Before the House commences its business, I have to inform hon. members in accordance with Standing Order No. 14, that I shall be absent tomorrow and that the Deputy Speaker will officiate in my place. The DR congregation of Prieska, under the wings of which I grew up, and of which I am still a member, is celebrating its centenary this weekend, and I should like to be present at that function.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last night I was dealing with the point that it seemed to me that in recent years the Railways Administration could be said to have placed itself above the law. I mentioned the fact that after a collision between a dredger and a fishing trawler some years ago in the channel outside Table Bay Harbour, an adverse finding had been made against the Administration by the Court of Marine Inquiry. In fact, there was a specific recommendation that proper signal lights be provided by the Administration for the new basin which was then being dredged.

In the Other Place, some time thereafter, I asked whether this had been done. The answer was “No”. Now we have exactly the same situation, although I grant it that not such a length of time has elapsed since the stranding off Oudekraal and Llandudno of the giant tankers Romelia and Antipolis. I asked the hon. the Minister a few weeks ago what steps had been taken as a result of the findings of the Court of Marine Inquiry on these two standings. From the reply it was quite clear that no particular steps had been taken. When I asked a supplementary question the hon. the Minister said I had to either put it on the Order Paper or ask him the question again on another occasion. The hon. the Minister said the day before yesterday that he had in fact read carefully the findings of the Court of Inquiry in regard to the Romelia and Antipolis. If he did so—and I am sure he did—he would know the recommendation of the court was that the S.A. Railways and Harbours Administration should promulgate a clear set of regulations for the reception of tender tows of this nature at the port of Cape Town. I would like to know whether any work has been done in this regard. Have steps been taken? This is the question that I ask.

This is now the third occasion on which I have raised such a matter with the hon. the Minister. He became very cross yesterday when I put it to him that the people of Cape Town can get into their cars, drive along past Chapmans Peak to go and see for themselves R5 million’s worth of maritime hardware lying there.

That is untrue.

Well, a claim has been made in the Supreme Court in Cape Town for damages in the sum of R4,9 million.

You should know better!

Do not let us argue about the amount. Is the hon. the Minister now arguing about the R4,9 million?

Oh, don’t be so stupid!

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. the Minister wants to argue about that, let us halve it. Let us make it R2,5 million. We can go on bargaining about the value all afternoon. The point of the matter is that those two wrecks, because of the difficulty and the expense of removing the material, are going to lie there for years as more than manifest proof of the fact that the protection of our coastline, the protection of our ships, and the policing of our territorial waters have not been properly thought out by the hon. the Minister.

I have made it my business to ask around, and I want to say that there are one or two interested parties who are quite happy to go along with the present, rather haphazard, system where under a dozen or 20 institutions or bodies happily carry on doing their own particular kick. However, the general view of the shipping community is that the time is long overdue for a proper rethinking and rationalization of protective measures along the South African coastline.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed with the hon. the Minister. He is not able to say that he has taken speedy and effective steps to comply with the recommendations of this particular Court of Marine Enquiry.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can make a statement on a matter which I believe is a crisis situation. I have certain information, flowing from what the hon. member for Yeoville said the other day, that the salaries and other emoluments and conditions of employment of pilots in the S.A. Airways leave a great deal to be desired. I understand that this is a critical situation. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has received representations in this regard in the recent past. I should like to hear what he considers to be the answer to this and what steps he intends taking.

Mr. Speaker, there are two little matters on which I should like to reply immediately. In regard to the question of regulations, I have already said in reply to a question put to me by the hon. member that it has been referred to the marine division of the Department of Transport to make recommendations in this connection. Regarding the question of the airways pilots to which the hon. member has just referred, I just want to say that negotiations are under way. They have their representatives who are negotiating with the Railways Administration. In that way it will be possible to find a solution.

Sir, you will agree with me that we have seldom, if ever, seen such an unsavoury performance as the one we saw on the part of the hon. member for Groote Schuur in this House last night. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, my time is very limited. I have much to say in reply to the questions which the hon. member has asked me. I trust that hon. members will not interrupt me. I am not prepared to answer any new questions either. It is not only the things which the hon. member for Groote Schuur has said, but also the way in which he said them, which annoys one. The hon. members who were here, will agree with me that the hon. member was filled with hatred and venom such as has probably never been experienced in this House before.

