Mr. Chairman, on Friday afternoon the hon. the Minister dealt at some length with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. The hon. Minister stated in detail his reasons for not accepting the amendment and the difficulties he was encountering with it. During the course of this debate certain information was placed before the House—I do not propose to deal with it in detail—information conveyed to the Government and its agency by the Government of Bophuthatswana with regard to their attitude on the citizenship issue.

*This afternoon I wish to ask the hon. the Minister calmly, yet in all seriousness, to accept the amendments moved by the hon. member for Edenvale.

†When we dealt with the Bantu Homeland Citizenship Bill in 1970 the hon. the Minister went to great lengths to indicate the purpose for which this citizenship, this national identity, was to be introduced into our laws. In the course of that debate he said: (Hansard, Vol. 28, col. 1782)—

The hon. the Minister was confident that identity within the ethnic group was something that would be sought and that would be taken up with great alacrity by all members of the various groups in relation to their individual groups.

What are we seeking to do with the measure incorporated in clause 6(1)? In clause 6(1) it is sought to automatically withdraw South African citizenship from the Tswana, as we defined by this Parliament—not by the Tswanas, but by this Parliament—those who fall within the category of Tswana as defined in this Bill.

I have already dealt with the basis of South African citizenship and the fact that South African citizenship so far as White South Africans are concerned—and heretofore as far as Black South Africans are concerned—can only be lost by a voluntary act by the citizen concerned, i.e. by renunciation, either directly or indirectly, and by assuming the citizenship of another country. Now, in this measure, we are proposing to violate that principle in so far as a Black ethnic group is concerned. The letter that have been quoted would possibly indicate, following the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading address—that this objection was something new. However, the hon. the Minister will be aware that there was a congress of the Bophuthatswana Democratic Party in August of last year. At that congress, as reported in The Argus of 3 August 1976, Chief Minister Lukas Mangope launched an attack upon the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act. He made it quite clear and gave notice then that in so far as Bophuthatswana was concerned, they would not take independence if the citizenship issue was to be dealt with in the manner in which it was dealt with in the case of the Transkei, viz. by compulsory enforcing the acceptance of Bophuthatswana citizenship and the exclusion of South African citizenship.

That notice was given to the hon. the Minister as far back as August 1976. When we debated this matter at Second Reading and again as we debated this clause, we became aware for the first time that this issue had not yet been resolved. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister this afternoon. He has put clause 6(3) in for a specific purpose; namely that a citizen of Bophuthatswana, as defined in this legislation, could renounce his Bophuthatswana citizenship. But then we are left in the air. A former South African citizen who becomes a Bophuthatswana citizen, is then left in the air if he renounces his Bophuthatswana citizenship. The only thing that can be done with regard for international custom, with regard for international law, is to recognize that that Tswana reassumes his citizenship of South Africa. That is the only correct thing that can be done in this Parliament. If it is not done, we are here blatantly legislating and flagrantly disregarding accepted practices and accepted principles in international law in so far as citizenship is concerned.

That is the situation we have before us today. We have had the warning from, among others, the Chief Minister of Bophuthatswana. We know what his attitude is. Let me say that to me and to this side of the House his attitude in regard to the question of citizenship is a very reasonable attitude indeed.

Finally, bearing in mind his words in 1970 which I quoted, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that if there is this continuing deep tie between the urban Bantu and his homeland, every Tswana will take up the citizenship of Bophuthatswana and will not have to be compelled to do so. What has become evident is that what we on this side of the House have said, namely that we have to recognize a permanent urban detribalized Bantu population in South Africa, is being proven correct, because—and I want to repeat this—if the ties are so deep as the hon. the Minister would have us accept, there would be no trouble as far as he is concerned, even if he were to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Eden vale. These are serious issues and I trust the hon. the Minister will, even at this late stage, give consideration to the acceptance of the alternative amendment moved by the hon. member for Edenvale.

Mr. Chairman, the more one looks at clause 6(3) and the White Paper which was issued explanatory of it, the more puzzled one becomes. The White Paper says—

The changing of citizenship by a citizen of an independent State to that of another independent State is nothing new and it is not anything which requires any special legislation. A South African citizen can go to France, establish a domicile there and acquire French citizenship without any special legislation of this Parliament. Likewise, a Tswana citizen after independence could move to another State anywhere in the world and in terms of the laws of that State acquire an independent citizenship, a citizenship different from that which he has in terms of this Bill. No special legislation would be required from this Parliament to bring that about, least of all the concurrence of the South African Parliament. Automatically, in terms of our legislation, if one acquired French citizenship, one would cease to be a South African citizen. Presumably a similar position would obtain so far as Bophuthatswana is concerned. However, whether it does or does not, the fact that there might be a dual citizenship as happens sometimes with some of the European countries, is not our concern. It is the concern of Bophuthatswana. Why then do we refer in the Bill to an independent citizen of Bophuthatswana after independence who no longer has any connection with South Africa?

Why should he then require the agreement of the South African Government if he wishes to renounce Bophuthatswana citizenship and become a citizen of, for example, Swaziland? What has it got to do with our Government? Presumably, these words were put in because they had a required intent behind them in order to meet a situation of some kind. What we cannot get from the hon. the Minister is what is demanded at this moment in time by the entire Cabinet of Bophuthatswana, namely that clause 6(3) has relevance only to the reversion, upon renunciation, to South African citizenship. These words, “conditions agreed upon between the Government of the Republic of South Africa”, can only have relevance if in some muddled way or another that is so. This House is entitled to a clear explanation from the hon. the Minister. Why are the words “on conditions agreed upon between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of Bophuthatswana” put in the Bill? The White Paper does not actually say so, but suggests that the intention is to cover a switch from Bophuthatswana citizenship to the citizenship of another homeland. I emphasize that the White Paper does not say that, but it is the impression that one gets from reading it. However, that is not the impression one gets on reading the Bill because, as I say, if it is the intention of a Frenchman to become a German, or a United States citizen, it has nothing to do with the South African Government. Likewise, if a Tswana wishes to change his citizenship after independence to that of, for example, Botswana, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the South African Government. Why were these words put in? In what context and in what situation is it envisaged that there will be an agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of Bophuthatswana? What circumstances are envisaged which, in terms of this clause, will require an agreement between the two Governments? Throughout the proceedings on this Bill so far, the hon. the Minister has simply said that this is a matter for decision afterwards.

Not only, but also.

I should like to know what the intention is now. After all, we are debating this clause, which, on the face of it, has no relevance to what is contemplated. Why has this provision been put in? If we do not get an explanation at this stage, we shall persist until we get one.

Mr. Chairman, the letter received from the Cabinet of Bophuthatswana introduced a new element, a new note, into this debate. It is unfortunate that it has had to come so late in the debate, because from the remarks made by the hon. the Minister it is quite clear that we would never have heard anything at all about the other side of the negotiations that have been taking place between the Cabinet of Bophuthatswana and the Cabinet of the South African Government, although from this letter it is clear that the Cabinet of Bophuthatswana had requested that such a letter be read to this Parliament. This letter is a further illustration of the dilemma which faces the Opposition in this House, viz. in that we do not have all the facts and full reports and are therefore forced to accept the word and the explanation of the hon. the Minister. I am glad that we now have this information, because it re-affirms our own opposition to this legislation. What is more, I believe the fine rags which have covered the hon. the Minister and his hon. colleagues on that side of the House in the debate thus far, have now been stripped and he stands naked. Particularly in regard to clause 6 and specifically subsection (3), about which he has continually been asked as to what the implications of this are, his only response so far has been that this will be negotiated after the legislation has been passed and in the future. I call this explanation into question, because in the letter—a further indictment of the hon. the Minister and his department, of South African politics and of South African life—the entire Cabinet says of the department and its Minister that they cannot trust him and that they cannot accept his word, both written and spoken. Therefore the only thing they are prepared to accept is a change in the legislation. That is why we are persisting in this attack. Only a change in the legislation can bring about a satisfactory resolution of the dilemma which faces this Parliament, the Cabinet of the Bophuthatswana Government and the Government of this country.

Is it that Chief Mangope and his Cabinet have now changed their minds or has this been a protracted discussion and debate between the two Cabinets which have not been resolved, despite the fact that the hon. the Minister has told them that it has been?

Order! I hope the hon. member is not going to repeat all the arguments of Friday. This letter was then discussed by the hon. member for Edenvale and afterwards also by the hon. member for Pinelands. I have listened to references being made to that now for the third time. I hope the hon. member is going to advance new arguments.

Let me try to bring the matter right up to date. In today’s newspaper there is a report of a speech made by the Chief Minister of Bophuthatswana, since the debate on Friday. He stated quite categorically that even Tswanas who were living in the homeland would not be forced to take out Bophuthatswana citizenship after independence. I quote what he said—

The point I want to make is that when we talk on this matter, we are touching at the very heart of the Government’s policy as it has been enunciated. The question at stake in this regard is that there seems to be a very considerable difference of opinion, from what we have heard in this House between the hon. the Minister and what we find coming to us from the Cabinet of Bophuthatswana. I believe the hon. the Minister has failed the House. He has failed to take us into his confidence or to accede to a request which was made to him to let us have all the facts. What are the facts?

Order! That is exactly what the hon. member for Edenvale said on Friday. [Interjections.]

The matter is so serious that I want to repeat that we have not yet received an answer from the hon. the Minister. In his reply he filibustered the debate on Friday and he gave us no opportunity to reply to him. We are still waiting for a reply from him.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to reply to a few of the arguments used by the hon. the Minister in reply to my proposed amendment. I do not want to go into the letter written by chief Minister Mangope at this stage—we shall probably have the opportunity to discuss that further during the Third Reading. As far as clause 6(3) is concerned, the point of difference is very simple, viz. that whatever conditions are laid down, the recovery of South African citizenship has nothing to do with the procedure for which provision is made in clause 6(3) of the Bill. My amendment states this clearly. It is therefore no argument to say that the question whether those people will recover their South African citizenship depends on the negotiations which will be conducted between the Government of Bophuthatswana and the Government of South Africa. The hon. the Minister must surely have something in mind with regard to the conditions stated in clause 6(3). After all, it would be totally ridiculous to think that the hon. the Minister would become involved in negotiations with the Government of Bophuthatswana on behalf of the Government of the Republic without the hon. the Minister having at least certain concepts and principles in accordance with which the discussions and negotiations were to be conducted with the Bophuthatswana Government. Up to now the hon. the Minister has neglected to inform the House as to what he has in mind. What conditions does he have in mind, in terms of the provisions of clause 6(3), which could be put to the Government of Bophuthatswana by this Government? I should like to have a reply to these questions, and in the course of the Third Reading of the Bill I shall come back to certain other aspects relating to the letter written by Chief Minister Mangope.

Mr. Chairman, I have absolutely nothing different or new to add to what I said earlier during the Committee Stage concerning this matter. In order to try and furnish hon. members on that side of the House with replies, I shall have to repeat, briefly and very concisely, what I have already said.

The hon. member for Green Point asked me in honeyed tones please to accept the two amendments moved by the hon. members for Edenvale and Umhlatuzana. I mentioned why I was unable to accept them the other day. Unfortunately I now have to repeat my statement, and am doing so merely to be friendly towards the hon. members. I could just as well ask the hon. members to go and read what I have already said about this.

I am first going to reply to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. I cannot accept it because the subsection (1) which he proposes only concerns the Tswanas within Bophuthatswana, viz. it is incomplete as far as the Tswanas are concerned. The subsection (2) which he proposes provides that people who are South African citizens may apply and obtain Tswana citizenship. In other words, it concerns the Tswanas outside Bophuthatswana. Those who are in the Republic of South Africa, in Cape Town or wherever, will have to apply for citizenship of Bophuthatswana in terms of the subsection (2). This is in conflict with what we agreed on in the Cabinet Committee, namely that everyone who is today a citizen of Bophuthatswana and can be one, will be one again when Bophuthatswana becomes independent. I am therefore unable to accept the amendment because it is in conflict with the agreement we came to. I must add—this, too, I said the other day—that the subsection (2) of the hon. member already corresponds to a large extent with paragraph (c) of schedule B, except for the five-year issue. In his subsection there is no five-year aspect, whereas this is incorporated in schedule B.

As regards the amendment of the hon. member for Edenvale, which was also supported by the hon. member for Green Point, I may say that it is unsatisfactorily worded and perhaps also a little ill-considered. Firstly, the hon. member requests the recovery of South African citizenship by the people of Bophuthatswana, but does not make provision for the contingency of their wanting to take a different citizenship. This means that he is automatically compelling those people to take South African citizenship. Say, for example, someone wants to take American, French or Rhodesian citizenship, or citizenship of Botswana, which is situated close by? What then? This just shows hon. members how ill-considered the amendment is. The hon. member refers to voluntary citizenship, but his own amendment only forces them in one direction. [Interjections.]

Older!

The hon. members can grumble as much as they like. That is how one must see it if one seeks to see it objectively. The hon. member for Green Point referred to what the Chief Minister said at a congress, and added that I put clause 6(3) in the Bill intentionally. No. I mentioned in my speech here in this House where clause 6(3) comes from.

Tell us again. It was very vague.

I shall repeat it. Even if I were to repeat it seven thousand times, the hon. member for Pinelands—the “turbulent priest” as the hon. the Prime Minister called him—would still not want to believe it.

Give us an answer.

Will the hon. member just hold his tongue and listen? Because when his mouth is open, his ears are closed. The first draft of this Bill, the draft we had before us on 25 April when the joint Cabinet Committee considered the matter, did not contain clause 6(3). That was as we had drafted it. Then the request was made by Bophuthatswana that we should put something of that nature in the Bill. They asked for it, and clause 6(3), as it is now contained in the Bill, was worded and typed out in the hon. the Prime Minister’s conference room. This was done on their request and was then done by mutual agreement. That is where clause 6(3) comes from. Now the hon. member for Green Point states that I inserted it unilaterally. That is not so. He asks why the clause is there and the hon. member for Umhlatuzana also asks me why it is there, because if these people want to take German citizenship, for example, then surely it is unnecessary that this provision should be in the Bill. My first reply to that is that according to that argument it is not really necessary. However, the hon. member should bear in mind that they asked us for such a provision and I know, although it has not been spelt out to me—and hon. members ought to understand this—that they have political reasons for wanting a clause such as this in the Bill. Secondly, there is another point which the hon. member should understand, and that is that there are many Tswanas who are working in the Republic of South Africa and may be resident here in the White area for a long time. We as a Government are most certainly involved if some of those people of Bophuthatswana who are now becoming citizens of an independent Bophuthatswana in terms of this Bill when it comes into effect, want to change their citizenship and take another citizenship. South Africa, as the country in which they find themselves, is undoubtedly also involved in the matter. This is another reason why it may not be inapropriate to say that the conditions which are still to be set should be conditions between the Government of the Republic and the Government of Bophuthatswana.

Now the hon. member for Umhlatuzana comes along and asks what we envisage as conditions. He states that he will ask and continue to ask, as if that would frighten me. The hon. member for Edenvale also did so again and said that he was asking a simple question and that I should be able to say what we have in mind. He states that since clause 6(3) has been inserted here, I surely have something in mind concerning the conditions. He wants to know what it is. I replied to this question last Friday. I am now going to reply to him in the same words, and my reply is very honest and sincere towards Bophuthatswana, and this House must accept my bona fides in this regard. If this Government and Bophuthatswana set the conditions in terms of this Bill and agree on them—and we want to set them, we must set them and we shall set them—then Bophuthatswana has the right to hear those conditions first. I said here on Friday that we are negotiating with Bophuthatswana on those conditions and I am not, therefore, going to discuss the matter in this Parliament or in public outside Parliament.

That is high-handed!

But we have to approve it!

The hon. member for Griqualand East must please be silent and give me a chance to speak. I am not going to quibble or speculate about these conditions in public, not before we have thrashed out the matter with Bophuthatswana and, as I say, we are engaged in negotiating with them on this score. That is a very clear and honest bona fide reply.

In that case withdraw the Bill!

No. I replied to that question, too, on Friday. It is unnecessary to withdraw the Bill because I have said that clause 6(3) … I should be much obliged if the hon, members opposite would just adopt the parliamentary custom of listening, even if they do not want to show courtesy. Clause 6(3) is wide enough to form a basis of negotiation in respect of a whole series of conditions and to cover a whole series of possibilities concerning citizenship and partaking of citizenship. Now the Opposition Chief Whip and the mover of the amendment are sitting and talking to each other so that they cannot hear what I am saying. That is the type of unmannerliness one has to endure here. I repeat, for the sake of those two hon. members who are being so unmannerly as not to listen, that clause 6(3) is wide enough to cover all the possibilities and that it is entirely unnecessary to finalize the conditions before the Bill is passed. This can be done at any other time. They could always be reviewed in the light of fresh problems or developments that could occur at a later stage. I have nothing more to say about this matter.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister suggested that there was clarity regarding the agreement between him and the Bophuthatswana Government. With your permission, Sir, I should like to read just one sentence from this letter, dated 23 May, from the Bophuthatswana Cabinet—

The position seems to have been quite clear in the mind of the Bophuthatswana Government. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could elaborate on what he said to us a moment ago, i.e. that there was some doubt, because it is quite clear that what they have in mind is reversion to South African citizenship.

Mr. Chairman, there should be absolutely no uncertainty. I now want to state the position for the fifth time. The wording of clause 6(3) was agreed upon—not the idea behind it, but the words, one by one, of that subsection—at the suggestion of the members of the Bophuthatswana Cabinet on 25 April here in the Hendrik Verwoerd building. It was typed out in that form and inserted into the Bill. I can give the hon. member proof of that. That is what was agreed upon on that occasion. As the wording now reads, it does not exclude any other matter which they may now desire as a condition; it can be added with the conditions which have to be drafted.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has a genius for saying a great deal and meaning absolutely nothing. Once again we have seen an illustration of that. He has used many words but he has said nothing at all. Clause 6(3) is, as he rightly puts it, so wide that it can mean absolutely nothing at all.

I did not say that; that is your twist.

The hon. the Minister said it was so wide, and I agree with him. It is so wide that anything can go through, even an ox-wagon.

Sir, I want to put four specific questions to the hon. the Minister in the hope that we can get some clarity here this afternoon. The first question is a very simple one. If they came to an agreement, a final agreement, as far back as 25 April, why then was this letter written? Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us why the Bophuthatswana Cabinet decided to write this letter at this stage. We cannot explain it. The second question is this: Why did file hon. the Minister not read the letter in the House? He has not told us that yet. Thirdly, can we ask the hon. the Minister whether clause 6(3) can be interpreted as meaning at least the following two things? Firstly, does it mean that those who are now Zulu, Pedi, Sotho or any other group living within Bophuthatswana, can apply to have their citizenship changed to one or other of these groups? Secondly—and this is the crucial question—will it be possible, in terms of this very wide provision, for a Tswana citizen who has been divested of his South African citizenship to retain that citizenship?

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I shall refer to the last few questions the hon. member put in regard to clause 6(3). If those are conditions which are going to be mentioned from their side or from our side about which we must reach an agreement, they can be covered by clause 6(3). The hon. member asked why the letter had been written. I did not write the letter, did I? Nor was I the one who sent the letter.

Do not dodge the question.

The people who wrote the letter must say why they wrote it. To that I want to add that I wonder whether that hon. member or certain other hon. members are not perhaps better qualified than I to say why the letter was written [Interjections.] I have my own suspicions, of course; let us be quite clear about that The hon. member also asked me why I had not read the letter in the House. That is because the letter was meant for me. I have said many times, and I repeat it here, that the letter was meant for me; it was meant for the Government, and as far as the Government and I are concerned, we who have to take note of that letter, I immediately did everything that was necessary for such cognizance to be taken. I do not regard it as a letter that I have to read here in the House—not at all. It would be quite contrary to the spirit of our bona fides and it would be quite contrary to the spirit of the privilege which must exist between myself and the Bantu governments for me to run to this House and broadcast the things they say at every opportunity. It would be quite wrong. Whether it is advantageous or disadvantageous to me does not matter.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister, in view of the fact that he was expressly asked to read the letter by the Cabinet of Bophuthatswana and therefore would not have betrayed any privilege at all, how is it possible for him not to have read the letter? He was asked to read the letter by the Bophuthatswana Cabinet. It states so in the letter.

I maintain that it would not have been the correct procedure for me to read that letter here.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to put another question to the hon. the Minister. This clause hinges upon agreements which have not yet been finalized between the South African Government and the Government of Bophuthatswana. It deals with agreements yet to be reached. This particular agreement is quite critical as it deals with the issue of renunciation of citizenship after independence. We would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he would state publicly in this House that the Government will not proceed by way of an announcement in the Government Gazette to implement independence for Bophuthatswana if there is any disagreement between themselves and the Government of Bophuthatswana on the issue of citizenship. In other words, is it a condition that there will be formal agreement before the Government proceeds, and if that formal agreement is not reached, will the hon. the Minister say that, whether it is 6 December or not, he will not proceed to proclaim this in the Government Gazette?

Mr. Chairman, I do not think I can answer that question at this stage. It deals with clause 7, not clause 6.

