by democratic means. Those people who said to us “We told you so” should take note of the fact that this was done by democratic means. In America there are 16 states that at this stage have not done away with similar legislation by democratic means. In 1949, when the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act was passed, 30 of the 48 American states had similar legislation. When the American supreme court, as late as 1967, stated in the case of Loving v State of Virginia that this type of legislation was unconstitutional, there were still 16 American states that had similar legislation. [Interjections.] They did not, however, do away with that legislation by democratic means. They were forced to do so by the court. In South Africa at this stage we are doing away with this by democratic means.

I should like to return to the merits of the case. I maintain that there could be two possible reasons for retaining this legislation—firstly, scriptural grounds and, secondly, reasons of practical necessity, because the abolition could cause friction. As far as the ethical or scriptural grounds are concerned, and if we limit ourselves to the three Afrikaans sister churches, everyone was agreed that there were no direct biblical grounds for retaining these measures. Not one of the theologians who testified before the select committees argued that the Acts could have any scriptural basis. This goes for the Hervormde Kerk, too. [Interjections.] Prof Bingle of the Gereformeerde Kerk had something significant to say about this. He said:

[Interjections.] I am coming to that. He goes on to say:

The hon member for Kuruman agrees that there are no biblical grounds for this.

The other argument that is advanced is one with which I can sympathize and with which the NP can sympathize, namely the practical implications for the social situation. The question of friction and positive coexistence on a social level is a problem towards which this side of the House is very sympathetically disposed. How has this been proved? In 1983 the select committee was instructed to try to improve the legislation without adversely affecting its fundamental aims or the principles contained in all related legislation. The same approach applied when the terms of reference were extended in 1984. Once again the select committee received instructions to investigate and report on the desirability of repealing the legislation with a view to the continued social, educational and constitutional ordering of the community. The Government was therefore very sympathetically disposed to that argument.

The joint committee is now saying that because other legislation has been passed which, inter alia, made provision for dividing up the population into groups, own residential areas and own educational institutions, this legislation is no longer necessary because adequate provision has been made for the ordering of own communities. This is the crux of the matter. If people want to differ with us about abolishing this, they will have to say those other Acts are inadequate. They will then have to come forward and say in what way the other legislation should be amended. [Interjections.] We have listened to the CP, and the hon member for Sandton is correct in saying that the CP does not have a word to say on this aspect. At this stage they have still not advanced any proposals for the amendment and better implementation of this system. It is simply a matter of political gain and not a search for solutions.

My time is very limited, so I just want to emphasize that the fact that we are abolishing this legislation does not mean that the Government is in favour of mixed marriages. A great many problems could develop as a result of such marriages. Like still attracts like, and it is still true that it is human nature to protect one’s own. I defended an 18-year-old Black man after he had murdered an elderly White man, and almost murdered a Black woman, simply because of the fact that he had caught them together having sexual intercourse. That fact alone went so against the grain that he did that. Interracial marriages are not necessarily going to bring happiness and could quite possibly bring unhappiness, just as in marriages between people from different language groups, peoples and income groups. Nevertheless, it remains a personal matter in which the State should not interfere.

A further point that should be mentioned is that the abolition of this legislation will not adversely affect group identity. An example of this is the Indians, who are a minority group who intermarry with the Coloureds and the Blacks and yet still form a strong group. The same applies to small Black ethnic groups such as the Vendas and the Ndebeles. At this stage marriages between English and Afrikaans-speaking people comprise approximately 4% of the total. In 1945 only 0,3% of marriages involving Whites were mixed. What it boils down to is that group existence will not be endangered by the abolition of these Acts.

The other matter I should like to emphasize is that methods to improve this legislation are urgently and earnestly being sought. Various people have advocated the retention of these two Acts, but that they should be administered with compassion and that provision should be made for exceptions. I should like to refer to Prof Oberholzer of the Hervormde Kerk, as well as Prof Dreyer. Prof Dreyer said the following:

There was a serious investigation, and an earnest acknowledgement that there could be cases that we should accommodate on “compassionate grounds”, but what is the reaction of the CP? If they had dealt with this matter in a sensible and responsible way, they would at least have had to concede that there were cases for which provision had to be made on compassionate grounds and that these called for a change in the legislation, but they were not prepared to do even that.