Nonsense!

One wonders where it comes from. One wonders what the background to it is. Sir, I have an inherent need, for good reasons, to be friendly and well-disposed towards the hon. member, but he alienates it completely. He repels one and manifests a conduct here which we are not used to in this House.

It is not against you personally.

I have come to the conclusion that if the hon. member wants to make war, we will simply have to make war.

In the Chamber, yes.

My main objection to him is that what he submits to the House, is not the truth. Even if it were not unparliamentary, Sir, I would not be able to say that he deliberately does not tell the truth or that he deliberately distorts things. But there is not the slightest doubt that he brings this House under the wrong impression. The very least I can say, is that the hon. member is completely indifferent to the truth. If he wants to obtain the true facts, they are at his disposal and he can obtain them. Sir, I now wish to quote you an example, although it has nothing to do with today’s debate. Last week the hon. member had it in for my hon. colleague, the Minister of Justice. Then he broached the matter of the ferry boat, the Susan Kruger. He specifically created the impression in this House that that ferry boat was in a very poor condition. He said that water had leaked into the boat and that the possibility existed that it could sink in Table Bay harbour. The hon. member did not tell the House that a valve had inadvertently been left open and that the water had leaked in through the valve. He did not tell the House that it had nothing whatsoever to do with the condition of the boat.

When did I debate that subject? I have never discussed it here.

That is the sort of thing one gets from the hon. member. The hon. member would do well to read the report in The Argus on Friday last week. The article is entitled “Ferry saves R450 000”. After the scandalmongering against the hon. the Minister of Justice, The Argus now states that the country has been saved R450 000. We will evidently have to be content with this for as long as that hon. member is in this House. I want to put a question to the hon. member. Why does he raise a matter like this at such a late stage of the debate? In the last minutes of the debate, he comes forward with allegations against people whom I have to defend here and for which I shall require hours to do justice to the matter. The hon. member knows, however, that I cannot do it within the time at my disposal. He now manipulates things so as to come forward with these matters during the last minutes of the debate.

In the short time at my disposal I shall nevertheless try to do justice to those people whom he has attacked so unreasonably in this House. In the first place he objected to the 34 minutes which elapsed from the time the message had been received in the control tower in the harbour until it reached the Wolraad Woltemade. I now want to sketch the course of events. At 17h20 on that particular day, the message was received in the control tower of the harbour. The person in the control tower immediately relayed the message to the Port Captain, who is in the same building, but not on the same floor. The Port Captain said: “Inform the Maru”— the Maru was the tug that had been towing the two tankers—“that they must contact their agents in Cape Town.” It was not difficult for them to do so. They could have done it by radio or by telephone. The Maru, therefore, could easily make contact with their agents in Cape Town. But that was not all the Port Captain did. The Port Captain said to another person in the same building: “In case they do not succeed, you get into contact with the agents of the Maru”. Contact was then in fact made with the agents of the Maru. I should like to quote from page 19, column 4.12 of a report which I have with me. There the whole procedure, which I have now sketched for the hon. members, is set out as follows—

That was another person in the office—

In other words, 18 minutes after the message had reached the control tower, there were negotiations between the captain, the control tower and Mr. Fenn, who is described here as the First Deck Officer, and the agents had already been advised. It reads: “Agents informed.” In other words, within 18 minutes, the agents had been informed by the control tower on the instructions of the Port Captain. I should like to know from that hon. member in the first instance: What more did he expect from that office?

Phone the Woltemade!

That hon. member does not know what he is talking about. I shall indicate in a moment why this could not have happened. The Port Captain in the control tower has nothing whatsoever to do with the Wolraad Woltemade. The Wolraad Woltemade is completely under the control of Safmarine. It was Safmarine which had to be advised, as indeed happened, that the Wolraad Woltemade must go out to assist. Now I come to the Wolraad Woltemade. At 17h50—the message had been received at 17h20—the message reached Safmarine’s offices, i.e. 30 minutes later. This information I obtained from the master of the Wolraad Woltemade who was at the Safmarine offices when the message arrived there. He immediately started making his way back to the Wolraad Woltemade. While he was driving his car, he advised the Wolraad Woltemade by radio: “I am on my way; get ready; get the engines started.” I should like to inform the House that I have been informed that the Wolraad Woltemade can only get under way 20 to 30 minutes after such a decision has been made, because its powerful engines must first be warmed up before it can move forward. The fact of the matter is that the Wolraad Woltemade left at 18h20. Now I should like to quote paragraph 4.15 on page 20 of the report—

I have stated that according to my information the message was received at the offices of Safmarine at 17h50, and 17h54 is evidently the time when the master of the Wolraad Woltemade spoke to the Wolraad Woltemade by car radio. I read further—

That is as far as the Wolraad Woltemade is concerned.