On amendment moved by Mr. R. M. Cadman,

Question put: That the subsections stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—93: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C; Brandt, J. W; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; 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.; Grey ling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; 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.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—30: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; bailing, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Miller, H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg H. E. J.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. G. Kingwill.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Amendment moved by Mr. N. J. J. Olivier put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—30: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; balling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Miller, H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. G. Kingwill.

Noes—92: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, M. C; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; 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.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; 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.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Amendment negatived.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—93: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; 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.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; 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.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—31: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Miller, H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. G. Kingwill.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the date upon which this Bill is to come into operation. It is to come into operation on a date determined by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette. It is quite clear that at the present moment there is a substantial disagreement between the Government of Bophuthatswana and the South African Government on a number of material issues, two of them being the question of the so-called consolidation and the question of the citizenship in terms of clause 6. What are the intentions of the hon. the Minister in this regard? Can he say that he will refrain from bringing this legislation into operation until agreement has been reached on these material points or is it the intention to bring it into operation regardless of those two difficulties?

There are a number of other difficulties as well. We have not so far had the question of independence for a homeland coming close to implementation with a degree of unhappiness and disagreement such as surround this Bill at the present time. I should like to have an assurance from the hon. the Minister that no proclamation will be made to bring this into effect until agreement in regard to these problems has been reached.

Mr. Chairman, I want to follow the same trend as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, because the question of citizenship and the question of prior agreements between the two Governments are of vital importance. If there is not prior agreement on this issue, it will not be self-determination for Bophuthatswana, but the expulsion of Bophuthatswana, against its will, from the body of South Africa. I therefore want to move the following amendment—

This will bind the hon. the Minister to the reaching of an agreement between this Government and that of Bophuthatswana on the issue of citizenship, prior to Bophuthatswana’s independence being proclaimed.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sea Point, because it would hold the greatest disadvantage for Bophuthatswana and ourselves in the future. I repeatedly said during the previous stages of the Bill—I am very glad now that I did say it, because I could not know that an amendment like this would be moved—that agreements on citizenship, as provided for in clause 6(3), should not be confined to the period before the legislation is passed or before Bophuthatswana becomes independent. Even after they have become independent, unforeseen problem situations may occur, and then we shall still be able to negotiate about the matter, in terms of the provisions of clause 6(3). If I were to accept the hon. member’s amendment, all such possibilities would end the moment the Act was implemented. Therefore, the amendment would be prejudiced to good relations and would hinder the solution of problems which might occur, problems which we do not want to be perpetuated between the two states. Therefore I cannot accept the amendment.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana asked very piously that I should give certain undertakings. But there are various matters, for more than the mere implementation of the legislation—for instance, matters of a physical nature such as facilities, various arrangements that have to be made for the transfer of functions, finance and many other matters— about which we must reach understanding and agreement with Bophuthatswana before they become independent. All the matters are interrelated. The necessary attention will be given to them, and therefore I cannot give the undertaking which the hon. member wants me to give.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—28: Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Miller, H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. L. Boraine and D. J. Dalling.

Noes—93: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. G; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; 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.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. G; Hickman, T.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; 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.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Uys, G; Van den Berg, J. G; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Amendment negatived.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—93: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. G; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; 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. G; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. G; Hickman, T.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; 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.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zijl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—28: Barlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Miller, H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton.

Clause agreed to.

Schedule A:

Mr. Chairman, schedule A lists the magisterial districts comprising the geographical area which will constitute the new State of Bophuthatswana. There are two difficulties in this regard. Firstly, I believe that I am correct in saying that these districts were only gazetted on 25 May. I think that that is the date which the hon. the Minister gave at an earlier stage in these proceedings. 25 May was Wednesday of last week, and is the date upon which the Second Reading debate of this Bill commenced. It takes some days for the Gazette to reach us in our boxes in Parliament, and it is quite impossible to debate a matter in which the geographical area of the territory concerned assumes such importance as it does in this Bill, without having all the facts. It is unfair and unreasonable to expect us to debate a measure when we have not seen the Gazette demarcating the area concerned. This is more particularly so when there is grave objection to the proposed area by the Government of Bophuthatswana itself.

They have strong objections to the demarcation, the so-called consolidation, because they say it makes the area almost impossible from the administrative point of view. This is an argument which we on this side of the House advanced even before we received the information that that was also the view of the Government concerned.

Furthermore grave objection is taken to the excision of certain areas, particulars of which are given in the letter which has already been discussed. This is a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs and a thoroughly unsatisfactory way for us to have to deal with an important measure. Accordingly we shall oppose this schedule.

Schedule put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—91: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. G; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. G; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; 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.; Grey ling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; 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.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Roux, P. G; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—27: Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, G W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Miller, H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

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

Schedule agreed to.

Schedule B:

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

1. (a) Every person who at the commencement of this Act is a citizen of Bophuthatswana in terms of the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act, 1970 (Act No. 26 of 1970), and is domiciled or permanently resident in Bophuthatswana;
2. (b) every South African citizen who voluntarily acquires citizenship of Bophuthatswana, with effect from the date of such acquisition.

Order! I am sorry, but I am unable to accept the amendment as it is substantially the same as an amendment previously negatived by the Committee.

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

We have already debated at some length the whole question of citizenship. Here again, when we come to schedule B, we have a direct implication of a loss of citizenship and an enforced citizenship. We in these benches have made the point in the Second Reading and during the discussion of earlier clauses that citizenship is something which is held in high regard by all those who hold it. It is something which is not cheap. It can only be cheapened when people are compelled to adopt that citizenship, which I believe will be done in terms of paragraphs (d) and (e). Furthermore, it only takes away from citizenship and its meaning when we compel people to give up their citizenship without any choice in the matter. The heading of schedule B states—

The hon. the Minister in an earlier debate said that the citizens of Bophuthatswana, or even those who are losing their citizenship of South Africa, are actually gaining considerably from this move, and that the only thing they are losing is their citizenship. When we talk about “only losing” something of such inestimable value as citizenship, then, of course, we cannot move away from it very lightly. Paragraph (d) refers to a person who—

I recall the hon. member for Albany getting very excited about this matter last year when we were dealing with the Status of the Transkei Bill. I notice that he is remarkably restrained at this time. He does not seem to care about other people who have the same problem or are in the same predicament which faced him last year. One can only assume he lost his citizenship last year. When it comes to paragraph (e), we go to even further lengths of madness, because here reference is made to anyone who—

In the Second Reading debate we heard in great, glowing terms and in many lyrical phrases from some hon. members on that side of the House that there were those in the various churches who had been serving the Tswana people for decades, for a very long time indeed. Does this mean that they are now going to lose their South African citizenship? In terms of schedule B(e) anyone who is “otherwise associated with any member or part of such population” … Does this then mean that a missionary who identifies himself with the people loses his citizenship and becomes automatically a Bophuthatswana citizen? [Interjections.] This does …

You are talking nonsense!

It sounds nonsensical because the whole of this legislation is nonsense. That is the problem. [Interjections.] I suggested earlier that the hon. the Minister, in the light of recent developments and of explanations from the Bophuthatswana Cabinet regarding citizenship—something which, of course, is affected by schedule B—stands naked in this House. A most unedifying sight! What is more, I believe that one has here what amounts to a nudist colony, something which is further unedifying, simply because all the arguments that have been used by all hon. members on the Government side fall to the ground and become as nothing. In terms of this, I would say that enforcing citizenship upon people who do not want it, and any measure which takes away citizenship without any choice in the matter, means—in one word—that what we are responsible for, and what the hon. the Minister is responsible for, is not an independent country, not something really noble, not something developing and growing, but the expulsion of Bophuthatswana from South Africa. That is what it means, because it has been done contrary to their own declared will. That is why we will strongly oppose this schedule as much as we oppose the other parts of this legislation.

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

The amendment is designed to limit the scope of the schedule in so far as citizenship of Bophuthatswana is to be ascribed compulsorily to those who speak the Tswana language. At the present time the scope of paragraph (d) is that any person who speaks a language used by any tribe which forms part of the population of Bophuthatswana, including any dialect of that language, automatically, upon the coming into operation of this Bill, ceases to be a South African citizen and acquires the citizenship of Bophuthatswana.

It is well known that many people, both Black and White, speak one or other of the Bantu languages, or one of their dialects. However, the ability to speak a language ought not of itself to impute citizenship other than South African. The case could be made a little stronger—and I emphasize, a little stronger— if it was the home language of the person concerned that imputed a foreign citizenship. To widen it to the extent of merely the ability to speak a language, is going far too far.

I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pinelands, and my amendment is in a sense complementary to his, both of them being attempts to limit the scope of the schedule, and consequently clause 6 of the Bill, which is, at the moment, spread so widely, if one reads the five paragraphs put together, that anyone—presumably any Black person—remotely associated with Bophuthatswana, with any of the languages spoken there, or with any person who has an association with that territory or its people, automatically loses his citizenship. We object to that. That is why I have moved the amendment printed in my name.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands has at various times referred to my so-called nakedness. I wish to remark that it seems to me that anything, everything, under the sun makes that hon. member think of nakedness. [Interjections.] I can express my view about his amendment much more briefly than he has done in motivating it. The position is that we cannot at all consider the elimination of the identification of a person by means of language or on the grounds of his relationship. It cannot be eliminated, and for that reason I cannot consider his amendment.

*With regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, I can only say that I am sorry, but I cannot accept the limitation that only home language be taken as a criterion. The reason is that in Bantu families, as in White families, the family often speaks a language which is not at all the language of the people to which they belong, because of marriages and all sorts of other reasons. Therefore I cannot accept the limitation proposed by the hon. member. His amendment proposes that the home language serve as criterion, and in a certain sense it is a limitation and also an elimination of the identification of someone with his particular people. Consequently I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in his reply the hon. the Minister gave yet another classical non-reply. He tells me that paragraphs (d) and (e) refer on the one hand to language and on the other to identification, and because it refers to these two, he cannot accept my amendment. However, the hon. the Minister does not tell us why. Why is it necessary to identify a citizen by means of language and by identification in this way? We would like a reply.

Mr. Chairman, it is because it is laid down by the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act of 1970. It is a method which we have been applying all these years.

Why?

Order! I cannot allow a dialogue.

On amendment moved by Dr. A. L. Boraine,

Question put: That all the words from “(d)” in the fourteenth line of the Schedule up to and including “and” in the fifteenth line stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided;

Ayes—91: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; 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.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; 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.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—30: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, R. M.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Miller, H.; Murray, L. G. Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. L. Boraine and D. J. Dalling.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Amendment moved by Mr. R. M. Cadman negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Schedule put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—92: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; 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.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; 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, G J.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Walt. A. T.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. G; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: S. F. Kotzé, P. G Roux, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—30: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, R. M.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Miller, H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Sutton, W. M., Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, G J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. L. Boraine and D. J. Dalling.

Schedule agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Title put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—92: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. G; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. G; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. G; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; 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.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; 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.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Schlebush, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. G; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: P. C. Roux, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—31: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Miller, H.; Murray, L. G; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, G C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

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

Title agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, we come now to the Third Reading of this Bill, a Bill which can only be described as a bad Bill. We come to it after a series of thoroughly unsatisfactory debates, debates which, I am bound to say, leave an unpleasant taste in one’s mouth and from which, I am also bound to say, the hon. the Minister has not emerged with credit. I took the trouble earlier today once again to read the debate in this House on the introduction of the measure. I did that with certain objectives in mind, as will appear from what I have to say in a moment. In the introductory debate there were reassuring words from a number of gentlemen opposite. There were honeyed words from the hon. member for Bloemfontein West on the question of citizenship, which he described as a matter which was being provocatively raised by the party on my left, but which could—to use his words—be easily handled. The question of citizenship, he told the House, was not a difficult matter, but something which could easily be handled. From the hon. member for Vereeniging and from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, neither of whom is here now unfortunately, there were complimentary references to Chief Lucas Mangope, the head of the Government of Bophuthatswana, and in respect of his Government, references to the effect that we should heed what they say because they know what is best for Bophuthatswana. That is what they said at the introduction of this Bill, in the debate which took place on 6 May.

A letter came into our possession over the week-end. I had not seen this letter prior to the week-end. It is a letter which, I should emphasize, is addressed to the Commissioner-General at Mafeking. It is dated 23 May—in other words prior to the commencement of the Second Reading debate in this House. The date is important, because when the letter was written none of the facts of the debate at Second Reading were known because the debate had then not yet taken place. I refer to the facts of the debate and the views therein expressed. Therefore, this letter was written prior to any stimulation that may have occurred as a result of the Second Reading debate on this Bill. It is signed not just by the Chief Minister of Bophuthatswana. Rather unusually it is signed specifically also by every other Minister of the Cabinet of Bophuthatswana. As will appear to the House, this is a letter of considerable importance. The principal factor which emerges from the letter is, in its own terms, that—

I should like to know from the hon. gentlemen opposite who took part in the Second Reading debate whether they had knowledge of the letter when the Second Reading debate took place. In the letter the whole of the Bophuthatswana Cabinet unanimously requests of the Government that the letter be specifically read to the House so that we can be in possession of all the facts. I believe the true position is that they did not know of the existence of the letter. If that is the case, why were the facts in the letter not made known to the House by the hon. the Minister at the opening of his speech when he introduced the Second Reading debate?

It is clear that some critical issues emerge. These issues do not emerge from the Chief Minister or from one or other of them, but from the entire Cabinet under the signature of everyone of them individually. From what do these issues appear to arise? They arise, apparently, from a meeting of the working committee which appears to have been a meeting between at least the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Chief Mangope. There might well have been others, but those two were mentioned. The meeting took place on 17 May. I should like to remind the House that 17 May is a date after the introduction of the measure, but it precedes the Second Reading. The opening paragraph of the letter reads—

Nothing could be more clear. There are vital issues upon which agreement has to be found before acceptance will be reached.

In so far as the Second Reading debate was concerned we were led to believe that the Bill was asked for and that its important terms had been agreed to. That might have been the case initially; indeed, it probably was. However, by the time we came to debate the Bill at Second Reading, the situation had changed materially, but the House was not informed that there had been this material shift in opinion. [Interjections.] The question is: Why was the House not informed? The hon. the Minister said during the Committee Stage that there was no obligation on him at all to refer to the House the contents of this letter.

That is the arrogance which we can expect from him.

He can say that as much as he likes, but, with respect, it is an opinion which is totally unacceptable. Unless he can give reasons for withholding the contents of the letter at Second Reading, I believe he is deserving of censure.

The letter raises a number of points to which I shall refer in summary and then I shall refer to the evidence which supports them. There was, as I have said, this meeting of the working committee on 17 May and the contents of the letter appear—I can put it no higher—to have emerged from that meeting. The first point which emerges from the letter is that the Bophuthatswana Cabinet insists upon clarity being reached on clause 6(3) of the Bill, a clause which we have been debating at some length and which provides that upon citizenship of Bophuthatswana being renounced by anybody, other citizenship can be acquired upon agreement between the two Governments concerned. It is entirely unclear as to what the effect of that clause is, but what is more important, we are still unclear as to the territory, the ground, and the circumstances which it is designed to meet. That the hon. the Minister will not tell us, as I shall reveal in a moment. That is one issue which they raise. Coupled with that, they insist that if there is to be a renunciation of Bophuthatswana citizenship, then the assumption of South African citizenship shall automatically thereupon take place. That is the first point they raise. They insist in the clearest terms that the Bill should be amended to that effect during the present session of Parliament. That is how strong their feeling is in that regard.

Perhaps I should now refer to the evidence on that first point. They say initially—and I paraphrase now—that Press reports on what the hon. the Minister said at the time of the introduction of the Bill were unclear and confusing. So they sought clarification from the hon. the Minister and his reply was telexed to them. But upon receiving his telex, i.e. the statement telexed to them designed to clear up the issue, they say, and I quote—

It is interesting that before having seen this letter we on this side of the House were equally perplexed as to what the hon. the Minister intended in this regard, independently of the Government of Bophuthatswana. They go on, and I quote further—

And they underline it—

i.e. to the Cabinet of Bophuthatswana—

Nothing could be clearer, that in their view the situation should be in this Bill that if they renounce their citizenship of Bophuthatswana, they automatically resume citizenship of South Africa. That is clearly not the view of the hon. the Minister. It is a material difference in principle. Why then was the House not informed that this was so, more particularly as this point was the principal issue between the sides of the House in the debates that have taken place? This is the main fact that we have been debating.

Let us go a little further, and I quote from the letter again—

i.e. the Secretary for the department—

And here comes the point—

What does this show? It shows that on the principal issue of citizenship there is a gulf as wide as this House between the Cabinet of Bophuthatswana and the hon. the Minister. Why did he not stand up in this House in the Second Reading and say: “I must regretfully inform the House that there is total disagreement between the Bophuthatswana Cabinet and myself on the question of citizenship, but nevertheless I ask you to support this measure as being in the interests of the country and of the Bophuthatswana people?”

That is the factual situation. Instead of it, with honeyed words, we were led to believe that this was a measure upon which there was a large measure of agreement between the Cabinet of Bophuthatswana and the South African Government. What is the next point? As I have said, it clearly emerges from the evidence that in the view of the Bophuthatswana Cabinet this Bill should be amended during the current session of Parliament.

Thirdly, it clearly emerges from what I have read that independence would not be accepted if the Bill were not amended during the current session. I have been at pains—and many others have been too—to get from the hon. the Minister an understanding of the circumstances which clause 6(3) is designed to cover. I have not yet an understanding, and I believe I can say with some degree of certainty that it is not because of any defect in my intellect that I do not understand it. What has the hon. the Minister said? He has only made two attempts to explain. I know what the words say. I am able to read and analyse a clause, but I do not understand the facts which it is designed to cover. The only thing the hon. the Minister has said, is, firstly, that it is designed to accommodate—these are my words, but I believe they express correctly what he has said—many Tswanas who live and work in South Africa, and that consequently the South African Government has an interest, and that it is right that it should be contained in the clause that any change of citizenship from Bophuthatswana citizenship to another should involve the South African Government.

A moment’s reflection will reveal that that is a wholly untenable statement. What about the Transkei? The provisions of this clause 6(3) are not in the Transkeian Independence legislation and there are thousands of Transkeian citizens permanently working and living in South Africa. Supposing they want to change their citizenship? They do not have the provisions contained in clause 6(3) of this Bill in their independence legislation, the provision which would enable the hon. the Minister to express his view. What is going to happen in that respect? The answer is quite simple.

Any citizen of a foreign State, whether he is permanently resident in South Africa or not, a Frenchman permanently resident in South Africa, is fully entitled to apply for German citizenship. The South African Government has no say in the matter whatsoever. The same applies to the Transkei. Why is it the Tswana citizen permanently working and living in South Africa is different from any other and why is a special clause 6(3) required to meet the situation? It is an absurd argument which the hon. the Minister has put forward. It does not carry the matter any further forward.

Then the hon. the Minister got as close to it as he has so far, when he said it is sufficiently widely stated that the question of a reversion to South African citizenship could be raised in terms of that clause. Well, that it true to the extent that it is sufficiently wide to enable such a claim to be made. However, is it his intention that there should be claims in terms of clause 6(3) for those who renounce their Bophuthatswana citizenship to revert to South African citizenship? Is that what it is designed to meet?

If it is, it blows sky-high the whole of the philosophy that this legislation is designed to bring about, that is to say, to divest all Black people in South Africa of South African citizenship and to re-invest them with citizenship in one of the homelands to which they are nationally attached. This is the very cornerstone of Government policy and philosophy, the very corner-stone of the empire which the hon. the Minister has built and which he is now breaking up into independent States. If the hon. the Minister accepts that and is prepared to stand up here and say that in order to meet the objections raised by the Bophuthatswana Government in the clearest terms, he has introduced clause 6(3) so that there can be a reversion from Bophuthatswana citizenship to South African citizenship, he blows out of the door the very philosophy upon which this Bill is based. However, if he does not say that, then all the objections that I have raised in respect of this letter and the question of citizenship sit firmly in the hon. the Minister’s lap. He has not dealt with them at all.

The next point which emerges from this letter is total dissatisfaction on the part of the Bophuthatswana Cabinet in regard to consolidation, not only in detail, but on the whole concept. What did we debate during Second Reading at some length? I raised the point myself that this pattern of six scattered territories, widely separated from north to south and east to west, made administration almost unmanageable. This is precisely what the Cabinet of Bophuthatswana say in their letter. In this regard they say—

And these are strong words—

If that was not relevant to our discussions at Second Reading, I do not know what is. The letter goes on—

This is precisely the point of view that has been advanced throughout the Second Reading debate by those of us from this side of the House, not knowing the existence of this letter. If this is one of the key factors of the debate, why did the hon. the Minister again not stand up during the Second Reading debate and say to the House: “It is my duty to inform the House, regrettably, that although the consolidation proposals and what is set out in schedule B of the Bill are totally unacceptable to the Bophuthatswana Government, I must nevertheless ask you to give your support to this Bill?”

He should have withdrawn the Bill.

He should resign!

