Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. the Leader of the House I should like to announce the business of the House for next week. On Monday the discussions on the Status of Bophuthatswana Bill will be resumed. The House will not sit on Tuesday. On Wednesday and Thursday the Health and Planning Votes will come up for discussion, followed by the Second Reading of the Group Areas Amendment Bill. This measure may possibly have been disposed of by Thursday, after which the House will discuss the Votes of the Minister of Economic Affairs. When these have been disposed of, Orders of the Day Nos. 7 to 11, as they appear on today’s Order Paper, will come up for discussion.

QUESTIONS (see “QUESTIONS AND REPLIES”).

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Order! Before I call upon an hon. member to address the Committee, I must point out that the principles contained in the various clauses and the schedules of this Bill were agreed to at Second Reading. In accordance with the practice of this House, I shall accordingly permit one member of each Opposition party to state the attitude of his party on each clause and the schedules and the Minister to reply thereto. Further discussions must, in accordance with Standing Order No. 63, strictly be confined to the details of the clauses and the schedules and the amendments to such details.

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, clause 1 is the clause which provides that a certain territory “is hereby declared to be a sovereign and independent State and shall cease to be part of the Republic of South Africa”. It also provides that the Republic of South Africa “shall cease to exercise any authority over the said territory”. Those words in themselves clearly indicate one of the main reasons why those of us on these benches have not found it possible to support this legislation, because to state that a certain territory—which is defined in schedule A—is to become independent, highlights two things. Firstly it highlights that independence is here not given to a people, but to a territory, to a territorial concept. That, in the normal course, where the people one is dealing with live in a nation State, i.e. are identified in their lives with the territory which is being given independence, would cause no problem at all. However, when one considers that giving independence to a territorial or geographical concept which is uninhabited, achieves no purpose at all, one highlights the fact that what one is really concerned with, is not the territory of land, but the people who live in it.

The intention in dealing with a group of people on the basis of sovereignty and independence, is efficacious only if one can associate in some realistic manner the people one is concerned with, with the territory to which one is giving sovereignty and independence. I use the concept of a nation State to indicate a marriage between a group of people and a territory in which they have their being. That is normally the concept which is envisaged when sovereignty or independence from a metropolitan area is discussed. However, in the case of Bophuthatswana there is a complete divergence in those two respects in so far as the majority of the Tswana people are concerned, because there we have the clear situation where only some 35% of the people live and work in the territory which is defined in schedule A, while the balance, the remaining two-thirds of the people we are concerned with, do not live and work in that territory and are unlikely ever to do so. To see independence of this territory as a solution to the political, social and, to an extent, economic problems and pressures which arise from that community of 2 million people so long as they are in the Republic of South Africa, is to look with blind eyes at the problems. It presents this House with a partial solution which, seen in the light of the total problem, is fictitious, to put it at its highest. It is a fictitious solution to a real problem.

Then there is the question of the territorial entity in itself. In schedule A, which is referred to in clause 1, a number of magisterial districts are set out which will comprise the new State. The Minister was at great pains, during the Second Reading, to demonstrate from a map of the country of Greece how much more fortunate we were when dealing with Bophuthatswana than is the Government of Greece, because whereas the islands of Greece—and there are thousands of them I agree—are set in an ocean, the six blocks of Bophuthatswana are landlocked. He pointed out that they were set in the land of another State and were consequently much more fortunate. The analogy would perhaps have been more realistic in the sense of being related to fact if the hon. gentleman had shown us a map of Greece with the islands situated not in the Mediterranean Sea, but in territory occupied by the Turks.

In the Black Sea!

No, in Turkey. What then would have become of the analogy of the hon. the Minister? One has only to state it to see its absurdity.

In the one case you have people in between and in the other case you have fish! [Interjections.]

A further question arises in this regard. If you look at the map set out in the centre pages of the Benbo report, which graphically illustrates the fragmented territory we are dealing with, you see that the territories shown are marked with three different colours. The yellow areas represent White areas which are to be purchased and added to the existing area of Bophuthatswana. Other areas are coloured in pink to show that they are to be excised from the existing area of Bophuthatswana. In other words, there is land to be cut out and added to the Republic of South Africa, and there is other land which will be cut out of the Republic of South Africa and incorporated into Bophuthatswana. These are the purchases and excisions this House dealt with in 1975. To what extent has progress been made in this regard? If, as I believe to be the case, that so-called consolidation is not yet complete, what is the outlook in this respect? It seems to me that that has a material bearing on what we are about here today.

The other objections which this side of the House has to this Bill, relating to the question of citizenship, will be dealt with under a later clause. I shall consequently not touch upon that matter now, but merely summarize our standpoint in so far as clause 1 is concerned. To summarize, then, this Bill is withdrawing the sovereignty of this Parliament and this Government from a certain territory known as Bophuthatswana. So far as that goes, there is nothing wrong with it, but the rub is that the majority of the people we are concerned with—and it is people and political rights that we are primarily concerned with here and not territory—and whose political situation we hope by this means to solve, do not live within the geographical jurisdiction of the araea to which we are giving sovereignty. One has only to state that to realize the artificiality of this as a political exercise designed to meet the needs of two million people. We are accordingly opposed to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, in February this year I had the privilege of paying a visit to Headman Lucas Mangope. I also had the privilege of having talks with him and his Cabinet. Headman Mangope received me with characteristic courtesy and friendliness and he and his Cabinet gave me 1½ hours of their valuable time, I had the opportunity of listening to a detailed and clear exposition of his Government’s standpoint as regards independence. I, in turn, had the opportunity of conveying my party’s standpoint on this matter to that Government. I want to state clearly that I definitely did not make any attempt to influence them against independence. Those in this House who made snide remarks about this are therefore guilty of telling an untruth. I also had the opportunity, a few weeks ago, of meeting the leader and senior executive officers of the Bophuthatswana National Seoposenwe Party with the same objective in view. I am therefore in the fortunate position of being able to draw a comparison between the standpoints and approaches of the two parties involved in the question of independence. What struck me was that Headman Lucas Mangope and his Opposition agree, in some very important respects, on the future of their country and nation. Both Headman Lucas Mangope and his Opposition are inexorably opposed to the apartheid policy of this Government. Headman Mangope declared unequivocally and emphatically that he will use independence to destroy apartheid. Both are inexorably opposed to White sovereignty in South Africa. The Government of Bophuthatswana states that they are accepting independence for the specific purpose of ridding themselves of the yoke of White oppression. Both are inexorably opposed to racial discrimination. The Government of Bophuthatswana believes that this is the only way in which they can escape from the endless humiliation of racial discrimination. Both reject the division of land in terms of the 1936 legislation and demand that the homeland of Bophuthatswana be consolidated in a meaningful way. The only difference is that the Government of Bophuthatswana believes that independence will better enable it to obtain more land in order to bring about consolidation. It is informative and important to note that both Headman Mangope and his Opposition aim at creating communities in South Africa which will be founded on a non-racial basis. His Government believes that by accepting independence, it will be able to create such a community in its country, whilst the Opposition there wants to do this in the whole of South Africa. They only differ on the methods which must be used to achieve their objectives.

The Government of Bophuthatswana believes that these objectives will be achieved, and that the achievement thereof will be speeded up, by accepting independence, whilst the Opposition party believes in the first place, that accepting independence will rob them of their birthright which is South African citizenship and all its concomitant rights and privileges. Secondly, the Opposition there believes that accepting independence will rob them of the ability and means to negotiate a more viable future for their people in South African society. The Opposition also says that the Tswana people have not been given an opportunity to decide meaningfully between the alternatives. They say a referendum should have been held before the final decision was taken. They say the Tswana people should have been given the opportunity to decide freely, on the basis of all the facts, between the alternatives. They do not believe that the electoral system and electoral processes will give them an opportunity of coming to that decision. Territorial separation is an accepted method of settling political differences and has been applied successfully in various parts of the world over the centuries. There is absolutely no reason why this principle of territorial separation should not be carried out successfully in South Africa too. The important point, however, is that it cannot take place on the basis of the approach and methods the Government is using. There are three broad, fundamental principles which must be complied with. Firstly, it must be based on an agreed consensus between the participants, in the course of which all the people concerned must have the opportunity of choosing freely between two meaningful alternatives. This has definitely not happened in this case. The Tswana nation has not been given the opportunity of choosing between two meaningfull alternatives. The second prerequisite is that stable States, which must be viable on a geographic, economic, social and political basis, must be created when territorial separation is applied. All the concepts and requirements of viability must be complied with in creating these States. In this case, of course, it means that there must be an equitable division of the land and the assets of the country. This did not happen in the case of Bophuthatswana. The third prerequisite is that the creation of new States as a result of territorial separation must not cause greater problems than one is trying to solve. It is in regard to these very prerequisites that the urban Black man is expected to use his ability and the means at his disposal to negotiate a better, more viable future for himself in the community he is living in and will always be living in. If he is denied this, he is denied what is his right and this creates problems for the future. It will result in increasing frustrations, which in turn will lead to a feeling of revolt building up against the government which is forced on him and in which he has no share, which means nothing to him and cannot do anything for him.

The problem the NP is faced with is that years ago—during the colonial period—it created instruments of apartheid which were based on the selfishness and self-interest of the Whites. In other words, it was discrimination on grounds of colour.

Self-preservation!

No, the preservation of privileges and rights at the cost of the privileges and rights of other ethnic groups. These are instruments which are being rejected and discredited in this day and age. Now the Government wants to use those instruments to carry out a policy which lays claim to justice and logic and to that granting of freedom and justice to various ethnic groups. The dilemma of the NP is that it will not be able to carry out a modern policy, which separate development can be, with its instruments of apartheid. The NP will have to resolve that dilemma before they will be able to carry out this policy successfully and before its implementation can offer South Africa and all its ethnic groups a settled, stable and peaceful future. That is why we tell this Government that they must withdraw this legislation at this late stage and subject it to another Tomlinson Commission investigation in order to create a new set of modern and equitable instruments and to remove the old instruments of apartheid for once and for all. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, firstly I want to reply to what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said and point out to him that his figure of 35% is incorrect. The latest figure is between 39% and 40% of the people who are residents of the Tswana homeland. The people who go along with the independence of the territory are expressly described in the Bill, in clause 6 and in the schedule, as the hon. member knows very well. The hon. member must also realize that the percentage of people living inside and outside the homelands is not static. During my Second Reading speech I pointed out that within a short period of time there has been a considerable increase in the number of people living within the homeland.

The hon. member must also realize that many of the Tswana people in the White areas are people who are there as migrant labourers. They return to the homeland for a certain period, others may perhaps replace them and in turn go back again. Therefore there are a large number of people moving to and fro in a continual stream. Those who are not migrant labourers and who live in the White area are not chained to the White area either. They too can return to the homeland. Consequently, the figure which the hon. member gave is not a static one. I specifically dealt with this very point during my Second Reading speech. I pointed out that the trend in recent times is for the number of people going to the homelands to increase. I also pointed out that independence is a tremendous stimulus for those people and that the number returning will therefore increase.

How many of these are Tswanas?

The hon. member also asked me very frankly, and I am pleased that he did so: What progress has there been with the excision and addition of land? I know that the hon. member is well aquainted with this matter and that is why he will probably understand very well that it will not be easy—perhaps I am putting this too mildly; perhaps I should say that it will be impossible—to excise land from the independent Bophuthatswana. This is not something which we, in this Parliament, will be able to do. We have no jurisdiction over an independent country. They will have to do so themselves, and it can only take place if we can agree with one another beforehand on the type of exchanges, etc., which hon. members mentioned here. A few years ago, however, Parliament made decisions on certain areas which were to be excised from the territory of Bophuthatswana. The Cabinet of Bophuthatswana is fully informed on this matter, and it was decided, in this regard, that the areas which have to be excised, in terms of a decision of this Parliament, would not be included in Bophuthatswana now. They are now already being excised. As I said in my introductory speech, that is why we have redefined the 12 districts of Bophuthatswana. In Government Gazette No. 553 of 25 May 1977 the 12 districts, formed in terms of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, are defined in terms of what they will be after the excisions which are taking place now. The excised portions will be dealt with by the Bantu Trust, as it has been doing for years. So much for the excisions.

Now let us take a look at the additions. We made certain additions when we were redefining the districts. In other words, from today, i.e. even before the independence of Bophuthatswana—because the notice has already been published in the Government Gazette—certain additions have been made to the 12 districts. I shall give a few examples of this. Firstly, there is the Odi district, i.e. the district at Hammanskraal where Babalegi is situated. In that area an area we call the Kakana area has been added to that district. That area is situated next to the main line to Warm Baths and part of it also to the east of the railway line. According to a parliamentary decision that land should actually have been excised, but after negotiations with the Government of Bophuthatswana, which asked for it not to be excised, we decided that it could remain part of Bophuthatswana. It is therefore being added to the Odi district. There is also a place called Papatso which will be added to Bophuthatswana. Hon. members who travel a great deal by car will know the place because one can buy all sorts of souvenirs there.

Then there is another section in the Ditsobotla district in the Western Transvaal, in the vicinity of Deelpan. Hon. members know that during the past few years the department has purchased land there which was still under Trust control. We are including that land in the territory of Bophuthatswana. It has been included in the area we are defining here. The people who moved from Rooi Jantjiesfontein have moved there. There is also another area which is a very important one, especially for the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, who has such a tremendous interest in jails and police stations for this police state he wanted to conjure up here yesterday. Nearby the White town of Mafeking is a small place called Rooigrond, where there is quite a good hotel. Near Rooigrond there are large prison grounds which belonged to the Department of Justice. Those prison grounds, with the prison buildings on them, have now been added to the Molopo district of Bophuthatswana. These are examples of additions. There are quite a number of other pieces of land, farms which have to be purchased from farmers in terms of the parliamentary decision of a few years ago. The Bantu Trust is purchasing the land gradually, as money becomes available for this purpose, and that land will, of course, also have to be added later. According to my information, it cannot be added in the usual way because we are no longer dealing with a country which still forms an integral part of the Republic, but with an independent country. In other words, it will have to be given to the independent Bophuthatswana by means of special Parliamentary measures just as we still have to purchase land in the Eastern Cape and give it to the already independent Transkei.

I am grateful for the hon. member for-his relevant questions on this land issue.

By the way, I must apologize for giving the wrong name to the Odi district. The correct name is Moretele. Odi is situated in that area, but a little more to the west.

The hon. member for Bryanston had one or two things to say here. I do want to put this hon. member—in fact, everyone, especially my many friends in the Press, on the right track as regards the word “headman”. The hon. member for Bryanston spoke about headman Mangope once again. He did the hon. headman—as he called him—a grave disservice. He is not a headman; he is a chief. A “hoofman” is a “headman” in English. A headman is simply an ordinary man whom one can appoint for some or other short-term or long-term purpose. He can be appointed and later dismissed. A headman is about the same as what one would call a foreman in English.

All your newspapers call him “hoofman”.

But I said that the Press should also take note of this. Are the hon. member’s ears block up again?

You should have said this long ago.

I did say it long ago, but one cannot get anything at all into that hon. member’s head. [Interjections.] I have said this on several occasions; in fact, on one occasion I said that calling a Bantu man who is a chief a headman, is the same as calling a general a corporal. It is a terrible insult. He is a “kaptein” in Afrikaans and a “chief’ in English. He is not a “headman” in English, but a “chief’. The hon. member must remember this, and I would be glad if all hon. members would remember it. That was just by the way.

The hon. member made a great fuss about the Opposition party in Bophuthatswana which is supposedly against independence. I just want to say a few things about that. Firstly: That Opposition party has had opportunities to talk about this matter in their Legislative Assembly: to oppose it, to speak in favour of it or to move amendments, but they did not make use of those opportunities to speak about it. They did not make use of those opportunities to discuss it in their own Parliament when it came up for discussion in November 1975. Secondly, the Government of Bophuthatswana has already done the spadework for an election in which independence will be the central theme—in fact, I think the only theme. I provided statistics in this regard yesterday. I pointed out that the first half of the election was concerned with the appointment of the 48 traditional members. That part of the election, in which 12 wards or constituencies were involved, was finalized with the election of 47 followers of the present Government of Bophuthatswana as elected members. I am not so sure whether the 48th elected member, Chief Pilani, is totally opposed to independence. I also added that the nominations for the second part of the election have taken place. Four Government supporters have been nominated as candidates in the Thaba Nchu constituency. The Opposition party did not even nominate a candidate, something which our Opposition here also does in some by-elections these days.

It will interest hon. members to know that two of the four nominees in the Thaba Nchu constituency come from the White urban areas of South Africa. As I indicated yesterday, the governing party in Bophuthatswana has an active majority of 51 of the 96 members. Of course, there are still elections to be held in the other 11 constituencies.

Finally I want to point out that the hon. member is again imposing White patterns of thought on those of the Bantu. Each of the Black peoples, not only the Tswanas, has its own democratic manner of making decisions on important affairs. In their case a referendum, as we know it, is not necessarily always the best and most effective means of reaching a decision. They follow their own traditional patterns, whether in their council meetings, their tribal meetings or wherever the case may be. They have their own ways in which they record national decisions. I believe that the Tswana people has made use of that over and over again, even now in their Western-orientated election.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with that part of clause 1 which deals with schedule A which refers to the magisterial districts of Bophuthatswana. I would like the hon. the Minister—“hoofman Botha”—to explain certain points to me.

And you are Corporal Schwarz!

That is all right. At least I earned my corporal’s stripes. I do not think the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs did. [Interjections.] The intention in respect of the boundaries of the magisterial districts is something I would like the hon. the Minister to explain. I take it, as I understand from his reply—his original speech is somewhat vague on it—that there is no intention to alter the boundaries of the magisterial districts once this Bill has become law. Or is there such intention?

The boundaries of the districts apply from the day of the proclamation, which is today.

From today. In other words, there is no intention to amend those boundaries in future in order to either include or exclude any further territory?

New additions or excisions will have to be made to those districts.

Will that be done by statute of this Parliament?

No. I will reply to that later.

Well, that is really the question I want to put to the hon. the Minister. What worries me is that the boundaries of either Bophuthatswana or South Africa cannot really be changed by changing the definition of a magisterial district …

Order! The hon. member must discuss that question under schedule A.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, I am here discussing the territory known as Bophuthatswana and which consists of the magisterial districts which are mentioned in schedule A. It is the territorial integrity of South Africa I am dealing with here.

The clause simply refers to schedule A. Schedule A sets out the different magisterial districts.

Mr. Chairman, I am not discussing districts. I am discussing the principle of deciding what remains part of South Africa and what becomes the territory known as Bophuthatswana.

The hon. member may continue.

Thank you, Sir. The question is merely whether that should be done by statute of this House, the Other Place and the State President or whether it should be done by means of changing the boundaries of magisterial districts.

I understood the hon. the Minister, in his reply to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, to say that there would not be any more changes, but that if there were further changes to the boundaries that would be done by statute and not by changing the boundaries of the magisterial districts. If it is the latter—and that is how wriggly the hon. the Minister put it in his speech—it means that one can actually change the international boundaries between two States by changing the boundaries of the magisterial districts.

What did I say? Read it.

The hon. the Minister said—

It says here: “This additional land will then be added to the districts concerned,” meaning the magisterial districts. That is my objection. I believe that when one changes international boundaries one must do so by statute. One must not do it, after this legislation becomes law, by means of changing magisterial districts. Our difficulty is that we have not got the agreement which is referred to in the hon. the Minister’s speech. Agreement No. 39 is not in the bundle of agreements given to us; so we have no idea what the contents of the agreement are. What I would like to know is whether or not it is the intention to go beyond the consolidation measures which were referred to and approved of by this House. It seems to me that in some respects the hon. the Minister has gone beyond those provisions already in the changing of those boundaries. This is what I would like to know, because I think the House needs to know exactly what is becoming Bophuthatswana and what is remaining South Africa. My submission is that it must be done by statute of this Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, before the hon. the Minister replies to the hon. member for Yeoville, I want to put one point to him which he can deal with at the same time. I merely want to get clarity so that I can understand clearly what the hon. the Minister has just said. Do I understand him correctly that the territory that we are dealing with in this Bill, as set out in schedule A, does not include the excised areas dealt with by this Parliament a year or two ago? In other words, have those excised areas already been excluded from the districts?

They have already been excluded.

In other words, those excised areas have been excluded already from the districts. In future, as purchases are made of the land to be purchased in terms of those resolutions, will that be added from time to time?

Yes. I shall indicate in my reply how this will be done.

The hon. the Minister can perhaps deal with the matter when replying to the points made by the hon. member for Yeoville.

Mr. Chairman, in connection with the hon. the Minister’s remarks a moment ago, I want to ask him what the position is going to be, as far as the independence of Bophuthatswana is concerned, if the Legislative Assembly of Bophuthatswana cannot come to an agreement with the Government. In the light of the decision quoted to us by the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech, mention is only made of the fact that the Legislative Assembly of Bophuthatswana authorized its Government to negotiate with the South African Government on the question of independence. What will the position be, as regards this Bill, if those negotiations do not succeed? In other words, is independence then going to be forced upon these people or not?