In conclusion I should like to associate myself with the report by the joint committee in regard to immorality. In the first place it has been emphasized that the penalties for immoral conduct in the Immorality Act are completely inadequate and that they should be raised, and also that the President’s Council should pay particular attention to the problem of soliciting for immoral ends. As far as this matter is concerned, reference should also be made to the fact that there were strong representations, by a prominent judge, which indicated that section 16, rather than discouraging immorality, encouraged it. I am happy to support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, I am sure that the hon member Mr Schutte will understand if I do not reply to him, because his arguments were directed not against us who are obviously supporting this Bill but against the Conservative Party. I have the idea that they were also directed against some supporters of the National Party outside this House. I leave him to advance his own arguments with those people.

I will agree with him, however, that it was not too long ago that America had laws that prohibited sex across the colour line and mixed marriages. I think that there were still such laws on the Statute Book in America 20 years ago.

Until 1967.

Well, that is just about 20 years ago, so I am not too far wrong.

I have a very strong feeling of déjå vu when I speak here this evening, because this is in fact the fourth time that I have participated in a debate regarding the repeal of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act.

As long ago as 1962 I introduced a private member’s Bill in this House asking for just such a repeal. I might add that I got no support from a single member of this House. In 1971 I moved a private member’s motion, but again to no avail. In 1978 my colleague the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition introduced a private member’s Bill asking for a repeal of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and of section 16 of the Immorality Act. I participated in the discussion of this Bill and only the PFP supported it. So it seems to me that we have come a long way today as far as these particular laws are concerned.

You are winning all the way, Helen.

We have come a long way, with the Government actually presenting this Bill and with only the CP opposing it. The hon members of the CP, of course, totally ignore the march of time, and all the changes that come with the march of time.

However, I want to bring some comforting words to the hon members in the CP benches. They need not worry that White South Africa is racing to destruction as a result of the repeal of these laws. In 1935, before the mixed marriages legislation was passed, less than 1% of Whites contracted marriage across the colour line. In 1936, fewer than three out of every 1 000 marriages were contracted across the colour line. This was the finding of the Commission on Mixed Marriages. In the year before the Act was passed, that is in 1948, there were 70 mixed marriages in South Africa. I repeat, in the whole of South Africa, out of the thousands of marriages that took place, only 70 were marriages across the colour line. So the CP can relax. I can tell them that, law or no law, the code of social behaviour in this racially conscious country of ours will prevent any wild rush across the colour line into the marriage bed. The hon members can thus relax—certainly as far as holy matrimony and all that that brings is concerned!

They can rest assured now.

Totally.

Now, of course, the figures are different, I say at once, as far as the Immorality Act is concerned. I want to quote to the House a few figures about this subject. A few weeks ago I watched a television show in which the hon the Minister participated. It was a panel discussion on the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and on section 16 of the Immorality Act. The hon the Minister appeared on this panel together with either the editor or one of the reporters—I am not sure—of one of the leading Afrikaans newspapers. The hon the Minister expressed surprise when this gentleman mentioned figures which I had quoted regarding victims of section 16 of the Immorality Act. In fact, I think the hon the Minister not only expressed surprise but actually also disbelief that so many people had fallen foul of this particular law.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that my figures are correct. Indeed, my figures must be correct because they are based on answers given to me in this House to questions I have put year after year in Parliament asking for the number of people who were charged, the number of people prosecuted and the number of people actually convicted under Sec 16. I have added those figures up, and my arithmetic is reasonably good. The statistics are as follows: Between 1950 and 1960—and I am only quoting the number of convictions—there were 3 890 convictions under section 16. That was the number of convictions in 10 years. Between 1960 and 1971 there were 4 595 convictions. This increase resulted from the 1957 amendment to the Act which made it an offence to attempt to have carnal intercourse or to attempt to commit an indecent or immoral act across the colour line. That broadened the whole scope of the Act. [Interjections.] The hon member says I voted for it. In fact, nobody voted against it. I do not even know if I was here. However, I will concede that I did not vote against it. I was then very young and very foolish and a member of the United Party. [Interjections.]

Between 1971 and 1984 there were 2 840 convictions. Hon members will notice the interesting drop in the number of convictions which, of course, was the result of an instruction given by the then Minister of Justice, Mr Pelser, after the Excelsior case which brought such opprobrium on South Africa. After that no prosecutions were to be instituted without the approval of the Attorneys-General concerned. So naturally the number of prosecutions dropped.

In toto, adding up all those figures between 1950 and 1984, the number of people convicted under section 16 of the immorality Act—I hope all the hon members of the CP are sitting firmly in their seats and will not fall off them—was 11 225. Did I hear anybody say: And it serves them right? No. At least they do not say that. So 11 225 people were actually convicted under the Act. I should add, of course, that for every thousand convicted, thousands more were prosecuted and thousands more were charged than were prosecuted. Nevertheless, as the hon member for Sandton pointed out, the social stigma was the same whether one was convicted or not or whether one was prosecuted or not. The very fact of being charged under this particular section carried with it the most dreadful social stigma.