There is a third factor which emerges from this letter, which to me is the most damaging aspect of the lot, because it shows a complete breakdown in faith between the Government of Bophuthatswana and the hon. the Minister’s department. It says—

[Inaudible.]

I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister listens to this. I suppose he did know about this letter. [Interjections.] He can chat away. Did he know about this letter?

No.

That is interesting. [Interjections.] The hon. the Deputy Minister did not know about the letter, but the last paragraph reads—

This is of course to the Commissioner-General—

Is the hon. the Deputy Minister not part of the Government? [Interjections.]

Didn’t you know that Deputies are not members of the Cabinet?

I will leave that point for a moment.

Let us come back to what I call a breakdown of faith and communication between this Cabinet we are discussing and the hon. the Minister’s department. I view this in a most serious light, because what does the Cabinet say? It says—

What a shocking indictment!

I do not know whether or not there is foundation for this allegation. However, the hon. the Minister does know. If there is no foundation in this allegation why did the hon. the Minister not say so at the earliest opportunity? Instead he remained silent on probably the most damning criticism—if it is correct—that could come to the door of any department.

To sum up, what is the state of affairs as far as this Third Reading is concerned? There is complete disagreement on the issue of land, its consolidation and the excisions. There is complete disagreement on the question of citizenship, which is the cardinal point in the Bill, and there is the gravest criticism by a whole Cabinet of the conduct of affairs by the hon. the Minister’s department, for which the hon. the Minister naturally must take responsibility in this Parliament. None of this was at any stage brought to the attention of the House by the hon. the Minister piloting the Bill.

In the absence of an explanation I do not believe one can have on an—to use the hon. the Minister’s phrase—historic occasion, when an historic piece of legislation is introduced, a more undesirable or unsatisfactory state of affairs. I believe that one can fairly say that unless at this final stage a reasonable explanation is given on all these issues by the hon. the Minister, it is a matter for the gravest censure.

Mr. Speaker, I sat and listened to the hon. member very carefully. If you have not yet seen an example of a tragic, unsuccessful attempt to conceal an inner weakness on that side of the House, you have seen it today, Sir. You must watch me carefully, because I am becoming aggressive now.

The last time there was a South African Party was 33 years ago. A new South African Party has now arisen again. While I was sitting here looking at them now, I remembered a time 33 years ago. When I saw that hon. member’s hypocritical political face … [Interjections.] I may say that.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member refer to another hon. member as being “hypocritical”?

I referred to the hon. member’s politically hypocritical face, but I shall withdraw it. While I was sitting here looking at him, I felt very much inclined, now that the old South African Party which has reappeared, has stirred up all the old memories in me again, to tell the fellows: “Bring out the chairs, brothers, let us hammer them as we did in years gone by.” They do not deserve anything but a beating. It is a weak party. The old UP Party disappeared when there was an amalgamation. Now they are involved in an amalgamation once again. An old, decrepit and ailing party now wishes to form a conjugal union with and amalgate with a Squint-eyed party that squints to the left. What will the result be? In 33 years’ time it will no longer exist. If I am any judge of their attitude in this House, this new South African Party will effortlessly and exuberantly fill in all the political pot-holes. That old party, the Democratic Reformed United Party—the old “drip-drip” party—will tumble headlong into all the political potholes.

The Economist of 24 April 1976 had the following to say in connection with “The lost tribe”—

The legislation which we have just passed at the Second Reading, provides for and is evidence of the changes, and will result in bringing about and establishing those changes which we in South Africa need. The legislation is a force majeur in our whole policy of change by means of separate development. According to the recipe and within the framework of our proven policy of separate development we shall also bring about changes, by means of the application of the legislation, in our spirit, our disposition and our approach. We shall also be able to bring about a change of boundaries—as the consequences of the legislation will indicate and as the evolutionary path is unfolded by the legislation—but this will not be consolidation on the pre-independence basis, but a rearrangement of boundaries at a level of negotiation on which two sovereign, independent and interdependent States will be operating.

The changes which will and must follow on the implementation of this emancipatory legislation, will weave Bophuthatswana into a pattem power and a power constellation in Southern Africa, a constellation which will not be built on the brittle foundation of the OAU. It will involve Bophuthatswana in a political power bloc which will not depend on the negative nagging about human rights or on the political manoeuvring between Western liberalism and Russian imperialism of …

Order! I must ask the hon. member to discuss the Bill.

I am speaking about the consequences of the legislation, Sir.

We are dealing with the Third Reading stage of the Bill and as such we have a specific piece of legislation before us which we have to discuss.

The legislation, as it is before the House at the moment, will cause an interdependent geo-politically founded economic power constellation to develop.

This legislation grants Bophuthatswana full constitutional independence and it will put certain levers in the hands of Bophuthatswana. In future Bophuthatswana will be able to join the UN, the OAU and it will be able to negotiate development capital. Bophuthatswana will be able to support any group and it will be able to become involved in any group. By means of the legislation and by means of its independence which is made possible by this legislation, Bophuthatswana will be able to dissociate itself from the confrontation which must and will follow if the pattern of the Opposition or the formula for majority rule of certain Western nations should become a reality. In view of the formula which the Opposition proposed during the Second Reading debate, and is now proposing again, I want to know whether Bophuthatswana will ever be able to exist anywhere where they comprise a minority of the population in an integrated community. It will not be able to exist. Who will accord Bophuthatswana, with its small population, equal treatment? After all, we know the lessons that Africa teaches. On whom can Bophuthatswana rely? After all, we know the motives and capabilities of the people who intervene in Africa, and in our country too, in order to bedevil everything which we want to allow to develop in a normal way by means of this legislation. We remember what happened to Nigeria—and Bophuthatswana will also be able to remember it after it has received its independence in terms of this legislation. Two million people were killed there in an ethnic struggle. This was the case, too, in Uganda, Tanzania and in the Sudan, where the struggle has been continuing for 16 years. It can also take a look at Angola and Mozambique where it is obvious that the pattern which has been prescribed to us in this debate, does not work. An ethnic struggle will take place there too, and there will be embitterment amongst the ethnic groups as is the case in the rest of Africa.

This legislation will enable Bophuthatswana to find itself a place between two friendly States. On the one hand we have Botswana, which has practically the same ethnic composition as Bophuthatswana, and on the other hand we have the Republic, which has a totally different ethnic composition. Bophuthatswana will be able to seek an affiliation with these two friendly States in its course of development and it will be able to lean on the economic as well as the technological strength of its powerful neighbour, the White Republic of South Africa. I want in all earnest to address a warning to Bophuthatswana today—I do this as a man from the White South, as an inhabitant of the independent Republic of South Africa—that they must be careful of the cry of neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism which Russian imperialism and the militants in Africa are throwing in their path. Where is there a better example of Russian imperialism than the scenario which is being enacted in Angola at the moment?

This Bill comes from the heart of the Nationalist. The development which will flow from this Bill, will prove to Bophuthatswana that the Afrikaner will not cheat him and that the Nationalist will keep his word. It will show that, in our relations politics, we are not being guided by false principles of morality, but by a true realization of economic realities. This will prove that we base our projections of the future on realities and on the lessons which we learn from the history of Africa and elsewhere. After its independence, Bophuthatswana will discover that all this nagging and accusations against its White neighbour are built on very delicate, fragile foundations. Bophuthatswana will discover that Africa, which is the most ethnically divided continent in the world, and the occurences in Africa, will teach it a costly lesson if it is going to listen to these militants as they expressed themselves on 10 January 1976 at Addis Ababa. Bophuthatswana will be able to choose between the militants and the moderates in Africa. It will be able to make decisions as it wishes, after 6 December, once this Act comes into effect. It will have the opportunity to choose which power base in Africa it wants to join.

I am no prophet, but if I have to make a projection, a power constellation will flow from this legislation in Southern Africa and we shall willingly and gladly involve Bophuthatswana in this power constellation. We shall then, on a basis of political independence for every country, and on a basis of interdependence, see this economic and political action base in action. A different language will be spoken then and a different spirit will be in evidence, greater and different realities will influence matters than the dispositions which the 47 African States tried to manifest at the UNO as a power bloc. When the Lion of Judah, Emperor Haile Selassie, was ignominiously dethroned in 1974, it was in fact due to the lesson which he would not learn. He was one of the great propagandists against us; he agitated against us. Nevertheless he was brushed aside ignominiously because instead of trying to give his hungry people food or progress, he tried to feed them on a surfeit of battle cries. While he clamoured against us and while the process of separate development was under way, to make this legislation a fait accompli and reach the stages of development which we have reached with this legislation, they clung to their old feudalism, something which is unknown in South Africa. South Africa does not know it. Bophuthatswana will be able to fulfil its political ambitions now as a free nation is entitled to do. What a fine opportunity it has! It has commodities to export such as few countries in Africa have. There is its labour, which will always be there as an export commodity. There are its minerals and its valuable agricultural land. Bophuthatswana can teach the rest of the world a lesson. It can teach the lesson that we can differentiate between what is meant by “possible economic subsistence” and “economic self-sufficiency”. It seems to me as if hon. members who have already participated in this debate, could not obtain clarity on this for themselves either. There is no country in the world which is economically self-sufficient. On the other hand there are many countries which can subsist economically. Not even England, America, France and Germany are economically self-sufficient. I wish they would stop this everlasting nagging about Bophuthatswana not being economically viable. It is a load of rubbish. I hope and trust that the legislation of which we are now considering the Third Reading, will result in a pattern, a demonstration, a beneficial fact of development, by means of which we will be able to show the world that Bophuthatswana, interdependently linked to the Republic of South Africa on a basis of well-intentioned, sincere honesty, can take its place in the world-wide comity of nations which are able to subsist economically and are not economically self-sufficient. My best wishes go to the Government of Bophuthatswana.

I want to conclude. Last year when the Transkei obtained its independence, it was 64 years after Gen. Hertzog had turned the first sods of the policy of separate development. On 6 December 1977 it will be 65 years ago that Gen. Hertzog turned those sods. During the period of 65 years I, my people and my party have been reviled. We have been accused of and reproached with having hidden motives, but I thank the Lord that I and my comrades, we in my party and the people who think ahead like we do in an intrepid, fearless way, acted honestly and sincerely and that today we are on the eve of a completely free and independent Bophuthatswana which will turn to that neighbour, that constellation, that power base which will hold more for it and mean more to it than the counterfeit Organization for African Unity, the militant rabble in Africa and those ethnically moral servitors who cannot keep their mouths shut in the UNO and cannot stop their everlasting nagging about us. I trust that we will be worthy of our confidence in Bophuthatswana in the future and that they will be worthy of our confidence in them.

Mr. Speaker, I always listen with a great deal of interest to the wise things which the hon. member for Carletonville says in this House, but I was disappointed in him today because he created the impression in his speech of supposedly being blissfully unaware of the arrival of the letter on the desk of the hon. the Minister and blissfully unaware of the implications of the contents of the letter.

You are blissfully unaware of what is going on!

Of course, the hon. member tried very hard to encourage the discouraged a little, because for years I have not seen the members of the NP sitting listening to a debate so dejectedly and even so obviously flustered. They are pale from the shock they have suffered from being hit by the realities over the past few days. [Interjections.]

The occurences of the past few days are significant and very important. It is those very occurences which we must debate at this stage. The dramatic intervention by the Chief Minister of Bophuthatswana to save his people from the sorrow and humiliation awaiting them in the event of this legislation being passed by Parliament under circumstances of members of Parliament not having been given the full facts by the Government, will be recorded as one of the most significant steps in the developing history of South Africa. Indeed, it is a turning-point in our history. Having listened to the utterances of the hon. the Minister and other hon. members, I fear what they said means that they do not fully realize at this stage what the full extent and implications are. I believe, however, that there will be major and drastic changes and new policies as a result of this within the next few months. One hon. member of the Opposition quoted extensively from the letter. He had to shoulder the responsibility of informing the members of the NP about the contents of the letter containing a specific request by the Government of Bophuthatswana that the hon. the Minister inform the members of this House about the contents of the letter.

Since the hon. the Minister had failed to do so, an hon. member of the Opposition had to do so. It would appear to me as though not even the Cabinet had been aware of the contents of the letter. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Was the Cabinet aware of this letter? Did he reveal the contents of the letter to the Cabinet? One may possibly take this matter a little further. Was the hon. the Prime Minister aware of the contents of this letter prior to the introduction of the legislation in this House?

Chief Mangope states clearly and unambiguously that he and his Government are not at all prepared to accept independence unless an amendment is introduced during this session of Parliament providing that a person who has renounced his South African citizenship and has become a citizen of Bophuthatswana shall have the right to regain South African citizenship, if that is what he prefers; in other words, if he prefers to renounce his Bophuthatswana citizenship. Clearly Chief Mangope and his Cabinet are not prepared to compromise their people’s future for the sake of independence. They are not prepared to accept the legislation as it stands. They state certain terms unambiguously, and these terms mean the following: If the Government accepts those terms, it means that Bophuthatswana will become independent, but that a large section of the population of Bophuthatswana would prefer to retain their South African citizenship. This will mean that one of the most important aims and objects of the policy of separate development will collapse completely, and that is the objective of separate development which gives the Government the right to deny a large section of the citizens of Bophuthatswana the opportunity and the ability to negotiate their rights and future within the White political dispensation, within the so-called White South Africa. This will lead to the undoing of the policy of separate development and of the policy of apartheid. If the terms are rejected, it will simply mean that separate development, as offered by the Government, will end up in a cul-de-sac. If Bophuthatswana does not accept independence, the other homelands will not accept independence either. This will make the policy come to a dead end there and then.

Chief Mangope said to his people—and his people may be very proud of him today—and gave them the undertaking that he would not sell them out, that he would not allow the Government to deprive them of their rights and their rights to citizenship. Chief Mangope stuck to his guns, and his people must see him as a hero today for having been prepared to intervene where their interests and rights were at stake.

There are certain anomalies. There are certain aspects of the handling of this matter by the hon. the Minister and his department, which give rise to much concern and which appears suspect. It would appear as though the hon. the Minister and the department tried to pull a fast one on the Cabinet of Bophuthatswana here. It seems to me as if the setup was as follows. Firstly, Bophuthatswana would obtain independence. In the process the citizens of Bophuthatswana would first of all have to renounce their South African citizenship. To those who were not satisfied with this, the offer was made that a different citizenship was negotiable by them and that certain arrangements could be made, but only after independence had been accepted and after any other right to which they could still lay claim, or any legal aspects which they could invoke, had been removed. The Government of Bophuthatswana, however, has learned to proceed with caution in any dealings with this department and its hon. Minister. The Government of Bophuthatswana states emphatically that it cannot trust this department and the hon. the Minister at all and that it cannot accept their word in any regard. [Interjections.]

As far as I am concerned, the action of the hon. the Minister, the fact that he neglected to make known the letter and its contents to this House, the fact that he failed to consult this House and its members in the matter, can be described in no other way than by labelling it as irresponsible. That is why I want to address an appeal to the hon. the Minister, in the interest of South Africa and in the interest of the credibility of the White man, to dismiss this hon. Minister from office without any further ado. We must bear in mind that the hon. the Prime Minister has travelled the world over to inform one and all that South Africa is a country which places a high premium on morality and that the actions and the policy of the Government of South Africa can be justified on moral grounds. In these circumstances we dare not tolerate an hon. Minister like this one any longer. [Interjections.]

It will be a sad day for South Africa if the Government refuses point-blank to accept the realities of the new situation, if the Government persists in burying its head in the sand and in stumbling and bumbling along making out in the face of all realities that nothing has happened. This is not the time for reproaches or for threats. This is the time for composure and cool-headed reasoning. It is time the Government realized that it will have to evince a new adaptability, a new flexibility, that it will have to launch, honestly and fearlessly, a new investigation into its policy. This is the time for courageous and for imaginative thinking and policy formulation along new lines.

Even at this time in which its policy has clearly and obviously collapsed, this Government still has the opportunity to salvage something. In order to salvage something, the Government should openly concede that its policy has failed. After that, the real reasons for the failure of the policy must be identified and defined. Only then should any rethinking be done. The policy of separate development was aimed at giving each of the various ethnic population groups a sovereignty of its own and an independent geo-political State, a place where it would be sovereign and independent and where it could deal with the affairs of its own people without any intervention from outside. This was the idealistic objective, the ideal, which this policy formed the basis of. A second objective was the removal of the Black man from White politics and depriving him of his ability to negotiate rights on a political basis within White South Africa. The problem, however, is that whilst one is removing the ability of the Black man to negotiate rights for himself, one is not removing the Black man in his existence, aspirations, expectations and frustrations from the so-called White political part of South Africa. Unfortunately the foundation for the creation of this geo-political status was the 1936 legislation. The 1936 legislation is hopelessly inadequate to satisfy the justified aspirations of these peoples. The practical results were, amongst others, the unjust division of land and resources, rendering it impossible to regard the States which are being created as being viable in any way.

What is your definition of viability?

Viability measured in terms of and against the background of the viability of South Africa as a whole. After all, one must create a criterion and norms.

Is Lesotho viable?

Another result was that discrimination based on colour continued to exist, although it was said that it would be an interim situation only. In the practical implementation of the policy, however, we find an arbitrary removal of citizenship rights in circumstances in which neither the nation, nor the individual are consulted. The policy has clearly failed because it cannot, in its practical implementation, comply with the material and spiritual aspirations and requirements of the peoples and individuals.

The policy is on the rocks, chiefly as a result of the fact that it has failed in respect of the urban Black man. The urban Black man lives in the city, he has his home and his job in the city and his children are born there and go to school there. The urban Black man has all his interests and aspirations in the cities, and he experiences his problems and frustrations there. That is where he wants to promote his interests and have a joint say in the bodies which control him. That is where he wants to exercise political rights. Because the Government has not succeeded in affording the urban Black man the opportunity of realizing his legitimate and justified aspirations and expectations, the policy has failed. And because the policy has failed in respect of the urban Black man, it is failing in South Africa as a whole.

In conclusion I want to say that these occurrences do not mean, however, that the principle of territorial division has failed as such. It does mean that its practical implementation in terms of the policy of the NP has failed. If the Government were to be prepared to see the truth of this, they would still have had the opportunity of salvaging something of this policy. In that case the Government would still have had the opportunity of applying this principle in the future, developing the constitutional situation in South Africa. If the Government wants to do this, they will first have to do the following: In the first place the Government will have to drop this legislation at once. Mr. Speaker, in heaven’s name, the Government must not continue with this legislation, because if they do so, they are going to create bigger problems for South Africa in time to come. I ask the Government to withdraw the legislation at this stage, and to subject the implementation of its policy, not only in respect of Bophuthatswana, but in respect of South Africa as a whole, to an inquiry by a multiracial commission, a new Tomlinson Commission, which is to reinvestigate the whole matter from the start against the background of the new circumstances, aspirations and problems. Then it must come forward with a new set of proposals. If it does this, it will have the opportunity of possibly making this policy viable. If the Government is not prepared, however, to subject its policy to an inquiry of this kind, or to accept the realities of the situation as they are at the moment, but are determined to push on in the face of all opposition, in the face of all realities and facts, regardless of the rights of the people concerned, and regardless of the interests of South Africa and the credibility of the Government and of the White man, the Government stands accused of endangering the future of South Africa and the security and future of the White man.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the hon. member for Bryanston whether he has ever heard of the Transkei? Does he know about it? I just want to catch his eye. Has he ever heard of the Transkei?

I know Transkei very well.

But Transkei is independent and yet he states that our policy has failed.

Absolutely.

I want to put a second question to the hon. member. Would he still have opposed the Bill if the hon. the Minister had in fact revealed the contents of that letter?

Of course.

Would he still have opposed It?

Yes.

In other words, whether the letter had been revealed or not, he would still have opposed the legislation. Surely, then, he has what he wants. The hon. member reminds me of the two little boys who had an apple to share. Pete said to Johnnie: “Cut the apple in two and I will choose.” When Pete chose, he chose the bigger part. Johnnie then asked him: “What are you doing now? I would not have taken the bigger part.” Pete replied: “But then surely you have what you wanted.” Surely that hon. member also has what he wants. He is seeking reasons to oppose the legislation and will continue to do so on whatever basis.

It is very interesting that the hon. member for Bryanston based his whole argument on a letter. As a result he states that the policy has failed. Seen objectively, his interpretation does not signify much to us because he put it in such a way that only a Prog would understand it. The hon. member tells us that our policy has failed entirely. This leads him to ask that this legislation should be withdrawn. In one breath he praises Chief Minister Mangope as a far-sighted man and the leader of his people. What does this letter ask? If I understand it correctly, it merely asks for a compromise understanding with the Government. The hon. member should therefore help to make that understanding possible. However, it leads him to say that this Bill should be withdrawn. Surely that is absurd.