A second remark, which I should like to make, concerns the hon. the Minister’s reference to the term “headman”. I agree with the hon. the Minister that it is a misnomer and I am therefore glad he has rectified the matter. However, I disagree with the hon. the Minister’s reference to a headman in these general terms. I know headmen who are indeed very responsible, etc. and that is why I disagree with the hon. the Minister about that.

Thirdly, in connection with the land question—I want to associate myself with the hon. members for Umhlatuzana and Yeoville—I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether the Bophuthatswana Legislative Assembly has accepted the consolidation proposals approved by Parliament as a basis for the independence of Bophuthatswana. Fourthly, I particularly want to know—I think the hon. the Minister knows why I am asking the question—what the attitude of the Legislative Assembly of Bophuthatswana is in regard to the excision in the territory to which the hon. the Minister referred, i.e. Moretele II in the Mafeking district and, more specifically, the land of Pankoppen and Wolhutherskop. As I understood the hon. the Minister—he must help me out here—these areas are being excised in terms of the consolidation proposals. Before I take any further part in the debate I would be glad if the hon. the Minister would answer these questions.

Mr. Chairman, firstly I should like to ask you for guidance. You say that anything concerning magistrates’ courts must be discussed under the schedule if one wants to discuss it in relation to the question of police stations. Must this be discussed under clause 2 or under the schedule?

The hon. member may discuss it here. I shall see how far he goes. I cannot give a prior decision in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, we are dealing here with 12 districts which are specifically called magisterial districts. They were instituted in terms of the Magistrates’ Courts Act. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana spoke about the question of four police stations and 12 magisterial districts. There is a connection between them. We should very much like to know from the hon. the Minister what the position is, because a magistrates’ court must be associated with a police station.

The second argument which I want to raise is that we are changing the provincial boundaries of the Cape in determining the boundaries of Bophuthatswana. Last year the hon. member for Albany—he has disappeared from the House now—made a specific statement— to which no answer was given, a statement to the effect that in terms of section 114 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act the boundaries of a province can only be changed if a petition is received from the provincial council concerned. I do think this matter was raised last year, but I want to refer to it again. What is the position? Have such petitions been received from the Provincial Councils of the Cape, the Orange Free State and the Transvaal, because their boundaries are being changed? I quote section 114 of the Constitution—

It could be said that we are not forming two provinces by having made Bophuthatswana an independent State, but in the process of forming a State we are nevertheless making considerable changes to the boundaries of the Cape Province. The same holds for the other provinces. I accept that the Government could easily have received such a petition. Has it been received, however, and really taken into consideration?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville referred to me as “headman Botha”, attaching a specific connotation to it. I want to agree with him. I am very proud to be headman Botha, because I was appointed by paramount chief Vorster. I am a proud headman, appointed by a paramount chief, who ranks higher than a chief. In politics, however, the hon. member for Yeoville is the runaway member for Yeoville. [Interjections.]

I want to deal with the question of districts. Two hon. members asked me questions about this, and the answers are interrelated. The hon. member for Yeoville must listen carefully now, because he asked me pertinent questions. The Government Notice of which I have given the number, a notice published on 25 May in the Government Gazette, comes into operation on 1 June, i.e. next week. That notice is being issued now, while Bophuthatswana is not yet independent, and consequently the boundaries of those districts are being redefined in terms of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, which can authorize the definition of district boundaries. Once Bophuthatswana has become independent and we have purchased land through the Trust, land which must go to Bophuthatswana, we cannot hand over that land in the same way as we can hand it over to KwaZulu today, for example. I have already said this. It is by means of an Act of this Parliament that we shall then have to hand over to Bophuthatswana pieces of land that we have purchased. That is to say, we shall have to withdraw our jurisdiction over that land and give it to Bophuthatswana. Then they have that land at their disposal. They must then define the boundaries of the magisterial districts of their new land themselves. It will then not be done in terms of our Magistrates’ Courts Act. Our Act cannot then apply in their territory. We give the land to them and they must then make their own laws. They themselves must decide whether they are going to define a new district or whether they are going to divide it up in terms of the old districts. I think this is very clear.

Has more land been given to Bophuthatswana than was provided for in the consolidation proposals approved in this House in 1975?

I still wanted to come to that, but the hon. member has anticipated me. I have already mentioned a few places where we have added land. In making these additions, we have made adjustments to the authorization which Parliament granted us a few years ago. A few years ago Parliament also granted authorization for the excision of certain sections. As a result of negotiations with Bophuthatswana, we have now decided not to excise some of those sections any more but to leave them as they are. An example of this is the area south of Kuruman. It is a large piece of land. They felt that they would rather keep it, and to keep the peace we said that they could keep the land. Another example of this is the case of the Ganyesa Reserve, which makes a deep incision in the Kuruman/Vryburg area. We said: “Very well, if it makes you unhappy, then keep it.” We have thus made a few adaptions.

Does that mean that the consolidation proposals we have approved are not the final boundaries?

We have already deviated here and there from the consolidation proposals made a few years ago. Consequently they cannot be considered as being final. The hon. member will remember that those decisions of Parliament were simply an indication of certain areas which we could purchase land. It did not mean that we necessarily had to buy everything. Where provision was made for excisions, it did not mean that we necessarily had to excise everything. We thus made adjustments in that regard. I hope that has also clearly answered the question of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, i.e. that the land which we had to excise in terms of Parliamentary decisions made a few years ago, has been excised by way of the description of the district boundaries. This has been done because it is easier to do so now than later when the country has become independent. The hon. member for Edenvale asked questions, which link up with this, about two specific places, and I know very well why he asked questions about those two places. The hon. member should understand what I mean when I say that I am well aware of this. His questions concerned Pankoppen and Wolhutherskop. We were approached by the Cabinet of Bophuthatswana and we held talks with them about those two places. We shall enter into agreements with them specifying that we shall have a look at those two places at a later stage.

In the case of Pankoppen it depends a great deal on prospecting which is taking place there and about which we do not yet have any finality.

Those are two matters we still have to settle amongst ourselves. This should not, however, stand in the way of independence. It is going to be covered by mutual written agreements which still have to be entered into. The hon. member also asked me whether Bophuthatswana accepts all the consolidation proposals. From what I have just said, the hon. member should realize that they argued with us here and there about the consolidation proposals. We made quite a few concessions to them, examples of which I mentioned here. I can tell hon. members quite honestly that in other cases they have accepted that we should carry on as we are doing although they do not accept it with any jubilation.

The hon. member for Durban Central asked a question about the 12 districts and the police stations. The hon. member must not confuse police stations and magistrates’ courts.

Nevertheless, one associates them with one another.

Yes, one associates them, but there does not necessarily have to be a police station at a court. There must, however, be a magistrate. [Interjections.] He does not have to live there, but he must be in the court. Does this hon. attorney want to tell me that there does not have to be a magistrate in a court? The hon. member must realize that police matters in Bophuthatswana have thus far been the responsibility of our Minister of Police. It was not necessary to have police stations at so many places because the work was done from police stations in the White area. When Bophuthatswana becomes an independent country, however, our police can no longer do the work in their area from White police stations.

That is not the point.

: Consequently the hon. member must accept that they will undoubtedly open police stations in every one of their districts very soon, if they consider it necessary for each district.

Why have you not done it already?

I have just said why it has not been done, i.e. because the police work inside Bophuthatswana was done by our Department of Police from the White area. The hon. member is being stubborn; he does not want to listen. They will therefore arrange the police work themselves as they think necessary, i.e. one, two or ten per district or one for every two districts. That is their affair. The hon. member asked what is going to happen to the provincial boundaries and also spoke about the provision in the Constitution. I shall now give him the answer we gave to another member in connection with the Transkei last year. This Parliament is sovereign, and the hon. member ought to know it. The hon. member ought to know—and other lawyers will assist him here—that a later decision taken by this Parliament, by means of legislation, on matters such as this, for example, takes precedence over those provisions. It is not even necessary to have received a petition. The subsequent decision Parliament takes today, tomorrow or next week will take precedence over that one, because it is a valid decision of the sovereign Parliament, and by implication that duly disposes of the matter concerning those boundaries. It is not necessary to change the position.

The hon. the Minister has not yet replied to the question I put on the Legislative Assembly’s decision about negotiations and what the position would be if those negotiations did not succeed.

Someone once asked: What will happen if the sky falls on us? A clever man replied: We will be wearing blue hats. I think it is a very hypothetical question. We are making a law now to clear the road completely for Bophuthatswana to become independent at its request, not at our insistence. It is now up to Bophuthatswana to become independent. This is all that I can tell the hon. member. Nor do I foresee any such theoretical problems.

Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat what I said earlier and point out that the decision which the Legislative Assembly took last year was a decision which merely empowered the Government of Bophuthatswana to start negotiations. The hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that there are a number of outstanding matters to which the Bophuthatswana Government has made independence subject. One of those is the land arrangements. I want to quote to the hon. the Minister from a document which was given to us yesterday.

What document are you talking about?

It is a letter addressed to the hon. the Minister, via the Commissioner-General, in which the Cabinet of Bophuthatswana makes the following very clear statement—

Order! The hon. member must not look for a clever ruse in an attempt to evade my ruling. I gave a ruling at the outset that the principles might not be discussed again and the hon. member is now quoting from a letter in which those principles are discussed. I cannot allow it. The hon. member is now limited to the particulars of the clause as it stands.

Am I only allowed to address you on this specific point?

Yes.

I am reacting to the statements made by the hon. the Minister in connection with the excision of land and this is relevant to this specific point, as has been indicated by other members. It is with reference to this that I think, with all due respect to you, that my question is relevant, viz., that if agreement cannot be reached on the land, where do we stand in regard to this specific Bill?

The problem is that I gave a ruling. If the hon. member makes a speech on the principles now, as I allowed the hon. member for Umhlatuzana to do, and the Minister replies to it, upon which the hon. member in turn replies to the Minister, we shall have a repetition of the whole Second Reading debate. I cannot allow that. The hon. member may, however, put his question briefly and the hon. the Minister may reply to it.

Thank you. My statement is very briefly the following: I am under the impression that the land arrangements which have thus far been made are quite unacceptable to the Bophuthatswana Government and that they may, in fact, jeopardize all the discussions with the Government about the independence of Bophuthatswana. This was the subject of my original question to the hon. the Minister. I would be pleased if he could reply to it.

Before I resume my seat, may I just say that I have since heard that the hon. the Minister is prepared to accept the title “headman”. I just hope that he is not accepting it in terms of the description he himself gave of “headman”.

Mr. Chairman, I gave a simple description of it. I said that some simply get it for a small job and others for a much longer term. I fall into the second group.

I think that I already replied to the hon. member when I replied to the questions put to me subsequently. A moment ago I said that Bophuthatswana negotiated with us on the excisions and additions of certain pieces of land. Mutual negotiations are still pending as regards certain areas—I gave two examples. We shall enter into agreements in that respect. I also said that there were certain proposals they were certainly not satisfied about, but that they nevertheless accepted them as such. They have resigned themselves to the situation that is the position. I know all about that letter. It will interest the hon. member to know that after I received the letter, the hon. the Deputy Minister and I, amongst others, held talks with that Chief Minister himself. Jointly we dealt with some of those matters in detail. Amongst other things, we dealt with the question of Pankop and Wolhuterskop, which the hon. member referred to a moment ago. I want to repeat—I think that I can say this categorically about all the Bantu peoples—that all of them would naturally want more land and a different division of land to that which Parliament has decided on. That is only human and is easily understood. We are alive to that. As I have already said, however, I think the hon. member is taking his supposition too far when he says that for that reason Bophuthatswana will not become independent. I do not want to anticipate such theoretical speculations.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Minister has made it very clear now why we cannot vote for this clause. I think it is quite clear that the ground is inadequate and that the consolidation has been inadequate. Furthermore, we have not been given agreement No. 39. We cannot possibly vote for such a clause when we know that the land for the new State is inadequate.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—94: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C; Botma, M. C; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothangel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Roux, P. C.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—31: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du R; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. We understand the necessity for this clause. The clause is the same as the one in the Transkei Bill. I only want to ask the hon. the Minister: After the experience he had with the Transkei, were there any problems with regard to South Africa in our relations with other countries as a result of the clause in the Bill on the status of the Transkei?

Mr. Chairman, this provision seeks to make all conventions and agreements applicable to Bophuthatswana, if Bophuthatswana, as an independent country, so prefers. I indicated that last year. I had a thick pile of documents here with me. I indicated how many such agreements already existed. There are many such agreements, for example with regard to postage and all sorts of other things which can be of value to them. However, they have the right to cancel an agreement if they so prefer. The aim here is purely to make extant conventions available to them, too, for their own benefit. If they do not want an agreement, they can cancel it and they can, of course, draw up their own conventions in place thereof.

The issue here is conventions between us and other countries. From out experience with Transkei, since that country was not recognized by other countries, I should like to know whether this had any effect.

Thus far it has had no effect. That situation has not changed at all. At the moment it is still the same as it was last year.

Mr. Chairman, we do not see any point in this clause at all. It deals with the same thing which was dealt with when the independence of Transkei was discussed in the House. Our point of view remains exactly as it was then. Contrary to what is stated in this clause, it is not for us unilaterally to decide whether or not other countries should take over the agreements we have with Bophuthatswana. At first it was applied to the Transkei; now it includes Bophuthatswana. We cannot make any unilateral decisions for other countries. It may well be that Parliament is sovereign. However, it is sovereign to South Africa and to no other country … I believe it may even affect the recognition of Bophuthatswana. How can we make such arrangements for other countries?

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the hon. member for Houghton does not understand this clause properly. During the years, and until now, we have entered into hundreds of conventions and treaties with other countries, agreements applying to certain services, for instance postal and telegraphic services. Those conventions, of course, also applied to Bophuthatswana, a region which has always been part and parcel of the Republic of South Africa. When Bophuthatswana becomes independent, however, we want to create for it the opportunity of continuing those treaties. We want to allow them all the privileges and advantages of those treaties, if they want to make use of them. If, however, they do not want to enjoy the privileges of the treaties, they will have the right to terminate such agreements.

Mr. Chairman, it is not I who does not understand the clause. It is the hon. the Minister who does not understand it. I am perfectly aware of all the points he made. I know we have conventions. I also know the hon. the Minister would like to give the independent territory of Bophuthatswana the option of continuing with them. However, it is not a matter for our decision. It is not even a matter for decision by the independent State of Bophuthatswana. It is the decision of the other countries. If they decide that the treaties which they have with South Africa—which then included Bophuthatswana as part of the Republic …

They can also terminate it.

For that matter, this is a useless clause. I do not know what it is doing in this Bill.

If they do not terminate the agreements, they remain valid.

They certainly will have to make up their minds on this, because it means recognition of the territory as an independent area. If they do not recognize Bophuthatswana, they surely will not continue with any agreements. That, however, is not our affair.

Clause agreed to (Progressive Reform Party dissenting.)

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, clause 5 relates to treaties, conventions and agreements entered into between the Republic of South Africa and Bophuthatswana. At the outset, I think it is necessary for me to tell the hon. the Minister that we take strong exception to the fact that we only received copies of the treaties which have already been passed, on Wednesday evening. How the House can be expected to decide on this Bill without copies of those agreements available, I do not know.

Possibly more than in any other clause, the nature of the agreement under this clause indicates the complete fraud of this independence exercise, not so much for what the Government has done, but for what it has not done. I refer to the agreements dealing with the provision of infrastructure, the supply of electricity and water. Surely the supply of these commodities is a prerequisite for the viability of any independent country. We talked about police stations. How many power stations are there in Bophuthatswana? Perhaps the hon. the Minister can answer this question. Apparently I am not going to get an answer about power stations. Surely, if one had been building a country to the stage of total independence, one would have thought it necessary to ensure that that country was self-sufficient in regard to items like power. The complete failure of the Government to build up the most primitive infrastructure proves the hypocrisy of the whole exercise. The new republic will be totally dependent on big brother, the Republic of South Africa. Even the worst of the colonial powers made sure that there were some developments of this nature before independence was granted, but not our Government. Development of any kind has been minimal. This poverty-stricken new State proves beyond any shadow of doubt that the philosophy of “separate but equal” is a mockery and an illusion, a piece of political chicanery. “Bophuthatswana is being offered poverty” a headline to a letter in The World of 5 May read.

As regards these agreements it is interesting to note what is contained in agreement No. 17, which has to do with citizenship and the creation of a joint citizenship board with three representatives of Bophuthatswana sitting together with three representatives of the Republic of South Africa. In terms of article 2 of the agreement the aim will be to “consider cases regarding the citizenship of persons referred to by either Government and make findings. These findings shall be binding on both Governments”. What exactly does this mean? I am afraid I do not know. What will be the rules of procedure? According to the agreement the procedure shall be “as may be prescribed from time to time”. Prescribed by whom? What are going to be the principles determining who is the citizen of which country? We have seen the schedule, and I shall leave discussion on this matter to the debate on the relevant clause. However, it is necessary to say that as far as this agreement goes, it is no help at all as far as the real issues of citizenship are concerned.

It is also interesting that we are expected to consider this Bill when vital agreements are still outstanding. The hon. member for Yeoville has already raised the question of agreement No. 39, concerning the purchase and transfer of land, which is still unresolved. We do not know what is going to happen about it. The hon. the Minister made it clear in his reply to the debate on clause 1 that we do not know what is going to happen. I want to give another example. An agreement on the movement of citizens across common borders is surely a very important matter, but that is also not yet resolved. Another agreement concerning the employment of citizens is not resolved. Agreement No. 33 concerning industrial development, as well as agreement No. 45 concerning the economic development of Bophuthatswana are also not yet resolved. All we know is that there is an agreement to be signed with regard to the economic development of Bophuthatswana. What is this agreement going to deal with? We do not know. We are asked to make a decision in complete ignorance of what the situation is going to be. Is the new republic going to get R54 million for economic development? Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us his intention as far as economic development is concerned. All we have to judge by at the moment is a statement that an agreement on the economic development of Bophuthatswana is unresolved. Surely, matters cannot remain unresolved before we make a decision. I would like to hear the hon. the Minister’s reply to the questions I have put. They are vitally important agreements and we are without any information at all.

Mr. Chairman, we are now dealing with the clause relating to treaties, conventions and agreements entered into, or still to be negotiated and signed, between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of Bophuthatswana. There are three categories of agreements. Volume 1 consists of agreements which have been approved. I take it that this means that it is intended to be conveyed that they have been signed by the respective Governments. Volume 2 is a set of agreements described as “cleared by Bophuthatswana Government and the relevant State departments”. I take it that that means approved in principle, but not yet formally ratified and signed. There is a third volume which we have not yet got—and this is the Committee Stage of the Bill—dealing with matters which are still under consideration.

Last year when the Transkei legislation was debated, we had occasion in the Committee Stage to complain that we had not had sufficient time to look at these voluminous agreements in order to debate the matter properly. Last year we had a couple of days in which to look at these agreements. Despite that, we were on this occasion handed only two of the volumes just before the dinner adjournment, immediately after which the Second Reading debate commenced. The result was that we were placed in the position—I take it the whole House found itself in that position—where we were unable to debate intelligently at Second Reading a major part of this exercise, because we had not been given an essential part of the documentation thereto. I take the strongest exception to this. Not only does it make the workings of this House impossible, but it is a slight on the members of this House to expect us to debate matters in this way. It belittles this Chamber and those of us who try to do our work in it. It is not the first time, but the second time it has happened. What is worse is that, as the hon. member who has just spoken, has pointed out, some of the most important matters have not yet been negotiated. In other words, we are expected to support an important measure— the hon. the Minister said an historic measure—creating a new sovereignty in Southern Africa, when essential items have not yet been agreed to.

Throughout the week, during the Second Reading, I have been criticized for belittling the Government, the people and State of Bophuthatswana, wrongly, as I shall attempt to demonstrate. What have I in fact been saying and trying to demonstrate? I have been trying to demonstrate what in fact is borne out by these agreements, that is to say that we are giving sovereignty and independence to a territory which has little or no infrastructure to provide a basis for the people to whom we are giving independence. Nothing demonstrates the correctness of my assertions better than these agreements, because in almost every respect the infrastructure which supports the lives of the people to whom we are giving independence, is not in the territory concerned, but in the Republic of South Africa. It is not surprising that that should be so, because the majority of the people to whom we are supposed to be giving independence are in the Republic of South Africa and are consequently served by the infrastructure of that State. When I made reference to the four police-stations—which has been referred to over and over again—I was merely saying the same thing in a different way. I did not say that the Tswana people were not served by police-stations—of course they are—but that the police-stations are not in the territory to which sovereignty is being given. They are not in that territory because the people they are designed to serve are not there either.

I want to come back to these agreements. As has been pointed out, some of the most essential issues, such as the movement of citizens across common boundaries, economic relations, the employment of citizens— presumably in South Africa—services to be rendered by the local authorities, the purchase and transfer of land, the economic development of Bophuthatswana and uncompleted South African Bantu Trust projects, have not yet been settled. I find it astonishing that, knowing this is a development likely to come in terms of the Government’s philosophy, and policy, they have not considered these things.