At long last—thank heaven, I say!—We in South Africa are going to be rid of this legally sanctified stigma. We are going to be spared the disgusting headlines that appeared in the Press both here and abroad, and we are going to be spared the salacious details about people involved in the heinous crime of sex across the colour line. Most important of all, we will be rid of the disproportionate amount of human misery caused over the years by section 16 of the Immorality Act—the suicides, the broken families, the ruined careers, the lost jobs and the social ostracism that almost always accompanied a case of this kind. It caused neighbours to become spies and informers, the Police to become Peeping Toms and the State to become involved in matters that are none of its business. To quote the words of one of South Africa’s foremost judges, the late Judge Schreiner:

That, Sir, is what has happened to the members of the CP. They have become convinced that race differences are more important than any other differences, such as those of character or belief. The judge went on to say:

Those are very strong words indeed from one of our finest judges.

These comments were made many years ago and they certainly apply to the gentlemen of the CP, they apply to the stalwarts in the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging and they apply to the ladies of the Kappiekommando. We say, and I am glad that the Government is saying, we are well rid of these insulting and degrading laws albeit, I want to add, years too late: Too late not only for those unfortunate people I have mentioned who were victims of section 16, but too late, unfortunately, to be really politically significant, either at home or abroad, except for that group of narrow-minded people who want no change whatsoever from the strict Verwoerdian line which we have adhered to, unfortunately, for such a long time.

Too long.

Much too long.

The repeal of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act has no real meaning for Blacks in South Africa. It is not going to alter their lives one iota and they do not even really consider it a gesture of reform. Their sights are now set on political rights, equal opportunity and freedom from all the oppressive laws that harass them under the apartheid system.

The laws we are repealing were insulting laws because they implied that people of one colour are superior to people of another colour. I do not really agree that they fall into the category of being racially discriminatory as such, because they apply just as forcibly to Whites as they do to Coloureds, Blacks and Indians. Indeed, it may well be said that the social consequences of these Acts fall more heavily on Whites than on Blacks, Coloureds or Indians.

I want to conclude by quoting some interesting words from Prof Robert Rotberg of the department of Political Science at the Massachussets Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachussets. This man is a keen South Africa watcher, he is a frequent visitor to our country and he has written many books and articles about South Africa and its racial problems. He wrote an article in the Christian Science Monitor of 29 April of this year in which he sums up the significance of the repeal of these laws as follows;

It is late. We welcome the repeal of these laws but let us not bluff ourselves that this is going to give the impression abroad that South Africa has now embarked on a very significant road to reform.

Those were the sentiments expressed by the hon member for Sandton at the conclusion of his speech. Them’s me sentiments too, and I am quite certain they are the sentiments of all the hon members on the benches of the PFP.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Houghton referred to the CP as those people who have not kept up with the “march of time”, but on the other hand I want to say today I find it very strange that the governing party was not aware of this “march of time” until 1978, and that is a mere seven years ago. In 1978 they were still fighting to a man on that side of the House for the retention, not the abolition, of these statutory provisions. Something immensely powerful must have happened in the NP circle during this seven years period for them suddenly to have come to the stirring conviction that these provisions are superfluous and should be deleted from the Statute Book.

The conviction lies with the person who leads the party. It was the State President’s conviction that a law is not a sacred cow. Deep down he no longer wanted this Act. It appears too that right at the beginning he was not in favour of including this Act in the Statute Book. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that when the late Mr Vorster was still Prime Minister in 1978, the NP still stood firmly for the retention of these Acts because he was in favour of this. That is a fact.

In my opinion it was a matter of improving the Act in the first place. I now want to ask the hon the Minister how one improves a prohibition—a prohibition, which prohibits people from doing something? Once again I ask how one can improve a prohibition? I feel that in this connection there were only two possible ways of improving this Act, if there had to be an improvement. In the first place the prohibition could have been made stricter, so that every possible loophole could be closed to prevent the law from being violated. That would have been an improvement upon the prohibition. The hon the Minister of Trade and Industry, who is shaking his head now, must rise in this debate and try to teach me a lesson by telling me how one can improve a prohibition in any way other than this one.