Secondly, the hon. member does not ask that a compromise be reached as the letter does. No. He states that a commission of inquiry should be appointed to investigate the entire policy. How absurd can one get if one is on the losing side? The hon. member states that the hon. the Minister neglected to submit the letter here. Has it ever occurred to the hon. member that the hon. the Minister could in fact have considered the matter and then, due to specific reasons, decided that it did not belong here? What could those reasons be? The reasons could be that—within the context of the task of this House—the aspect falls within the ambit of the executive. With regard to land purchases, agreements and so on it is not for this House to decide on them. If the hon. the Minister came to the conclusion that there were matters of cardinal importance which this House had to consider and that there were factors which this House should consider before agreeing to the Bill, and the letter did not form part of them, then surely the hon. the Minister was justified in not bringing the letter to the House. What do these factors involve? In all the arguments advanced by that side of the House they have shamefully neglected to deal with the fundamental issues. I want to suggest that one fundamental issue should be the question whether a Government is in power that will be able to exercise the functions of a Government as soon as the legislation comes into force and full sovereignty is granted to that State.

The answer is clear. In fact, the hon. member for Bryanston furnished it himself because he waxed lyrical about Chief Minister Mangope. He praised him as a leader of his people. However, he is not a leader of his people solely because the hon. member sees him as such; he is also a statutory leader and he has statutory power, power which has been built up over a long period. He has in his constellation a Legislative Assembly, an executive and a judicial body, because we gave approval the other day for Bophuthatswana to have a Supreme Court in accordance with the provisions of the constitution of the Bantu homelands. According to the provisions of that legislation they have got a Supreme Court, and hon. members did not quarrel about that. In fact, the PRP was not even present here on that occasion. In other words, Bophuthatswana already has all the necessary components affording a State the authority to exercise sovereignty the moment it gets it. I shall come shortly to the ridiculous argument put forward by the hon. member for Sea Point with regard to the authority of Chief Minister Mangope and the other chiefs. I shall leave it at that for the time being, however, because I am replying to the hon. member for Bryanston.

The second component of this very important matter is not whether the territories are situated here or there but: Does defined territory exist which is identifiable? Is there a territory over which a sovereign authority can exercise its authority? I do not know what is stated in the letter …

Read it then.

I am speaking on the basis of personal knowledge. Twelve districts have been identified here and we know that not all the land in those 12 districts has been purchased. But as was the case with the Transkei, we also know that there will be an agreement to purchase this land and to give it full sovereignty. Surely it is logical that that should be the second component.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana did not argue this point at all. On the contrary. He only got as far as the four police stations. As I see it, the third component is the most important for the purposes of the debate, viz. that the sovereign authority should exercise authority over an identifiable population which associates itself with the territory. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana dominated the Second Reading debate with his speech about two-thirds of the population which is supposedly elsewhere. What about the one-third within the territory? What about those people? It is very interesting that the State of Israel started with exactly the same number of people de facto present within the country, and Israel has a far smaller surface area. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana quoted figures dating from 1970 in this regard. He did not even try to obtain the 1976 figures. Surely it was very easy to obtain them. The hon. member for Pinelands is not even interested in figures—I am now arguing solely on the basis of numbers—because he ignored totally the wishes of a million people. What are the true figures as reflected in a publication issued by B.E.R.B.D., the same source as that quoted by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana? As he said, the de facto figures in 1970 were 633 000. This means that 35,5% were present in the homeland. In 1975 the picture is already different because the de facto figure was then 793 000, whereas 2 million of the inhabitants were elsewhere. This meant that 38,8% of the inhabitants of Bophuthatswana were present in the homeland. The figures for 1976 show that already 39% of the inhabitants are in the homeland, viz. in this regard an upward trend can be detected. The legislation seeks to establish a sovereign authority that will have jurisdiction over these people. Nowhere in any international document will it be found that the issue of citizenship should be crystal clear before a State can become sovereign.

Where is it stated that that should not be so?

I have just mentioned to the hon. member the requirements necessary and by implication that was excluded. What did the hon. members do? They did what they have been doing for the past 26 years now, namely putting South Africa in bad odour abroad. If I may say so, they have provided sufficient bad odour to besmirch our name abroad.

What the hon. member for Bryanston said did not tally with his leader’s speech because among other things, that hon. member launched a very sharp attack on the desire of the people of Bophuthatswana to become sovereign. He expressed grave doubts on this score and in fact expressed himself as follows—

He went on to say—

He referred to elections and the expression of a desire to adopt a specific policy. What does the hon. member want to imply hereby? By doing so he is impugning the leaders which the Tswana people have themselves elected, their traditional tribal chiefs. The hon. member for Bryanston called on the Cabinet of Bophuthatswana for an hour and a half. My information was that the hon. member was requested to leave. I take it that the thicker a person’s skin, the longer it takes to ask a man to go. I take it that that was exactly what happened with the hon. member for Bryanston. Why, then, has he not repudiated his leader if he has so much respect for the Tswanas? Why did he not repudiate him? As far as we are concerned the hon. member’s credibility in this regard has been totally shattered.

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise another matter. I want to refer to the fact that part of the soon-to-be-independent Bophuthatswana is situated in the Free State, too. The Tswana people and the Free Staters have a long history of co-operation and of a good understanding. I want to express the confidence that this will be the case in the future as well. We have a very sound basis on which we can build in the future. I want to refer to what happened in the previous century. For example, the Free State Government and Chief Moroko corresponded with each other and exchanged calls in order to eliminate disputes or to reach agreement in other respects. A good illustration of this relationship is the fact that in February 1866, the two States concluded a treaty in which they undertook to furnish each other with assistance in case of war and also came to an agreement in connection with the sale of arms to the Barolong and the extradition of offenders. In spite of the violations of the border on both sides it was possible to solve all these problems sooner or later. Another example is that Chief Moroko wrote to the OFS in 1858 to the effect that he condemned the actions of Mosesh and promised this support to the OFS. It is very interesting that during that war against the Basuto, the Barolong nation also furnished the OFS with positive assistance by sending out patrols to round up cattle thieves and also to reconnoitre. When Captain Moroko died in 1880, the OFS sent an official delegation. That piece of history shows me that our people, my forebears, the forebears of the hon. members who represent Free State seats here and the forebears of so many other people from the Free State, are capable of reaching a compromise in regard to problems arising between ourselves and this people. That is why I am convinced that any points of difficulty which may crop up in the future will be dealt with in a spirit of mutual respect.

There is something I want to ask the hon. the Minister in connection with schedule A. In terms of the Bill, the definition of the district Thaba Nchu is very clearly linked to the corresponding delimitation in accordance with the Magistrates Court Act. However, it is also true that there is a town by the name of Thaba Nchu. I take it that the town of Thaba Nchu is not included in this definition. In conclusion, I must point out that we have today viewed the spectacle of hon. members of the Opposition trying to find a broader common basis. They tried to find a common basis and unfortunately this Bill gave it them.

A “mating call”.

My hon. colleague for Brakpan says that there was a mating call and there was a reaction to that. Imagine, Sir, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana getting enthusiastic about the hon. member for Pinelands. Imagine the hon. member for Bezuidenhout not getting enthusiastic about the hon. member for Pinelands. We on this side of the House have seen a Bill being misused to find a basis on which parties can try to accommodate each other. We on this side wish to object in the strongest possible terms to this Bill being used for this purpose.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of this debate we have heard arguments concerning consolidation, citizenship and the possibility that this territory is supposedly not economically viable. We heard exactly the same arguments in connection with the legislation before this House last year, to be specific, the Transkei legislation. We also heard the same arguments when other Black countries achieved their independence. At that time there were also people who regarded it as unnecessary that those people should achieve their independence. However, what we in this House cannot get away from is that in this country and throughout Africa we are dealing with a certain urge, and that is the urge to achieve constitutional and political freedom.

I think that it has been realized for some time in this House that the Black man must be placed on the road to political freedom. The argument concerns the best way to do this, because that urge exists among the Blacks. At the same time, the Whites do not want the political freedom of the Black man to be carried into effect in such a way that the position of the Whites in the country will be harmed thereby. This is the dilemma which South Africa has been facing for a very long time; it had to find a way, a system, which would be just and fair towards both the Black man and the White man. It is clear that as far as Bophuthatswana and other homelands are concerned, we have for some time been adopting a course which will allow those people to administer themselves. In spite of shortcomings, those people are preparing themselves for the acceptance of some form of political independence.

The main argument advanced by the Opposition thus far has been that there is dissatisfaction on the part of Headman Mangope …

No, chief.

Very well, then I say that the main argument advanced thus far by the Opposition is that there is dissatisfaction on the part of Chief Mangope because the Government was unable to furnish certain answers. Reference was then made to the letter written to the Commissioner General. It seems to me that certain hon. members are in a specially privileged position because they receive copies of letters addressed to the hon. the Minister’s office. I find it strange that the chief who is now so concerned about consolidation and citizenship …

Do you not form part of the Opposition?

The hon. clergyman should give me a chance now; in a moment I shall ask someone to make a collection for him. [Interjections.]

I find it strange that there were only one or two hon. members on this side of the House who received copies of the letter. If the chief had wanted to impress the House with the very strong case he had, then the hon. members for Pinelands and Edenvale really would not have been the only people to receive copies of the letter. [Interjections.] Apparently the hon. member for Bryanston also received a copy of the letter. Nevertheless I believe that if the chief had really wanted to impress the House, if he had really wanted to launch a campaign, he would undoubtedly have informed every member of this House about the letter he had sent to the hon. the Minister. With the exception of a few hon. members to whom I have referred, not one of us received such copies. [Interjections.]

Order!

What I also find strange is that the conclusion reached in To the Point of 25 February this year after an interview had been conducted with Chief Mangope and a number of questions had been asked him was the following—

But what is of importance is the issue of the questions put to Chief Minister Mangope. This is open to everyone’s scrutiny; in contrast to certain letters that are written. A further question that was asked, and his reply to it, read as follows—

Another question—and many questions were put to him—and his reply, read as follows—

Further questions were put to him, one after the other. As many as 25 to 30 questions were put to him concerning the constitutional development which has to take place. There are questions concerning his relations with the Republic of South Africa; questions concerning his relations with the Organization for African Unity, but nowhere did I find a single question or answer concerning the issue of citizenship. That is not to say that they might not have spoken about that or that the questioner did not deem it of importance. However, how did he conclude? In my opinion this is of importance. I quote the question and its reply—

Those are the utterances, one after the other—there are too many to mention in this House—of a leader who has confidence in spite of the fact that he knows that there are problems to be encountered on his country’s road to independence. He realizes this just as anyone of us here in this House realize it. It has already been admitted that even as far as the issue of consolidation is concerned, the final answer has not yet been given at this stage. Just as the citizenship of Transkei concerned this House last year, citizenship of the Transkei has now faded into the background due to the fact that the committee which was appointed is in a position to furnish replies to those people.

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

Give me a chance; I only have a few minutes. When this is the situation, when we have to furnish answers concerning the race question, I can only come to one conclusion, viz. that we in South Africa must now make a choice, and the legislation is an example of this.

He, too, changed his mind, just like you did.

Mr. Speaker, I now ask the fellow who speaks like a typewriter but whose output, unfortunately, is not the same, just to give me a chance, because I want to conclude. After that he can have his turn. The question facing South Africa is whether we are prepared to afford these people the opportunity to be given self-Government, and by so doing, assist in providing a proper solution to the race issue, or whether we should move in the direction of a unitary State in this country. That is the choice facing us.

Why did you move “this day six months” last year?

The hon. member for Houghton is taking the whole Opposition in South Africa in tow, because in the creation of Bantu homelands, in the giving of freedom to these people, she sees the end of her dream, namely the creation of a unitary State. As long as the hon. member for Houghton takes the Opposition in tow with this philosophy, we shall find that the people of South Africa will move more and more in the direction of a devolution of power and a decentralization of authority. In my opinion this legislation is an example of this, and my party and I have no difficulty voting in favour of this legislation. It fits in with our scheme of things and with the way in which we see the future development of South Africa.

You moved that the Bill be read this day six months!

I told you why I did so!

Mr. Speaker, to begin with I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Newton Park and his party colleagues wholeheartedly on the establishment of their new party. Then, too, I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Newton Park on his election as leader of the new party. Thirdly, I want to place on record that in my humble opinion, the hon. member for Newton Park adopted a very responsible standpoint here this afternoon with regard to the legislation at hand.

Since the hon. member for Houghton continually interrupted the hon. member for Newton Park, I should like to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether she recognizes Transkei as an independent country.

Come on, Helen! Answer, Helen!

Mr. Speaker, this is really a very simple question and the fact that she is apparently not prepared to answer me, leads me to assume that she does not accept Transkei as being an independent country. [Interjections.]

It doesn’t matter what I recognize. It is the world that counts.

In contrast to the hon. member for Houghton, we have the statement by the hon. member for Yeoville— unfortunately he is not here today—that he is prepared, when the legislation appears on the Statute Book and Bophuthatswana is independent, to accept this as fact. I would be interested to hear the standpoint of the hon. member for Edenvale in this regard. I should like to refer to it again at a later stage of my speech.

I certainly do not believe that the reasons the hon. Opposition parties have advanced for their opposition to this legislation, are their real reasons. The dilemma in which the hon. members who are opposed to this legislation find themselves, lies in the fact that they would like to take account of the wishes of the people of Bophuthatswana, but that on the other hand, they must also take account of their own policy and their own strategy and their links with certain Black people.

They are therefore faced with a situation in which they have to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. Moreover, in their confrontation with this Bill they find themselves in the position of having to witness the policy of the NP being fulfilled once again in the acceptance of this legislation, whilst they have continually had to amend their policy, even before they had the opportunity to put it to the test.

Actually, what the situation amounts to is that the UP and the PRP are fighting the NP in the acceptance of the legislation at hand. However, fighting the NP is not the issue. By fulminating against the NP, their true aim is to fulminate against the fight with the Tswana people. The step now being taken, the legislation which is now about to be placed on the Statute Book at the request of the Legislative Assembly of the Tswana nation, puts a spoke in the wheel of those people who want to create a unitary state. In the unitary state envisaged by the PRP, the Tswana nation would in any event also represent a minority group. In the case of this legislation, it is really one of those things which troubles the PRP tremendously.

Moreover, I should like to refer to the argument that has been advanced by some hon. members—an argument to which the hon. member for Bloemfontein West also makes specific reference—viz., the allegations that a sovereign Bophuthatswana possesses a territory which is hopelessly too small. According to those hon. members who are opposing this legislation, Bophuthatswana is not viable, the country does not have the necessary infrastructure and it consist of too many different parts. We had the facts in front of us. The hon. members opposite cannot dispute the fact that a very sound infrastructure already exists. The area consists inter alia of 14 towns with a population of 263 000, 34 mines, 81 industries and 1 436 business concerns. The buying power of the area has increased from R92 million to R198 million since 1970. The population density of Bophuthatswana is 23,1 people per sq. km. That is the lowest population density of all the homelands. The homelands have an average population density of 44 people per sq. km. The hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that the fact that the area consists of separate units, results in this homeland developing more rapidly than the homelands which consist of one area. The two homelands which are developing most rapidly, Bophuthatswana and KwaZulu, are developing due to the fact that the South African infrastructure is available to them over a wide area. We therefore say, in respect of this Bill as well, that we recognize Bophuthatswana as a State in its own right. There is no getting away from these facts. Another very important fact is that this country is becoming independent without a cent of debt. That is why we on this side of the House have no doubts about Bophuthatswana’s future; in fact, I believe that there are many countries that are envious of Bophuthatswana’s position.

Another aspect to which I want to refer, is the fact that all kinds of derogatory conclusions were expressed by the Opposition spokesmen. The hon. members tried to make out that the people of Bophuthatswana were being forced and that this step was being taken to escape oppression. By means of this legislation, the Government is recognizing the nationalism of the Tswana nation as well. Those hon. members who are opposing this Bill, are also displaying a lack of understanding of the nationalism of a nation, the Tswana nation in particular.

The hon. member for Carletonville also pointed out that in his speech during the Second Reading debate, the hon. member for Edenvale spoke specifically of “economic servitude”. The hon. member is belittling what already exists in Bophuthatswana and what is being done for the development and progress of the homeland. The hon. member would do well to tell us where he and his party stood when there was talk about the development of these areas, and how many people they encouraged to assist in developing the areas.

We also believe that Bophuthatswana is politically viable. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout doubts the political viability of Bophuthatswana. [Interjections.] In my humble opinion, that is derogatory towards the leaders and people of the territory. I believe the hon. members are rejecting the independence of Bophuthatswana and the Tswana nation because they have certain reservations which they are not prepared to put forward. Therefore, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout expresses doubts as to the territory’s political viability. In this regard, I should like to conclude by referring to the hon. member for Houghton. I asked the hon. member—and I should be pleased if the hon. members of her party would reply to this—what their approach is in relation to the future independence of Bophuthatswana. The hon. member said in the debate that our policy would be responsible for the so-called “Black Power”. She said that we were trying to escape from it with—

My interpretation of these words is that the hon. member is saying that Transkei is a fraud and that as a consequence of this, the independence of Bophuthatswana will also be a fraud. I believe that the people of Bophuthatswana should also take a serious view of the standpoint this hon. member is adopting because I believe she is the chief spokesman of her party as far as these matters are concerned. She is belittling us and she says we are carving out the areas in this way, first for 3 million Xhosas, now 2 million Tswanas and then, perhaps in the next 30 years, we will get another couple of independent Bantustans, if they last that long, which is very dubious.” The hon. member for Houghton has absolutely no confidence in those people. Over the weekend, we heard that the leader of Vendaland has made it known that they, too, will ask for independence. I do not believe the hon. member for Houghton will ever recognize these countries as independent, full-fledged countries. The hon. member may answer “yes” or “no” right now to the question I asked her earlier.

Yes.

We on this side of the House have no reservations about the leadership of the people of Bophuthatswana. We have had proof of this over the years. We believe that they will only act in the best interests of Bophuthatswana and its people and that they will draft a constitution for themselves which will best serve their country.

The hon. member for Edenvale is looking at me so anxiously. He would very much have liked to have been able to examine the constitution of Bophuthatswana. He said he could not debate this Bill without being able to examine it. He wants to know what is going on in that regard. In my opinion, that implies that he is worried about the ability of the people of Bophuthatswana to administer their affairs. I think things would go well for Bophuthatswana if the hon. member would just refrain from poking his nose into their affairs. As early as the First Reading, the hon. member said the following—I should like to know why he did not debate it on this basis—

I should now like to hear from the hon. member why he is opposing this, because after all, this is a request which they made. I quote further—

Then the hon. member votes against it later on! [Interjections.]

I should also like to refer to the agreement to which the Bill refers. A great fuss was made about the fact that hon. members did not receive it in advance for their perusal. The hon. member for Edenvale said that as a result, he could not debate the Bill at once. But after all, these are agreements that are entered into by Governments. It was not necessary for the hon. the Minister to submit them to us. He treated the people decently by giving it to them. Now we are being criticized for just that, precisely because they wanted to look for points of dispute in it in order to impede negotiations further. What is important to us, is that the Government has always kept its side of the bargain. This is all on record and I do not believe that hon. members can dispute it. However, we on this side of the House would like to know what agreements the PRP has entered into with certain Black people. Why, then, do they not make their agreements public? Why do they not reveal them to the people of Bophuthatswana? I am convinced that they do not have the prosperity, the self-determination and the preservation of the identity of the Black peoples, including that of the Tswana people, at heart.

I am convinced that as a result of the independence of Bophuthatswana, the Tswana nation will be forged into an even more closely knit unit. It is clear to us that the PRP wishes to separate or cut off from their fatherland those citizens of Bophuthatswana who are resident in the White areas. This is a step which would impede the development and growth of that country. In particular, the hon. members are trying to drive in a wedge in connection with the citizenship of those people. We know that they would not like the homelands to reach full development, because that does not suit their policy. In fact, the hon. member for Sea Point made it quite clear last year during the debate on the independence of Transkei, that he would once again endeavour to bring together separate elements—after all, he does not refer to fully-fledged countries or autonomous countries—and he has also made this known during this debate. Moreover, to me it is a symptom of the fact that in their hearts, the hon. member for Sea Point and his party will never accept the independence of Bophuthatswana but that they will only take an interest in it for the sake of their own political gain. Those Tswana citizens who are living in White areas have absolutely no cause to feel threatened.

The hon. the Minister emphasized that in his reply to the Second Reading debate and I do not want to repeat it in detail today. In all humility I want to request the PRP to leave the people of Bophuthatswana alone so that they may develop their own country and guide themselves according to their views and in terms of their law and traditions, because the expectations which those hon. members who are opposing the Act are arousing amongst them, cannot be fulfilled.

In all humility, I also want to tell the citizens of Bophuthatswana that they must not allow themselves to be dictated to by liberalists, by those people who have alliances with people who refuse to recognize them as a nation of Bophuthatswana and who in any event are not kindly disposed towards such an independent State. Bophuthatswana needs all its citizens to meet the challenges of the future. I believe Bophuthatswana can go to meet the future with confidence, as a fully-fledged and fully independent country. Apart from the guarantees which the economic interdependence of the Republic of South Africa offers Bophuthatswana and apart from the physical and financial aid, the guidance and assistance in relation to Government administration and training, Bophuthatswana has a great guarantee, viz. the goodwill and benevolence of South Africa and this Government. That is a proven fact and we wish them everything of the best.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Klerksdorp and I shall reply more fully to his arguments presently. We have come to the end of a tragic debate, because no semblance of a reply has been forthcoming from that side of the House in response to the questions which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana asked this afternoon at the beginning of the Third Reading. There has not even been an attempt to reply to those questions. The House will accept the Bill because the Government has the majority vote, without complying in any rational way with the requests made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that we make a proper appraisal of the Bill.