I should like to draw attention to one of the agreements which have been settled. I refer to the extradition agreement which is the sixth of the agreements which have been settled. We have been given a very short time to consider these lengthy agreements, and the relevant agreement is a fairly lengthy one which deals with an important matter. In the case of a particularly fragmented territory such as this one, extradition is important. Extradition in a stock-farming country is probably even more important, because, as we all know, one of the difficulties of life in a stock-farming area is stock theft.

If one looks at the extradition agreement, one finds, for example, that “extradition may be refused if the offence in respect of which it is requested as regarded by the requested party as a political offence.” There is also another ground on which extradition may be refused. Let us assume that a request comes from the Republic of South Africa to the Government of Bophuthatswana that a certain individual or a group of individuals should be extradited to the Republic of South Africa to stand trial for stock theft. Such a request may then be refused “if the competent authorities of the requested party had decided either not to institute criminal proceedings or to terminate proceedings in respect of those offences.”

When one is dealing in principle with matters of this kind, it is necessary to say, in view of some of the things which have been said earlier during the consideration of this legislation, that one is dealing here with a matter of principle and not with personalities who may at this moment in our history occupy positions in government either here or in Bophuthatswana; one is dealing purely with a matter of principle.

What has been agreed to, is an extradition treaty which says that if the competent authority in Bophuthatswana decides not to prosecute in any matter, there can be no enforcement of extradition in respect of that matter as the result of a request from the South African Government. I am merely quoting one offence, that of stock theft. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me what happens in a situation where culprits immediately cross the border into Bophuthatswana—there are very extensive borders in this case. When the request for extradition is made in such a case, the relevant authority there simply replies to the Government of South Africa that no proceedings are contemplated and consequently that is the end of the matter. How is that then going to be dealt with? How does the hon. the Minister see the economic activity of this area prospering under circumstances of that kind? Of course, exactly the same applies in respect of the Government of Bophuthatswana in the converse case. This is a real matter. It is not fanciful; it stands here in black and white in article 8 of the extradition agreement which has been acceded to by the Government.

It is a different matter when you are enacting an extradition agreement with a country 1 000 miles across the sea. When one is dealing with a fragmented territory such as we are dealing with here, an area largely concerned with agricultural and farming activities, the example which I have given certainly comes to mind. There are very many other examples one can think of if one had the details.

I quote this not only as an example of the difficulties that I foresee arising out of agreements, but I quote it also as an example of how unfair and improper it is for the hon. the Minister to expect proper debates to take place when these agreements are handed to us at the last moment. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to add my protest to those that have already been uttered about the fact that we received the agreements which have been completed and those still under consideration so late in the day that it made it almost impossible to study them properly and to do one’s homework properly for the Committee Stage of this Bill. I agree with what hon. members have said. The hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Umhlatuzana have mentioned that there are some very important issues that still have to be resolved. There are one or two others that I want to add to that list. First of all I am very concerned about Tswana people living outside Bophuthatswana. The hon. the Minister told us today that they number something like 60% of the population. We had previously thought that the figure amounted to two-thirds of the population but he said the figure was now altered. It would have been good if he could have given those figures earlier because I in fact asked him for those figures. Only last week I received a reply in which all he did was to repeat to me the de facto population as at the 1970 census, which of course is something I already knew since we had those figures long ago.

Those figures are more out of date than Benbo’s.

Exactly. They are more out of date than Benbo’s figures. The hon. the Minister tells me that other figures are not available but he stands up in the House today and he tells the Committee that the figures that we have been using are out of date—which indeed they are because he refuses to give us the more up-to-date figures—and he proceeds to use figures which suits his case better and which he could have given us in the first instance. Let us, however, leave that to one side. The point is that 60% of the Tswana people are living outside Bophuthatswana and that they are living in the Republic of South Africa. We have had experience, since October last year when the Transkei became independent, of what happened to Transkeian people, Xhosa-oriented people, who live in the Republic.

I was at pains during the Second Reading to point out the harassments, insecurity and complications which all those people have been encountering ever since independence when they lost their citizenship. The hon. the Minister told me in reply to the Second Reading debate that those matters were still under discussion with the Government of Bophuthatswana. I sincerely hope he is going to give us a little more detail now as to what arrangements are being made so that the people living in Soweto, Langa and elsewhere in the Republic of South Africa are not going to find themselves in limbo where they do not have the right documents and where they have to get documents belonging to Bophuthatswana within two years. Meantime they are given what is known as temporary immigration permits and these apply even to people who are born in the Republic of South Africa in Soweto, Langa and elsewhere. I sincerely hope that we are going to avoid that very complicated situation which is causing a tremendous amount of resentment among the African people in the urban areas.

The other thing that concerns me is that I see among the unresolved agreements something regarding the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Here we have a different situation from the arrangement that was made with the Transkei. I believe I am correct in saying that under the Transkeian agreement a two-year period was given during which claims for unemployment insurance could be made by persons who are now Transkeian citizens by virtue of the Status of the Transkei Act. According to No. 32 of the unresolved agreements the Government is proposing to cease payments under unemployment insurance immediately, as soon as Bophuthatswana acquires its independence. Instead we are going to pay a sum of R300 000 to get Bophuthatswana’s own unemployment fund launched. I consider that to be very poor compensation indeed. The Unemployment Insurance Fund has about R200 million in it and the people of Bophuthatswana have over the years been contributing very considerably to it when working in the urban areas. The Government contributes, the employer contributes, but the employee also contributes. To offer R300 000 to the Government of Bophuthatswana to offset all the claims that could be made by Bophuthatswana people for the work that they have done all the years that they have lived in the Republic, is niggardly to say the least of it. Here again, we are expected to vote on this today. We take the strongest exception to all these unresolved and very important matters. As far as the economic development of Bophuthatswana is concerned, we would like to know what arrangements are being made, whether there are going to be arrangements made for loans to be offered to Bophuthatswana, and what kind of conditions will be laid down, because Bophuthatswana, in acquiring independence, is giving up its share of the common wealth of the Republic of South Africa to which it has contributed a great deal. It is of course also giving up the amount of money which this Parliament has annually voted for the territory of Bophuthatswana. For us to discuss these matters in vacuo without knowing the exact details and what is in the mind of the Government and what the Government of Bophuthatswana is prepared to accept is asking a great deal of this Committee.

Mr. Chairman, in commenting on the questions that have been asked here, I want to say firstly that for the most part, the questions asked by the hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Umhlatuzana covered the same field. I want to discuss the areas of agreement first and if hon. members wish to kick up a fuss about it, they had better do so. Let us just look at what the viable, lawful Parliamentary procedure is concerning the concluding of conventions and agreements between countries including those between South Africa and other independent countries in the world. Not all of those agreements are worded, proposed, introduced and approved in this Parliament. That is not the procedure. [Interjections.] Didn’t I say hon. members would kick up a fuss about it? After all, I know them. Very important agreements, such as trade agreements and agreements on a variety of other matters, the Mozambique agreement, for example, and the labour agreement we concluded with Malawi, Rhodesia and other countries so that Black workers may come and work here in our mines, are not dealt with and approved in this Parliament. However, many of those agreements are tabled here for our information. I know that a cry will go up from the ranks of the Opposition when I use the following words, but in my opinion, I was in no way obliged to show hon. members the agreement beforehand. [Interjections.] Can you hear, Sir, how they are screaming? That is how I know them after all. But Sir, what did I do last year and what am I doing this year? Of my own free will, and in recognition of the hon. member’s right to obtain all types of information, I have made it available to them. After all, one wants to know what the position is. When one drives through Bophuthatswana, one wants to know whether one’s car licence and third party insurance will still be valid. Many questions like these are asked, often simply to kick up some political dust. That is why I made available as early as last year all the agreements that were available in draft form, and this year I have done the same. This year we had less time to prepare the agreements and make them available to all members in a fairly advanced stage of completion. That is the main reason why hon. members could not get it a few days beforehand. I am just as sorry about that as they are. I am just as sorry as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that I could not make it available to him a week or two in advance. I should have liked to have made it available to him earlier. However, I think the fact that I was able to make it available to members in the present form, in other words divided up into three categories, is better than what I was entitled to do, i.e. not to make it available at all.

Nonsense. You had no right to do that.

It is true that quite a few of them have already been approved, and by that we mean approved by the Joint Cabinet Committee. Those are the first 17 or 18 agreements. All that still has to be done to them, as with all the others, is that they will have to be formally endorsed later on during this year by representatives of the two Governments. Then there is a second category which has already been approved by the Government departments involved, the one concerning extradition for example. The Department of Justice and the Department of Police are satisfied with it and the Bophuthatswana Government is satisfied with it, but that one and the others in the same group have not yet been submitted to the Joint Cabinet Committee. Only then will it be open to full scrutiny by both parties and then it will be approved. Then there is the third group, viz. those still under discussion. Some of those which are still under discussion, do not even appear in this book. The hon. member must realize that after Bophuthatswana has become independent, we shall still be able to conclude new agreements with them over matters which may come to the fore later. In the same way, we are still concluding agreements with France, Germany and any other country today. The entering into of agreements is not a matter which has to be disposed of for all time before a certain date. Existing agreements can later be revised and new agreements may be entered into.

The hon. member for Orange Grove said: “They are here getting R54 million, but who says they will get it again next year?” I cannot understand why that hon. member is not even ashamed to display and show off his own ignorance in this way. Does the hon. member not know, then, that a law was made last year to stipulate the financial relationship between Transkei and the Republic? In the same way, legislation will also be introduced this year to stipulate the financial relationship between South Africa and the future State of Bophuthatswana. The Minister of Finance will introduce that legislation, just as he introduced similar legislation in the case of Transkei last year.

We should know about that.

I do not know what the hon. member for Houghton is forever sitting and cackling about.

You are making stupid remarks.

I find it strange that as soon as they find out how ignorant they are, they become angry with me instead of with themselves.

The hon. member has made repeated reference to the agreement on extradition, just as another hon. member kept talking about citizenship. My standpoint is that these documents were not made available for intensive discussion and approval. They are merely for information and to give the hon. member the opportunity of orienting himself. As far as the agreement on extradition is concerned, it was drawn up in its present form by our Department of Justice and subsequently submitted to the government of Bophuthatswana by the works committee, and the Bophuthatswana government accepted it as it was. Those provisions are accepted as the department requires them and as the other Government sees its way clear to complying with them. If difficulties occur such as the ones to which the hon. member referred, difficulties such as cattle theft, the hon. member should at least tell me whether he wants us to make provision in the agreement, or in some other way for this independent State, the Republic of South Africa, to have powers and rights in the other independent country in regard to cattle theft. What can we do about it? We can do only one thing about it: If difficulties occur such as the ones to which the hon. member referred, we can only renew our discussions in that regard with the State involved. South Africa has already had to hold discussions at the highest level with another State, whose name I shall not mention out of respect, concerning this very matter of cattle theft. After all, we can always talk in the future about problems which may arise. We are all people, after all, on both sides of the border. If problems crop up, we shall have to iron them out amongst ourselves and enter into new agreements in that regard.

The hon. member for Houghton objected to the issue of the lack of time. I have already discussed that matter. She also referred to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. As far as that is concerned, she is completely wide of the mark. She is playing tennis with a racquet without strings. She is hitting the ball right through the frame.

Let us hear.

Those people who become unemployed in White South Africa are covered by our legislation even if they are citizens of an independent Bophuthatswana.

I was talking about those who go back.

Mr. Chairman, will the hon. member give me a chance to speak or does she not want to hear me?

Order!

The hon. member is really ill-mannered, Sir.

Order!

Sir, I am pleased that the word “ill-mannered” is still Parliamentary.

I could not care less what you say.

This agreement concerns Tswanas who are resident within Bophuthatswana and who also work there. The position concerning them is somewhat different to that in respect of Transkei. The Chief Minister of Bophuthatswana has quite rightly made the suggestion that the existing fund make a payment to Bophuthatswana in order to help and support the fund which they will in any event have to establish in Bophuthatswana, since these people have contributed in the past or at any rate, contributions have been made on their behalf. That matter was investigated and this is the agreement that was entered into with them. It was decided that such an amount would be paid. Whether a final decision has been made on the amount, I do not know, but it is possible. If not, it will be determined sooner or later. In other words, this is really a very fine example of how we negotiate with each other and, at their request, create a different situation to that which obtained last year in the case of Transkei.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I quite understand that those people who are permanently in the Republic, Tswana citizens who are employed in the Republic, will continue to draw unemployment if they lose their employment. But I am concerned with contract workers and migrant workers, who have been coming in and out for years. The hon. the Minister himself said in reply to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana …

Their place of employment, their employer, determines who will pay.

But they are on contract and they have lost their contract.

Order!

They are employed here and they are paid here.

But they are unemployed.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! Does the hon. member intend addressing me on the agreements? If he does, I intend giving a ruling now.

Yes, I do, Sir. I want to reply to the hon. the Minister.

Order! I allowed the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and the hon. member for Houghton to refer to and to discuss the different agreements and I also allowed the hon. the Minister to reply thereto. But now I wish to read a ruling the Chairman gave last year when the House discussed the Status of the Transkei Bill. On that occasion the Chairman said (col. 8683)—

In pursuance of this ruling, I am not going to allow hon. members to discuss this matter relating to the agreements any further.

Mr. Chairman, I accept your ruling. I merely wish to say, without going into the details or merits of the agreements that have been entered into, that the hon. the Minister has sought to justify his action and that of his department in withholding from us until the last moment these agreements, by saying that the Republic of South Africa enters into a great many agreements, none of which are made available to the House of Assembly and its members. With respect, that is no answer at all. I say it is no answer for the reason that one has only to look through the index of the type of agreements that have been entered into, or are to be entered into, and the subject matters covered by those agreements, to appreciate that they are matters which in the ordinary course would not be dealt with by way of international agreements. They would be dealt with by way of legislation of this House. Because of the artificiality of the concept that we are debating, they have now to be embodied in international agreements, and that is why they are so relevant to this debate and to this Bill. This Bill, without making reference to all these agreements, would not cover the subject at all. That is why clause 5 has to be inserted to give power to and make reference to these agreements, and the people who have to implement these agreements extra-territorially. That is what this clause 5 is all about. It states that—

That is what we are talking about. That is what is being put in—the extra-territorial performance of functions by State officials in terms of these agreements. What is normally done by way of legislation is now done by way of international agreement. That is why what the hon. the Minister has said is no answer at all to our objections.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to place on record the fact that I do not agree at all with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. To say that all these agreements relate to matters which, if Bophuthatswana had not been independent, would have been decided here in this House by means of legislation, is totally incorrect. I am sorry to see that a person of the calibre of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana really does not know that yet. Many of these matters are normally dealt with administratively and by way of regulation, and are therefore never referred to Parliament. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana ought at least to know that.

Mr. Chairman, let us take a few examples. Companies, papers, trademark designs, copyright and merchandise are a few of those listed here. What we are doing is to extend the South African legislation in that regard by way of international treaty to Bophuthatswana. The question of unemployment insurance, which the hon. member for Houghton has just dealt with, compulsory motor vehicle insurance, the State Tender Board, aid in education matters, citizenship, forest technology, posts and telegraphs are among the many things included here. One can go on right through this document. It deals with matters which are specifically at this moment in time a matter of legislation, but which will, when this Bill goes through, have to be dealt with by way of international treaty.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—88: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. G; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Roux, P. C.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—29: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton. Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

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

1. (1) Every person who at the commencement of this Act is a citizen of Bophuthatswana in terms of any law and is domiciled or permanently resident in Bophuthatswana, shall be recognized as a citizen of Bophuthatswana and shall cease to be a South African citizen on that date;
2. (2) any South African citizen who voluntarily becomes a citizen of Bophuthatswana shall thereupon cease to be a South African citizen.

The effect of the amendment is to try to make the clause more real. At the present time— without going into detail as to what is in schedule B—clause 6, which deals with citizenship, is designed to embrace within the provisions of independence all persons who are in any way associated with the Tswana people. It will be seen from the schedule that we are dealing not only with the conventional idea of somebody who is born or who lives or who is domiciled in a country; it is not only such a person who is to acquire citizenship and consequently will be affected by the sovereignty and the independence to be granted. Anyone associated indirectly, either through language affiliation, or blood affiliation, or ethnic association with the Tswana people, is to become a citizen of the independent State and will accordingly lose his South African citizenship in terms of this clause.

What I have done with the amendment which I have moved, is to try to make the concept more conventional, more in accordance with accepted notions of citizenship of an independent State, by introducing the idea that independence will go with people who are domiciled or permanently resident in Bophuthatswana. I hope this will illustrate the concept that we on these benches find acceptable, that is to say, a citizenship, and indeed independence if it must go to that, for those people who are living in the territory to whom it is proposed to give sovereignty. At the present time there is an artificiality about this. I have no objection to dual citizenship and to a citizenship being granted to an identifiable community such as the Tswana people are, provided they at the same time either retain their South African citizenship or, when that is taken away, acquire an adequate substitute. In respect of those who either live or are domiciled in the territory concerned a substitute is given. However, to those who are neither living in nor domiciled in the proposed Bophuthatswana State, no adequate substitute has been given. The second part of the amendment states that “any South African citizen who voluntarily becomes a citizen of Bophuthatswana shall thereupon cease to be a South African citizen”. In other words, the amendment is framed sufficiently widely to concede that right to Tswana people in South Africa who wish to adhere to the independent State that is to come into being, despite the fact that they live or are domiciled in South Africa. That is the first aspect I should like to deal with under this clause.

The second aspect concerns subsection (3). I want the hon. the Minister to tell us what that subsection means. At Second Reading questions were asked, but the hon. the Minister, neither in his introduction nor in his reply to the Second Reading debate, gave us any clear indication as to what was intended by the insertion of subsection (3), because that subsection did not appear in the Transkei legislation. I have given it an interpretation upon which the hon. the Minister has not commented. He has neither accepted nor denied it. My interpretation is that this is merely designed to allow a person who becomes a citizen of Bophuthatswana in terms of this legislation, to renounce that citizenship and to acquire citizenship of another homeland. As I read the Bill, it is not intended to allow the reacquisition of South African citizenship. I want the hon. the Minister to tell me whether I am correct or incorrect in that regard. If I am incorrect, in what respect?

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

I want to refer to the matter the hon. member for Umhlatuzana touched on in connection with clause 6(3). It is very clear that clause 6(3) must have a specific significance because it appears in the Bill and because it does not appear in the comparable measure which we accepted last year concerning Transkei.

We have asked the hon. the Minister for an explanation of this matter. He pointed out at the beginning of his Second Reading speech that a new provision had been introduced here and that in that sense, the Bill differed from the one relating to Transkei which we accepted. The hon. the Minister was asked whether, in terms of the provisions of clause 6(3) of the Bill, this would mean that if the procedure was agreed on by the two Governments and if anyone was allowed to surrender his Bophuthatswana citizenship, he would automatically get his South African citizenship back. The hon. the Minister evaded that particular question by saying that negotiations still had to be conducted and that the entire machinery still had to be put into operation. Therefore, the hon. the Minister did not furnish us with a reply to that particular question.

I think the Committee is entitled to a clear answer relating to that matter. It seems to me that basically clause 6(3) of the Bill can relate to two categories of people. Falling into the one category, there are the Tswana citizens who have Bophuthatswana citizenship in terms of the measure. The second category comprises non-Tswanas, people who are for the time being still resident in Bophuthatswana, but who, after independence—despite the fact that they were domiciled there during independence—will say that they are not Tswanas, that they do not want Tswana citizenship but are Xhosas, Vendas or Bapedis and consequently would rather obtain citizenship of another homeland. Those are the two main categories.

It seems to me that these are also two possibilities for those two main groups. If a fully-fledged Tswana wishes to renounce his Bophuthatswana citizenship and this is granted to him, what is his legal position? He is then completely stateless in terms of the provisions of the Bill, because he is automatically deprived of his South African citizenship. He is therefore no longer a citizen of Bophuthatswana, because he has renounced his citizenship in terms of the requirements of clause 6(3) of the Bill as well as in terms of the agreements which have been concluded between the two Governments, but then he is not a citizen of the Republic of South Africa either because he has also been divested of that citizenship in terms of the provisions of the Bill. If those people who are not Tswanas were to renounce their citizenship, the possibility would in fact exist that they would be able to obtain citizenship of another homeland. I do not know how such a person could obtain citizenship of another homeland if he did not first become a citizen of the Republic of South Africa once again. Even if he were able to obtain the citizenship of another homeland without simultaneously holding citizenship of the Republic of South Africa, then surely that would mean that as far as those homelands were concerned, two types of citizenship would exist. For example, the citizens of Lebowa, apart from these people, therefore have a double citizenship, in the sense that they are citizens of both Lebowa and the Republic of South Africa. If those people (from Bophuthatswana) were to become citizens of Lebowa only, then a third category of citizenship would be created. Such a person would therefore be penalized in that he would only be a citizen of Lebowa and not—like all the other citizens of Lebowa—a citizen of both the Republic of South Africa and Lebowa. It was in view of those circumstances that I moved my amendment. I associate myself completely with the remark made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana about the other definitions of citizenship, as set out in his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say something about the comments which the hon. members have made. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said that the amendment he had moved was much more realistic. I am afraid, however, that it is not more realistic. The hon. member is mistaken in saying that because the result of his amendment will be that whilst Tswanas within the Bophuthatswana Republic will be citizens of that country, those Tswanas who are now in the White areas of the Republic of South Africa will not automatically be given such citizenship upon independence in terms of the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act. In terms of the second part of his amendment, they would first have to make an application in order to get it. This amendment of the hon. member is therefore a very unrealistic one, because he would make all the Tswanas who are now in the White area immediately lose their Tswana links and they would have to apply for them one by one. It is an existing right of privilege of the Tswanas in the White area of South Africa to be citizens of Bophuthatswana in that territory’s present constitutional status and they would therefore lose that right. He would create a vacuum as far as those people were concerned and then they would first have to apply for citizenship.