In fairness, I also wish to refer to the court finding in connection with the conduct of the railway officials involved. On page 23 of the same report one reads—

I wish to point out that the court found that “in the court’s opinion he should have shown more initiative”. That is an impression which the court probably could have arrived at if it was of the opinion that he should have acted in a different way. I personally do not know what more the control office or the Port Captain should have done in respect of this message which had been received. But I shall leave it at that now.

Well, there were two nautical captains on the court.

The hon. member has had his turn. He must please keep quiet now. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made derogatory remarks about me concerning the relationship between the Department of Transport and Safmarine. As usual he crawled through the mire and in the process trod on me with his dirty, muddy feet. He said I knew nothing. He said I did not know what was going on. I want to tell the hon. member that I know very well what is going on. If the hon. member wants to know what is going on, he can come to me or he can go to the General Manager, the System Manager or the head of the Department of Transport—everything is at his disposal. He is a member of this House and if he comes to us, we shall give him the information. I have with me the contract which the Department of Transport concluded with Safmarine.

So it is under charter.

Keep quiet, you parrot.

So you do have a contract.

The Department of Transport has an agreement with Safmarine—if only the hon. member would listen, he would get some sense into his head—in terms of which Safmarine has bought the John Ross and the Wolraad Woltemade with their money. All the incidental costs—the capital, interest and management fees—are guaranteed by the Department of Transport. We must stand surety for those costs. As far as the operation and the control of those vessels are concerned, however, we have nothing to do with that. After all, we do not have the experts; the experts needed to operate such a boat are with Safmarine, and they do it. The hon. member is trying to imply that there is a connection because I am the Minister under whom railways and harbours fall, and at the same time I am the Minister of Transport. Because the Department of Transport has an agreement with Safmarine, he wants to allege that I have control over the Wolraad Woltemade.

But you have a preferent right to use the vessel.

Shut up.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister of Defence entitled to shout “Shut up”?

Order! That is not a point of order.

That is why I said that we stood surety for the incidental costs of the tug. But we have nothing to do with the control and management of the vessel. The duties of the Port Captain are limited, and I should like hon. members to understand that. His duties and responsibilities are confined to the harbour area. The boundaries of the harbour area stretch in a line from Green Point to Robben Island, from there to Bloubergstrand and the water area on this side of that line. Within that area the Port Captain has jurisdiction and it is his responsibility to see to it that everything is in order there.

However, the greatest grievance which I have against the hon. member is the scandalous manner in which he damned our officials here last night. It was as if they alone were responsible for the accident which occurred. I should like to quote to hon. members what the hon. member said (Hansard, 8 March 1978)—

That is an unqualified damnation of the officials of the Administration as if they were responsible for the accident.

That was the court’s finding.

The amount involved, is not R5 million either. The value of the “hardware”, as he calls it, is R1,9 million. The R5 million for which claims have now been instituted, includes numerous other cost-items incurred. Surely the hon. member has no respect for the truth. So what else can we expect from him? I should now like to read out to hon. members what the findings of the court were …

Mr. Speaker, is it permissible for the hon. the Minister to say that an hon. member has no respect for the truth? [Interjections.] If I might be allowed to make my point of order, Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. the Minister not implying that the hon. member has been telling an untruth?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members are taking up a lot of my time. I withdraw that remark. I withdraw it, but the hon. member …

Order! I want to ask hon. members not to interrupt the hon. the Minister again. He has limited time for his reply to the Third Reading.