The hon. members for Klerksdorp and Bloemfontein West amazed me by accusing us of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. That is exactly what hon. members on that side of the House are doing. On the one hand they say: “We respect the feelings of the Black people, we want to give them freedom,” but when the Blacks say that they want certain modifications and that certain provisions have to be altered during this parliamentary session, what is the reply then? Then the wishes and desires of the Black people no longer count at all. Who is trying to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds now? The hon. member for Klerksdorp had the audacity—if I may use that term—to say that I should keep my nose out of the affairs of Bophuthatswana. As long as I am a free man in South Africa, I shall speak to whom I like and to anyone who is prepared to speak to me. The days of the late Dr. Verwoerd, when it was said that no one was allowed to speak with a Black person unless he was on that side of the House, have gone forever. Moreover, for the information of the hon. member for Klerksdorp and the hon. member for Newton Park, I just want to say that I did not run to Mr. Mangope and question him about his negotiations with the Government. Mr. Mangope himself took the initiative of contacting me. He himself made the letter available to me, and the hon. member for Newton Park as well as the hon. the Minister and his Deputy ought to know that. Initially, Mr. Mangope expressed the wish that his letter would be made available to all the members of this House on Thursday morning—before I had contacted him or he me. That was his wish and the hon. member for Newton Park must not try to create the impression that I gained possession of the letter in some sly or underhand manner. [Interjections.]

Order!

That is a sober fact. I want to tell the hon. member for Klerksdorp that it is not we who are fostering enmity with the Government of Bophuthatswana. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana quoted from that letter what the attitude of the Government of Bophuthatswana was in relation to verbal and written guarantees given by the hon. the Minister and the department. What do the facts pointed out by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana show us? It is with the greatest contempt that I reject the statement which some hon. members made by implication that I and this side of the House had referred in a derogatory manner to the Government or the people of Bophuthatswana or the Tswanas, in anything we have said in this debate. That is absolutely untrue and I reject it.

Your Hansard speaks for itself.

The hon. member may feel free to read through Hansard. As far as I know, no derogatory reference has been made to the people of Bophuthatswana in any speech made by a member of the Opposition. Every time we say that the situation is not right or proper, those hon. members accuse us of creating bad blood between the Government and the nation of Bophuthatswana. What do they aim to achieve by consistently proclaiming the nonsense that we are referring to the people of Bophuthatswana in a derogatory manner? If anyone has treated the nation of Bophuthatswana contemptuously, then it is this Government and those hon. members on that side who up to now have refused to take the letter, which was addressed not to me but to the Government, at its face value and to say: “Look, people, there is a problem.” If the words “contempt” and “derogatory” may be used, then they may be used in referring to the manner in which the objections to the Bill which have been raised by the Bophuthatswana Government, have been dealt with. That is why I ask: How does this make the Tswana nation better off? Before I had any knowledge of the contents of this letter, I said that it was true to say that in that area, there was a group of people who were escaping discrimination.

I asked Mr. Mangope over the weekend …

Did you see him again?

Yes, I saw him again. Once again it was at the request of Chief Minister Mangope.

That is more than your Minister would do.

Chief Minister Mangope told me that if he could acquire a share in the government of this country by means of a federal system or otherwise, and if he were sure that discrimination would be removed, if he were sure that he and his people would also receive a rightful share of the wealth and revenue of our country, he would not feel the slightest need to ask for independence. It is very clear that he is requesting independence in order to escape discrimination and “baasskap”, the “baasskap” of the circumstances in South Africa which the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and his department exercise over him. Those are his words, not mine. Not only are those Tswanas being divested of their citizenship, but the questions in the letter make it clear what the position is going to be of those people who, in terms of clause 6(3), could possibly be divested of their Tswana citizenship. We are still waiting for an answer, apart from the answer we get to the effect that they cannot be dictated to if, for example, they wish to apply for German citizenship. Sir, can you imagine that that is a reply, as if the awarding of German citizenship is dependent on an agreement between the Republic and the Bophuthatswana Government!

I did not say so.

That is the type of argument we get. I just want to point out to the hon. member for Klerksdorp that the decision taken by the Legislative Assembly of Bophuthatswana was not that independence should be asked for, but that the Government of Bophuthatswana should enter into negotiations with the Government of the Republic. During those negotiations they were apparently confronted with two as yet unsolved, fundamental problems: the questions of citizenship and land. We find ourselves in a situation in which those two points of conflict will continue to exist, because nothing that has happened in this House, and none of the replies which the hon. the Minister has furnished here, have given me the impression that there is even the faintest hope that these fundamental points of conflict between our Government and the Government of Bophuthatswana will be resolved.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 69.

Mr. Speaker, I must make haste to reply to all the points which have been raised here.

Please do not rush.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana, who was the first speaker, did indeed derive considerable pleasure from launching a political attack here. He is welcome to it. He can make as many political attacks as he likes, both on me personally and on our Government. We expect this of them; we know how petty they are in this connection. The hon. member is upset with me because I did not quote the letter which the Chief Minister wrote, and in this regard I want to tell him that if I had the sort of mentality which the hon. member for Edenvale in particular has, and some others as well, of wanting to quarrel with people, I would have used that letter here with great pleasure. I could have made very good use of that letter had I wanted to quarrel publicly in this Parliament with the Cabinet or Chief Minister of Bophuthatswana. But I have said before and I say it again: That is not the way in which I conduct dialogue with a Black Government. If Governments of Black homelands want to adopt that method, that is their choice. For my part, I must set an example, and I try to do it. Unfortunately I can learn nothing from the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and the UP Opposition. I want to say that I can produce first-hand documentary evidence—I have it here in a folder—to demonstrate agreements made with us, and which are acknowledged in the letter.

I did not do so because I still have along road to travel in future with the Government of Bophuthatswana and with Bophuthatswana as a State. The Opposition has no future with those people, and so they try to make political capital from every situation which they can handle as they handled this matter. In none of the negotiations which we had with the representatives of Bophuthatswana, not even when it came right down to the Cabinet Committee meeting on 25 April, did they ask in so many words or in any other way for the two basic things which are now being referred to in that letter. Not once did they ask for them. In fact, three days before the First Reading of the Bill was to be moved, I personally sent a telegram message to the Commissioner-General in Mafeking to ask him to tell the Chief Minister that the First Reading of the Bill was expected to take place in three days’ time. Do hon. members know what I received by way of a message in reply from the Chief Minister? “Tell the Minister we are now on the road to independence”. That is the message I received in reply. There was no message concerning such claims as those contained in the letter.

I want to reply immediately to the question asked by the hon. member for Bryanston: Yes, I received the letter and the Cabinet has been fully informed as to its contents. When I received the letter, I realized at once that it raised two matters of vital importance. The first is the question of citizenship to which clause 6(3) refers, and the second is the land question. I want to repeat now for the umpteenth time that the land question is pre-eminently a question which can be resolved by agreement. The issue which arises from clause 6(3) is similarly a matter which can be rectified by means of conditions. Neither of those two matters necessitate the amendment of the Bill in order to find a solution. I informed the Chief Minister of that personally last week, after I received that long letter from him. I pointed out to him then that because this was so, the Government had decided to proceed with the Bill without effecting the amendment which was asked for.

I do not want to conceal the fact that I am sorry that the Chief Minister ever wrote that letter. One can only wonder whether they did not, at too late a stage—and I say “too late a stage” in the light of what I have just said—receive some external advice and whether they were not influenced. [Interjections.] I, who have grown old in this department, know about a lot of things, and also about the intrigue that goes on behind the scenes. I say again, as I said this afternoon, that I have an idea of what happened. [Interjections.] It is very interesting to note that despite the fact that the letter says it is being circulated among all members of Parliament, not everybody has received it even now. I find that very significant.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana asked: “What will be done about Transkeians now, because for the Transkei there is no provision similar to that contained in clause 6(3).” But surely the hon. member is not that stupid; after all, he is an attorney. He should know therefore that if Transkeians also had anything of this nature in mind, they could still negotiate with us today to make arrangements in this regard. After all, it is not a matter which cannot be settled by way of negotiation if such a situation were to arise in the case of Transkei.

But why did you incorporate it into this Bill?

Surely I have already said why. During all the previous stages I said it was incorporated in the Bill because it was specifically requested. Apparently the Cabinet of Bophuthatswana asked for the provision to be included in the Bill for political reasons.

The other aspect is the dissatisfaction in regard to consolidation. Dissatisfaction in-that regard is in connection with a few points that are still pending. After receiving his long letter, I had a personal discussion with the Chief Minister, and in the course of that discussion he asked me to put what I had said to him in writing. Consequently my explanations to him in regard to those few points that are still pending were then put to him in writing. But what about all the many other points in regard to land consolidation on which we agreed with him? On this I hear not one word of satisfaction from the other side. There is not one word of agreement or of appreciation. In fact, I do not even hear a word about it outside the House, but I am used to that.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana spoke of “a breakdown in faith” when it comes to our department. I am really sorry that those words in particular appear in that letter, because they are not correct. They are anything but correct. If I could tell the author all that my department has done and what my department has had to contend with in that regard, hon. members would clap their hands together. I have rejected that thought completely, and that is one important reason too why it is as well that I did not quote the letter here. Did the hon. member expect me to give publicity to such an untruth as this for him to play with? Surely he has already derived enough pleasure from it. Do hon. members want to know something? I say the word of honour of my department and of the Secretary of my department compares exceptionally well when it comes to certain things on which we have agreed, and which have not been complied with either. The Government, my department and I have had long experience of unjustified attacks which we have had to put up with. That is part of our work. It is part of the adversity, and it is also part of the success and the triumphs which one achieves in the course of one’s work. We are used to that; we know when to take and we know when to give. We also have a very proud record of not being false, not being disparaging, and of not making unnecessarily aggressive attacks on Black people. But we have not seen those qualities displayed in this House by Opposition parties on the other side. We also have a good record in this respect, that we have not allowed people from outside to interfere and to influence us to break our promises and agreements, or to deviate from them. In that regard too we have a proud record.

Like Port St. Johns.

In that regard too we have a proud record. I explained Port St. Johns here myself. We had the courage which that hon. member will never, ever have. But the Government had the courage.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein West asked me a question. It is very important that the two names should not be confused. The hon. member asked me what the position was in regard to the White town of Thaba Nchu. The Tswana district of Bophuthatswana there is also called Thaba Nchu, but the White town of the same name does not fall within the district of Bophuthatswana. It falls within the White area of the Orange Free State.

The hon. member for Edenvale said very bombastically just now—it is about all he can talk about—that as a free man he would deal with the Black people as he chose, and I want to add to that: Yes, and he will do it in his way, as we have seen from the exhibition of the past few days. He dragged the word “baasskap” into the debate again, simply to have this terminology on record, so that it could be used against us outside. That is typical of him. He is the last person in this House who should speak about breaking promises and going back on one’s statements, for how far has he not gone today if we compare him with the Olivier of the ’fifties.

I want to conclude with a few general remarks. These are mainly concerned with the attitude we encountered among the Opposition. When I say “the Opposition” I want it clearly understood what we mean when we use the word. I mean the UP and the PRP. I have said previously that where we find good people like the “Sappe” of the old days, we find a different attitude amongst them.

The mini-Nats.

The apprentice Nats.

The “Sappe” of the old days were so good that even Gen. Hertzog and some of our other predecessors, whom we honour today, were “Sappe” in 1910.

Now we are getting a history lesson.

I was born in 1912. I was born within the bosom of the South African Party but we became Nationalists in 1914 when the NP was established. I think perhaps we are going back to that “Sap” time. I do not include them in the Opposition to which I am now referring. [Interjections.] In this debate, and especially today, we have seen a day of scandalous and insulting political behaviour from the UP and the PRP. It was a day when they adopted a role of sham partiality for Bophuthatswana. It was a sham partiality, just for show. The one day they were against it, and the next day … During the first few days of this debate they ridiculed Bophuthatswana, they belittled Bophuthatswana, they spoke of it scornfully, and did everything they could to put obstacles in the way of this legislation. Inter alia, they opposed the First Reading of the Bill. They also tried all sorts of other things. They did everything possible to place obstacles in the way of this legislation and to set up stumbling blocks. When the question of a letter was suddenly raised here, they did an about-turn on the spot, like the east wind which changes to the west. Suddenly they emerged as the greatest guardians of the Tswana nation.

You confirmed our fears!

Suddenly they became the great champions of that very Black nation which only a few hours before they had been disparaging. The UP and the PRP have always been ready to use the Black man against the Government. They did it again in this debate, and in an ugly way.

This is exactly how a Black man put it to me in my office here in Cape Town in January this year. In the hearing of a group of other Black people, this man, someone from Cape Town, said to me that they as Black people knew that unfortunately certain groups of the Government’s opposition were doing everything in their power to use the Black man to bring about the downfall of the Government. The Black people know that. The Black people find this sort of behaviour on the part of the Opposition repulsive. It brings the credibility of the hon. Opposition parties very seriously into question in the eyes of the Black people. That is why I have to hear it from almost all Black leaders, who say so often that even if the Afrikaner and the NP Government are rather stem in their attitude to them, at least they know they can accept their word. But they do not know where they are with those hon. parties opposite. [Interjections.]

Yet the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, the hon. member for Edenvale and other hon. members here in the House pose as angels descended from heaven, with a sacred political motivation. No, they did not descend; they rose from elsewhere. The UP and the PRP are leaving this debate with dirty and besmirched hands. [Interjections.] They are leaving this debate with dirty and besmirched hands. Above all, they leave this debate without any conscience. That is the tragedy. They will not spend one moment upsetting themselves with worry and concern for the reprehensible way they tried to use the Black man here to try and gain some political advantage for themselves against the Government. [Interjections.]

Alas, and very unhappily, we endured the Opposition’s desperate attack on the Government. In this attack nobody was quite as desperate as the hon. member for Houghton. I think it was the hon. member for Klerksdorp who said just now that nobody was as desperate as the hon. member for Houghton. Why? Because with the passing of this measure they see the rug being pulled out from under the feet of the Opposition once more. The political rug is being pulled out from under them, because with this act of independence of Bantu homelands—as the hon. member for Houghton knows so well; she is intelligent enough to know that—those Black communities, which she wishes to have combined in a unitary state with us as a White community, are diminishing.

As each nation develops along its own road, less remains for her with which to attempt to establish a unitary society. The PRP knows this, and the UP knows this, because the same sentiments are cherished by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Edenvale. We can use this desperation of theirs as a prop, because the more desperate they become, the more those two Opposition parties rant and rave against us, the more determined are we to proceed with our policy in this connection, because it sets the seal on the successful completion of our work.

I conclude by saying, as I did at the start of the debate, that it was an historic day when we began with this legislation. Today, too, is an historic day. The hon. members will see that just as independence worked well and satisfactorily in the case of Transkei, so it will be with Bophuthatswana.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—87: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; 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.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hickman, T.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: P. C. Roux, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—27: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Miller, H.; Murray, L. G.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, if I am correct, an amendment to this clause has been moved by the hon. member for Pretoria West. We have difficulty with this clause, and I shall be moving an amendment shortly to deal with the problem we have. We are dealing here with a clause which makes it an offence if any person, without the written authority of the Commissioner—that is the Commissioner of Police—makes a sketch or takes a photograph of any person who is detained with a view to criminal proceedings being brought against him. Secondly, in terms of the clause it constitutes an offence if a publisher publishes or causes to be published any such sketch or photograph. It is understandable that one should prevent the publication of a photograph of a person who is, for example, accused, but who has not yet faced an identification parade. It would be unwise to have the photograph of such a person published in the newspapers when the following morning he was required to appear before an identification parade in order that he be identified by a complainant or a witness with a view to establishing his guilt or his association with the guilty person or the offence. One can likewise understand the desirability of inhibiting the situation which could arise where a well-known figure is wrongly, as the event turns out, accused of committing an offence which might attract the attention of the Press. He may be identified as an accused person—-and a certain degree of notoriety is attendant upon that—when he is in fact not guilty of an offence at all, and the charge may be withdrawn before the matter comes before the court. That is the one side of the picture where one can understand the desire to introduce inhibitions of this kind. On the other side there is equally a case to be made, i.e. where a newspaper, for example, publishes a photograph of a riotous situation in a street and included in the photograph are certain policemen and certain civilians who, unknown to the Press photographer who took the picture and unknown to the editor who published the picture in good faith, are in fact detained by the police with a view to prosecution. It is quite possible to conceive a number of situations of this kind where there is a perfectly legitimate and bona fide publication of a photograph which warrants or invites a prosecution, because unknown to the people concerned, those on the photograph are in fact detained for the purpose of prosecution. In the short time available to me, I have drafted an amendment which may meet the case. I accordingly move the following amendment—

That imposes an onus on an accused person to stand up in court when the prima facie case is made that he has in fact published a photograph showing policemen and detained persons in a riotous situation where the detained persons were in fact being detained with a view to prosecution, and to prove, that he or his Press photographer quite bona fide took a picture of the riotous situation but that they did not know that the persons revealed in the photograph were in fact being detained for prosecution. It would also cover the case of a prominent businessman who is detained for the purpose of a prosecution in a case unrelated to his business, at the same time as a company report comes out and his photograph is published in relation to that report. I wish to emphasize that the onus will be on the accused person. I am not putting an impossible onus on the State by including words like “who is to his knowledge” or something like that where the State would have to prove knowledge, which I appreciate cannot be done. All I suggest is that the accused person, if it is an inadvertent publication in a prima facie innocent situation, can come to court and say that he knows that he is involved prima facie but that those are the facts and that he had no knowledge of the situation. If the hon. the Minister finds it possible to accept an amendment of that kind, we shall have no objection to the clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana had the courtesy to discuss this particular amendment with me. We in these benches will support the hon. member’s amendment as we think it effects a very real improvement to the clause. The legislation as it stands introduces a new offence into police legislation. Our view is that it creates a further set or series of pitfalls which will have to be avoided by an already harassed Press in so far as legislation is concerned. We are not happy with the clause, even if it is altered, but we would be much happier than if it were left unaltered.

The clause as it stands creates a further legal mine-field which has to be traversed by reporters, photographers and editors. It could well have the effect of stunting the depicting or the reporting of newsworthy events which are within the right of the public to know. I go so far as to say that if this clause goes through, particularly in its unaltered form, the wording will make the task of even the most responsible reporters and photographers, not to mention the editors, extremely difficult. Let us take just one example, although I realize that there could be many examples relating to more mundane incidents. Let me quote an example which is anything but mundane, viz. an actual incident taking place, whether it be in a situation of unrest or a criminal offence, a fire or some sensational event taking place in public. There is no time for a photographer who happens to be on the scene to obtain the written permission of the commissioner to take the photograph. It is immediately an offence if a person takes a photograph, let us say of a situation where policemen are present and where there may well be persons who are at that moment being detained for one reason or another. By introducing the legislation in an unaltered form, we make it almost impossible for a photographer to decide whether it is legal to take that photograph or not. It is very difficult in a situation where action is taking place to make an immediate decision as to whether a person is detained, being detained, being detained for the purposes of a criminal prosecution or in what particular situation such a person is. In other words, if this clause goes through without change, action photographs involving incidents in which an element of the photograph may, for one reason or another, be a policeman, will largely be cancelled out in so far as pictorial reporting in the South African Press is concerned. I am not certain whether the hon. the Minister means the measure to have that effect, but if it happens it will have the effect that there will be a very grave infringement on the rights of the Press and the public.

I think it was the hon. the Minister who mentioned that one of the reasons for introducing this clause was to ensure that identities were not disclosed prematurely, for instance in cases where indentification parades were going to be held. I think this was a reason that was put forward at the time. That may well have been a good reason for having particular arrangement for the Press, but in my limited experience of criminal law I know of no cases and I cannot think of an example where the Press have knowingly subverted justice and disclosed an identity when requested not to. I am sure the hon. the Minister will concede that in just about every case that we can think of where the police have said that an identification parade was to be held and that they did not wish a particular photograph to be published, the Press have, in fact, not published it.

If there has been the odd one that has escaped, I maintain that this amendment goes far wider than blocking that particular little gap in the wall, and that it affects a far greater range of situations than the one ill which it is stated it is being sought to cure. An offence is created which, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has pointed out, does not appear even to require the usual element of mens rea, of evil intent. In other words, Sir, if written permission is not obtained from the commissioner, the very fact of taking a photograph, that is before even the stage of publication of the photograph, or making a sketch—although I think the making of a sketch is of lesser importance—creates the criminal offence in terms of the law for which these penalties become involved, regardless of the intention of the photographer. For those reasons we will support the amendment of the hon. member which brings in the element of mens rea, of knowingly doing something, because I believe that that would at least put the photographer in a slightly better position than that in which he was previously. I want to say that in its present form, the law as it has come before this House tonight, is not clear. It creates a further set of conditions which will make it incredibly difficult for the South African Press and because it is not clear law, because it is a law which cannot easily be clarified, I believe that it cannot be good law. I would therefore ask the hon. the Minister to consider the amendment of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana.