If such a situation were to be created, it would also clash with the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act, because in terms of that Act, all those Black people are grouped into one or other nation. As far as the Tswanas are concerned, the hon. member’s amendment would make this provision invalid for those who lived within the White areas in South Africa. Although the hon. member said he was moving the amendment to be realistic, it is for the very same reason, namely to be realistic, that I am unable to accept it.

The hon. member asked what the purpose of clause 6(3) was and I think the hon. member for Edenvale asked that same question. Clause 6(3) was not in the first draft of the Bill which was discussed with the Government of Bophuthatswana. At that time, the present clause 6(4) was clause 6(3). A request was made by the Cabinet of Bophuthatswana that a provision be inserted in the Bill which dealt with the renunciation of citizenship by a citizen of independent Bophuthatswana after independence had been obtained.

We discussed that matter very thoroughly in Cape Town on 25 April in the joint Cabinet Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. the Prime Minister, and the representatives of Bophuthatswana. After very lengthy and thorough discussions in that regard, discussions which were difficult at times, that provision was agreed on. I have the agreement here as it was entered into by the two parties, and the wording is precisely the same as that of clause 6(3) of the Bill. If I were asked why it was different to the case of Transkei, I could reply by saying that the independence laws of the various homelands need not necessarily be the same. In a subsequent case, there could possibly be a departure on a different point. In this case, however, discussions were held and this agreement was made as a result of a point raised by the Chief Minister of Bophuthatswana—on behalf of his Cabinet, I presume. Now, the hon. member for Edenvale has asked me a few other questions arising out of that. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana has asked me about it as well. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana asked me whether it was now intended to give someone from Bophuthatswana the chance to become a citizen of another homeland. We do not have such a specific goal in mind in this regard. The hon. member should take careful note of the wording. The words used in the Bill are “on conditions agreed on” between the two Governments. In other words, the person may renounce his citizenship on conditions agreed upon between the two Governments. The very fact that this Government is involved in that it states that there must be an agreement between the two Governments, shows that this Government may become involved in the future position of those persons in one way or another. Those conditions are very important and not all of them have as yet been formulated by the two Governments.

It looks like a trick to me.

A trick? No, I think it is a feeble mind which has just woken up at the back there against the wall. As I said, those things were drafted about four weeks ago and since then we have discussed them with each other and have begun negotiations. At the moment, negotiations in this regard between the two parties are in progress. Therefore, I cannot say yet what the actual conditions will be or what type of conditions will be contained in them.

The hon. member for Edenvale asked me about one specific example. I am going to give him a good answer to that. He asked whether South African citizenship could be obtained automatically. In fact, he then moved an amendment which would establish that position. I want to tell the hon. member that up to now, our Government has adopted the standpoint that there will not be such automatic recovery—let us put it that way—of South African citizenship. What the conditions will comprise, is still an open question. That is the standpoint we have adopted so far in relation to this question by the hon. member.

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

I am still busy. I shall reply to the question presently. The hon. member can wait a little while.

As I have said, the hon. member for Edenvale moved an amendment which made provision for such recovery. But this, of course, also clashes with South Africa’s Citizenship Act in general. It forces such a person into South African citizenship against the provisions of our Act. What the sum total of the provisions to be agreed upon will be, I cannot say at this stage. They have not yet been finalized. Whether it will entail an amendment of the Act regulating Bantu citizenship, or the South African Citizenship Act, I cannot say at this stage. That will depend on the final conditions which we are now negotiating and which we shall finalize with each other.

As far as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is concerned, there is one point I forgot to which I just want to refer. Fortunately, it has now occurred to me. I want to deal with it before I reply to the question awaiting me. I want to refer to the subsection (2) of the hon. member’s amendment. I think it is actually unnecessary because that issue is covered by paragraph (c) of schedule B, except that paragraph (c) reads “at least five years” whilst the subsection which the hon. member is proposing, does not contain a five year qualification.

The hon. member for Yeoville may now ask his question.

Mr. Chairman, the question I want to ask the hon. the Minister is, firstly, whether he is saying that there is an agreement between himself and the Bophuthatswana Government and that it is incorporated in this statute and, secondly, if there is not finality in respect of the question of citizenship, does he think it right and proper to continue with this legislation?

Mr. Chairman, there are really two aspects of agreement between us as far as this matter is concerned. One of them is the agreement in the series of examples which lays how the board is to be constituted, how it will operate and how many members will serve on the board, i.e. the board which will deal with disputes. Then there is the agreement, as the hon. member named it—it is indeed an agreement—concerning the present wording of clause 6(3). Thus the two parties agreed on 25 April that the Bill ought to be introduced on that basis. Subsequently, the Chief Minister of Bophuthatswana asked that we begin by telling him what we thought the conditions could be in terms of clause 6(3). We are holding those negotiations at present. I do not see how this could prejudice the continued passage of the Bill here.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the hon. the Minister’s reaction to the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. The hon. the Minister will agree with me that the position of the affected people is that at present they hold South African citizenship and are also citizens of Bophuthatswana to the extent that Bophuthatswana citizenship was conferred on them by the legislation of 1970. At the time of the 1970 legislation the hon. the Minister gave reasons why the system of dual citizenship was being introduced. I shall deal with that later. We are dealing in this clause with South African citizenship. The legislation concerning South African citizenship specifically provides in what circumstances a South African may lose his South African citizenship. Loss of South African citizenship basically and almost entirely comes about through a voluntary act on the part of a South African who is a citizen by virtue of his birth.

In other words, in terms of the Act loss of citizenship can arise if a person, whilst outside the Republic, by a voluntary and formal act acquires the nationality of another country. That is an act on the part of the citizen himself. A person may also lose his citizenship if he himself renounces his South African citizenship. Furthermore, he may lose his citizenship as a result of a long period of residence outside of the Republic. The one category of persons who can have their citizenship taken away from them, and then only in certain specified circumstances, are those who have acquired South African citizenship by registration or naturalization.

What the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is attempting to do, as I understand it, is to see that the law which is current in South Africa is applied to White and Black, including the Tswana people. In other words, he wants the same yardstick to be applied to both as regards the loss of citizenship. When it comes to the act of voluntarily renouncing South African citizenship, I believe there is real substance in what the hon. member has suggested in the first part of his amendment. It can be argued, at any rate, that those Tswanas who in terms of the Bill are resident in the State-to-be, have through their own Government renounced their South African citizenship. Their Government has acted as agent for them. The homeland Government itself, in asking for independence, has acted as agent for those who are resident in the State itself. However, by no stretch of the imagination can it be argued that the homeland Government has acted as agent for the persons, defined as Tswanas, who are outside the State to be proclaimed. The hon. the Minister was very clear when he distinguished in 1970 between citizenship and nationality. In 1970 the hon. the Minister said—

It was for that reason that dual citizenship rights were granted. But the one was merely regarded as membership of a Bantu nation. Then we get the reasoning which makes it so difficult to accept the clause as it is without the amendment of the hon. member. The hon. the Minister then went on to say that these certificates and the identification of the Bantu persons concerned were purely for political reasons. He went on to say and I quote—

That was not self-determination. That was now another yardstick to be applied to certain persons because of their national identity—I call it “national identity” and not “colour identity” or “race identity”—a different yardstick from that which is applied to the Whites. The hon. the Minister says that the voluntary assumption of citizenship of Bophuthatswana for the 60% of Tswanas who do not live in that territory at the present time will be a long business. That may be so, but I think it is important that we should not be seen, either in South Africa or elsewhere, to be applying a different yardstick as between persons of different racial communities in South Africa, or different nations, as the hon. the Minister wishes to call them. This clause should therefore be amended to read that the loss of citizenship for the Tswana who is not living in the territory will only arise when he renounces his South African citizenship.

The two should be linked. If we did that, we would be able to avoid the criticisms which can legitimately be levelled against us, that we are using double standards when dealing with the question of deprivation of citizenship.

I do not have to stress the fact to the hon. the Minister that we in South Africa have always taken a very careful stance with regard to the granting of citizenship in this country. We have also been very careful to protect the rights of citizenship of those who have become citizens of South Africa. I need only refer to the long procedure that has to be followed in terms of our laws which are administered by the Department of the Interior if a foreigner wishes to acquire South African citizenship. It is a long procedure to be followed so as to make sure that the people who come here and intend to become citizens are of good standing and intend to become involved in and to owe loyalty to this country. I ask the hon. the Minister: Without this amendment, what is he doing to the State of Bophuthatswana? He is saying to that State: “You will have your resident citizens, but 60% of the people whom we, the White Parliament, have defined as citizens of Bophuthatswana, are going to be made citizens of your country. Whether they want to go there, whether they are going to be loyal to your country, whether or not they have any interest in building up your country, we are going to impose them on Bophuthatswana as citizens”. I wonder what the hon. the Minister would do if the persons of some other country were to be offered to us en bloc and we were told that we must take these people, that they are ours, that they must be given citizenship and that they must have those rights. I hope the hon. the Minister will think again on this amendment and at least give that aspect of renunciation, which is the right of every citizen of South Africa today, except the Xhosa, another thought. At this very moment every citizen in South Africa has the right to retain his citizenship until he renounces or loses it under the specific statutory provisions which are contained in the Citizenship Act. I do not believe it is right or in the interests of South Africa that we should depart from that and apply, as I have said before, a double standard because of the nationality, grouping, or community identity of the different persons concerned.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when we come to clause 6 and its various subsections, we come to one of the major reasons why those of us in these benches refuse to support the legislation which is before the House. In the debate on the Transkei Bill last year I referred to the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act, No. 26 of 1970, and quoted section 2(4) of the Act. I quote it again, because it is relevant to this debate as well—

What we are doing here, in this clause of this legislation, is to arbitrarily remove citizenship which is being held by hundreds of thousands of Tswanas who are living in the Republic of South Africa. In other words, whilst we are deeply sympathetic towards Chief Mangope and his Government in their decision to accept and ask for independence, we simply cannot, on the basis of the present legislation, accept the terms of this independence. Here, when we come to the question of citizenship, we come to one of the main reasons for our opposition to this legislation.

When one looks at what happened in Transkei last year, and when one reads the words of some of those who experienced that independence, one has every reason to be cynical. I quote now Prof. Njisane, the Transkeian Ambassador to South Africa. He said earlier this year that Transkeians carrying valid Transkei travel documents were subjected to influx control laws by “a bunch of officials who sadistically delight in saying: ‘So, you think you are independent,’ and threw the Transkei travel documents back in their faces”. He went on to say—

Furthermore, I have had on occasion, people who have contacted me with their problems. I remember, for example, of one instance, and I want to refer to it now. There is a woman who has lived in Cape Town for 27 years—she was originally born in the Transkei, but came here as a child. A couple of years ago she applied to go overseas on a scholarship, and she was given a South African passport. On her return that passport was taken away from her. When she asked to travel again—to the United States on this occasion—her application for a passport was referred back to her and she was told that she should apply for Transkei travel documents. Knowing full well that no country has ever recognized the Transkei, one can understand the grave difficulties this woman experienced in travelling at all. Secondly, she has refused the scholarship because she knows and is afraid that if she should accept this and get special documents, she is not sure whether, on her return, she would be allowed to stay in Cape Town. She might even be removed to the Transkei altogether.

The point I am making here is that there is a tremendous amount of unhappiness and unsettlement amongst many people who do not really know where they belong and who they are as a result of what has happened. What we are talking about here indicates once again the real object of this legislation. We were reminded yesterday by the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke that there was a golden thread moving through all the history of the NP, leading to this moment. [Interjections.] I want to suggest that there is another golden thread, a Machiavellian cord if you like, which goes right through NP policy, and with specific reference to separate development. The name of that thread is: The end justifies the means. [Interjections.] Whatever the means might be, because of the end in view, namely White survival, it matters not what it does to hundreds and thousands of other people. [Interjections.]

What we have here is an act of grand larceny. People are losing their citizenship by fiat of this Government. What it is, is a moral abduction.

What does the Bophuthatswana Government have to say about citizenship? We are told, in a newspaper clipping from the Rand Daily Mail of 2 August 1976 that Mr. Mangope’s men reject the Homelands Citizenship Act. The report went on to say this—

And I am quoting what Chief Mangope said. Chief Mangope adopted the same uncompromizing stand on citizenship—

What does he believe in? Concerning clause 6(3), the hon. the Minister told us earlier on that our Government and the Government of Bophuthatswana had yet to come to an agreement as to what it really means. Yet we are asked in this House to pass this legislation. I want to quote from a letter, dated 23 May 1977, from the Cabinet of Bophuthatswana—

There is no doubt whatsoever in the minds of Chief Mangope and his colleagues as to what clause 6(3) means. The letter reads further—

It would be an act of extreme irresponsibility on the part of the Government of South Africa and the Government of Bophuthatswana to agree on the principle of the renunciation of the citizenship of Bophuthatswana, as, in fact, we do in clause 6(3), in order to create a status of statelessness of such people. I want to quote one final paragraph of the letter—

Here is a very profound, definite warning and statement to this hon. House. We are told that the leader of the Bophuthatswana Government, backed by his entire Cabinet, is not prepared to go ahead with independence on the present terms as negotiated by the Government and the Government of Bophuthatswana, unless an amendment is made. Yet, when the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and the hon. member for Edenvale move specific amendments which will give effect to this, they are turned down by the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister tells us in the vaguest of terms that clause 6(3) and the conditions relating to it have still to be worked out. What it amounts to is that Chief Mangope and his Cabinet are not prepared to accept the verbal or written assurances of the Government, but rather want to see legislation enacted. [Time expired.]

Firstly, Mr. Chairman, I want to react to the hon. the Minister’s reply to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. The hon. the Minister said he could not accept the amendment for two basic reasons. One was that it would mean that the people who are at present Tswana citizens in terms of the present definition of the legislation, would automatically no longer be Tswana citizens. The hon. the Minister argued that on that basis, he could not accept the amendment. In relation to the second part of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, the reason the hon. the Minister put forward was that this would mean that it would clash with the existing legislation on South African citizenship. As far as the first point is concerned, I can only say that it is not the Government of Bophuthatswana that is introducing the Bill. [Interjections.] A matter to which the hon. the Minister should give just as much consideration, is the fact that in terms of this Bill, those people who are domiciled outside Bophuthatswana will automatically lose their South African citizenship. Therefore, if the argument may be used in respect of those Tswanas who automatically lose their Tswana citizenship, then surely it also holds true a fortiori for those people who, in terms of this legislation, will automatically be deprived of their South African citizenship. After all, this is not an argument which a thinking person could put forward in reply to the proposal made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana.

Secondly, the fact that the existing South African legislation relating to citizenship provides that if a person complies with certain procedures and requirements under particular circumstances, he may receive citizenship, is really not relevant. If Parliament provides in this legislation that a person will automatically be given back his South African citizenship if he forfeits his Bophuthatswana citizenship, then surely this Bill is valid. Why, then, does the hon. the Minister refer to other legislation relating to South African citizenship? I wonder whether the hon. the Minister thinks we are a group of children when he advances this type of argument.

I moved that clause 6(3) be amended so that whenever a citizen of Bophuthatswana renounces his Bophuthatswana citizenship in terms of the procedures mentioned in clause 6, he will automatically be given back his South African citizenship. If we do not do this, the result will be that we shall have stateless people. Statelessness is caused by this legislation and not by Bophuthatswana’s legislation. This Bill deprives all those people of their South African citizenship. Hence our justifiable proposal that those people should automatically get back their South African citizenship under those circumstances.

It is very clear from the hon. the Minister’s reply that he is not prepared to accept my amendment. For that reason I am grateful to the hon. member for Pinelands for stating Bophuthatswana’s standpoint very clearly, viz. that they are not prepared at this stage to continue with the concept of independence on that basis. That is very clear from what the hon. member quoted. I want to quote from a letter which was addressed to the South African Government on behalf of the Cabinet of Bophuthatswana—not only on behalf of the Chief Minister.

Order! The hon. member must not go too far and discuss the principle once again.

I am not discussing the principle, Mr. Chairman; I am quoting from the letter—

The letter goes on to say—

The letter goes on to say—

It is very clear from this that the Cabinet of Bophuthatswana says that unless clarity is gained on the point that these people will be given back their South African citizenship, they are not prepared to accept independence. That is why I asked the hon. the Minister earlier what would happen in respect of this legislation if the Bophuthatswana Government and the South African Government were unable to reach an agreement. I offered the hon. the Minister a way out of the situation by means of the amendment which I moved to clause 6(3). If the hon. the Minister is prepared to accept the amendment, that particular point of difference may be removed from the negotiations between the Bophuthatswana Cabinet and the South African Government.

Mr. Chairman, this is the third time that the hon. the Minister has purported to deal with the question in regard to clause 6(3) and it is the third time that he has evaded giving the House an answer. I am going to continue with it and at every stage of the proceedings I am going to question the hon. the Minister on this point until we get a clear answer from him. The hon. the Minister says that in respect of clause 6(3) he is still negotiating with the Bophuthatswana Government. That may be so, but what I want to know is what is in the mind of the hon. the Minister when he approaches the negotiating table. What is the point of view that he wishes to get accepted at these negotiations? Is it that the clause has been included in order to permit the resumption of South African citizenship by those Tswanas domiciled or resident in South Africa who have had their citizenship removed by this Bill, or is it not? The question is quite clear. Does the hon. the Minister anticipate that the negotiations will result in that being permitted, or does the hon. the Minister approach the negotiating table with the point of view that this is merely to allow flexibility in regard to the acquisition of homeland citizenship other than that of Bophuthatswana? The question is perfectly clear, and it has been asked at every stage of the proceedings. This is the only clause in the Bill that we have not seen before. One does not introduce a new clause unless there is a reason for doing so. The letter that was written giving the point of view of the Bophuthatswana Government was read by various hon. members in the House and I do not propose going into the matter again. The matter is, however, of cardinal principle, because in the earlier part of the clause we are compulsorily taking away South African citizenship from people who are South Africans at the moment, who are domiciled South African citizens. They are not foreigners living in a different State, but domiciled South African citizens who will lose their citizenship and who will acquire another citizenship, because they are notionally, by virtue of their ability to speak the Tswana language, associated with that territory. The Tswana language is not even their home language, but a notional association is made simply because of the language that is spoken. So what is the intention of the hon. the Minister in respect of clause 6(3) of this Bill? I expect him at least to be candid in that regard and not to hide the facts of the situation from us any longer.

Mr. Chairman, one of the matters which concerns us is whether the hon. the Minister has looked at some of the national conventions which exist in respect of the statelessness of individuals. Perhaps the hon. the Minister should try to listen when matters with which he is concerned, are being debated. I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that within a very short while this House is going to discuss matters which are of international importance, matters in which the issue of human rights is fundamental. What is one of these human rights? It is the right to have a citizenship. I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the convention on the reduction of statelessness …

Order! The hon. member is going too far now; we are not discussing the principles of the Bill. [Interjections.]

Hon. members can shout as much as they want, I have a right to speak. I am not speaking on the principle, Sir. I am talking to the amendments that have been moved and the implication of those amendments on the exercise of human rights. I am going to draw attention to the fact that there are three international conventions in terms of which the issue of human rights relates to citizenship and these amendments. I think that is relevant. May I continue?

The hon. member may proceed.

The first of these conventions is the convention of the reduction of statelessness. If we want to be part of the world community of human rights, we have to look at this. One of the provisions of this convention—article 9—provides that a contracting State may not deprive a person or group of persons of their nationality on race, ethnic, religious or political grounds. Article 10 provides that every treaty between contracting States providing for the transfer of territory, shall include the provisions designed to secure that no person shall become stateless as a result of a transfer. There are other conventions, e.g. the Declaration of Human Rights and the American Convention of Human Rights—all of which relate to the right of the individual to citizenship. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he, during the Second Reading debate, did not disclose to this House that he had received such a letter from the Cabinet of Bophuthatswana? Why did he not disclose it? Why did he not tell us that the whole issue of independence for Bophuthatswana was at stake? [Interjections.] Why did he not tell us?