This was what the court found—

Here the name of the company is furnished …

To begin with, this is not an unqualified damnation of the officials of the Railways. However, I should like to quote further from the findings referred to in the judgment. They are on page 15, column 3.16—

In other words, the acts and omissions of the master of the tug were “the primary cause”, but the hon. member now says, without qualification, that it was the fault of the officials of the Railways: I quote further from column 3.22 of the report—

That is what the court had to say about Captain Hara. But the hon. member for Groote Schuur says without qualification here in the House that the officials of the S.A. Railways were responsible for the accident. What grieves me further in this connection, is that the hon. member knows—and he said today that he knows—that there are civil cases to the amount of almost R5 million pending here. Regardless of that, the hon. member damns the officials of the S.A. Railways as if they alone were responsible for the accident. In other words, according to him, they and the Railways should be held solely responsible for the R5 million which is being claimed. That is what the hon. member has done.

The hon. member put a question just now in connection with the lights. I should like to know where the hon. member gets his information from. Surely the System Manager is available and the hon. member can obtain any information from him. The hon. member would do well to stop going to Mr. Young for information. The board of inquiry into the Siroco II accident found that the navigation lights in Cape Town harbour were at that stage not satisfactory and that they should be changed. It was a gas light, because at that stage there was as yet no electricity supply at that specific point. It was immediately decided that the gas light should be replaced with an electric light which could be powered by a temporary underwater cable. It was only possible to lay the cable towards the end of 1976, after completion of the dredging work. That was more than a year ago. At the same time the red light at the southern arm of the Duncan dock was removed. That gave effect to the second recommendation by the board of inquiry. In July 1977, the temporary orange gas lights at the entrance to the Ben Schoeman dock were replaced with horizontal red and green lights. All temporary lights were replaced with permanent lights on 21 November 1977. But can you believe it, today the hon. member again raised the question of the lights, long after the lights have been renovated and erected and effect had been given to all the findings of the inquiry. The hon. member referred to the Railways in a damning manner. I simply cannot swallow that.

Evidently Mr. George Young hates the tower building to which the hon. member has referred. I do not know why he hates it. The tower building is occupied, except for the control tower right at the top, by the Port Captain, his operating staff, his revenue office, the Port Manager and his staff, and the Harbour Advisory Board was consulted throughout in connection with this building and expressed its satisfaction with the arrangements. I now want to know why the hon. member does not want to leave us in peace. Surely the Port Captain, the Port Manager and the System Manager know better how they should use their offices than the hon. member.

The hon. member has also referred to the Johan Hugo. We came to the conclusion that it is more economical to use the Johan Hugo, and for that reason we continue to use the Johan Hugo, regardless of what the hon. member or Mr. Young has to say about that.

I have never alleged that Mr. George Young has a vendetta against the Railways. In my Second Reading debate speech I said the following (Hansard, 7 March,)—

That is so. I want to indicate that the System Manager of the Railways in Cape Town wrote to the editor of The Cape Times in February 1976 and said that if they experienced any problems in connection with the harbour, they should communicate with him and that he would furnish them with all the necessary information. In the second paragraph he wrote—

How can the hon. member expect me to have a high regard for Mr. Young? A good journalist is surely a man who goes to the source which has been placed at his disposal to get his information there. That is not what Mr. Young does. Let me quote what Mr. Young wrote in The Cape Times last year, so that the hon. members may judge for themselves. Under the heading “Purpose of tugs is in doubt” he wrote—

Sir, that is absolute nonsense. The Port Captain is in charge of the harbour and he acts without intervention by the General Manager of the Railways. The hon. member for Groote Schuur is forever referring to Pretoria and he is evidently under the impression that the General Manager’s office is in Pretoria. I could just mention in passing that the General Manager’s office is in Johannesburg. In any event, the General Manager is not consulted all day and every day. The Port Manager is in charge. The Press report continued that—

That is absolute nonsense. Does the hon. member now expect me to have any affection for a man who writes such nonsense about the Railways, when in fact the Railways have given him the undertaking that they would give him all the information at their disposal? I have now done with the hon. member for Groote Schuur … [Interjections.] I feel much cleaner now that I have finished with him. [Interjections.] In his Third Reading speech the hon. member for Orange Grove quoted a long piece from a leader in The Citizen. In this leader it was stated that the tariff increases were inflationistc, that costs would rise, etc. The hon. member did not read the first two lines of the leader, and in all fairness I want to quote them—

This comes from the very same article from which the hon. member quoted to the House, but of course it did not suit him to quote this part.