Mr. Chairman, we are not impressed by the arguments of the hon. member for Sandton, for understandable reasons. We feel that there are certain occasions which the Press choose to ignore, such as, for example, an excellent congress which was opened on Friday and Saturday and which took place in Pretoria. [Interjections.] There is another reason why we should speak from these benches and that is that we feel a little sore that we are not party to the agreement to discuss beforehand legislation before this House! The hon. member for Umhlatuzana and the hon. member for Sandton obviously put their heads together before this legislation came to this House and they have arrived at a joint strategy! We are not part of that joint strategy! In spite of that affront, in spite of that slap in the face that we received from the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, we think that the amendment is reasonable and should be supported! Another reason why we are sad that we have to support the hon. member for Umhlatuzana’s amendment, because it is eminently reasonable, is the fact that he is apparently unable to write to the satisfaction of the Clerk of the House and yourself. His writing is it seems illegible!

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana because here it clarifies a position which was left somewhat in limbo. At the same time I would also like to inform the hon. member for Sandton that there is such a thing as a police Press code. If the Press play the game by the police, they will find—as they have always found—that the police are very accommodating indeed. It is true that the law says “without the written permission of the Commissioner”, but unless the police have changed a deuce of a lot since I left their ranks, the Commissioner delegates authority to the senior police officer of the district concerned so that a lot of red tape is done away with. It only requires a bit of co-operation on the part of the Press and the police in order to produce and publish these photographs. As a matter of fact, it very often happens that the police ask the Press to publish certain photographs in order to assist them in the investigation of a crime. That argument about doing these things unknowingly does not really cut ice because there is this close co-operation between the police and the Press. I therefore support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me assure the hon. member for Umlazi immediately that the Press invariably plays the game with the police. Always. [Interjections.] They do so for one reason above all other. That is that they cannot afford not to play the game with the police. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I was fairly enthusiastic about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana until the hon. member for Simonstown started to support it. Now I am deeply suspicious. I really do not know where I am. [Interjections.] My enthusiasm for this whole clause is in any event very lukewarm.

However, before we proceed any further, I have some serious practical problems which I would like to put to the hon. the Minister. In the light of whatever replies I get from him we might be able to debate this further. I would like to emphasize that this clause does not only affect newspapers. It also affects television. Anybody taking photographs, whether he is going to publish them or not, is going to be affected. I should imagine that it even affects—and I hope I am wrong—private photographers who may be taking pictures. However, it certainly affects television photographers. These are the problems I would like to put to the hon. the Minister. This clause states: “Any person who is detained”. This is a practical problem. Does that mean somebody who has already been detained, or can it include somebody who, after a demonstration or a riot has developed, is subsequently detained? Would such a person be included? If it is going to include people who may be detained during the course of demonstrations, it is going to create, I suggest, an entirely intolerable situation. Then no photographer can possibly know …

It only includes people who have already been detained.

The hon. the Minister says it only affects people who have already been detained. Then it says: “To be charged”. With respect, there is a subsequent problem that one has. It may not only include people who are going to be charged. It may also include people who may be called as witnesses. This seems to me to be another area of uncertainty. It makes mention here of people against whom criminal proceedings are to be taken up. People are often taken away by the police—not necessarily arrested—and after some inquiries have been made they are released. How are newspaper photographers or television photographers going to know under what circumstances they may act? It seems to me that the danger, if I may suggest this, is that this clause is so wide that it is going to inhibit newspapers to such an extent that they either will not be able to do their job or that they will have to face so much confusion that they cannot function properly. Another thing that could also happen is that there would not be any photographer photographing this sort of incident. This will mean a deprivation, and certainly an intrusion into the rights of the Press.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could not go much further to clarify the situation. Quite frankly, as an ex-newspaperman I doubt whether one can in fact provide for all the situations that could arise under such circumstances. I wonder whether it would not be much better to leave the situation as it has been until now. That is to leave it to an intelligent and co-operative understanding between the police and the Press. The Press has invariably been anxious to co-operate in situations such as this. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to clear up some of the issues, because it seems as if it could create an almost impossible situation of uncertainty to newspapers.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened very carefully to the various arguments put to the Committee with regard to this matter. I must say that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana clearly stated the evil that exists at the moment and what we are trying to avoid. He then, quite logically, brought some difficulty to my notice. In actual fact, there are two different offences in (a) and (b), but the offence that is set out in (a), namely the taking of the photograph, can really only become manifest when somebody publishes that photograph. The two really hang together. The difficulty I have with the amendment of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, which places the full onus on the person who takes the photograph is that as (a) stands at the moment I think mens rea is inherent in it for the classical four reasons which my hon. friend knows for finding out whether mens rea is in the statutory offence or not. If mens rea is in it, the State will have to prove a number of things very clearly. Firstly, the State will have to prove that a photograph was taken. Secondly, the State will have to prove that the person was in lawful custody—not in unlawful custody, but in lawful custody; in other words, that the State had the right to take a person into custody. That onus will be on the State. Thirdly, the State will have to prove that the person was in custody with a view to criminal proceedings. In other words, the criminal nature of the action surrounding the custody must have been quite patent to people in the street for mens rea to be there, assuming that mens rea is part of this offence. It must be quite clear that there was an offence. It must have been quite clear to the people, and the State must prove that there was a lawful custody—in other words, that the policeman had his arm on the person in custody, or some similar action. There must be some manifest clarity of the fact that the person was in custody. For argument’s sake, let us assume that the detective in plain clothes is simply standing next to a man so that it is not apparent to the person who takes the photograph that the second person is in custody. I think the person would be set free as he would have a defence. So, lawful custody must be apparent. On the other hand that person may well be used as a witness. I do not think that that is quite so relevant because that is virtually the same as having gone into custody for the criminal offence itself.

If I do accept the amendment of the hon. member, it would mean that I shift virtually the whole onus onto the accused. It would then mean that the accused must prove that he did not know that the person was in lawful custody nor that the person was held with a view to criminal proceedings. I believe that that onus is far more onerous than if we left the matter as it is, where there is an onus on the State to prove these things. I appreciate the difficulty which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has, but I do not think I should accept his amendment for the reasons I have stated to him. What I will, however, undertake to do for the hon. member—without any promises, because if I do not accept any amendment at all, the hon. member must not think that I did not apply my mind to the matter—is to take the matter up again with the law advisers to ensure that the onus is clearly on the State in this matter. The hon. member actually wants to make sure that mens rea is part of this offence. I am with him on that particular point. I am prepared to see to it that it is made quite clear by the addition of certain words, if need be. I will take this matter back to the legal advisers and shall ask them to make certain that with regard to this matter the onus is placed on the State, so that if these matters cannot be proved by the State there will be a defence in any case.

The offence which is referred to in (b) is with regard to the matter of publishing. That is a very simple matter. The Act is before them and they should at least—I think the Press should do it in any case—phone the particular police station which is the nearest to where the action took place. They should ask that particular police station: “Are you finished with the accused? May we publish the photograph?” It is for the very reason that we have stated in this House, namely that there may be an identification parade, and if the Press jumps the gun, it will thwart the whole identification parade. It would therefore be only decent for the Press to say: “We want to publish tomorrow. Is their going to be any identification parade and can we get your consent?” There again, I do not want to make it as difficult as possible for the Press. I shall take the matter up with the legal advisers and ascertain whether it is necessary to have written authority or whether we can be satisfied with less than written authority if the Press wants to publish before the time.

I am prepared to take up those two points with the legal advisers, but again I want to stress to the hon. member that I do not want to make any promises, because if the legal advisers satisfy me that the rights of the individual are duly protected I shall not introduce any amendments in the Other Place. I do however, take the argument which the hon. member has advanced. I think there may be some substance in it. I am therefore prepared to apply my mind to it, if that will satisfy the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for adopting a straightforward attitude in this matter, if I may say so. There are two difficulties. As far as the proposed new section 27A(a) is concerned, I accept the hon. the Minister’s point of view. As I see it the question of mens rea is the difficulty. If I understand the hon. the Minister correctly, he is prepared to refer this matter to his legal advisers to ensure that mens rea, evil intent, must be proved by the State before there can be any conviction. That goes a long way towards meeting the difficulty which I foresee. However, with regard to the proposed Section 27A(b), which concerns the owner or editor of a newspaper publishing, I do not think that the hon. the Minister, if I may say so, has met the difficulty. Let us take a prominent industrialist like Mr. Anton Rupert as an example. One can, of course, take any other name one might wish to use. Supposing, unknown to the editor or publisher of the paper, the financier has been charged or detained so that the charge may be investigated. Say he has been charged with wrongly transferring funds abroad without the permission of the Treasury. The editor or publisher of the newspaper may, at that moment, have no knowledge of that particular charge and his detention in respect of it. Let us also assume that the financier’s firm has a company report of some considerable interest which is published on that specific day. Photographs of him can possibly be published in connection with the company report, whilst he is, in fact, being detained for allegedly wrongfully transferring sums to Greece, for example, without the permission of the Treasury. In the proposed new section 27A(b), as it stands, if he is detained with a view to criminal proceedings, and he would be so detained in the circumstances I have proposed, the publisher of his photograph has committed an offence. There are, of course, a variety of permutations and combinations that one can think of in connection with this type of situation, and that is why I should like the hon. the Minister to put to his law advisers, before this matter is introduced in the Other Place, that situation as well. In other words, I am asking him not only to put forward the mens rea point of view with regard to the proposed new section 27A(a), but also the likelihood of an inadvertent contravention in terms of the proposed new section 27A(b). It is because of both those contentions that I moved the amendment that I did, admittedly putting the onus on the accused person, as the hon. the Minister has said, to enable him to have a way out so that he can show that it was a genuine, inadvertent and perfectly innocent publication with a view to informing the public, through his press, of a perfectly legitimate matter.

It is because such things bedevil the Press, as the hon. members for Sandton and Parktown have both mentioned, that one wants to clear this up. The hon. member for Umlazi has stated perfectly well that there is a long-standing arrangement—and I think the hon. member for Parktown has agreed— between the Press and the Commissioner of Police so that such problems can be overcome. The hon. the Minister is a lawyer, however, and knows that we are dealing with a situation in which certain things are laid down by law. I was a lawyer. That is why I have uncertainty now in regard to mens rea. But if the hon. the Minister will tell the House that he will take up both these situations with his legal advisers before introducing the Bill in the Other Place, we will not oppose this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I am not a lawyer, I have never been a lawyer and I never will be a lawyer. [Interjections.] All I can tell the House is that this is a very confusing situation as far as a non-lawyer is concerned. I am afraid that it is going to be very confusing to the public and to newspapers in particular. If the hon. members for Umhlatuzana and the hon. the Minister of Justice between them are a little doubtful about the situation, then God help the average newspaperman who is going to try to implement it. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether I understood him correctly that the mere taking of a photograph would not be an offence, but that it is only after publication that it becomes an offence. Is that, in fact, what the law says? I think that point ought to be cleared up. I would also appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could reply to the question which I put to him at the outset, namely: Who precisely is involved in this “is arrested”? Does it exclude people who, at the time the photograph was taken, were not yet arrested? I am thinking of a case of rioting and the people who are leading it.

At some stage or other the person who may have been leading the rioters had not yet been arrested and a photograph was taken of him. Subsequently he is arrested, say half an hour later. Would the taking of that photograph be an offence? If we could get this point cleared up it would help a little bit to shed some light on this very, very murky situation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to reply to the hon. member of Parktown first. He says he is not a lawyer and would like to know what the position is. The mere taking of photographs in the particular circumstances set out in the clause is, of course, an offence, but what I said was that normally it would only become manifest when the photograph is published.

Could he be charged even if the picture is not published?

Yes, he could be charged if he does take a photograph, even before it is published.

In reply to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana I want to say that I also believe that the second one holds within itself the principle of mens rea. However, I am prepared to ask the legal advisers just to make sure of that. I also want to say to the hon. member that in regard to paragraph (b) one must not forget that one has a time lapse between taking the photograph and publishing it. We are trying to reach an agreement with the Press that in all cases …

He may not know that there is a detention with a view to prosecution.

I see. The hon. member means that he may not be aware of the fact that the person was under detention. Of course, the mens rea would help him in that case. Would it satisfy the hon. member if I make sure that there is mens rea?

Provided the law advisers are satisfied that mens rea is …

I shall see to that.

Mr. Chairman, if I may I want to bring one last point concerning the question of the newspapers consulting the police to the hon. the Minister’s attention. The newspapers are constantly doing it, but, there is in fact, a terribly difficult time factor involved. This does not apply to morning newspapers so much as it does to afternoon newspapers. Take the case of photographs of a riot or a demonstration taken at 11 o’clock and the paper has to go to press at 12 o’clock. It is almost impossible, with the best will in the world, to consult adequately with the police under these circumstances. I hope the hon. the Minister will take this into consideration. It is a very serious practical problem.

Mr. Chairman, in effect it is not such a great practical problem. All photographs are taken at a specific spot and of a specific incident. The photographer knows exactly where he took it and for the guidance of his editor he can write on the back of the photograph that he took it, for instance, in Newlands or near the Newlands police station. Then the editor has only to phone the police to hear whether they have finished with the man whose photograph was taken. That is the only trouble they have to take. The police will then immediately be able to say whether they are going to charge the man or not. This clause is of great value because, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said, it is possible for very prominent members of the public to become involved in some supposed crime or other. In such a case the police can immediately tell the Press that there are no charges against the man and that he should be left alone. I do not think we should take it further than the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and I did.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it quite clear that there is the situation, which I described and which could arise, where there is no doubt, suspicion or knowledge in the mind of the editor which warrants him phoning the district commissioner. It is that case that worries me. But in the light of the hon. the Minister’s undertaking and subject to the Committee’s consent I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment moved by Mr. R. M. Cadman, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved by Mr. Z. P. le Roux agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, I shall not keep the House more than a moment. There are two clauses in this Bill which have drawn comment and a certain amount of opposition. One is the clause relating to the amendment to section 27 and in terms of which there are two separate types of offences: the wilful obstruction and hindering of a policeman and the assault on a policeman. Throughout we have consistently stated that whereas we are not at all opposed to an increase in the penalty to be imposed on a prisoner or on an accused person should he be convicted of these offences, we remain opposed to the principle that the magistrate’s option of sentencing an accused person to a fine instead of imprisonment is being removed. The hon. the Minister argued that he merely wanted this provision to be on the Statute Book as a “skrikmiddel …”, as …

“Afskrikmiddel”!

… a deterrent and that he regarded the taking away of the magistrate’s option as a means of creating this deterrent. We feel that if the hon. the Minister wishes to have a deterrent for this sort of offence—and we shall not be against it at all—the correct way of creating it, would be to allow a higher sentence—higher than the six months or 12 months’ sentence which previously pertained—to be imposed by a magistrate. This would mean that the magistrate would then have the right to impose a more severe sentence in more serious cases. Unfortunately however, in terms of the legislation before us, the magistrate has no option. Once there is a conviction following an assault, be it of a very minor nature, the magistrate is in fact bound to impose a term of imprisonment. Whether or not he suspends portion of it is in our view not all that relevant.

The other matter which has been discussed tonight relates to clause 8 of the Bill. The hon. the Minister has adopted a very reasonable attitude in his approach and he has undertaken to establish, through his law advisers, that the element of mens rea is a part of the offence in that it is not merely an offence which can be committed without intention at all. If that is not the case, the hon. the Minister has given us the assurance that he will introduce a suitable amendment in the Other Place if it is necessary to establish that. There is one further problem, however, i.e. that we are still not convinced, despite the helpfulness of the hon. the Minister which we think does ease the position, that it is necessary to create an entire new body of law which is as uncertain as it is at present. An example of the uncertainty is the debate that we have had this evening where neither the hon. member for Parktown, the hon. member for Umlazi, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, the hon. the Minister or I have been able to reach absolute certainty amongst ourselves as to what would constitute an offence and what would not and as to what the exceptions would be and what would not. Therefore we feel that this does create a further set of restrictions which makes the operating of a free and proper newspaper a very difficult task in ordinary times. It certainly makes the life of a photographer most difficult. Therefore there has not been a real and palpable amendment to the Bill before us and I do not think there is any reason which should change our attitude as it was explained to the House during the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. We opposed the Bill at the Second Reading because of the provisions of clauses 7 and 8. I have little to add to what the hon. member for Sandton had to say in regard to the provisions of clause 7 of the Bill, i.e. that the discretion has been removed from the magistrate to impose a fine in a proper case as opposed to a compulsory sentence of imprisonment. Our objection at Second Reading, if the House recalls, was that there could be a perfectly minor offence which would necessarily be followed either by allowing a man to go free, which would be improper if an offence had been committed, or by committing him to prison. We believe, and we elaborated upon it then, that it is necessary that the magistrate be given the discretion of imposing a fine for a minor assault where a punishment should be imposed, but not necessarily a punishment of imprisonment. That was our main objection during the Second Reading debate and it caused us to oppose the Bill.

In so far as clause 8 is concerned, the difficulty we have is not as great, because the hon. the Minister has undertaken to cause an investigation to be made into the difficulties there before the Bill is introduced in the Other Place.

The rest of the Bill has no consequence. It is merely a matter of updating fines to keep pace with the falling value of money, so there is nothing to it but the two clauses that we have debated, one of which is still in the air because it is being investigated and the other to which we are opposed. Consequently, it seems to me that the proper approach would be for us to oppose the Bill at Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, our attitude in regard to clause 8 was expressed earlier in this debate. We said that we would be prepared to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. He has now withdrawn that amendment on the strength of the assurances given to him by the hon. the Minister which we accept. We will be supporting this Bill mainly on account of clause 7. We believe that the Police are entitled to the protection that this Bill affords them. For these reasons and the reasons we gave at Second Reading, we support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to refer to the two clauses being opposed. I have already expressed my point of view on clause 7 and I just want to repeat that fines should not be imposed when someone wilfully attacks a policeman in the performance of his duties. I believe that in the case of a first offence, any reasonable magistrate will impose a suspended sentence. If such a person appears before a magistrate again on a similar charge, he will be sentenced to imprisonment.

With regard to clause 8, there is no uncertainty in the House. I want to inform the hon. member for Sandton that there is no uncertainty in this regard, except for the fact that there is a legal aspect which we cannot settle here and which is actually the province of the legal advisers. Therefore there are no factual uncertainties, but there is a legal aspect which we shall have to clear up and, if necessary, I shall have it corrected.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—84: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; 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.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe

Noes—27: Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Miller, H.; Murray, L. G.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Raw, W. V.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: D. J. Dalling and R. M. de Villiers.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, it is some weeks since the hon. the Minister of Prisons read his Second Reading speech at a record rate. At that stage I was able to congratulate him on the speed with which he delivered his address. Now, to come back to the Bill which we are going to discuss this evening, I find that there are several aspects that we must discuss, which are very, very important indeed. One of them deals with the question of publicity and reporting. I have no quarrel whatsoever with legitimate reporting of events dealing with prisoners and their crimes and so on. When we are dealing with prisons and when we are dealing with people who are mentally ill and are going to be detained in prison, we have a combination virtually of two institutions run by the Government which are continually under the searchlight of criticism, they are prisons and mental hospitals. We have to be doubly careful that these institutions that we are dealing with, and in this case the combined institutions, are run in the best possible manner. We cannot afford criticism and we must make sure that these institutions, and particularly this type of institution, are run in the best possible manner. I would say that the public, not uncommonly, loves sensational news. Then, too we have people, not necessarily newspaper reporters, who grasp at the first inkling of an irregularity either in a prison or in a mental home. It is these that I am concerned about; these small matters, these rather unimportant matters which are blown up and which are given a prominence which is exaggerated out of all proportion and made to appear—by those unscrupulous people—like everyday occurrences. To the outside public and to the outside world the impression is given that this is our norm. I get upset when I read about and hear about things like this; when I hear that in our mental homes and in our prisons people are being treated badly, cruelly and slave-like. I have yet to find one sentence of praise for the good work that is really being done. In the newspapers I never read words of praise for any attempt by the prison authorities to rehabilitate people and to alter conditions that were at one time bad but today are good. That I do not read about.

Of course there are small things that go wrong. However, we are dealing with thousands of people who are not normal. Hon. members must remember that. These are not normal people. When they are in mental homes or in prisons they are not normal. When little things go wrong with the running of these institutions we find the whole system is attacked and we are condemned both here and abroad.

There is another very very important matter which I want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. There is—and the hon. the Minister may know it—a concerted effort by certain people to undermine—and to some extent they have been successful—the structure of psychiatry and the practice of psychiatry in this country. When psychiatry is tied up with a prisoner, and when we find that these people are undermining the detention and treatment of the prisoner, the hon. the Minister should be warned to be on his guard and if necessary, he must then take action against such irresponsible persons.