The second way of improving a prohibition would have amounted in this connection to expanding it, so that it would also have applied amongst the other population groups. [Interjections.] That would have been an improvement. [Interjections.]

The hon member Mr Schutte said that the State President, in his capacity as Prime Minister, launched a debate on this matter six years ago. He contends that the people were invited to express their opinions about this. I say, however, that he asked the churches, who did not agree about this matter, to see eye to eye so that they could speak as one, for the Afrikaans churches wanted to retain the law, whereas the English churches wanted it abolished. This is not new information; history proves this. This is how it was from the beginning, and there is nothing new about it. This was what the State President wanted. He wanted the churches to meet, and then guide him in respect of this matter. When this did not happen, he came along with the select committee.

I want to tell hon members what happened in that select committee. Those people who saw the gap to argue for the abolition of the Act, came in great numbers, and did not make proposals—as the hon member Mr Schutte wants to assert. They did not submit proposals about how the Acts can be improved, but submitted proposals that these Acts be repealed. They suggested that these Acts be removed from the Statute Book. [Interjections.] This was how they argued for it.

I repeat that a prohibition cannot be improved. Those Acts could scarcely be improved upon. The hon member Mr Schutte contends now that a margin should be left for certain cases to be dealt with on compassionate grounds. Who determines whether or not there are compassionate grounds in a specific case? [Interjections.] Where does one draw the line between compassion and compassion? In my opinion every case will eventually be regarded as one to be dealt with on compassionate grounds for some or other cause or reason. This then means that one is really nullifying the effect of this Act—or prohibition. The moment one begins to seek a margin on compassionate grounds, one is destroying the prohibition imposed and can just as well dismiss the whole Act. That is the fact of the matter.

Those people who believed that the Act should have been retained, and could not be improved upon, did not come to give evidence. Only a few people came, for example those who came to put the churches’ standpoints. I want to tell the hon member for Mossel Bay that the NG Church, to which he and I belong, did not ask for the abolition of this Act.

What did the Wester Cape Synod ask for?

It did not ask for that. The Western Cape Synod is subject to the decision of the general synod of the NG Church.

Did you read what the management committee of the general synod had said?

The decision of the NG Church is here in front of me, and according to that the abolition of these Acts is undesirable. That is why we should not make the statement that the NG Church wants the abolition of this Act, for it does not. [Interjections.]

I want to put a further question. The preponderance of evidence is now being presented as the basis for the abolition of these Acts, but the preponderance of which evidence? It is being done on the basis of evidence of those who appeared before the select committee. It is those very people, however, who saw the gap to argue for the abolition of these Acts, whereas those who believed in retaining those Acts did not give evidence. [Interjections.] The hon member for Mossel Bay may argue as much as he likes but they ignored the investigation of the HSRC commission. [Interjections.] The HSRC gathered evidence, according to which the majority—almost 80%—of the Whites who were asked for an opinion, wanted the preservation of these Acts. The hon members do not regard this as a preponderance of evidence, however, do they? That is only an investigation! When we spoke about the Electoral Act, however, the HSRC’s investigations in connection with opinion polls during elections was regarded as very important. In this connection the HSRC’s investigation is suddenly not of as much importance, and can conveniently be pushed aside. [Interjections.]

This brings me to the question of scriptural grounds in this connection. I want to contend today that for a very long time it has been a liberal and false argument to present the whole question of scriptural grounds for the maintanance or the abolition of these two legal measures. Before I go further, I want to put a question. Has it now become the Government’s norm to judge that when legislation is not based on scriptural grounds, it should simply be thrown out? when legislation is justified on scriptural grounds, however, may it be retained? Has this become the Government’s norms, or are they looking for a reason regarding scriptural grounds to get rid of the two legal measures under discussion? [Interjections.]

Order!

Do scriptural grounds also apply in the case of all other laws then? That is my first question. The hon member for Mossel Bay does not have a valid argument in this respect.

I presented a valid argument, but of course you were not listening!

In the second place I want to remind the hon member for Mossel Bay that the whole argument of the NG Church since 1910—and the hon member is welcome to read the history of this himself—has never at any time involved either the church or its synod or a commission appointed by it, approaching the Government on the grounds of scriptural arguments as far as these two matters are concerned—even until these measures were included in the Statute Book.

In 1915, when the Cape Synod advocated legislation of this kind with the Government for the first time, it did take place on the following basis, and I quote:

It was not, therefore, on scriptural grounds, Sir. Even then it involved social factors; social matters. Those are the matters that were of crucial importance to the church even at that state. In the thirties and forties the church’s commission on social ills was the eventual major mouthpiece on this whole affair. After all, it involved the combating of what the church regarded as an evil.