Order!

Why did he not tell us? He keeps quiet about it. When I ask him he says there are discussions and the question may be raised during the Committee Stage, when the truth of the matter is that the whole issue of independence for Bophuthatswana relates to two matters: the question of land and the question of citizenship. Both of these could prove fatal to the issue of independence. But he does not disclose it. He keeps it back, and does not take this House into his confidence. I do not believe that is the kind of conduct that we must expect from an hon. Minister of the Government in this House. [Interjections.] What do we have? We have a situation in terms of which he knows that this whole issue may result in there not being independence in December, because of his intransigence and because of his refusal to accept the kind of amendments that are being moved by the hon. member for Edenvale and the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. He jeopardizes the whole issue and does not take the House into his confidence.

The truth is that the hon. the Minister has no right to go on with this piece of legislation. We cannot move that progress be reported and that leave be asked to sit again. However, I ask him to do that to resolve the question of citizenship for the Government of Bophuthatswana and then to come back to this House with a piece of legislation that he knows can result in the independence of Bophuthatswana. Until he does that, he has no moral right to ask this House to approve of this legislation or to use the massive majority that he has behind him in order to steam-roller this legislation through. This hon. Minister needs to explain to the country why he kept back this letter from the public of South Africa, why he kept the facts back from the public of South Africa and why he has not taken them into his confidence.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry—and I think the whole House ought to be sorry—to have to witness hon. members opposite conducting themselves this afternoon more with an eye on the gallery than on the matter in hand. With a view to the many people who are watching this terrible spectacle of his, the hon. member for Yeoville would do well to try to suppress his already notorious capriciousness. The hon. member would do well to try to listen to me as I have listened to him. If he does not find himself able to do so, there are many things he will have to relearn, amongst other things quite a bit about civilized practices. The hon. member is well-known for that kind of conduct. Before he is very much older, however, he should try to mend his ways.

The hon. member said a few atrocious things here. The very first thing I want to do is to reply to those aspects. He is a legal man, or at least that is what I have heard. To judge by what he says, however, there is very little to convince one that he thinks or acts like a legal man. I do not know where he developed his talents, but we certainly do not have the benefit of those talents.

Speak about the merits!

The hon. member ought to know that I am the one who is speaking and not he. The hon. member cannot even read clause 6(3) correctly, or perhaps he does not want to read or understand it correctly. The wording of clause 6(3) is very wide in its scope and gives our Government and the Bophuthatswana Government the right to negotiate with each other on all manner of conditions. There is no need whatsoever to settle the conditions before the end of the Parliamentary session this year. Those conditions can be settled after this session, and once agreement has been reached about them, and an agreement has been entered into with them in terms of clause 6(3), we can work according to that agreement.

[Inaudible.]

It seems to me the hon. member there at the back had too good a lunch—with everything that entails—between one and two.

Deal with the merits. Do not be afraid!

There is one thing the hon. member can be certain about: Never in my life have I scared easily. The provisions of clause 6(3) are broad in their scope so that any relevant conditions can be included in our agreements, and there is no necessity or requirement that this should specifically be done before the end of the present Parliamentary session or that it should be done before the Bill is passed. The hon. member for Yeoville is not listening to me; he is talking to his friends. I am now going to reply to him in detail, but he is talking to his friends. He is too discourteous to listen to me. A little later, however, he will jump up and ask the same questions over and over again. Then one will have to repeat everything merely because he is chatting now.

You are talking an untruth.

The hon. member must realize that he is in the Parliament of South Africa and that he is under the watchful eye of the voters. He is not with his circle of friends where he can do what he likes.

Beware!

Of whom must I beware? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville does not even know that.

Leave my family out of it!

The hon. member does not stop talking. I want to tell the hon. member that one of the rules of the House, of which he is apparently unaware, is that an hon. member may not threaten another hon. member. He wants to threaten me here, however.

The conditions we can negotiate with the Chief Minister and Cabinet of Bophuthatswana can be negotiated with them after this Parliamentary session and we can then act in accordance with those conditions. If, after they have gained independence, it appears that those conditions must be revised and adapted to prevailing circumstances, we can do so— even after they have gained independence! This provision does not impose a time limit. This provision was drawn up after consultation, and not with the kind of ballyhoo we have witnessed here from the hon. member for Yeoville. I have already told the Chief Minister that the provision is wide enough in its scope to have the conditions designed, adapted and re-adapted within the compass of the provision. We can re-adapt them even after Bophuthatswana has become independent. It is a pliable, dynamic provision, something hon. members on the other side of the House know, even if the hon. member for Yeoville acts as if he does not. He does not want to know it. He thinks he can frighten us here with his threats and the games he plays here in Parliament.

That is such an obvious trick—it will not work.

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must stop making interjections now. If he makes one more interjection, I shall send him out. The hon. the Minister may continue.

The hon. member for Yeoville palmed off a lot more nonsense on us here. He dishes up the nonsense here and we are supposed to swallow it. He spoke here about the “conventions on statelessness”. Where, in this Bill, is any statelessness created?

Yes, in your own legislation.

There is no statelessness created in this Bill. Mr. Chairman, there the hon. member is making an interjection. Must I react to that? I could not hear what he said and I therefore cannot speak about it. Do you perhaps want to react to it?

Make your speech.

Mr. Chairman, I repeat : This Bill creates no statelessness. Neither will we lay down any conditions that will lead to statelessness. I ask you, would we do such an idiotic thing? We lay down conditions to create understanding between Governments, to create order, regularity and certain procedures. The procedures can be prescribed by regulation. The hon. member must read clause 6(3). They can only be prescribed by Bophuthatswana. The problem is that hon. members do not read and analyse the words. They do not look at the implications of the words. They merely come along and kick up a fuss here because they think they can attract a great deal of attention by what they have to say. Hon. members merely demonstrate their ignorance and obstructionism—that is all they demonstrate here.

The hon. member for Yeoville asked me to leave everything, first to negotiate and then to come back with the Bill at a later stage. What utter nonsense! I have pointed out clearly that it is not necessary at all. It is not necessary because clauses 6(3) is wide enough in its scope to give us all the necessary mobility. The hon. member also said: “There may not be independence in December.” Where does the hon. member get that from?

Read your own letter.

I know more than is contained in that letter. The hon. member must realize that I am in the process of negotiating with that Government. I am not going to have the privileged conditions of our negotiations with the Bophuthatswana Cabinet fall prey to hon. Opposition members in this House. I want the hon. member to know that. One must know what swine one is casting one’s pearls before.

Why did you withhold your letter?

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not think that the hon. member for Yeoville is fairly thick-skinned? [Interjections.]

Order!

I wish he were even more thick-skinned.

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

I am reluctant to pay any more attention to that hon. member, but he may put his question because I am a bigger democrat than he is.

Will the hon. the Minister tell us why he did not present us with that letter during the Second Reading debate on the Bill?

That letter was not sent to me to read out to Parliament. It was sent to me so that we, as a Cabinet and a Government, could take note of it. I informed the Cabinet about what that letter contained.

That is not what the letter says.

That hon. member must worry about his own affairs and not about mine. I think I can leave the hon. member for Yeoville there for the moment.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Green Point who spoke with greater calmness before lunch. I think the hon. member for Green Point also made use of this debate, however, to raise quite a few uncalled for political arguments—for political gain and not to benefit this cause. I want to tell the hon. member, and other hon. members as well, that we serve no good cause by speaking about this subject in such a way as to confuse everyone who has an interest in the matter, and in particular those who are involved. That is the way in which the hon. members of the Opposition, and specifically the small PRP group, aim at creating confusion. We know in what quarters of the world the sowing of confusion is a very strong political ploy, and hon. members of the PRP use it too. It is a very reprehensible thing to do, particularly in respect of the Black people who look at this legislation, not only the people of Bophuthatswana, but everyone. It is the same technique that was used last year.

The hon. member for Green Point spoke of the dual citizenship—as he called it—of Black people in South Africa.

Since 1970.

The hon. member ought surely to know that strictly according to the letter of international law it is not dual citizenship. The legislation regulating the Bantu’s membership of their respective peoples does not, in terms of international law, create citizenship or nationality of a country, as in the case of South Africa, France or Germany; in other words, it is incorrect, in the ordinary sense of the word, to call it dual citizenship. Those Black peoples, of which they are citizens—being so called—are not independent peoples. It is therefore not full and equal dual citizenship. Surely the hon. member knows that. Why does he then present such a picture? He knows it. It is an identification with that people. The hon. member would do well to refer to my speech of 1970. In that speech I said it was potential full citizenship we were creating there in an embryonic form and that it could later grow to full-fledged citizenship, which is, in fact, what Bophuthatswana is now going to have and what Transkei had last year. It is an embryonic citizenship of their peoples and of their homeland that grows into full-fledged citizenship. It is a unique position we have created in South Africa and is not dual citizenship in the ordinary sense of the word. The hon. member ought to know that. He would do well to think about that for a while.

I must hurry. I want to point out that we are dealing here with a special position as far as Bophuthatswana’s independence is concerned, as was the case last year with Transkei, and that is why we specifically mention this question of the loss of South African citizenship in the Bill. We do not want them to lose their citizenship in terms of the other Act the hon. member referred to. We are doing it in a special way because this is linked up with these benefits, privileges and this political development of Bophuthatswana. The hon. member, of course, does not want this because he places these matters in a totally different political framework.

I also want to react briefly to what the hon. member for Pinelands said. He actually said little to which I need reply. He said he objected to the House having to approve clause 6(3) before the conditions had been finalized. What right has he to say that? That is not required by the legislation. We are not even compelled, as is frequently the case with proclamation legislation or other matters, to have the said conditions tabled. Those conditions are left completely to the two Cabinets. Why must I give prior account of those conditions, as if they were static? As I have said earlier, they are evolutionary and subject to future development, even after independence.

That is not what Chief Mangope thinks.

That is a completely wrong approach on the part of the hon. member. As I have already said, that provision is, in any case, wide enough in its scope as far as the relevant conditions are concerned.

I now want to turn to the hon. member for Edenvale. I feel I must say something about him. The hon. member, of course, repeated everything he said before lunch, the whole lot of it. I really do not think I should waste the time of the House and try hon. members’ patience by repeating everything I have said in reply to the hon. member for Edenvale’s argument. I have replied to all that. However, the hon. member elaborated on the letter from the Bophuthatswana Government. He got hold of the letter somewhere. That letter concerns a matter between the two relevant Governments and I know what my responsibility in that matter is. The hon. the Prime Minister is also involved in the matter because he is the chairman of the Joint Cabinet Committee of the Cabinets of Bophuthatswana and the Republic. He knows his responsibilities and knows how to handle the matter.

Really, in spite of his professorial background I would not like to call on the hon. member for Edenvale’s help in connection with that letter.

Why not? [Interjections.]

Why not? Because I know that I do not want to be helped from the frying pan into the fire. The hon. member must leave the matter to us. It is our task to negotiate and we shall do it to the best of our ability. I can assure the hon. member that we shall settle the matter for the good of all the parties concerned. I want to make it very clear to the hon. member, and I think he knows it by this time, that we are not going to consider accepting his amendment to clause 6(3). That is the subsection that makes provision for the automatic regaining of citizenship. We are not going to meddle with clause 6(3). We shall investigate the conditions in terms of the provision of clause 6(3). There is the greatest possible manoeuvrability and the greatest possible room for an investigation in terms of the relevant subsection. A wide range of possibilities is created whereby the two Governments can mutually agree on the relevant conditions. I leave the matter at that. As I said before lunch, after we have entered into that agreement with each other, and if it should become apparent that certain Acts must be amended—it could be any Acts that have to be amended—we shall always be found willing to amend such Acts. There will be enough time for that. The hon. member must not anticipate events and try to get me into a corner with theoretical arguments.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana asked me a question. He wanted to know what conditions were envisaged. He said he would go on asking me questions about that. He is free to do so. He can ask ten, twenty, thirty or even one hundred questions—I shall give him the same answer every time. The conditions have to be negotiated between the representatives of this Cabinet and those of the Cabinet of Bophuthatswana. This is not something I shall drag across the floor of the House for the benefit of the Opposition and for the sake of having it abused by them before I … [Interjections.] It is abuse. I am not going to drag those things across the floor of the House before I have had the opportunity of discussing them confidentially with the Cabinet of Bophuthatswana. That is as it should be. I shall make sure that I know my manners as far as the representatives of the Bophuthatswana Cabinet are concerned.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Sir, when I wished the hon. the Prime Minister luck last week in his talks with Vice-President Mondale in Vienna, I knew that this would be an important occasion. However, I must say that I did not realize that it would engender quite the international and national interest that it did. The meeting has attracted a great deal of coverage through the media, not only of South Africa, but of many other countries of the world. I think the message these reports convey is necessarily and understandably incomplete and it is therefore right that the hon. the Prime Minister should have been invited to take this early opportunity to inform Parliament, and therefore the nation, of the true import and probable consequences of this encounter. It is quite clear that the talks were directed primarily at the affairs of Southern Africa. Those affairs today occupy a highly significant sector of the Free World-Communist world conflict which is raging at present. They fit into the inescapable context of the Free World’s own ultimate security.

As I read the signs it would seem that the long protracted issue of South West Africa promises to be moving towards a solution that may yet be widely accepted. The questions surrounding further progress to self-government and to independence of the Territory do not appear to have engendered insurmountable difficulties in Vienna. The echoes from Windhoek in recent weeks seem to indicate that there is a new readiness to resolve some of the remaining difficulties. I am sure Parliament will be grateful, and there will be world-wide relief and relief throughout the country, if the hon. the Prime Minister is able to confirm that that is indeed the case and that we can look forward to a final healing of what has for so long been a running sore in our international relations.

It is unfortunately not as easy as all that.

That is what we hope to find out this afternoon.

So far as Rhodesia is concerned, the signs of rapid progress towards an acceptable solution seem to be less promising, but nevertheless not quite without hope. It seems that there are indications of a more realistic international appraisal of the actual issues involved and of the necessity to create a secure and constructive environment within which the parties may move essentially towards conciliation.

The role of the United States, in concert with the United Kingdom, appears to have contributed to this development and it is to be hoped that their influence will continue to be directed not only to the settlement of Rhodesia’s internal difficulties, but also to the non-intervention of some of Rhodesia’s more militant neighbours. I think that is a necessary corollary. On this score also, and in respect of the prospects for future progress, we hope that the hon. the Prime Minister is able to give us a message of reassurance in consequence of his discussions with Mr. Mondale in Vienna.

As regards South Africa itself, the best available sources seem to indicate that Vice-President Mondale directed his efforts more to the presentation of a case than to the conduct of detailed negotiations. It has been suggested that the manner in which he did so did little towards achieving real solutions of the complex problems with which we are concerned in this country. It has also been suggested that he may even have failed in his attempt to gain wider external support for continued moral pressure in respect of South Africa’s domestic affairs. If that is so, then in all honesty, the hon. the Prime Minister has been let off lightly. While public opinion amongst all races in South Africa is increasingly demanding the reform of obsolete institutions and laws in South Africa and urgently wishes to see us embark on a new era of goodwill and co-operation in our complex plural society, there will be less sympathy for any attempt to do these things through foreign pressure and by foreign prescription. The hon. the Prime Minister will, therefore, not be criticized if in such circumstances as have been reported he made few concessions and maintained the right of South Africans to find their own salvation in their own way.

Important questions still remain unexplained or unanswered, and it would be right for the hon. the Prime Minister, if no new agreements or important concessions were made in his discussions with Mr. Mondale, nevertheless to say what conclusions he has drawn and what new initiatives he himself proposes to take. If he has learnt important lessons, we should like to know what they are and how he proposes to apply them. If he has encountered new or unexpected difficulties, we should like to know how he proposes to resolve them. If he has gained time and a respite from pressure—as I believe he has—we should like to know what constructive use he proposes to make of that time.

The terms of my motion do not specifically cover the talks the hon. the Prime Minister had with Pres. Houphouet-Boigny of the Ivory Coast, but I have no doubt that they were influenced by the talks with Vice-President Mondale and had a bearing on the views of the hon. the Prime Minister in respect of the African scene as such. Some reports indicated that these talks covered the question of communist infiltration in Africa, which was apparently not adequately covered in the talks with Mr. Móndale in Vienna.

You are right.

If that is so, there were other matters of mutual concern dealt with, matters I am sure the House and the nation would like to hear about. For purposes of debate, I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will give some attention to certain specific questions in respect of each of the fields to be covered.

Firstly, in regard to Rhodesia, it appears from one of the Press interviews given by Mr. Mondale, that an agreement was reached whereby the hon. the Prime Minister agreed to support British-American efforts to get the interested parties to agree to an independence constitution and the necessary transitional arrangements, including the holding of elections in which all would take part equally with the view to independence and peace during 1978. Does this mean that in those elections all question of a qualified franchise is to be thrown overboard? Secondly, does support for the British-American efforts mean that such support will consist only of persuasion or is there any danger that we will be involved in other pressures of the kind already used by Great Britain and which are obviously being envisaged by the USA? Also in regard to Rhodesia, there has been talk of a trust fund which seems to me to be a very different type of trust fund from the kind envisaged in the Kissinger talks and the package deal he offered Rhodesia. Does this trust fund correspond to what was envisaged with the Kissinger fund? Does the hon. the Prime Minister feel that it fulfils that promise? Are we bound to contribute to it in any way?

Are you referring to the fund?

Yes.

No, we were never to contribute to the fund.

In respect of South West Africa there are a number of very important questions which are still unanswered. I am well aware that discussions are taking place with the “Five” and that those discussions will be continued before the end of the month. Therefore it is possible that the hon. the Prime Minister feels that he cannot deal with some of the questions that I am going to raise, but raise them I must, because they are vitally important to South Africa and to the people of South West Africa. Firstly, we want to know what is now envisaged by way of an interim Government. Will it or will it not be based on the sort of recommendations made by the Turnhalle conference? There has been talk of a “central administrative authority” and a “neutral administrative authority”, one at least of which would seem to differ very widely from what was envisaged in the Turnhalle proposals. We would like to hear the hon. the Prime Minister’s views on this matter. Secondly, has United Nations supervision been conceded in any way? What does this involve? Does supervision mean control and, if so, control of anything?

No.

Thirdly, it seems that the principle of free elections in which all parties can participate has been accepted and that this will include South West African citizens who are at present outside South West Africa. The crucial question is: Does this include the external wing of Swapo? How is this matter to be arranged? What steps, if any, are to be taken to end terrorism if it does include the external wing of Swapo? Fourthly, how soon does the hon. the Prime Minister envisage the holding of such free elections? Has any decision been reached about the position of the South African military forces and South African civil servants in South West Africa? Mention is made of these matters in certain Press interviews and mention is made of phasing them out, but I think the House is entitled to know what the intentions of the hon. gentleman are. Was the position of Walvis Bay canvassed at all during the talks?

No.

Therefore I can accept that it is not an issue in the matter at all.

As regards the Ivory Coast, one gathers that relations with the Ivory Coast, and in particular with the President, are on a most satisfactory footing. Are the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Ivory Coast envisaged now or at any time in the near future?

I now come to the talks over the Republic of South Africa itself. The burning question here, of course, is what the future relations between South Africa and the USA are going to be after the Vienna talks. Apparently the USA expressed its views on South Africa’s internal policies and the hon. the Prime Minister put what he conceived to be South Africa’s case. In fact, it was the case of his Government. Obviously these two cases were poles apart

It was not only my case, but yours as well.

With great respect, I think I could have put a stronger case. [Interjections.] I have no hesitation in saying that there are certain inherent weaknesses in the hon. the Prime Minister’s case which I am going to talk about this afternoon. Obviously his case and the case of the USA were poles apart, but I cannot imagine that that fact was not known to both sides before they met. I can remember the late Dr. Verwoerd telling me, on many occasions, how he would like to visit the USA and put South Africa’s case to the top people in America. For various reasons that never materialized. Therefore, in a sense, the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister met the Vice-President of the USA and put a case—I shall not say his case or my case—is a breakthrough in certain respects. There was, however, obviously confrontation on this issue. What interests all of us is what the effect of this exchange is going to be on future relations between the two countries. The hon. the Prime Minister said the talks were a success. Will there then be a greater flexibility on the part of the United States of America towards South Africa in the future?

At one of his Press conferences Vice-President Mondale specifically mentioned the pass laws, what he called “discrimination laws”, and what he called “job-set-aside laws”. I presume he was referring to job reservation. He also made mention of laws which apparently have to do with the restrictions on political detainees. Were these matters specifically canvassed at this meeting? What explanation did the hon. the Prime Minister give of these laws? The hon. gentleman knows very well that here in South Africa, among many of the supporters of his own party and the newspapers that support him, there are extremely divided opinions on these issues. There is a growing body of opinion in South Africa that the country is not happy with them.