In this Bill we are dealing with a new type of institution in the prison. That is a psychiatric hospital or—as the Bill terms it— a hospital for psychopaths. Probably the hon. the Minister, with the best intentions, wanted to institute these prison hospitals not only for psychopaths, but for the mentally ill who exhibit symptoms similar to the psychopath. The word “psychopath” appears right through the Bill. However, in my opinion, the word “psychopath” is far too circumscribed. It only refers to one class of mentally ill persons. I want to read from the Act as it now stands. Section 1 defines “mental illness” as—

Remember that, Mr. Speaker. Now we come to the definition of “psychopathic disorder”. Mr. Speaker, this will differ now.

Order! The hon. member must explain it now.

Yes, I shall do so. A psychopathic disorder means—

If the hon. the Minister is only going to include psychopaths in prison hospitals, he is going to find that there are prisoners who are mentally ill and exhibit the same type of symptoms as psychopaths. Yet, because of the definition, they will not be able to be included in the psychopathic hospitals in the prisons.

For that reason I ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider the wording of all the clauses where the word “psycopath” occurs and to replace it with “mentally ill”, which will include the psychopath. I think that is reasonable. There are many amendments on the Order Paper to bring this out clearly and, of course, if the hon. the Minister will accept that, it will curtail—as far as I am concerned, at any rate—most of the discussion that will take place in the Committee Stage.

The Bill also includes provisions relating to trespass on prison property. I agree that there must be some sort of restriction. I think the restrictions on newsmen have been lifted to some extent by the amendments which occur in this Bill and we have no quarrel with that at all.

When we come to clause 6, we have a situation which is rather peculiar. In clause 6 we are dealing with the retrospectivity of a crime and the punishment thereof. Normally, to make something a crime today which was not a crime yesterday and to punish a man for acting in a certain way yesterday, would in my opinion be thoroughly wrong. But I take it from what I have read and from what I have heard from the hon. the Minister that as far as this particular clause is concerned a warning was given by him to the person concerned in this particular case. The agent of this person was warned that it would be inadvisable for this person to write up memoirs or to have memoirs written of the dastardly crime for which this person was punished. We on this side of the House have considered this very carefully and we feel that no person should be allowed to profit while in prison from a crime which was committed before that person came to prison.

We think it is wrong and we shall therefore support the hon. the Minister’s efforts to stop such action. This is a question we have to be careful about. Normally we would not support legislation which is retrospective. This is, however, an abnormal set of circumstances. I want to make it quite clear to the hon. the Minister that although in this particular case we are going to give him our support, he should not take that as a precedent. I ask him to remember that. If it is a question of legislation making crimes retrospective, he cannot look to us for further support.

I urge upon the hon. the Minister to do everything in his power—he had made provision for this here—to start proper rehabilitation services for prisoners. It is going to be difficult. I know that some of these people are difficult to handle, but the hon. the Minister must do everything in his power to make this possible, especially for those persons who are long-term prisoners. I am sure that if he puts his mind to it, if the prison authorities are encouraged and if money is spent on this, a great number of these people can be rehabiliated.

There is nothing I should like to say at this stage. We shall deal with the various clauses when we come to them. Let me just conclude by saying that we shall support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, said in the first part of his speech which dealt with mental illness and psychopathy. I chiefly agree with the hon. member about the whole question of psychiatry and the treatment of people who are mentally ill in our country. There are, in fact, people in our country who, not only for political gain, but also, I am tempted to say, in support of their relevant organizations, exploit this sort of thing for motives other than those they frequently come to light with. This is so because we are dealing here with a subject that is presented in an entirely emotional level because we are dealing here with people who are mentally defective and cannot speak on their own behalf, and because other people then profess to speak on their behalf, things are frequently wrenched out of context. What the hon. member said when he alleged that one must handle this sort of thing carefully, is therefore true. I personally feel, however, that the hon. member perhaps went a bit too far in also wanting us to make provision in terms of this legislation, the Prisons Amendment Bill, for the admission of persons other than mere psychopaths to hospital prisons. In my opinion we would then not be able to make a proper distinction between institutions, as defined in the Mental Disorders Act, and hospital prisons for psycopaths, which we are now dealing with. The hon. member was quite right when he referred to the definition in the Mental Health Act. There the definition includes all cases of mental disorder, amongst others psychopathy. That was an important break-through because until that legislation was passed, in 1973, psychopathy was not considered to be a mental illness in our country. Our jails are, in fact, filled with psychopaths, but throughout the years psychopathy was not recognized in our country as a mental illness. In cases involving murder and other serious crimes psychopathy was, at most, regarded as one of the extenuating circumstances. Where the death penalty could be imposed it was frequently imposed, notwithstanding such extenuating circumstances. The situation here is, therefore, that in 1973 we reached the position, in South Africa, of giving psychopathy the status of a mental illness. Because we are dealing here with people who suffer from a form of mental disorder which can generally, more than any other form of mental illness, lead them to commit crimes, a special definition is given of psychopathy in the Mental Disorders Act. The hon. member referred to the definition, but I want to remind him of it again because it is an important definition. According to that definition a psychopathic disorder—I quote only the most important words—means—

Those are the key words. It is the same kind of thing which the PRP suffers from and which results in such irresponsible conduct. They are psychopaths and do not learn from experience.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Houghton cannot stand a little joke. I do not blame her, however, because she is a psychopath. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask if the hon. the member is allowed to call me a psychopath?

Mr. Speaker, may I not even say that she is a political psychopath? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member is not entitled to say that. I accept the fact that he only meant it as a joke, but if the hon. member for Houghton insists, he must withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member takes exception to it, I withdraw it.

I want to remind the hon. member for Rosettenville of the definition of a psychopath. It is a person who displays aggresive and seriously irresponsible conduct. He argues that we should also admit mental defectives other than psychopaths to hospital prisons. I just want to refer him to section 27 of the Mental Health Act, No. 18 of 1973, which provides that—

In other words, where someone is not a psychopath but is in an institution in terms of a reception order or is a President’s patient in terms of a court order, and if he is certified as being dangerous, he can be admitted to a maximum security prison or to a hospital prison in terms of the Prisons Act. I think that covers the cases the hon. member has in mind, and therefore I do not think the hon. member’s argument is valid. There are exceptions one can take into account, and I think that this is, in fact, done in practice. I do not want to go into examples now.

I have pointed out that when the Mental Health Act, 1973, was passed we made a break-through in South Africa in recognizing psychopathy as a mental illness and in its treatment by providing for the detention of certified psychopaths in hospital prisons. I had brief discussions with the Deputy Commissioner of Prisons, Gen. Roux, who is an expert in this field. I want to pay tribute to him and to his staff who have done a tremendous amount of research in this field. They are not working out a programme of cure, because no one in the world can guarantee to cure a psychopath. It is a socialization programme, because here one is basically dealing with maladjusted people who cannot take their rightful place in normal society as we know it. In May 1976 a start was made on the treatment of 25 Whites at Zonderwater prison. The Zonderwater prison can accommodate 150 psychopaths. I have been informed that the intention is also to establish a similar institution in the Western Cape at a later stage. This is a unique programme that is being launched and implemented in South Africa in this respect. In other countries, inter alia, the Scandinavian countries, Holland, America and England, such institutions have been in existence for many years. South Africa is therefore in the very fortunate position of being able to draw from the experience of those countries and, what is even more important, of being able to learn from their mistakes. Consequently we can employ, in our treatment programme, the most modern methods and techniques applicable to this vocational science.

There is no panacea for the treatment of the psychopath. Treatment is a long and difficult task. It is an orientation programme and a socializing programme, as I have said. The test only comes when that person is eventually set free in society. Only then can one see if one has, in fact, achieved the desired results and whether he can adjust to the society in which he was previously a failure and of which he was a maladjusted member. To be able to do that, one must have dedicated staff who can look after these people with understanding and encourage them. I have been told that the treatment programme takes the form of group therapy. A clinical psychologist heads the team that does this work. A psychiatrist from the Department of Health pays weekly visits.

There are also social workers, educationists, spiritual workers, psychiatric nurses, warders and workshop and trade staff attached to the hospital. Those are all people who work together as a team to launch the treatment programme. It is interesting to note that in order to get these people to work as a team, they are given a prior six-week orientation course which they all participate in as a team, a course to correctly inform and orientate them in relation to this task and to concentrate on those group therapy techniques which are of importance in the treatment of these patients.

The conditions attached to the release of such patients are prescribed by the Mental Health Act. I shall therefore not elaborate further. I just want to point out that it is interesting to note that the length of the treatment programme is about four years. In other words, no one will be able to claim that he underwent the whole programme in less than four years and be certified as normal. There are all kinds of provisions involved in how a patient can be released. These provisions are contained in the Act, however, and I therefore do not want to go into them. Provision is also made for the fact that if a person’s term of imprisonment, to which a court has sentenced him, expires and he has not, according to expert opinion, recovered sufficiently or if he cannot be certified as ready to be released into the community, a judge-in-chambers can issue an order in regard to his further treatment and detention in terms of chapter 4 of the Mental Disorders Act.

I want to conclude by saying that in this whole situation one can only endeavour to so orientate psychicly maladjusted people that they can fit into the normal social structure of our modern society with all its complexities. South Africa has taken the step, and it must be welcomed. We are breaking new ground that we must explore and tackle with dedication. To those involved in this undertaking, and to the Department of Prisons, I wish nothing but the best, and I hope they will achieve a great deal of success in this field in which South Africa is doing pioneer word.

Mr. Speaker, I have no enthusiasm tonight about psychopaths, so I hope the hon. member for Koedoespoort will not mind if I do not deal with him in so far as his speech is concerned. In respect of another portion of the Bill, I want to say that it is a badly drawn Bill, unfortunately in a way typical of much of the legislation that comes from the Government at this time. The Government has grown careless of human rights, uncaring about cutting them to pieces. They introduce a Bill which does not meet the situation which the hon. the Minister should apply himself to. He is simply abolishing a whole field of human rights. When the hon. the Minister wants to stop a criminal from making money out of his crimes what does he do? He simply stops everybody from writing about anyone else who has been in prison and who has been put to death and about any facts concerning the offence for which such person was imprisoned.

You have obviously not read the Bill.

I have read the Bill and I think I understand it fairly well. Let us take a look at the proposed new section 44(1)(g), which relates to certain things being done without the authority of the Commissioner. I hope the hon. the Minister is not going to advance the argument that because the Commissioner can give authority, one still has a right. That argument would be nonsensical as it gives the right to the Commissioner and not to the person concerned. Paragraph (g) states the following—

What does that mean? I do not know what people are going to write about in future, but what I can say to the hon. the Minister is that one can look at what has been written in the past and according to that one can ask whether it is an offence today. Would it be an offence if it were written today?

Who said that?

It is the hon. the Minister’s understanding of the provision that is deficient at the moment. If one wants to test what those words mean, one can look at what was written in the past and see whether that, if written today, would be an offence or not in terms of those words. In all the Benjamin Bennett books about trials, where they contain any matter that was not in the evidence, it is an offence in terms of that section. Indeed, any book about any trial containing any matter that was not led in evidence is, according to that section, a criminal offence. In the case of the Epistles of St. Paul, each one would be a criminal offence, because he was a prisoner and he had murdered Christians anyway. In fact, the four Gospels are about a person who was convicted of subversion and sentenced to death and the Gospels concern the very matters in regard to which he was sentenced to death. All these writings would be out today in South Africa under the provisions of this law. Indeed, almost the whole of the New Testament …

That is an absurd argument.

I would like to see the hon. advocate on my left argue this matter in a court. He would be in some trouble. A whole host of some of the most important writings that human beings have participated in, such as De Profundis by Oscar Wilde, Solzhenitsyn’s books, Dostoyevsky’s books, all the writings about Lee Oswald, the prisioner in the J. F. Kennedy case, the literature about the Dreyfus case, the literature about the Charles Lindbergh kidnapping, the recent biography of Gideon Scheepers and all sorts of other writings, would be affected. All those writings would be a criminal offence under that clause simply because the hon. the Minister or the people who draft his legislation, do not go to the trouble to actually isolate what the offence is that they are trying to apply themselves to. They do not draft it carefully to restrict it to the person who committed the crime. They pull out a broadsword and cut to pieces all the power that people have to write things. What possible justification is there to destroy the absolutely basic freedom to write? If we are going to destroy such a freedom, we have to weigh up whether it vitally helps our security. Does it materially advance the economic development of the State? Does it advance race relations? Does it solve any significant problem? If it does not do any of those things, why do we then take away a basic freedom from all people and from all citizens? If one wants to take away such a right, one should take away the right from the person who committed the criminal offence. That person should not be entitled to make any money out of his crime. However, that is not what this legislation provides. It goes very much further. The point I make is that it stops anybody, not only the criminal, from writing any biographical sketch or anything about the crime for which that prisoner was convicted.

You do not understand it.

The hon. member on my left says I do not understand it. Perhaps he will explain it in more detail.

Mr. Speaker, in looking at the Bill, we must look at what it does and does not aim to achieve. Since the hon. member for Durban North has referred to clause 6, and in particular to the amendment of section 44(1 )(g), I think we can discuss the matter whilst at the same time asking ourselves what the Act does and does not provide. The relative section contains a restriction on the publication of the life story of a prisoner. The first point I want to make, however, is that there are certain limits to that restriction. The restriction is not a blanket restriction. It is firstly a restriction on the publication of a life story of a prisoner. The hon. member must look briefly at the definition of a prisoner. A prisoner is a person who is in jail now, and I want to tell the hon. member that Lee Harvey Oswald is not in jail now. I also want to tell him that the disciples are not in jail now. The restriction relates only to a person who is a prisoner. Clause 44(1)(g) states very clearly, and I quote the section in English—

In Afrikaans the word is “gevangene”. Now we must consult the principal Act to determine what a prisoner is, because that is the person in respect of which the restriction was imposed. In the principal Act, Act No. 8 of 1959, a prisoner is defined as follows—

What follows is not, however, applicable here. This section relates to a person who is in prison at the relevant time.

The second restriction is that the portion of the biographical sketch that may not be published is that portion that specifically relates to the crime for which the prisoner is in jail. In other words, the rest of his life story may be published. There is no problem as far as that is concerned.

Thirdly, it is only a restriction on his life story if that life story has not yet come up in the court proceedings. If that portion of the life story, to which the restriction applies, has come up in court proceedings, restriction contained in the Bill does not apply. What is so unfair about that?

This proviso, does not relate to any works of literary merit, either for example those of a well-known writer like Breyten Breytenbach. It only relates to matters involving the crime which he committed and for which he is in jail. In judging the Bill and asking oneself who is and who is not affected by it, one can judge the matter from the point of view of the prisoner himself, from that of the society that wants to publish the life story, from that of the public and from that of the administration of justice in general.

If one looks at the matter from the point of view of the prisoner, what does one find the situation to be? Why would a prisoner want his life story published? In the first place for financial gain. He wants to make money out of his crime. That is what he wants to do. The PRP has placed an amendment on the Order Paper in terms of which this whole clause must be deleted. Secondly, such a prisoner wants his life story published because he very frequently sees in it personal glorification for himself. Some criminals are like that. They see themselves as heroes and, therefore, in the publication of their life stories they see an opportunity to glorify themselves. Thirdly, a prisoner wants his life story published in order to create sympathy for himself in connection with the crime he committed. He wants to create an understanding of the wrong he has done the community. He wants to create doubts in the minds of the public about how fate has treated him. He wants a trial in the country’s newspapers. He actually wants to create doubts about the country’s administration of justice. The hon. member for Durban North says that here we again have a case of “carelessness with human rights”, or words to that effect. What his standpoint amounts to is that in this way the NP Government supposedly wants to detract from human rights. As far as that is concerned, let us understand each other very clearly. The NP Government advocates the maintenance and developments of human rights in South Africa. There is, however, a deep-seated difference in approach between the PRP and the NP.

Dead right!

I shall tell the hon. member where the difference lies, between him and me, as far as human rights are concerned. Unlike the NP, the hon. member for Durban North wants to take human rights to such lengths as to make heroes of murderers, rapists, saboteurs and terrorists.

Where do you get that?

That is what it is all about. The hon. members on the other side of the House who object to this with their sudden concern about the human rights of the poor prisoner, a particular portion of whose life story may not be published, are concerned about that person’s human rights, but not about the human rights of the ordinary citizen of the country who is doing his duty, doing his work and caring for his family. They are concerned about the human rights of the person who has rebelled against the community as a whole. That is why I want to state clearly that we in these benches, who advocate human rights as strongly as we do, reject the standpoint of the PRP with contempt.

When regard this clause from the point of view of public interest, it seems that an extra helping of sensation is suddenly being dished up for the public, that the public is suddenly becoming the victim of this sensationalist attempt to generate unjustified sympathy and so-called understanding for the criminal and his crime. A new image is presented to the public of the crime and of the criminal. Here we are dealing with a watered down humanstic approach, something that hon. members on this side of the House reject completely.

When a serious crime is committed in the community—and we remember the case of the Lehnberg murder—it is a traumatic experience for the community as such. When such a trial begins, the community has the right to know that it will also have an end and that the matter will not continually be dragged into the public arena. Therefore the further publication of stories of this nature is completely unjustified.

If we view this particular clause from the point of view of the administration of justice in general—and therefore also from the point of view of public interest—it is, after all, clearly apparent that the accused has had every opportunity to put his case in court. If he was found guilty, he was given the opportunity to put the facts in connection with his personal circumstances before the court with a view to having the sentence commuted. The court could judge those facts, determine their veracity and place everything in the proper context. If he was still dissatisfied with the verdict of the court, he was free to lodge an appeal. No rights are being taken away from the prisoner. He is not forfeiting any rights if this prohibition comes into force. If the prohibition comes into force, the prisoner retains all his previous rights. In the eyes of the public, however, those rights are placed in the proper context.

If we look at this particular clause as a whole, it is clear that from the point of view of the public, the prisoner, the administration of justice and public interest, there is no doubt that this Bill is vitally necessary in South Africa. I should like to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I will resist the temptation to deal with the matters raised by the hon. member for Rosettenville in connection with the mentally ill and with psychopathic disorders. He speaks from experience as a medical practitioner of many years standing. In more recent years he has had first-hand experience of the politically mentally ill and politically psychopathically mentally disordered. [Interjections.] He speaks therefore on both counts with some authority.

However, I cannot possibly resist the temptation to say that I am absolutely shocked, having been for years and years a member of the official Opposition, and having fought day and night for the rule of law, to find that the hon. member for Durban North is able to say that the hon. the Minister, with this Bill, is being careless of human rights, that there is an abrogation of the rule of law and that basic freedoms are being destroyed. Yet, I find the hon. member for Rosettenville is able to assure the hon. the Minister that he is going to support this Bill on behalf of the official Opposition. Now I want to ask what has happened to the joint strategy? What has happened to the prior discussions on matters such as this? [Interjections.] I am shocked that there should be so little liaison on the eve of the marriage, which will shortly be announced. [Interjections.] This sort of thing bodes ill for the future of détente between the official Opposition, that is to say the mini-Progs, and the Progs. [Interjections.]

Nevertheless, as far as we are concerned, we also have reservations as to the retrospectivity clause. We do not like this sort of legislation. However, as the hon. member for Rosettenville has said, this is an abnormal set of circumstances. No one should be allowed to profit from a crime. That being the only clause about which we have any reservations, and the rest of the Bill being acceptable to us, we will accept the Bill as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not be very long. Most of what I want to say has already been said by the hon. member for Durban North. We object to the Bill because of the content of clause 6. I believe that if section 44 of the Act was going to be amended at all, it should have been amended in such a way that it would not make it a crime to publish or cause to be published information about prisons without the onus being placed on the person publishing to make sure that everything therein was accurate. That, of course, is an impossible task, as we have found over the years, more particularly since the famous court case against the Rand Daily Mail. Hardly a single story has been published in the Press about prison conditions since then. I believe that the way in which to make sure that prison conditions are good, not only in South Africa, but everywhere else in the world, is to keep the searchlight of publicity on these places, to allow as much publicity as possible about the conditions in those prisons to be published so that improvements can be effected. Indeed, it is only because of the publicity given to prisons in the USA, Great Britain and elsewhere, that conditions have materially improved in those countries. I believe the same thing would obtain over here in South Africa. So, as I say, if there was to be any amendment to section 44 of the Prisons Act, we would have preferred subsection (1)(f) to have been removed. But it stands there untrammelled, and therefore the hon. member for Rosettenville really should not have discussed it at all at this stage. It is not being amended at all. Nor, might I add, do the amendments in this Bill touch the subject of Scientology …

I never mentioned it.

The hon. member perhaps did not mention the exact word, but he was pretty obvious in the allusions he was making about persons who were casting aspersions upon the condition of our mental hospitals.

What about the other people?

I do not hold a brief for those people either, but it just so happens that they are not involved in this Bill at all. As the hon. member for Durban North has pointed out, what we object to is the inclusion in the strictures on publishing material about prisons or about prisoners, of paragraph (g). I think we already have enough restrictions in this country. We already have enough censorship in this country. I really do not believe that we need this additional clause. I personally found the publication of the story in question here distateful. This is what this Bill is all about, namely the money made by Marlene Lehnberg out of the story of her life, which was published, I think in Die Transvaler, in a series of somewhat salubrious articles. It is not the sort of thing that happens to appeal to me. Nor, might I say, are half the things that we see on television these days, which are all violence. There are a large number of very unsavoury stories that are depicted in the newspapers, in magazines and on television, but I do not happen to believe in the extension of censorship. I believe South Africa has quite enough restrictions and controls without the Government coming along now with this additional restriction.