In September 1950 Die Kerkbode wrote the following against the agitation of the liberal Press, and I quote:

In the same article we also read:

Another liberalist story which was suddenly conjured from nowhere, is that economic factors were involved; that this happened for the sake of those who were poor-Whites at the time. Nor does this appear in the church’s standpoints. The church spoke purely about the evil and the misery caused by it.

[Inaudible.]

The hon the Minister of Trade and Industry is welcome to go and read the history of the church again before shaking his head here. I read that history, which is why I can give him the facts. He is welcome to check up on those facts himself. [Interjections.]

Nor did the argument take place on scriptural grounds in 1949, when the legislation in connection with the prohibition on mixed marriages was debated in this House, and when the National Party, in obedience to the church’s request, included that Act in the Statute Book. The debate centred on the relevant social matters. Hon members are welcome to read the Dr Eben Dönges’ speech on that occasion—as well as other speeches made in that debate.

I specifically want to refer hon members—and in particular the hon the Minister of Home Affairs—to the speech the late Adv J G Strijdom made here in the House on that occasion.

Just do not put your finger in my eye!

This hon Minister also referred to the late Adv Strijdom. I shall point my finger as much as I like, Mr Chairman, [Interjections.] The hon the Minister is welcome to point his finger at me too; I do not mind. [Interjections.] I want to remind him that the late Adv Strijdom fought for the accomplishment of this legislation. He devoted his whole life to fighting for it. The following is quoted from his speech in Die Transvaler of 4 May 1938:

On 10 May 1938 Die Transvaler quotes him as follows:

In his book J G Strijdom—Sy politieke loopbaan van 1929 tot 1948 J L Basson quotes him in the following words:

What I am trying to prove here, is that neither the church nor the National Party or Adv Strijdom ever had recourse to the Scriptures as far as this legislation is concerned, but to social conditions, the scourge of such marriages and the misery which of necessity is the result. Now I want to say this today—and I do not care what they are going to shout about it—if any theologian in this country can take out his certificate as proof of his theological knowledge, I shall have mine sent here from Pretoria to display it to the hon members on the opposite side of the House. If anyone in this country can speak on the basis of his theological knowledge, I believe I too have that right. I merely want to state clearly that it is a very simplistic application of the Scriptures to say that because the Scriptures do not prohibit it, does not point out a specific text, it is permissible for that reason. The Scriptures remain silent on this matter—The Scriptures do not prohibit, but neither does it permit. A very well-known theologian in this country wrote the following:

Then he says:

Genesis 2 verse 18 is a very difficult text. In the old translation that text was translated by the following words:

The new translation gives the following version which I regard as a very poor translation:

One does not speak Afrikaans in that way in any case, but let us leave it at that. [Interjections.] Prof G Aalders, an expert on the Old Testament, also used this version in his translation:

The problem emerges with those little words “pas” and “gelyke”. That Hebrew word kenêghedoo comes from the word nâgad and the word nêgêd and actually has three meanings, and if one uses that word in Hebrew it is very difficult to translate those three meanings with one Afrikaans word. In the first place it means the person who is one’s counterpart, but it also means the person who stands opposite one, who is different from one, and in the third instance it is the person who is to be unified with one. The very problem with the translation of that specific word is that if one translates it from Hebrew, one has to imply that that woman is one’s image, but at the same time is someone opposite one, who is of a different sex, and who must become a unit with one as a result. It is an extremely difficult word to translate, but a very important one in this connection. That is also what Prof Aalders says, viz that it concerns the fact that it is one’s fellow being, who has been created differently from one, and that that person is someone who becomes a perfect unit with one in marriage. There therefore has to be a perfect fitting together—a total adjustment in which there is no difference and which can be regarded as a unit. It therefore concerns the personality, the possibility of communication, heritage, language, culture, moral values, religion—everything. It is the total person, who has to be united with another total person.

This is the requirement of the Scriptures for marriage, and that is where the “pas” is relevant. Now we come to the question, when radical racial and cultural differences exist, of how the adjustment is to be brought about. It is a fact that even within a certain race and a certain people one does not always get that unit in marriage. We are experiencing the question of incompatibility in divorces. We can argue about divorce as much as we like, but in the final instance divorce is based on the fact of the incompatibility of two people. Eventually when the euphoria of the marriage, or whatever, has disappeared, they realize that they do not suit each other. If this can happen within a certain people or race, is it not much more likely to happen outside the racial context?