It now seems clear that when Mr. Mondale spoke of full participation by everyone in government, he in fact meant “one man, one vote” and every vote of equal weight. Did he make that clear at the talks or did it only emerge later? Arising from the reply to this question, a further question arises, namely, was the position canvassed only in respect of a constitution, or were the possibilities of change reviewed as envisaged by the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation in the very courageous speech he made about confederalism, the division of power, and the sharing of power by consensus at a national level? It may have produced a different reaction to what the hon. the Prime Minister stands for at the moment.

Fourthly, was it possible to reach any accord on the combating of Soviet Communist influence in Africa in the light of the American view that—as Mr. Mondale put it—“We believe that perpetuating unjust systems is the surest incentive to increase Soviet influence?” Their view is obviously that our system is unjust.

Lastly, in respect of South Africa, do the Americans and the hon. the Prime Minister attach the same meaning to the word “discrimination”, and in how far do they accept that there has been any progress in the elimination of discrimination?

The ordering of this debate is such that I shall have small opportunity for comment at the end of the debate after the hon. the Prime Minister has replied. Therefore I shall have to make the comments that I wish to make now, and base them on the verbatim reports of the Press interviews given by Mr. Mondale and the hon. the Prime Minister and the reports through the media in so far as I can. It would seem from all these that while there was negotiation in respect of Rhodesia and South West Africa, there was quite understandably no negotiation at all in respect of the internal policies of South Africa. That means that South Africa is not locked into negotiation and has had what amounts to an exchange of views. It was an exchange of views which nevertheless indicates possible lines of action by the United States of America towards South Africa in the future. It is in the light of this position that future policy guidelines must be determined.

It seems to me that South Africa has three alternatives. The one is the alternative outlined by the hon. the Prime Minister in his New Year’s message to the nation and subsequently reiterated by the hon. the Minister of Defence. It really means that we are going to prepare to fight it out on the borders, and internally as well if urban terrorism breaks out, and that there will be no give whatever. The second alternative is to come to terms with the West as a result of negotiation and make the necessary changes internally to restore confidence in South Africa, to attract foreign capital, to terminate arms boycotts, to open channels of international trade and to try to get South Africa back into the comity of nations. I believe both those alternatives will be fatal. I believe there is a third alternative which is in fact the only one and that is so to conduct our affairs that we engender here in South Africa a common loyalty to South Africa amongst all our peoples and to establish a political, economic and social system here that all our peoples will be prepared and ready to fight for and defend. If you examine that alternative against the background of a world canvas then I think it means immediate action in respect of three things. I think it means immediate action in respect of the tackling of discrimination on a national scale. I think it means an adequate constitutional solution for the common area of South Africa. Thirdly I think it means active steps to recognize the Coloured people as full citizens in South Africa. I pick on the Coloured people particularly because I believe that when the Americans talk about “Negroes” they are talking mostly of people who are of the same sort as our Cape Coloured people.

That is where you are wrong.

I do not think I am. I am very sure I am not wrong. I believe that if an acceptable solution could be found for the Coloured people, it would do a great deal to blunt the criticism of South Africa in the international sphere.

Tragically, the problem with this Government has been that in tackling matters of this kind it has always tended to do too little to late and to focus its main efforts in the wrong direction. These tendencies have to be rectified and rectified urgently, because as I have warned before, the problem in Southern Africa is not that the Western world has too little interest in us, but that the Western world is evincing too much interest in Southern Africa at the present time. I believe time is an essential element in the difficult strategy to which we are now committed. I believe that although we have in some respects lost the initiative through the Government’s spendthrift attitude to time, we have gained some time as a result of these talks. I believe it is absolutely essential that we make good use of that time. Do not let us have a repetition of the performance we had with regard to South West Africa. I warned how many years ago that there would have to be an interim Government in South West Africa, that you would have to have some connection with Swapo, that you would probably have to have some independent individual of ambassadorial rank appointed to guide and assist the area through the interim period. Now we shall hear this afternoon, I am sure, that a lot of those things are going to be done. They are going to be done after we have lost the initiative. They are going to be done at a time when it seems they are being done as a result of outside pressures. We are gaining no benefit because we are doing them. This has been my complaint with the hon. the Prime Minister. It is not that he takes my advice every now and then, but that he takes it too late. He takes it when the time for the original initiative has already passed and when any proposal he makes is seen not as an act of creative generosity but as a grudging submission to pressure. The great disadvantage of conducting international affairs in this way is that one gains no time or leverage for constructive new action, but always remains under the pressure of time and external demands.

I have said a word about time. What about direction? I believe that here, clearly the first priority is is the dismantling of discrimination on a national scale. I know the hon. the Prime Minister has a Cabinet Committee dealing with this issue. Is the hon. gentleman really satisfied with the results to date? Are they really having any effect on the outside world? Are they really doing as much as could be done to improve race relations in South Africa? I believe the next target, or a simultaneous target, should be the establishment of a new constitutional dispensation to deal with what I call the common area of South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister has had talks in respect of full political rights and full participation in government by all our peoples in South Africa. Whatever I may think of his separate development policy, no one can deny that the citizens of independent homelands have got full political rights. However, everybody can deny that the Coloured and Indian people in the common area have not got full political rights. That is the weakness of the case the hon. the Prime Minister had to put to Mr. Mondale. It would not have been the weakness of the sort of case I, or this side of the House, would have had to put to Mr. Mondale.

I believe the third important issue is the question of the Cape Coloured people. The Erica Theron Commission pointed out how urgent this matter was. I believe that since that report was published things have deteriorated even further. I believe that if the hon. the Prime Minister could have gone to Vienna and could have said to Mr. Mondale: “I have had the Erica Theron Commission’s report and I have accepted all its recommendations” and then told him what they were, those talks might have had a very different effect; they might have been much more beneficial to South Africa.

If, as I believe to be the case, time has been gained by the talks with Vice-President Mondale, that time must be put to good use. If it is not, I see nothing ahead but a long vista of worsening foreign relations which will react upon our internal and economic affairs. I believe that in a simple sort of way that was the message Andrew Young brought to South Africa. I believe a great responsibility rests upon the Prime Minister today.

Mr. Speaker, the first part of the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition consisted of certain observations and question which he put to me. The second part was merely a repetition of his old hackneyed story which we have heard very frequently before in this House and have argued even more frequently. I do not intend taking up the time of this House in order to debate it. I just want to tell him that my experience has been that the outside world is not interested in his policy at all. I also want to make it very clear to him that just as surely as he is not able to sell his policy here in South Africa, so he will not be able, and even more surely, to sell it in the outside world. It astonishes me that the hon. the Leader, who is on his way out and whose people are leaving him so rapidly that there is not even time to say good-bye, can come here and discuss these matters with me again. The party of the hon. the Leader is on the point of being disbanded.

Of being born again.

Born again! Mr. Speaker, I ask you! If something is born again, it is because the old thing was too rotten. Something which was good, need surely not be born again; only something which is rotten does. I have never heard a more damning observation on his own policy than this one. However, I am not interested in that. I do not think the House is interested in it. I do not even think that those hon. members opposite who are sitting behind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, are interested in it.

I turn to the questions which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put to me. He asked me whether there had been a confrontation between Mr. Mondale and myself during our discussions. The answer is: “No.” I quote Mr. Mondale’s own words in this context, where he said—

He also said—

Before I reply to the questions put by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to say that I believe it was worthwhile that I went and that I participated in those discussions. It gave me an opportunity to put South Africa’s case, as I see it, to the best of my ability, on a platform and before an audience which one does not have available to one every day. At the Press conference, so I have been informed, there were no fewer than 33 television networks and there were, according to my information, in the region of 600 journalists. I tried to make use of that platform to the best of my ability.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without informing this House at the very outset that the courtesy and the hospitality of the Austrian Government and of every Austrian with whom we came into contact was of the highest order. I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the President, Chancellor Kreisky, and to his Government for that hospitality and courtesy. It was of an exceptionally high standard, a standard which would be difficult to surpass.

If hon. members were to ask me what the general, overall impression was with which I returned to South Africa, apart from these talks, I would state it as my conviction—I saw it here and there; I experienced it here and there and I sensed it very clearly—that there is a new spirit emerging in the world. I observe that spirit among the young people in particular. If hon. members were to ask me what that spirit is, how one could describe it, I would say that one could best categorize it as a realistic, conservative idealism which is taking root in the world. I have no doubt at all in my mind that this realistic, conservative idealism will become stronger and stronger, and that that spirit is eventually going to dominate the world scene. If this is the case, if I see it correctly, then not only I, but most of the hon. members in this House as well, will be very grateful. I have no doubt about that.

I had the opportunity, not only of holding talks with the Vice-President of the USA, but also—and for me this was an exceptional opportunity—of speaking to the young businessmen of the world, approximately 800 of them. This opportunity presented itself at the world convention of the Young Presidents’ Organization. To be a member one has to be less than 40 years of age, the president of a company with a turnover of $2 million per annum and have at least 350 people in one’s employ. The young businessmen who gathered there came from 53 countries. They did me the honour of asking me to address their convention. I spoke to them about South Africa and its people, as I frequently do here in this House and elsewhere. I am prepared to say that the reception which I met with from those young businessmen was one of the highlights of my public career. Hon. members read the Press reports on it. Therefore it is not necessary for me to elaborate on it.

I spoke to the President of the Ivory Coast. We had a very long discussion. We were together from 09h30 to 14h00. The President of the Ivory Coast is as concerned about Southern Africa. We do not stand alone, for there are many other African States which feel the same way towards us and which are extremely alarmed at Russian imperialism and Russian colonialism in Africa. The alarm which is awakening among responsible African States will, so I believe, lead to those African States that feel the same way, gravitating closer to one another, to the progressive formulation of a collective standpoint in that regard. This is also apparent from the communiqué which was issued after my talks with the President of the Ivory Coast.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me whether we had decided to establish diplomatic relations. I want to tell him very candidly that we discussed the problems of Africa so exhaustively and in such depth that not one of us raised this subject. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that the relations between South Africa and the Ivory Coast are firm and that a good understanding exists between the two states. This is of course the case because the Ivory Coast takes up the position that it does not allow the emphasis to be placed on the matters on which we do not agree. The Ivory Coast does in fact experience problems with our policy. This is something which we have already thrashed out on previous occasions. However, we do not allow the emphasis to be placed on the matters on which we differ; we do the right thing by allowing what carries most weight to weigh most heavily and to talk about the things that are threatening Africa, the things that are threatening every African State.

I cannot sufficiently emphasize that it is Russian imperialism and naked colonialism that has to be fought. I can foresee the day when this matter will cause such a stir in Africa and will become so prominent that the states which see a danger in it will be brought closer and closer together. All in all, we had very good talks.

As far as the talks with Mr. Mondale are concerned, I can say that we began on the morning of the 19th May and discussed the Rhodesian matter until lunch-time. The afternoon we devoted to the South West African question. Unfortunately very little time remained to discuss South Africa/USA relations. Apart from approximately ten minutes on the 19th, we would only have had an hour the next morning to discuss South Africa/USA relations. At my suggestion we met the next morning at 08h00 instead of 09h00, in order to have more time for that. Because the Rhodesian issue was then mooted once again, we were unable to utilize the two full hours, as I shall indicate later. In general, therefore, we unfortunately had less time than one would have liked. I am not reproaching anyone in this regard; it was the way the programme developed. It is a vast subject, as my hon. friend will be able to understand, a subject to which one cannot, on that level, do justice in one and a half or two hours.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me what we discussed in regard to Rhodesia. We agreed—

I could agree to that because it has always been the policy of the South African Government that the parties in Rhodesia should settle their own case, that the various sides in Rhodesia should themselves reach an agreement. That is why I could go along with that and with what followed. At my insistence—we had to argue for quite some time to get this included as well—-it was also said—

and what follows. I was not prepared to support the first part if the second part was not added.

The hon. the Leader also wanted to know whether I was requested to exert pressure on Rhodesia, and what my reaction was. I have been requested on many occasions to exert such pressure. Mr. Mondale also used the word “pressure” again, and I told him immediately that I was not in favour of that word. Among other things I made South Africa’s standpoint very clear once again that we shall under no circumstances participate in a boycott and a closing of borders, and that I am not prepared to pressurize Rhodesia in any respect. Once again I made the standpoint which I have frequently stated in this House very clear. There can be no misunderstanding whatsoever about that.

As far as the “trust fund” is concerned, we were informed that it was being seen in a different light. That was news to us. We expressed our astonishment on that score very clearly, and we warned against the consequences which could flow from it.

We also discussed South West Africa. I pointed out the problem which exists, that there is in fact an initiative in progress in that regard, and that the talks between the five Western powers and our country in fact run parallel to that initiative. It was agreed that the talks would be resumed at the earliest possible opportunity. In Vienna we visualized that we would meet before the end of the month. But the month has passed, and we have not yet done so. Those gentlemen must come here. It is an aspect which my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, will deal with further. I do not know precisely when a discussion will now take place.

In regard to South West Africa, various problems were discussed. We have already discussed them with the representatives of the five Western powers, but I am not going into detail about it now, because the matter has not yet been finalized.

†I told Mr. Mondale that I and my Government were absolutely committed to introduce into South West Africa what is at this stage called “a central administrative authority”. I told the five Western powers, and Mr. Mondale, that during this session legislation would have to be passed by Parliament to empower the State President to institute such an authority. I also warned them that at the request of the Damaras and the Hereros I was committed to give them local self-government. They understand very well that I and my Government are committed in this regard. I am informing hon. members now that such a Bill will still come before the House. The Bill will also deal with the question of Walvis Bay.

*As far as the talks with Mr. Mondale are concerned, I must unfortunately say that although I hoped and trusted that there would be an acceptance of the Turnhalle conference and the resolutions adopted there, that was unfortunately not the case. I greatly regret this. I argued very strenuously in favour of it, but Mr. Mondale’s standpoint was that the Turnhalle was not representative of the people of South West Africa. I, in my turn, argued equally strenuously that nowhere in the world would one find a more representative body, a body which would be able to speak on behalf of all the people, than the Turnhalle in fact was.

I am now going to speak very frankly to this House. Although it was not said, we had to contend with the problem that the General Assembly of the UNO had adopted a resolution to the effect that South Africa should get out of South West Africa and hand it over to the adventurer San Nujoma and to Swapo. Hon. members know that my standpoint in that regard is that South Africa will never, under any circumstances, do that, that we will never even contemplate doing that. Therefore we differ radically in regard to this matter. It was put to us that although there was a measure of appreciation for the Turnhalle, it could not, unfortunately, be accepted. In fact, Mr. Mondale also referred to this matter at his Press conference and said that I had put the case with regard to the Turnhalle equally strenuously. He used the following words—

In any event, this matter has not yet been disposed of and it will be discussed with the representatives of the five Western powers again. I put the standpoint of the South African Government to Mr. Mondale in no uncertain terms.

We also discussed other matters pertaining to South West Africa, inter alia, the release of detainees. Mr. Mondale does not draw any distinction between detainees. He regards them all as “political prisoners”.

†My standpoint is: There is a difference between detainees and those sentenced by the proper courts for criminal offences which they committed.

*We discussed this matter, but failed to reach an agreement. However, we did hold out the prospect that we could speak of a commission of jurists, and so on, but I made my standpoint very clear that I did in fact distinguish between those two types. I told Mr. Mondale that as far as detainees were concerned, I had no objection whatsoever to their being released, if there were any.

However, I pointed out to him that it would not only be in South West Africa and South Africa that one would find such detainees. In this connection I pointed out to him that in Zambia and Tanzania there were between 500 and 700 prisoners who were members of Swapo and whose only offence had been that they had questioned the leadership of Nujoma and had demanded that he render an account in connection with Swapo funds. I pointed out to him that there were reports indicating that these people were going to be executed by firing squad. I then told him that if prisoners had to be released and if people had to return to South West Africa to participate in the political process there, it went without saying that, in the first place, they should return in peace. They are not going to return to South West Africa with weapons in order to intimidate people. But I also told him that those detainees would consequently have to be released. They must come to South West Africa to tell their story as well there. He admitted to me that his Government was aware that there were such people and that his Government knew about the camps in which they were being detained. My standpoint was that I could do nothing in that regard, but that the onus rested on the American Government to bring about the release of those people. I pointed out that I, on my part, did not see my way clear to taking any action if no action was taken by the other side. Mr. Mondale thought it was unfair of me. He said I should set the good example. Well, my good example does not extend that far. Unfortunately I cannot go that far.

I repeated to Mr. Mondale what I had said in public, viz. that all exiles may return to South West Africa so that they may all participate in the process provided, of course, they come in peace. I mentioned to him the names of Kerina, Kozonguizi, Appolus and dozens of others who had returned. They are not friends of this Government, but enemies, and were petitioners at the UNO. However, they returned and no one lifted a finger against them because we were honest when we invited them to return to participate in the political process. I also explained to him that Swapo had had an opportunity to participate in elections and that they had not availed themselves of the opportunity.

I repeat—I am not saying this with reference to my discussion with Mr. Mondale; I am saying this in general—that the problem in regard to a solution for South West Africa is that there are too many people at the UNO who are committed vis-à-vis Nujoma and Swapo. Nor are they only partially, they are fully committed to South West Africa being handed over to them. Only yesterday I was talking to a very prominent person. He told me that he had spoken to members of Swapo. They admitted to him that they were Marxists and they they wanted to create a Marxist State in South West Africa. In full realization of my responsibility I say that as far as this Government is concerned, it will under no circumstances be a partner to any action which will create a Marxist State in South West Africa.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me about the UNO. There have been attempts—I am speaking merely in general now, for this did not come up in the talks with Mr. Mondale—to persuade South Africa to accept the “supervision and control” of the UNO. We said that we could not agree to that. We admit that there should be what we prefer to call “United Nations involvement”. This is so in terms of the character of the territory. However, I explained once again to Mr. Mondale as well that we had in the past been prepared to hold talks with the Secretary-General of the UNO and that we had invited Messrs. Hammarskjöld, Carpió and De Alva as well as Dr. Waldheim himself, and that we had also met his personal envoy, Dr. Escher. I told him that we had come to a written understanding. However, that understanding was simply shelved at the UNO, and to this day they have not even told us officially what their standpoint in regard to it is. I mentioned all these things.

We are again prepared to receive a representative of the Secretary-General and we are prepared to allow him to ensure that, whatever elections may take place in South West Africa, they do so fairly and justly, because we have nothing to hide in that regard. Those things we are prepared to do, but the surrender of South West Africa and its people—that we are not prepared to do! I repeat: I repeatedly stated South Africa’s policy that it is ultimately the people of South West Africa themselves who have to decide on their future, and pointed out again that South Africa is not going to take it upon itself to make decisions on behalf of those people. It was also stated very clearly to the representatives of the five Western powers that we cannot give conclusive replies; we must first hold talks with the representatives of the people of South West Africa before a final reply can be given. After all is said and done, it is they and their future that is at stake. I have replied in regard to the Damaras and the Hereros, and also in respect of Walvis Bay.

†If you were to ask me today what the basic difference is between the outlook of the United States and that of South Africa, then, Sir, I must say immediately that it stems unfortunately from the fact that the United States Government wants to equate the situation and the position of the American Negro with the South African Black. I argued strenuously that one could not equate the two. I argued that I regarded the American Black man as an American, purely and simply; as a Black who was divested of his African personality, language culture and traditions, and who is therefore in every sense of the word a full-blooded American.

Like the Brown Afrikaners?

I said that the South African Black was in the first place never a slave and, secondly, had always been a member of a nation with its own language, its own culture, its own traditions and its own way of life.

*We argued about this matter for a long time. I adopted the standpoint and if one wanted to compare and equate, one could perhaps compare the position of the Red Indian to that of the South African Black. Mr. Mondale told me that their behaviour in respect of the Black man and the Red Indian—I shall use his own word—had been shameful. I did not reproach him for this. It is not I who said it. That is the standpoint which he himself adopted in that regard. However, I emphasized very strongly that our situation was not a multiracial situation, but that it was a multi-national situation, and that that had to be taken into account. In the short time at my disposal I sketched to him what our policy was in regard to the independence of the Black nations.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition had a great deal to say about his policy and how it would supposedly be acceptable. I want to tell him what my experience in this regard was. Again I am not referring specifically to Mr. Mondale, but to my experiences in general. My experience has been that the world outside is not concerned about the three-quarter million Indians in the country, nor about the Coloureds. The debate does not concern them. The debate concerns the Black people. I want to make it very clear to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the outside world is not interested in his policy and does not accept my policy either, for what do they want? During the discussions Mr. Mondale put it to us that what he wanted was “full participation” of the Black people in the political process. During our talks he either could not or would not spell this out. He left it at that. I then put this specific question to him: “You are finding fault with my Government and me. The policy my Government is following may even lead to a souring of relations between our two countries. You have good relations with African States. You do not find the same fault with them. Tell me: On which African State should I model my policy?” His reply to me was—

That is how far we got in that connection. After the talks and at the Press conference, Mr. Mondale said that he had put it to me that they adopted certain values and that they expected us to comply with those values. He also said that he had made his standpoint very clear to us. I quote him—

I made my side of the case very clear to him, as I have done on many occasions here in this House, and I am not going to bore hon. members by doing so once again. However, I must point out that when Mr. Mondale held his Press conference, the final question which was put to him, was the following—

His reply was—

In other words, here he was personally adopting the standpoint of “one man, one vote”. I, in my turn, made South Africa’s standpoint very clear. I said that I was not aware of any political party in South Africa in whose programme of principles it had been recorded that they advocated “one man, one vote” for South Africa, and that this situation was totally unacceptable to us. It astonishes me that, because we were unable to agree on “one man, one vote”, I am now being reproached. The reaction in The Cape Times and other newspapers astonishes me, as does the foolish reaction—if I may put it that way—of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, of the hon. member for Sea Point and the comments which they made in The Cape Times of 19 May, because before the talks took place, The Cape Times wrote a very pious editorial on 19 May—

Well, I did that, and now they are reproaching me. What kind of people are these? What kind of editor is this? Consequently it does not astonish one that there is so much deterioration discernible as a result of the guidance which comes from such people. We may or we may not like it, but there is this gulf between the USA and South Africa. Their standpoint is “one man, one vote”, and we in this Parliament reject it. I made this very clear when I was asked about it in Vienna. I said that it was a fool who would not listen to what other people had to say about his policy and his standpoint, but that a country must ultimately be governed by its own Government and in the best interests, as it sees them, of its people in terms of the mandate it has received from its electorate.