I still have a few minutes at my disposal and I just want to inform the hon. members about the delays in train services in Cape Town which occurred recently, and yesterday morning as well. The Railways have installed a new modern signalling system at Salt River and we are experiencing a few growing pains with this system. Yesterday morning there were delays owing to failures. I do not wish to go into all the details. The hon. member’s principal objection was that the public were not advised of the delays. I just want to point out to him that between 06h40 and 09h45, details of the delays were broadcast 25 times at different stations in the Peninsula in both official languages and in various Bantu languages. At 06h50 the SABC in Cape Town was requested to broadcast on the Regional Service that such delays were occurring. I think that was probably sufficient. I have not the time to deal with all the other points raised by the hon. member. I am quite prepared to supply him with full details on a later occasion.

The hon. member for Von Brandis has raised certain matters. I just want to tell him that there is sound co-operation between us and these committees with which we negotiate in connection with time-tables, police control, etc.

I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Bellville on his very constructive speech. He discussed the question of more intensive marketing of the services of the S.A. Railways. It is a very interesting subject and I should have liked to discuss this matter with him for an hour. However, I definitely cannot do so now.

That brings me to the end of my speech. I should like to thank the hon. members for their participation in the debate. I said at the end of the Second Reading debate that I thought that with this budget, foundations were being laid from which we would derive the benefits in the future. I wish to add to that that if the economic circumstances show signs of an upswing and give us a better chance, I hope that it will be easier for me to make my next budget balance.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the Bill flows from a recommendation by a committee of inquiry appointed by the Administrators of the Cape of Good Hope and of Natal, to the effect that the territory known as East Griqualand ought to be incorporated into the province of Natal. As required by section 114(a) of the Constitution Act, Parliament was petitioned by the provincial councils of the aforementioned provinces to give effect to this recommendation.

The Registrars of Deeds and the Surveyors-General at Cape Town and Pietermaritzburg are being given full administrative powers to effect to their records the necessary amendments necessitated by the incorporation of the territory into Natal, and to make provision for the transfer of such records.

Because the purport of the Constitution Act is that electoral divisions may not extend across provincial boundaries, provision is being made for some polling districts of the electoral divisions of Aliwal and Griqualand East to be included in the electoral divisions of Mooi River and South Coast.

A similar arrangement is being effected by this Bill with regard to certain electoral divisions of the Coloured Persons Representative Council.

†Special provision is made for the Natal Administration to be able to meet the commitments of the East Griqualand divisional council regarding the payment of pensions and medical aid contributions in respect of the latter body’s former employees. The provision is necessary because this body will disappear on the incorporation of the area into Natal, since there is no equivalent thereof under Natal legislation.

Provision is made that the Natal Code of Bantu Law shall not apply in the area on its incorporation into Natal because this law is based on Zulu laws and customs which are foreign to the inhabitants of East Griqualand.

The provision that East Griqualand shall for purposes of section 10 of the Bantu Trust and Land Act continue to be considered to be part of the Cape of Good Hope, notwithstanding that the area is being incorporated into Natal, is necessary because the quota land in Natal provided for in the said Act for transfer to the relevant Trust is exhausted and certain farms in the area earmarked for transfer to Transkei cannot be purchased by the Trust before the area is incorporated into Natal.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this Bill is of historical interest because it is the first time that an alteration to provincial boundaries has been officially recommended. The hon. the Minister has pointed out that in terms of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act of 1961 Parliament shall not alter a provincial boundary unless it is petitioned to do so by every provincial council whose boundary is affected by such alteration. We know that in this case the proposed changes have the support of both the Cape Provincial Council and the Natal Provincial Council. We know, as the hon. the Minister has told us, that a committee of inquiry was set up which has made certain recommendations, as a result of which these provincial councils have petitioned Parliament for the changes which the hon. the Minister is now seeking in terms of this Bill.