Of course we object very strongly to the retrospectivity which is contained in subsection (2) of clause 6. As the hon. member for Durban North has pointed out, the clause as it stands affects not only the publication of a story about a prisoner for the gain of that prisoner who is then going to make a profit out of the crime committed; it will affect many of the many fine publications about the lives of criminals, which I believe to be of great importance to criminologists, to psychologists and to students of the law. I have only to mention the biographies of so many famous advocates …

They are not affected by this.

But they could be affected. Permission must first be obtained.

No, nonsense!

It is no use just yelling “nonsense” at me. I have read the clause as it stands and the clause as it stands states “without the authority in writing of the Commissioner”.

It is not a blanket provision.

It is not a blanket provision, because I could presumably get the written authority of the commissioner and sit down and write a story about Breytenbach or anyone else. That would be all right as far as the hon. member is concerned. I do not believe, however, that this is the way in which we should conduct our affairs. I do not believe that it should be in the hands of the commissioner to decide whether I should write about Breytenbach and his crime. Some of our judges, for example, have written stories about their trials. There is, for example, Mr. Justice Greenberg who wrote about Daisy De Melcker, who was then a corpse.

That is not affected by this at all.

Why not?

It is not covered by the Bill.

But it is covered by the Bill.

Oh, nonsense, Helen!

Order! The hon. member must allow the hon. the Minister to answer that point.

There are many famous trials about which books have been written analysing the character of the person who committed the crime and going into the psychological background of the guilty, seeking clues to the behaviour of people who are serving terms of imprisonment. Therefore the believe that we are going far too far merely because we are trying to prevent a particular person from profiting from the sordid story of the crimes he has committed. Because of what we are now bringing into our statutes a far-reaching provision. This I believe is going to inhibit many writers who could produce works of value other than the sordid tales of crime and meretricious profiting from the commission of a crime. Therefore we oppose this provision.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the various speakers, and I want to try to reply very briefly to the various arguments which were raised here. In the first place I want to thank the hon. member for Rosettenville for his support of this Bill. I understand his argument and I have sympathy for it. He should like people with mental disorders to be brought together in one place for proper treatment. In reality people who are psychologically disturbed, people who are mentally ill—this includes psychopaths—may go to the ordinary institutions which fall under the Department of Health.

But what if they are violent?

If the State President declares them to be such, they are sent to prison hospitals.

But hose hospitals are for psychopaths and these are not psychopaths.

No, not necessarily. They also include people who have violent tendencies. Just take a look at section 27 of the Mental Health Act.

[Inaudible.]

Surely that makes no difference. I cannot have a different hospital for them. I have to admit these people to the places I have.

Then you must change the name of the hospitals.

We are, in point of fact, interested in the rehabilitation of prisoners. If a criminal is a psychopath and he is certified as such in terms of the Mental Health Act, we should like to treat that man differently to an ordinary criminal, for we should like to do something for him which cannot be done in an ordinary prison. We should like to give him something more. We should like to treat him in a different way. In prisons, however, space is too limited. Therefore we cannot handle more than just the psychopaths. That is as much as we can handle in the prisons. We have clinical psychologists and psychiatrists who come to us on a temporary basis. We do not have full-time people who can look after mental patients in a prison hospital. We have to make use of outside psychologists. The result is that we have a limited objective. With the space and the staff which we have available at present for psychopaths we want to see how far we can proceed with their rehabiliation. We should not like to admit every person who is mentally ill to a prison, unless he displays violent tendencies. There is a provision in terms of which they can be sent to prison hospitals. I do not think there is any country in the world which detains ints mental patients in prison hospitals. The right place for such people is other proper institutions, such as the ones which we also have in our country. It is only those who are violent, those who have committed crimes and those whom we should in reality like to rehabilitate, who are admitted to a prison hospital, in other words the certifiable psychopaths. In spite of the fact that I think very highly of the arguments of the hon. member for Rosettenville, I nevertheless say that we do not have the facilities, and therefore we have only a limited objective with this Bill. We cannot at this stage extend the legislation. It is of no avail preparing legislation for the distant future, while we know that we have not even extended our psychopathic services to the Black people. We have to train more people who are able to work with those psychopaths. As far as rehabilitation experience is concerned, we have still a very long road of development to travel. I can give the hon. member the assurance that if, in the distant future, the possibility exists for further extension, we shall have to consider it.

As far as the second part of the Bill is concerned, it deals with an agreement which I had with the Press. In terms of section 44 of the principal Act there were, over all the years, certain restrictions that were applicable to the Press as far as photographs were concerned. For example they were not able, without our consent, to take photographs of people who appeared before a court. As soon as a person was arrested, the Press was unable, without permission, to publish photographs of such a person. As far as the police are concerned, the hon. members will recall that we have just rectified that matter by means of the Police Amendment Bill. That measure provides that the Press have to obtain permission from the Police before a court case in order to publish photographs of the persons concerned. As far as the court case is concerned, we do not mind if photographs of an accused are published after the Police are through with him. Before the accused is sentenced, the Press, even if the person is still in custody, may take photographs of such a person and give as much publicity to that person as they like. We have extended the period to 30 days after that person has been arrested. We have done this as a favour to the Press. We are not opposed to the Press here. We are expanding their rights and giving statutory effect to the rights of the Press. For example the trial is taking place today, and we have taken into account that there are periodicals which are only published in 14 days, or even a month’s time. The Press and the periodicals therefore have the right to write about the accused 30 days after he has been sentenced. Because we believe that there should be a period of rest in a criminal’s life, we provided that after the 30 days have elapsed, the Press has to close the case and may no longer write anything about such person. This is being done to give us a chance to rehabilitate the person and also to give his family an opportunity to return to normal and to come to terms with the dramatic experience. Therefore, the pot should not be kept boiling all the time. When the person comes out of prison, we have finished with him.

The third part of this Bill deals with the fact that we should not like people to make money out of their crimes—I received a tremendous public reaction to this. The hon. member for Durbanville spoke about “human rights” and I do not know what besides.

†I want to tell the hon. member that the way the PRP carries on they are totally losing their credibility. Because of the way they pull things apart and take up a stance on human rights when no human rights are involved in the legislation and have nothing to do with the issue, they are totally losing their credibility. They try to make a big fire when there is no fire. As a senior lawyer towards a junior lawyer I want to tell the hon. member for Durban North that he is also losing his credibility as a lawyer, because again tonight he was taught a lesson by one of the other advocates. It was a thing that he could have worked out for himself, but which he never took the trouble to work out.

*To mention only one example: The hon. member did not realize that the publication has to deal with the crime which the prisoner committed. For the rest, a prisoner may write his heart out in prison. He may write and sell love-stories, but he may not use his crime in order to make money. That is the crux of the matter.

I want to reply further to the speech made by the hon. member for Rosettenville.

† The hon. member will find that clause 6 is not retrospective in regard to the offence as such. It is only retrospective as far as the money is concerned and not in the case of the offence. An act will be an offence only from the moment this Bill becomes law. The hon. member knows that as far as the question of making money is concerned, there is a particular case in respect of which an allegation has been made that a particular business has made a lot of money out of the misdeed. That is why we want that money forfeited to the State.

*There was a tremendous public reaction when it leaked out that this person had made so many thousands of rands out of a crime which he committed. That is why I called in his advocate and his attorney. They came to see me and asked whether the prison authorities would grant permission for that person’s life story to be written. I told them that in terms of the present Act they did not need my consent, but that to the extent to which I had to give my consent ot it, I refused then and there. I warned them as jurists that it could not be done and that I would have to introduce legislation to prevent people from making money out of their crimes. It is completely contrary to the mores of the people. It is contra bolus mores. It is contrary to the good morals of the people of South Africa. That is why only the provisions in respect of the monetary aspect are with retrospective effect. In other words, money made by people from their crimes from a certain date—we all know what that date is; I shall come back to it again during the Committee Stage—will be forfeited to the State. That is all this Bill deals with.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister if with this legislation he intends to prevent a prisoner from making money by writing about that which relates to his own offence, why then are the words “any person” used? This could, in fact, relate to people other than the prisoner, for example a biographer, a Benjamin Bennett or a Judge Sparrow.

Benjamin Bennett only writes about these matters years after the trial. If he wishes to write about all these people, he is entitled, in terms of the relevant Act, to write about the evidence given before the court as much as he likes.

Only the evidence?

He can write about the evidence. After all, the evidence is also narrative. Is the hon. member for Durban North unaware of the fact that the evidence is a narrative which unfolds in court? The hon. member for Pretoria West explained it to him very carefully. Why should we discuss this matter again? It is absolutely unnecessary because there is provision allowing any person who wishes to describe the court case to do so. The reason why the Bill contains the provision “any person” is because we should not like any outsider to speak to the prisoner in prison, record all the prisoner’s emotions, write about them and say that it is not the prisoner who is writing those words, but that person himself. Is the hon. member now able to understand what the difficulty is? That is the position. It refers to those people who listen to everything the prisoner has to tell them and then write about it under their own name, and in that way circumvent the law. As a result of this provision it is simply impossible to circumvent the law any more.

The second reason for doing so is that in any case, while people are in prison we do not want all kinds of stories to be written about them. In this Bill we are specifically providing that any person is still able to practise his craft, as long as it does not have anything to do with his crime. He must not put his crime into words in a narrative, and hope to make money from it. That is quite wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister …

Order!

Can I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No. I am afraid the hon. member will have to ask that question during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Houghton was standing and asking whether the hon. the Minister … [Interjections.]

Order! I did not see the hon. member before the hon. the Minister sat down.

Question agreed to (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As regards clause 1 of this Bill, section 29 of the Group Areas Act, 1966, authorizes the Ministers of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations and of Indian Affairs to appoint at any time a committee consisting of not more than ten members to investigate and report upon the desirability or otherwise of establishing a local authority for any area comprising an area for which a management committee has been established by him in terms of section 28 of that Act or comprising any two or more areas, whether contiguous or not, for which management committees consisting of persons of the same group have been so established. Since local government is essentially a provincial matter, however, an agreement was entered into with the Administrators of the four provinces to the effect that they would enact provincial legislation to achieve the Government’s objective of full-fledged local authorities for Coloured people and Indians, which meant that sections 28 and 29 of the Group Areas Act were not implemented.

Although the provincial authorities made provision in their respective ordinances for the establishment of independent local authorities in Coloured group areas, the progress made in this direction was not as desired, and ways and means were devised for accelerating the implementation of the policy in this connection. Since the larger committee under the Group Areas Act offers greater scope for co-opting interested parties—this refers to Coloured people and Indians—and so ensure co-ordinated and uniform investigations in all four provinces, the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations accordingly proceeded, in terms of section 29(1) of the Group Areas Act, to appoint a committee of inquiry into the possibility of the establishment of independent Coloured local authorities at certain selected places—initially in the Cape Province only.

However, a problem has arisen regarding the field of activity of the committee, which lies in the fact that since all existing consultative and/or management committees—in Natal they are known as “neighbourhood affairs committees”— have hitherto been established in terms of the respective provincial ordinances, the Group Areas Act will have to be amended to enable the Minister concerned, at the recommendation of the said committee, to order the conversion of a management committee not appointed by him into an independent local authority. Without such amendment, the Administrator concerned would first have to institute his own further investigation by a committee of five members appointed by him to give effect to the provisions of his ordinance, before being able to comply with the Minister’s direction. Such an investigation from scratch would not only cause delays, but is not desirable because the Coloured or Indian areas cannot be represented on the Administrator’s committee. It is for this very reason that a committee under the Group Areas Act was enlarged from five to not more than ten members by means of a statutory amendment in 1975.

The Minister of Indian Affairs would be faced with the same problem if he were to order an inquiry. The proposed addition, in clause 1 of the Bill, is therefore meant, on the one hand, to rectify the legal position and field of activity of the committee of inquiry which has already been appointed to investigate group areas for Coloured people, and, on the other hand, to eliminate the obstacle encountered by the hon. the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations for future committees of inquiry, whether in respect of Coloured or of Indian group areas.

Clause 2 is in line with the Government’s announcement that adjustments will be made to control measures wherever possible. At the moment, the position is that when properties owned by a member of a specific population group pass into the hands of a member of a different population group, the transaction is subject to a permit in terms of the Group Areas Act. The purpose of this clause is to do away with the control where industrial areas are part of a town planning scheme, except where such areas are situated in proclaimed group areas. In this connection I should like to point out that it has been the custom for many years not to include industrial areas—here I am thinking of areas zoned for heavy industry—in group areas. However, in those cases where such areas are in fact situated inside group areas, we may consider deproclaiming such areas as group areas and turning them into controlled areas, so that the restrictive provisions of the Act will not be applicable to these cases either. However, some services and light industries are so specifically designed to meet the needs of a specific population group that they form an integral part of the group areas. For this reason, it is envisaged that areas in which such industries are situated will not be exempted from the restrictive provisions of the Act.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister has said, the question of local authorities for Coloured areas is a matter which particularly affects the Cape. There are hon. members in this House who will be aware that the question of local authorities for Coloured persons in the Cape Province was thoroughly investigated as long ago as 1959 by the commission which sat under the chairmanship of the late Senator Rossouw, who was at that time a member of the provincial council. At that time certain assurances were given to the Coloured people that they would speedily obtain the right to administer their own local affairs. But I am afraid that “speedily” is a word which has been rather neglected as far as the development of local authorities is concerned. As far as I am aware, there is only one such local authority functioning in the Cape Province after all these years. It is true that there are consultative and management committees for various areas. We welcome the step that has been taken now to eliminate the delays as a result of the tedious progression of a consultative committee to a management committee before there can be an investigation for the establishment of a local authority.

The position in regard to the Indians has, of course, been handled by an enlightened provincial administration in Natal. One finds that far more local authorities have been established for Indians in Natal than have been established by the Nationalist-controlled administration of the Cape Province. I hope that the step which is now being taken will be an incentive to the Cape Province to deal with the Coloured local authorities to be established in the same way as the provincial administration in Natal is dealing with the problem there, namely bringing the Indian, Black and White local authorities under a metropolitan council to deal with matters of common concern. That has been done and established very effectively in Natal and I trust that it will similarly be done here. If the hon. the Minister or his department would look at the Jasper Rossouw Commission report of 1959, which is a very interesting and full report, they would find that the one problem which was raised in the creation of Coloured municipalities or Coloured local authorities, was the fact that they would not be viable on their own and should be linked in some way in metropolitan areas. I trust that that is going to be the next step to follow this amendment which is before us this evening. As far as the first clause is concerned, we therefore welcome this step and we also welcome the implementation by the hon. the Minister of the involvement of Coloured and Indian persons in the investigating committees which will be set up to investigate and to report. That is an enlightened step coming from the Government benches of this House.

The second provision is one which flows from the recommendations made in the Erika Theron Commission report as to the opportunities to be given to Coloured entrepreneurs to be involved in the business and industrial life of the country. One is surprised, when one looks at this Bill and at the various sections that have to be removed in respect of industrial areas, to find that at the present moment we have areas of land, industrial areas that may be within group areas, which are subject to restrictions on acquisition, holding by companies, holding and disposal by companies, occupation in specified areas, occupation of land in controlled areas, and declaration of future group areas. As one will see in the Bill before us, there are some 10 or 12 sections of the Group Areas Act which are no longer to have application to industrial areas. The hon. the Minister went a little beyond the terms of the Bill which is before us. He began differentiating between heavy industrial areas, light industrial areas and service industries. As I read the Bill before us, reference is made to industrial areas without any restriction to heavy industries only. I have attempted to look at the definitions which are applied by municipalities in the Cape and by the provincial administration and I venture to suggest to the hon. the Minister, although he indicated that this was to refer only to heavy industrial areas, that it in fact has the effect of releasing all industrial areas, light industrial as well as heavy industrial areas, from the provisions of the Group Areas Act. If he finds that I am correct in my assumption I trust that he will do nothing to amend this Bill and allow it to go through as it is. Again the hon. the Government Chief Whip is smiling. He has at last, I think been able to bring some pressure to bear on the Transvalers; as far as the Cape is concerned we want to give the Coloured people a proper opportunity in the industrial life of the country. But I will not tempt him further in regard to political aspects.

I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister, who has now taken this first step, to give consideration to going further, as soon as he can, with the additional recommendations which were made by the Erika Theron Commission in regard to central business districts—that is the business areas of the cities—so that these similarly be taken out of the control, if I may put it that way, of the Group Areas Act. It is happening in the Peninsula, in some areas where there are controlled areas, as they are termed, but why must people who are going into a controlled area, which really means an open area, be bothered by this business of having to get permits of occupation under section 19 of the Group Areas Act? I am sure the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs, who has to deal with the problem of “suitable” business accommodation for Indians, will agree with me that his troubles would be lessened considerably if there were to be an exemption, as suggested by the Erika Theron Commission, to business areas from the provisions of this legislation. As this is a progressive and enlightened forward move we will support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to be able to support this Bill and I would like to add very briefly to the remarks made by the horn member for Green Point. It is unfortunate that, what appears to be a giant step for the NP, is so often a very tiny step for normal humanity. It is unfortunate that the NP and the Government in their decision to amend the provisions of the existing legislation have not found it possible to move much further and much more radically away from the present provisions.

It is unfortunate that the Government in deciding to move has moved so tentatively away from the provisions of the present legislation. It is quite clear that the Government is moving towards a new dispensation for Coloured and Indian people in South Africa. It is quite clear from all the steps the Government has been taking. It is also quite clear from the debate that has been taking place in the ranks of the Government that as far as the Coloureds and the Indians are concerned there is a new dispensation. However, the test is whether that new dispensation will meet the minimum requirements, the minimum aspirations, of these communities. Whilst I and my party are happy to support the provisions contained in this amending Bill we would nevertheless like to say to the Government that we feel they have not utilized this opportunity of moving radically away from the provisions contained in the existing legislation.

We in the PRP in fact differ from the Government and from the UP in our attitude to the Coloured and the Indian communities. We believe in non-racial communities and in non-racial institutions. We believe …

Do you know what you are supporting in this legislation?

Yes, I know what I am supporting. It is a moving away from the existing legislation. It is an improvement although a very small one.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, but it is a small improvement. [Interjections.] We are not supporting the overall grand policy of the NP. We are totally opposed to it. However, because these are small improvements in the policy of the Government, we are supporting it. We believe in a non-racial society. We believe that as far as all the activities and all the aspects of a society are concerned, they should be non-racial, and that the colour of the members of a society should not be decisive. We believe that the institutions that control a society should be founded on a non-racial basis. We believe that commercial and other activities within a society should be on a non-racial basis.

Therefore, as far as the establishment and the extension of institutions are concerned— which, in terms of this Bill, are separate—it certainly does not comply with the general philosophy of our party, but because it is an improvement as far as Government policy is concerned, it is something which we feel we can support.

Also as far as the improvements with regard to industrial activity is concerned, we shall support it. Why is it necessary however, to restrict these amendments as far as those changes are concerned? Is there any reason whatsoever why the hon. the Minister, in bringing about these changes, should not apply it in a blanket form to all commercial and industrial activity in all areas of the country as far as the Coloured and Indian communities are concerned?

Mr. Speaker, there is an old adage which says “We live and learn”. I have just listened to a speech by the hon. member for Randburg from which it was very clear that the hon. member, whose party stands for one racial society, is prepared to support legislation which will cause every race group to have its own management committee, etc.

But I explained it.

We welcome the change we observe in the hon. members on my right. The hon. the Minister explained, quite rightly, that the change which has been effected here is designed to give local authorities the opportunity to proceed more rapidly in implementing the original Act. Therefore one will find that the management committees established in terms of ordinances will also be subject to this. One would express the hope that where the Coloured people in particular are in a position to create their own management committees, there will be more rapid progress from a consultative body to a management committee.

As far as the clause relating to industrial areas is concerned, I may say that the more areas of this kind one creates, the more opportunities will be given to the Coloured people. They need this kind of thing. They want the opportunities, and we see no reason why those facilities should not be provided for them. The South African Party therefore supports this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in the position of having to thank all three Opposition parties tonight for their support of the legislation. However, allow me to make two or three remarks. Incidentally, it was suggested in two cases that the steps we are taking here are not sufficient. In the times in which we live, the Government does not base its method on irresponsible leaps into the future, but on orderly change, so even though the steps are small, they do constitute some progress by means of which we can ensure that there will be orderly change.

It is true that Natal has proceeded more rapidly with the establishment of local authorities. That is certainly true. I want to add that I am very glad that the Indian population group took less notice of the propaganda made by the UP and insisted on being given local authorities. That is why they have three in Natal. There is one in the Cape Province. However, we have far more elected authorities in the Cape Province. This amendment will therefore enable us to proceed more rapidly.

Finally, I want to express my sincere thanks to hon. members for their support of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.