It is in that spirit that we shall continue. We did not quarrel. Nor do I believe that it is necessary for us to quarrel with the USA over this matter. I stated the standpoint, calmly and collectedly, that we are not in favour of accepting those policies. I trust—in fact I should like to believe this—that the American Government will realize that one Government cannot dictate to another what its policy should be and that no Government with any self-respect can allow itself to be dictated to as to what its policy should be.

Furthermore, I also want to make it very clear that I am not seeking confrontation with the USA. In fact, I shall go out of my way to avoid confrontation. I believe that it is in the interests of South Africa that the best relations should exist between the USA and South Africa. I have said on many occasions that the USA is the leader of the West, of which we are also a part. Whereas the President of the Ivory Coast and so many other African States are concerned about Russian imperialism, about Russian infiltration and colonialism, I regret to say that unfortunately—I hope I am reading it incorrectly; in fact, I shall be delighted if the American Government were to correct me immediately—that I do not observe the same concern at these matters in the American Government. I do not observe it in certain prominent members of the American Government. I do not observe in them the same concern in regard to this matter.

It is we who have to live here. We, and other African States have to live with this matter in Africa. I am not saying this because of any delusions of grandeur or for any other reason, but simply because it has to be said. If we are eventually confronted by an accomplished fact, we and those countries of Africa that are concerned about these things, must stand together and fight against it. We have to do this, even if we eventually stand all alone. In that case we shall have no other choice. I believe that this will be not only my standpoint, but also that of hon. members opposite. However, I exclude the PRP. I have told them on a previous occasion that I do not know precisely where they stand. They must, however, speak for themselves. Since I am discussing these matters I feel that I do have the right—I do not want to debate this matter now—to address a few words to the spiritual father of the PRP, Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, on this occasion. It is time he tells South Africa where he stands and what he is doing. I shall leave it at that. I shall not take it any further.

Finally, then, I cannot say what the outcome of these matters will be. As far as I am concerned, I am at all times prepared to have frank discussions. I expect to discuss South West Africa further with the representatives of the five Western powers. If the USA, in view of the little time which was available to us in Vienna, wishes to hold further talks with me on South Africa/USA relations, I am prepared to hold such talks. I am prepared to state South Africa’s standpoint. Before I left I said—and I do not believe that they will take it amiss of me if I repeat what I said—that I could not take orders from anyone in this regard. I can take orders only from you, Mr. Speaker, and from this Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a tour de force from the hon. the Prime Minister. He has told us of many of the aspects of his talks with Vice-President Mondale in response to the request from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. However, I think there are certain areas which he did not cover completely and I intend raising these with him. The hon. the Prime Minister, even in an important debate like this, could not restrain himself from playing some party politics. I think it was unfortunate that he made the gibe that he did about the Opposition politics. I also think it is unfortunate that he should have made what I believe is a sinister reference to Mr. Harry Opperheimer, who I believe and I think the hon. the Prime Minister believes … [Interjections.] … has done more for the economic development and has done more to enhance the …

I made no sinister reference whatsoever. I asked a plain question.

It was a sinister reference. If not, the hon. the Prime Minister must explain what he meant.

In the first part of his address the hon. the Prime Minister danced around the talks themselves. He spoke of a Press conference. Obviously this was an important occasion and we would have expected him as a competent debater to have reacted vigorously at that particular Press conference. We would have expected hospitality to have been shown by the President and the Chancellor of Austria. We would have expected a good reception for the hon. the Prime Minister at a conservative gathering such as the Young Presidents’ Association.

As far as the President of the Ivory Coast is concerned, it is true that he is concerned with the question of Russian Imperialism in Africa. He is concerned with Soviet colonialism as are nearly all the States of Africa. This is nothing peculiar. When one takes the circumstances, only recently, of what appeared to be a Soviet-inspired invasion of the Shaba province of Zaïre, nearly all the African States rallied round. We had France and Belgium rallying round and America giving assistance, but interestingly enough, despite our declared opposition to communism, we were not asked to assist there, nor did we volunteer to go in there. Let us accept that Africa is concerned about Russian Imperialism. The question is: How best does one deal with it in the situation which has evolved?

We had a tour de force. I would have expected the hon. the Prime Minister, speaking with Mr. Mondale, to be frank; he would have been talented in his debate and he would have been a tough negotiator if it came down to negotiation. What I find most surprising is that on the hon. the Prime Minister’s return he should have said that the effects of the talks and his visit was that South Africa had emerged stronger. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister if this is his real assessment or whether it was merely something which was said on the occasion of his arrival and in the emotionalism of the day.

Despite his own convictions and his ability to state his case, he comes back with the message that we face a disruption of relationships between the United States and South Africa. Subsequently, one has seen that the United Kingdom also endorses the attitude of the United States. The more competent the hon. the Prime Minister is in putting the case, the more it means that his case is unsaleable in the quarters in which he tried to sell it. I must put it to the hon. the Prime Minister: Do we become stronger as international pressures increases on us? Do we become stronger because we become more and more vulnerable? Do we become stronger as we lose allies and friends around the world? In this particular case the hon. the Prime Minister said that South Africa had emerged stronger. Did he mean that we were stronger militarily as a result of the meeting with Mr. Mondale? Did he mean that we were economically stronger? Whatever he has attempted to do, it is quite clear that in spite of his ability—I accept the strength of his convictions—he has failed to provide a basis for improved relationships between South Africa and the West. This is the import of what took place.

Only last session the hon. the Prime Minister was saying that he believed that the attitude of the West towards us was changing for the better. Yet, at the end of the year, he anticipated that South Africa would stand alone. Five months after that, in spite of his efforts, he and Mr. Mondale have to announce that in the circumstances of South Africa pursuing its present policies, the hon. the Prime Minister was correct in saying that South Africa would be standing on its own. It appears that he is unable to convince the Government of the United States that his Government’s policies are capable of providing the basis either for what is called “full political participation” or for the removal of discrimination. When one listens to the hon. the Prime Minister, when one looks at the text of his speech at the subsequent Press conference and the speech of Vice-President Mondale, it does appear that the differences centre around the concept of nations as opposed to a nation and around the meaning of discrimination. Today the hon. the Prime Minister repeated what he said at the Press conference. He dealt with the African or Black nations. The problem is that he should not be telling the world that there are eight Black nations. The Black people themselves must decide whether they consider themselves to be separate nations and part of a separate geo-political entity. It is not for the Prime Minister to say that these nations are not part of South Africa. He is constantly telling other people what they are. The test is whether the Black people say that they are Black nations in the sense that they should be separated politically from the body politic of South Africa.

I am surprised at the hon. the Prime Minister. He goes on using the kind of arguments I could expect from the hon. the Minister of Information. He talks about Black people having their own Governments, Cabinets, and Prime Ministers, making their own laws and passing their own budgets, but what he fails to say is that all this is done under the sovereign authority of an all-White Parliament in South Africa. That slick kind of way of presenting the case is not going to strengthen the case of the Government or of South Africa overseas.

Today he referred again to the American analogy between the American Negro and the South African Black. Everything he said today and at the Press conference, where he perhaps correctly said that one should not relate the American Black to the South African Black, is a convincing argument for the complete and total acceptance of the South African Coloured as part of the wider South African community. I want the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is going to speak, to say, on the basis of the hon. the Prime Minister’s argument, what his argument is for not accepting the Coloured South African as a full South African in every sense of the word.

Leaving the question of nations on one side, the United States of America apparently believes that apartheid in itself is discriminatory. This appears to be a point at issue between the Prime Minister and the United States. The United States of America says that it has been its own experience. However, even if it should not be relying on its own experience to determine this, I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that any country looking at South Africa as it has been over the past 29 years—this is significant, because it is 29 years ago that the NP and the Afrikaner Party, of which that hon. Prime Minister was a member at that stage, took over the Government—can come to no conclusion other than that apartheid, which is what the hon. Prime Minister on his return at the D. F. Malan Airport said was the policy of this Government, is in fact discriminatory. He knows that on the basis not of what he might do in the future, but of the experience of the past 29 years, it is legitimate to equate discrimination with apartheid and apartheid with discrimination. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that there has been unnecessary and offensive compulsory segregation. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs knows it. He knows about the notices in lifts. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that in the hey-day of his predecessor, Dr. Verwoerd, separation for the sake of separation was the philosophy of the NP. He knows that that was discrimination and it is therefore no wonder that Mr. Mondale accepts that discrimination and apartheid are the same.

Anybody looking at the structure of South Africa over the past 29 years must see that there has been and that there is today inequality in wages, in education and in services. It is no use the hon. the Prime Minister saying that we will be changing it, because for 29 years this has been the experience in South Africa and the observation of the world. For 29 years there has been a denial of opportunities, and I would say an increasing denial of opportunities in all walks of life in South Africa. What is more, for 29 years the NP Government has been cutting people out of effective political participation by placing sovereign power in the hands of this exclusively White Parliament. Even when the hon. the Prime Minister says that they allow certain States to have their independence, as is the case with the Bill which is before the House at this stage, they do it in such a way that they entrench the discrimination in the fields of land, of resources and of political power. I must say that the predecessor to the new hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs came with quite a blunt message to the NP congress last year in regard to this issue. He said—

In other words, he is saying that the way in which we have been applying our policy in the past, is one of the reasons for our situation in the world. I do not have time to deal with the matters I would have liked to raise in regard to the Rhodesian situation, but I would like to touch on a few comments which the hon. the Prime Minister made in relation to South West Africa.

Clearly there are certain things that are gratifying from the South African point of view. There is, for instance, the acceptance by the USA of the South African Government’s positive approach which, to my mind, is something to be welcomed. Secondly, there is the recognition in very real terms of the importance and of the reality of South Africa as the de facto administering authority in spite of the international view that our presence in South West Africa is illegal. I think this is a plus factor for South Africa. There appear to have been some important shifts of attitude on behalf of the Government as a result of these talks or of previous talks. The hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that he would in no way interfere in the process towards independence or towards self-determination of South West Africa. He stated it on more than one occasion in this House. This attitude is admirable in theory, but the hon. the Prime Minister knows that South Africa is the administering power and that it has a specific responsibility to ensure that self-determination, under its administration, takes place on the broadest possible basis and that independence therefore becomes a reality and is recognized. It is therefore no use the hon. the Prime Minister, as he has done in the past, throwing up his hands and saying that he is leaving it just to the people of South West, because he has a specific role to play as the administering power.

In any case, nobody in the outside world accepted that the hon. the Prime Minister was not involved in having some kind of influence on the nature of the talks and on the decision-making process. This is understandable, because the initiation of the talks was through the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa, in which there are 18 members of the NP, the party of which the hon. the Prime Minister is the leader. In 1975 the hon. the Prime Minister in this House personally explained why minority White groups could not be represented at the Turnhalle. He said: “We cannot allow it.” He did not say, “South West Africa cannot allow it.” He said: “We cannot allow it, because if one starts inviting minority groups, where will one end?” At that stage the hon. the Prime Minister was, through his party, involved in setting up the Turnhalle talks. At the meeting of this contact group the hon. the Prime Minister said that he had certain commitments towards the Turnhalle. One is entitled to ask: How far is he prepared to go in departing from the original Turnhalle proposals? Is the question of a council of state and the question of a 60 member General Assembly now to be overtaken by an organization called the Central Administrative Authority? What will be the functions of this authority and who is going to be represented on it? This Central Administrative Authority clearly has much less status than an interim Government; it is merely an interim administration. What does the hon. the Prime Minister anticipate will be the composition of the Central Adminstrative Authority and how far is he prepared to forgo ethnic composition of that new authority? There is no doubt that the hon. the Prime Minister has actually leapfrogged over the Turnhalle and the people of South West Africa. While he is still negotiating over the question of the interim government and that is the subject for further talks, while he is still going to deal with other matters relating to that phase, the hon. the Prime Minister, according to Vice-President Mondale, has already agreed in advance on the setting up of the interim government and on matters which, in terms of his own philosophy, should have been decided by the people of South West Africa. Mr. Móndale says—

That is not a recommendation from the Turnhalle. That is nobody’s recommendation, but the hon. the Prime Minister has agreed to it in advance. He continues—

I must ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether Vice-President Mondale is correct. Is that an agreement between the South African Government and his? The hon. the Prime Minister did not deal with it. He dealt very strongly and aggressively with Swapo, and yet Mr. Mondale says there is already an agreement: “Finally, they agreed that the UNO should be involved in the electoral process.” The hon. the Prime Minister did not really say what he was prepared to do. To what extent will the UNO be involved? Will it be involved in a supervisory capacity, as an observer? Be that as it may, what I am trying to get at, is that the hon. the Prime Minister has abandoned his concept that only the people of South West Africa have a responsibility in that regard. He has moved into a situation where he has leap-frogged over the Turnhalle and has come to an agreement with Mr. Mondale. I do not reproach him for it. I believe that this was the correct approach because he has a responsibility and he cannot merely say that we are going to leave it to the people of South West Africa.

As far as the Turnhalle is concerned, I want to say briefly that I believe it has been a remarkable exercise in inter-group relationships. It has been positive and constructive. However, I think the hon. the Prime Minister has come to realize that it does not provide the key to a solution of the international dispute. The Turnhalle has gained in stature although it started with many albatrosses around its neck. It has become recognized by the West as a factor, if not the total solution, and it is helping to create a climate in which there can be an acceptable solution for South West Africa.

I want to come to the central theme of the hon. the Prime Minister’s report, and that is his discussions with Mr. Mondale himself. It is unfortunate that this has been presented in the media, over the radio and television and in the Press, as an exercise in confrontation. I regret to say that one of the people responsible for creating this atmosphere of confrontation, is none other than the new hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs. I think it is unfortunate for South Africa that the Westdene by-election should have been taking place at the time when the government was preparing for negotiations with Mr. Mondale. [Interjections.] Comments were made by this hon. gentleman, both in Vienna and elsewhere, about the Carter administration, comments which I think are unfitting of the Foreign Minister of South Africa. I do not believe that he would have accepted such comments from Mr. Vance. He said of Mr. Carter—

Is that a valid statement, made in Geneva?

It is true.

He accused the United States of moral selectivity in attempting to curry favour.

It is true.

Having listened to the Prime Minister saying in what spirit the talks were held, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said—

It is true.

Was he referring to Vice-President Mondale?

Yes.

“Superficial noisiness” is the hon. Foreign Minister’s reaction to the nature of the discussions that took place. The hon. the Minister also made certain other statements. He said—

I think the hon. the Minister must realize that election time is over. He is probably embarrassed by something called a “verligte image” and is probably wanting to be the new “kragdadige” Minister. If American-South African relations were not important, he could carry on like this, but if they are important, I believe he should adopt a posture more befitting the Foreign Minister of South Africa.

Mr. Mondale’s message was a blunt one, and I have no doubt that the Prime Minister gave him a blunt answer. Looking at it as I understand it, having read it and having listened to the Prime Minister, it was a direct statement of the underlying philosophy of the United States Government and the main thrust of its policy towards South Africa. Without spelling it out in detail it is clearly not essentially different from the message contained iri Dr? Kissinger’s speech in Lusaka last year. Perhaps we did not get the message last year, perhaps we were more preoccupied with Rhodesia or perhaps we were beguiled by Henry Kissinger himself, but the message was there and has now been repeated. One asks oneself why they give this message. One might answer that they are do-gooders adopting postures. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said that they are paying off a debt owed by Carter to the Blacks. It is quite clear that whether we like it or not, the Carter Administration has a concern for human rights. With regard to Southern Africa, it is concerned about the possible internationalization of racial conflict. It is also concerned that policies such as those that we apply inside South Africa could be incentive to the increase of the Soviet influence in this area. [Interjections.] It has pointed out the dangers to Southern Africa in this regard.

The Prime Minister has touched on the issue of the final statement by Vice-President Mondale concerning “one man, one vote”. I must say quite frankly that I believe that it is unfortunate that Mr. Mondale expressed, not the Prime Minister, but subsequently to a Press conference, their policy in what I describe as a slogan. I believe that it was unwise. I say this because I do not believe that America or anybody else should dictate to South Africa or spell out to South Africa detailed solutions. I believe that there is a distinct difference between that and the statement made by President Carter on almost the same day. He said—

It also differs from that of Mr. Andrew Young. At his final Press conference in South Africa he was asked: “Do we understand that you support ‘one man, one vote’? Do you see any minimum qualification for voters?” He answered as follows: “I think those are questions to be determined by the citizens of South Africa, Black and Whites together. I and my Government have resisted trying to set standards and trying to determine what should be done to live together in South Africa. That is really not our business.” The sequence of questions and answers thereafter was as follows—

I believe that it is in this spirit that one should accept the difference of opinion and that there is philosophical difference. I believe that for people outside of South Africa to pose answers in terms of “majority rule”, or “one man, one vote”, and to use slogans like that in the Southern African context, are counterproductive. I believe that it should be seen as a genuine desire to see full participation in any community of all the people in the political structure, but quite obviously one must have protection for minority groups.

I believe that we in South Africa are proud people who are jealous of the sovereignty and independence of our country. We will not submit to dictation on our internal policy from outside. We believe that it is for South Africans themselves to decide on their internal policies and for South Africans to do so in the light of all the circumstances known to them. When I say “South Africans”, I do not mean only those assembled here in this Parliament. When I say “South Africans”, I believe that all people who are citizens of South Africa should be taking part in this decision-making process. Our international position, and in particular our relationship with the West, is one of the factors that has to be taken into account in the shaping of our policy for the future. Fortunately it is so that the steps that we should be taking to ensure peaceful co-existence in South Africa, are also the steps which will enable us to establish a closer association with the Western world. I wish to mention four specific points. The time has come for the Government to realize that it cannot continue with its policy and have the co-operation and friendship of the Western world.

I believe that there are many members opposite who want to make changes. There are four things which have to be done as a matter of urgency. The first is that the Government must announce its clear intention to move with deliberate speed to dismantle statutory apartheid in the social field. It should be unambigous. Second, the Government must set in motion the removal of all restriction based on race in the economic and labour fields. There is no need for delay. Thirdly, it must set a timetable for the elimination of discrimination in Government expenditure on wages in education and other services. Finally it must establish—I take it no further that than—a mechanism through which all sections of the South African community can consult and make joint decisions on the constitutional development of the future. From an internal point of view, unless it is a joint decision, it is not going to work; and equally, from an external point of view, unless Black people are seen to be involved in the decision-making process, it is not going to be accepted in the outside world. I believe that if the Government would have the courage to take these minimal, but clear-cut steps, we could go into the future as a united community, knowing that we will not be isolated and knowing, too, that we can earn and will have both the respect and the co-operation of the Free World.

Mr. Speaker, the hon, the Prime Minister negotiated abroad on behalf of South Africa. He did not negotiate on behalf of the NP or the White people alone, but on behalf of everyone in South Africa, White and non-White, all races, all nations and all groups which desire peace and orderly survival here in South Africa. This is what we on these benches believe.

It is our duty, therefore, the duty of every South African—White and non-White—to give the Prime Minister of the country the fullest support under these circumstances, whether or not he likes the Government’s policy. We on these benches did so without any reservation. We prayed that the Prime Minister would be successful. When the Prime Minister negotiates abroad, he does so on behalf of us all. Then it would ill become us to disparage him or to make it impossible for him to state South Africa’s case. Therefore I should like to convey my personal thanks to the hon. the Prime Minister today for what he tried to do for our country. It took courage and perseverance to serve South Africa in that way, especially where he publicly stated South Africa’s case before 800 prominent young men.

In his report to the House, the hon. the Prime Minister referred to South West Africa. We on these benches will wait for the legislation which will be submitted in this connection. We are in favour of the Turnhalle agreement in any case, and we hope that the Government will not depart from it. We agree with the Government that there must be no question of any sell-out to Swapo or to Sam Nujoma.

At the end of his speech, the hon. the Prime Minister spoke of Mr. Harry Oppenheimer in mysterious terms. The hon. the Prime Minister asked where Mr. Oppenheimer stood and what he was engaged in. It is no use talking about that. I believe that if the hon. the Prime Minister regards the activities of Mr. Oppenheimer in serious light, it is essential that they be investigated, especially in the light of the allegation recently made in The Citizen by the editor, Mr. Johnnie Johnson, which confirmed what I said two years ago in this House, i.e. that more than 90% of the English Press in South Africa is controlled by the Argus group, the largest shareholder of which is the Anglo American Corporation.

†What did the hon. member for Sea Point say today? How did he react to Mr. Mondale? He never reacts critically to anybody who says anything bad about South Africa, but he is always the first to criticize anybody who defends South Africa. I remember that when I, for example, said that Andrew Young should not come to South Africa, it was the hon. member for Sea Point who said it would be churlish to refuse Andrew Young admittance to South Africa.

The Minister agreed with me.

Mr. Speaker, it has been argued by both Opposition parties that the hon. the Prime Minister failed to sell his policies as distinct from those of South Africa and that, therefore, his mission has failed. I want to ask everybody in this House which party policy could be sold to the USA in her present mood. Not even the PRP policy, which undoubtedly leads to one man, one vote, could be sold to them unless it started with one man, one vote.

The American demands are utterly unreasonable. Mr. Young says there must be majority rule during Mr. Carter’s term of office. Mr. Carter says he agrees. Mr. Mondale says there must be full and equal political participation in our national Government and in our political affairs, and at a Press conference, when asked how this differed from one man, one vote, he said: “No, it is exactly the same thing: every citizen should have the right to vote and every vote should be equally rated.” If this is America’s attitude, which UP leader could agree with it, except perhaps Mr. Basson? He says it is difficult to understand how Mr. Vorster is prepared to concede the principle of full participation in South West Africa but not in South Africa. I want to ask him: Does he stand for full participation in the Mondale sense here in South Africa? We know that the Progs do, but what about the mini-Progs? Make no mistake about it, America wants one man, one vote here in South Africa. Why does she want it? She wants it because she needs to restore what she calls her morale integrity after Watergate. She has to satisfy a Black vote, she has a growing percentage of Blacks in her army, she is bidding for the support of the Third World and she feels that if Rhodesia, South West Africa and South Africa stand in her way, they must be broken. That is her policy, aided and abetted by the present British Government which consists of men who are implacably hostile to the White men of Southern Africa.

In the no-confidence debate the hon. the Prime Minister said that South Africa would not bring pressure to bear on Rhodesia, and he repeated it again today. It has been said, after Vienna, that the new Anglo-American initiative on Rhodesia has a chance of succeeding. I sincerely hope that neither the hon. the Prime Minister nor anyone in his Government will try to bring pressure to bear on Rhodesia at any time in the future. Mr. Smith accepted the Kissinger package deal. Despite great political risks, he stood by his word. The Black Presidents, Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Nkomo frightened the British Government into not carrying out the terms of that agreement. Geneva was a public fiasco and a warning to the world of the sort of people with whom the Rhodesians were asked to negotiate to give up their country, their livelihood and their lives. Mr. Richard, with his background and outlook, was obviously a failure even before he started. Mr. Owen, it has been said, is a horse of another colour.

Rather like your party.

I say I dare not believe this. I think he is like Mr. Young. The leopard does not change his spots. Not long ago he was one of the advocates of a boycott and a blockade—by, amongst others, the Russian fleet—of South Africa. Only this week, Mr. Owen said that the time-table for South Africa, although it would be different from that of Rhodesia and South West Africa, would have the same result in the end.

The change would be the same: there would be a “peaceful and democratic transformation”. That is the way the British have of saying “one man, one vote, Black majority rule”.

I now want to deal with Rhodesia. Rhodesia is being attacked by terrorists operating from Mozambique, Zambia and, it seems, also from Botswana. If she strikes back in hot pursuit, Mr. Callaghan and the Americans fall over each other to be the first to express their sympathy with the Black Presidents over the so-called unprovoked aggression by the Rhodesians. The only bit of the Kissinger package deal that remains is the agreement by Mr. Smith that there should be majority rule. Even the agreement about the Trust Fund, as the hon. the Prime Minister said this afternoon, is to be broken. Make no mistake about it, Rhodesia and South Africa are analogous, their positions are analogous, although their approaches to their problems are not the same. They are both White-led States; that is their crime. They are both fighting terrorists, their enemies are the same, their peoples are the same—they are Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people—and they have the same cultures, churches and institutions. South Africa will not put pressure on Rhodesia, that I accept. But the people of South Africa must realize that our interests are the same as theirs. What must we do? We can do it, we are strong enough to do it: we must proclaim that the boundaries of our spheres of interest are the Kunene, the Caprivi Strip and the Zambezi and that military actions against those living within those boundaries will be dealt with by South Africa acting in her own interests. We should warn the Presidents of Zambia, Botswana and Mozambique that they are playing with fire in encouraging terrorism against a friendly neighbour. In conclusion, I believe this is a time for strength, not for weakness, in foreign affairs. We have been more than placatory for far too long. Now we must stand firmly by our neighbour. We must stand up for ourselves. We must show America and Britain that if they think they can bully us and Rhodesia into surrender and subjection, they are totally wrong.

Wiley the hawk!

Above all, we must inspan all the people in South Africa in the struggle that lies ahead of all of us, and not only just some of us. I hope—the hon. the Prime Minister who has given us a reassurance today about Rhodesia—will take comfort from the fact the majority of South Africans are behind him in the attempt he made in Vienna.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the PRP is very worried about the fact that I characterized the American behaviour in Vienna as superficial and noisy, and contrasted that with the behaviour of the hon. the Prime Minister, by saying: “The Prime Minister left in dignity, honour and with respect”. I cannot change the facts. We can argue about the meaning of words, but these are the facts. The hon. the Leader of the PRP agrees with me on that point. He said the vice-president of America answered one of the most fundamental questions with a slogan. Now, if that is not superficial, I do not know what is. The hon. Leader of the PRP provided the evidence. So that settles the aspect of superficiality. We can still argue about the aspect of noisiness if he wants to. All I can say is that the hon. Leader of the PRP beats the vice-president of the United States by a few lengths there. [Interjections.]

*The hon. the Leader of the PRP wants to know whether the hon. the Prime Minister has now leap-frogged the Turnhalle. I think that was the expression he used. Actually he did not ask this with the attitude of someone who does not know. He began by stating it as a proposition and then built a whole tirade upon it. Then he is the one who speaks of a tour de force. However, he made a statement about something he has no knowledge of. He did not ask a neutral question and then sit back in silence, patiently waiting for a reply. He accepted by implication that we had had secret discussions with Mr. Mondale and that we had entered into secret agreements of which the Turnhalle people were completely unaware. Quite honestly, the favourable reference made by the hon. the Leader of the PRP to the Turnhalle makes me feel worried about the Turnhalle. However, that is as it may be.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, just wait a minute. Just be patient for a while. I listened to the hon. the Leader of the PRP in silence, even though it was difficult. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the PRP does not know what we discussed with the representatives of the Turnhalle. Nor does he know what version we are giving of our conversations with Mr. Mondale, unless Mr. Mondale has informed him privately. I do not think this has happened. Who gave him the right to use certain statements made at a Press conference as a premise from which to proceed? We are not here to give the hon. the Leader of the PRP facts at this stage which are not in the interests of the Turnhalle. Not for a moment have either I or the hon. the Prime Minister or the Government changed our standpoint. Our standpoint remains that the people of South West Africa must decide about their own future.

The Turnhalle was consulted in every respect and in every discussion. In addition, the delegates to the Turnhalle were told on every occasion what the five countries were asking and they were requested to give their answer to that. The delegates to the Turnhalle were requested to think over and to discuss the matter and to give their reply on it to the Government, upon which the Government conveyed it to the five countries. This is the way it was done throughout. This is the way it was reported in the Press as well. Now the hon. the Leader of the PRP has alleged today that the hon. the Prime Minister wanted to make a little political capital out of a certain matter. What else is he himself doing? Not only is he trying to make a political capital out of the matter, but there is nothing in it, and he ought to have known that. My impression is that the hon. the Leader of the PRP did not know how to make proper use of the time that was allocated to him today. That is why he was forced to talk such a lot of rubbish here.

The hon. the Leader of the PRP tried to take me to task and to tell me how a Minister of Foreign Affairs ought to conduct himself. Now there is one thing I want to make quite clear to the hon. the Leader of the PRP. He or his party seems to expect certain things of me. We are dealing here with a man from another country. I do not care who he is or what position he occupies, but I have done nothing to offend him.

I ask hon. members to listen to this carefully. I have done nothing to offend that man. I have done nothing to offend Mr. Mondale. My country, South Africa, fought at America’s side in two world wars. We also fought at their side in the Korean war. We do not owe America a cent. Never in our history have we appealed to the American taxpayer for a single cent. We have paid our debts. We are the only country in the world which since 1946 has voted with America 100% at the UNO on every resolution affecting American interests. We are the only country in the world today which has stood by that ally 100% in the international forums. We have never embarrassed America in international affairs.

As far as Rhodesia and South West Africa are concerned, we have listened constructively and sympathetically to the representations made to us by America and we have conveyed these to the Governments concerned. Last year, during the Kissinger discussions, we leaned over backwards to act constructively in an attempt to find peaceful solutions to the problems of Southern Africa. Dr. Kissinger told us on occasion that the Prime Minister was being more than reasonable. More than this: On another occasion he said: “We Americans, cannot expect more from your Prime Minister.” I may add that Dr. Kissinger told certain people in private conversation in Washington: “He is one of the most honourable men I have ever met in my life.”

Against that background we went to Vienna and we had discussions with a man—I do not care who he was. We had discussions with him in Vienna and we got along with him fairly well in private. Then, however, he went to a Press conference and said that he was demanding that my country consent to one man, one vote and a political dispensation which would inevitably lead to the destruction of my people. Whether or not such behaviour is in order in terms of diplomacy and protocol and charming manners, in such a case I strike back at him, no matter who he is. In such a case I refuse to be silent and I do not care what becomes of my reputation and my so-called charming manners. We are concerned here with more important things than mere diplomatic and charming manners, the cut of your bow-tie and your hairstyle—the hon. member does not have much hair anyway. [Interjections.] We are concerned here with much more important matters than these. What is more, the hon. member is the only one who is worried about it. The Americans are not worried about it. They like to speak their minds. I told Senator Clarke in America, in the television programme Issues and Answers, in front of millions of Americans—

He had no reply to that. I did that inside and not outside America. I have said basically the same thing to president Carter; with respect, but frankly and calmly. Why should I not say it? It is the truth and I shall say it every time someone demands of us what is being demanded of us. I shall say that and worse things. Then the hon. member can fly off the handle again. He is not impressing me by doing that.

He is not impressing anyone.

He is not even impressing Harry. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was implying that our policy constituted an incentive for Russian intrusion in Southern Africa. Let me ask him straight out: What policies attracted the Russians to Zaïre—remember, there is no apartheid there—Somalia, Ethiopia, South Yemen and parts of South America?

That is not our argument.

But who is attracting them there?

So, must we make it easier for them?

What the hon. member does not realize is that the Russians do not need to be attracted. They simply move in. They examine certain situations over the whole globe. Whether it is a White or Black conflict situation, they could not care less. They will go in and create conflict, whether there are these conditions or not. That is the point. Even if every White man could be removed tomorrow from the face of South Africa, they will still act exactly as they are doing now. That is the point and the hon. member knows it. [Interjections.] But, what is worse is that the hon. member tried to cover himself because he could see the question that was coming, viz.: What is his party’s policy as far as the American insistence on one man, one vote and full participation in the political system is concerned? Can the hon. member and his party unconditionally comply with that demand?

I do not believe one should comply with the demands of everybody else.

Then I do not see the hon. member’s point, because he accused, by implication, the hon. the Prime Minister that because of his policies there was not more success with the discussions on South African affairs.

I was not talking about demands.

What were you then talking about?

The hon. the Prime Minister said that it was not a demand.

Then call it a proposal. Can the hon. member and his party comply with that proposal? Can the hon. member discuss and sell out his people on that basis? Can the hon. member tell the Vice-President that he agrees with him and will work towards a situation where every adult …

You are selling out our people.

The hon. member must listen. He is not going to get away with it. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is going to answer the question. Is it his policy that he is going to give an unqualified vote to all South Africans in one political entity?

We will deal with it … [Interjections.]

He is unhappy about the way we conducted those discussions, except that in the case of Rhodesia and of South West Africa he grudgingly concedes that we may have played a constructive role. I want to remind the hon. member that not even the Washington Post, which is an ultra-liberal paper in the United States, would agree with him. I think it is necessary that the House should take note of an editorial which appeared in the Washington Post of 8 May. I shall just quote the relevant part of it—

*So we are not the only ones who are saying this. If the hon. member had only adopted the attitude of the Washington Post—not that I agree with that by any means—one could have listened to him. He had so much to say about what one may and may not say between friends, but America is still our friend. Now I had better be undiplomatic again and say quite frankly to the hon. the leader of the PRP and the Americans that America has a major Red Indian problem on its hands. They have appointed an official commission and the first interim reports have just appeared. This is not a fact which we have unearthed just for the sake of revelling in their discomfiture. It is a serious matter which is of moral concern to this Government. Neither Mr. Carter nor Mr. Mondale has a monopoly on morality. They do not have a monopoly on those human attributes and qualities. I have with me a publication which has just come out on the Red Indians who could cause trouble to the Americans if they do not deal with them I quote from it—

Then there are also interim reports by a commission which was officially appointed by Congress, which proposes that the rights of these people, who have been suppressed and oppressed and whose treaties have been broken, should be restored. I am concerned about the moral aspects. We have heard that the Americans have “an enduring commitment to human rights” and morality. So have we, and some of us will want to consider establishing a Defence and Aid Fund to defend Red Indian tribes that are sentenced in court. From now on we are not going to beat about the bush in discussing these matters.

As regards the question of South West Africa, we have been lectured at great length on why the territory should not be fragmented. Mr. Donald F. McHenry, Mr. Andrew Young’s right hand, wrote a book called Trust Betrayed: Micronesia, in which, amongst other things, he is critical of the Americans because one of the island groups, the Mariannas group, is being given a separate status from the group as a whole. However, he sits with us around a table and speaks of the desirability of unity for South West Africa. If he comes here again I shall confront him with the book and ask him for an explanation. Why should I not do that? There will be things he should reply to. However, when we accept the independence of South West Africa as a whole, which they are not even prepared to do in respect of Micronesia, that is not good enough. There is no other way of speaking with representatives of other countries than to tell them the truth. I do not know how the things which are under discussion between us and the USA today could be expressed more politely. However, that is not all. He quoted Mr. Andrew Young. I can quote him too, and this is in fact a letter which Mr. Young signed and sent to thousands of people. Mr. Andrew Young was asking for funds for the Mound Bayou Community Hospital in the Mississippi area. There is a lack of funds for the hospital and it is situated in a predominantly poor Black area. He says the following—

He admits their mistakes.

Order! The hon. member for Houghton does not have a turn to speak now.

In this appeal for funds, Mr. Andrew Young indicates that in some parts of that area, infant mortality among Blacks is four times as high as that among Whites and the income of Whites is four times as high as that of Blacks. We are now speaking of morality and I am being accused of having accused the Americans of selective morality. However, does it not amount to selective morality if someone demands something from someone else which he is not prepared to apply in respect of himself, or if there are conditions in his country which are worse than those in my country? Surely this is selective morality, and I have no other word for it. It is a case of “a rose by any name”. I do not care; this is the fact of the matter.

Nor do I think we are inevitably headed for a confrontation with the USA. However, if we do not want to be headed for a confrontation with the USA, we must be quite frank with that country. We must try to bring it to its senses. We have a message which America can support, and it reads as follows—

†This is the message to the Americans, namely a climate of peace.

This is our message. We will be neither intimidated nor provoked, but we will be frank with them, brutally frank if need be.

This was acknowledged by no less a person than Dr. Kaunda.

The hon. the Prime Minister said in the conclusion of his address to the Young Presidents’ Association of America that day in Vienna—it was a unique and unforgettable experience—

*That audience then rose and applauded him, not as one normally applauds for the sake of courtesy; they applauded like an audience which had been magnetized, for one reason only: They saw resolution in the leader who had addressed them. They saw a firm attitude in him and they saw in him a person who could still say to the Russians: “Even if I have to go it alone, I will oppose you.”

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs needs to be congratulated, not so much on his speech, as on his message to the USA from South Africa, which to my mind is something with which all sides of the House would be prepared to be associated. Having said that, I think it must be clear that the hon. the Prime Minister was correct when he said that there was no party in South Africa that would accept “one man, one vote” either voluntarily or as a result of pressures from outside. I do not think, however, that that is the real issue at the moment.

The real issue at the moment is whether we are sure that what we are doing in South Africa is right. If we are sure that what we are doing in South Africa is right, then we can be sure of a united defence of South Africa by all its people. A country, consisting of 25 million people, completely united and determined to fight for what it thinks is right, is something that only the biggest of powers can tackle in a major operation.

The question I want to pose is whether the hon. the Prime Minister is satisfied with the political, social and economic plan which he has in the common area here in South Africa at the present time? Not so long ago the hon. the Minister of of the Interior said in the House that he would be the first to accept that there were things in South Africa that had to be changed. I believe more and more people are thinking that. The discussion we have had today about the Bophuthatswana Bill has indicated how utterly ineffectual homeland independence is in respect of the problems of the people in the common area at the present time.

You are now using Government time to talk about things you should not talk about. That is not why you were afforded time to move your motion. You are abusing a favour you received.

With great respect, Sir, is the hon. the Minister not casting a reflection on the Chair in making the remarks he is making, and I say this because you are allowing me to make certain statements which I believe are well within the scope of this motion?

I said the motion was not meant for that purpose. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition may continue.

The hon. the Prime Minister says that he sees in the world what he calls the development of realistic, conservative idealism. Conservative might be correct, but idealism demands not only conservatism, but also justice. If he sees a realistic, conservative idealism, I should like to know what he is going to do to come to terms with it in respect of the common area here in South Africa. How is he going to come to terms with it? I believe that the only way to stop communism is by a stable, cohesive internal situation. We have seen that in Malaysia and in many other parts of the world. I believe that that is the first and most important qualification.

It seems to me that the message which we got from the hon. the Prime Minister today is that he is by no means certain that he is happy about future relations with the USA. He says that he is prepared to talk again. I would suggest that before he talks again, he should first take some action. We are not asking him to take orders. I have said on many occasions that we would not take orders either. I have said that that was one of the alternatives which would be disastrous. He said that the differences between them had to do with the fact they do not fear Russian Imperialism, while we do. There is also a difference in respect of whether South Africa is a bastion against communism or whether in fact our presence and actions affect the spread of communism in Africa. I would say that if there are differences on Russian Imperialism, let that be the difference between the USA and South Africa, but do not make the differences on discrimination inside South Africa.

The hon. the Prime Minister justified his attitude when speaking to the American Vice President by saying that he believed there was full participation of Black homeland inhabitants in the political dispensation in South Africa. He went on to say this about the American Blacks—

Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister says: “Hear, hear.”

It that not true?

Of course it is true. But is that not also exactly true of the Cape Coloured people here in South Africa? Do they not have our language, our religion, our culture, and our customs? Have they not lost any other country or language they ever had? If the hon. the Prime Minister says he accepts that they must have full citizenship in the USA, why do the Cape Coloured people not have full citizenship rights here in South Africa? If the hon. the Prime Minister could have said that to Mr. Mondale about the Cape Coloured people, then I believe there would have been a very different attitude in respect of this matter.

The hon. the Prime Minister has obviously had difficulty in respect of giving answers relating to South West Africa. There are two points which still worry me. The first is that he says that he is not prepared to hand over South West Africa to Sam Nujoma and Swapo. Was the United Nations decision not that we should not hand over to Swapo but that we should hand over to the United Nations for free elections in South West Africa? I believe that was the decision.

Since when is that your party’s policy?

It is not my party’s policy.

Which party are you talking about? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, we need clarity on the point to which I have just referred. The second point is that the hon. the Prime Minister is prepared for United Nations involvement in respect of these elections. We had a previous experience with Dr. Escher who was sent as a representative of the Secretariat. When he got back it seems that he was repudiated, and much of the agreement which we had reached with him was never honoured. It seems to me that it is vitally important that if there is to be UNO involvement, it must be clearly defined beforehand so that we know exactly what the position is and where we stand.

*There is only one more question that I should like to ask, and that is about the Turnhalle decisions. Are we going to reject them or are we going to stand by them and fight for the acceptance of those decisions?

†Sir, my five minutes are now up. I ask leave to withdraw the motion printed in my name as it has achieved its purpose.

Motion, with leave, withdrawn.