However, the actual debate as to whether the area known as East Griqualand should more correctly be incorporated within the boundary of the province of Natal rather than within the Cape, has of course raged for many decades in South Africa. We know that as the years have gone by, certainly as far as the Whites living in that area are concerned, the debate has been more and more to the point that the area should be attached to the province of Natal. More recently this argument has become almost overwhelming. This was the case even before the recent constitutional developments involving the independent Transkei. There is no doubt that as the years have gone by the Whites in the East Griqualand area have developed a strong community of interest with their counterparts in the province of Natal. This has evidenced itself in almost every sphere of life. We know that from the administrative point of view, although it has been part of the Cape Province, the Government departments which have been responsible for operating services within that area have as the years have gone by found it more and more convenient to operate those services in conjunction with their administrations in the province of Natal. There is the example of the rail link which links the area of East Griqualand with Natal. We know that it falls within the area of jurisdiction of the Natal System Manager. We know that its road links, apart from the road which leads through to Transkei and through to the Cape Province, are basically with the province of Natal. We also know that as far as posts and telegraphs are concerned, this too, in terms of convenience of administration on the part of the Government, falls within the area of the Natal Regional Director. We know too that the postal services operate either via Pietermaritzburg or via Durban.

From the economic point of view, the area is a rural area involved in agricultural economy. Meat and dairy products are the main products of the area. Here too there is a link to the markets in the province of Natal, rather than the markets of the Cape. We know that as far as the farmers are concerned, in their own internal organization they are affiliated to the Natal Agricultural Union. And so one can go on. Again, in the field of agriculture, as far as the Government is concerned, its agricultural agencies, veterinary control and matters of this kind, as far as East Griqualand is concerned, are and have been for some time linked with Government offices in the province of Natal. We know too that from the point of view of social and sporting spheres of the White people within the area that, although East Griqualand is in the Cape Province, their links have in fact been with the province of Natal. They have played sport and have actually been accepted in leagues in Natal. They have played for Natal where they have been involved in representative games. Therefore, in almost every sphere as far as the Whites are concerned, as the years have gone by the links with Natal have hardened instead of weakening. Therefore, from that point of view, this Bill is a fairly logical consequence of these events.

None of these things by themselves would have had the effect of being conclusive had it not been for the constitutional developments which have taken place in regard to independence of Transkei. There certainly were problems over the years, problems arising out of the fact that the area concerned is approximately 1 500 km from the seat of the Cape Provincial Council. I think this has produced great difficulties and the people have tended to feel rather out on a limb in so far as their provincial control was concerned.

Now, of course, with the independent State of Transkei interposed between the rest of the Cape and East Griqualand, the situation has come about where it seems fairly unanswerable that the area concerned must be identified with the province of Natal.

We in these benches will find it possible to support this Bill in principle, because we believe it is logical in the existing circumstances which I have sketched. However, there are matters relating to the Bill on which we shall require some explanations and some reassurances. It is not just a simple of matter of dealing with a group of White people living in East Griqualand and deciding where it is most logical that they should find themselves in relation to provincial boundaries. Firstly, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us something about the attitude of the Transkei Government to this development. We know that questions have been put from this side of the House by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the hon. the Prime Minister, earlier in this session. On 15 February the question was put to the hon. the Prime Minister—

The reply given by the Prime Minister was—

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us, when he replies to the Second Reading debate, whether there have been any further developments between this Government and the Government of Transkei on this issue. It would seem that by proceeding with this Bill, this Government has made up its mind. This would seem to indicate that this is the final answer with regard to the claims made by the Transkei Government. However, I believe one does need a statement from the hon. the Minister in this regard because, certainly, it bears out the contention which we on this side of the House have had all along, that when one is dealing with giving independence it is obviously preferable to settle all issues arising out of land claims before independence is given, otherwise one has a running sore. This seems to be one of the instances which would give an indication of that sort of situation. Therefore, we want to know from the hon. the Minister what the attitude has been and what further communiqués there have been between the two Governments.

Another question to which I would like a reply from the hon. the Minister is the question of what consultation took place in the area of East Griqualand with the Black people living within that area. Was there any attempt to try to ascertain their point of view regarding these proposed changes? We know that according to the committee which investigated the matter, the population of East Griqualand was given as some 5 284 Whites, 4 398 Coloureds and some 33 000 Blacks. We wonder what attempts were made by the Government to try to gauge the views of the Black people with regard to the proposed changes.

A further question on which we would like some response from the hon. the Minister is the fact that the committee of inquiry made various recommendations throughout its report. I think the hon. the Minister owes it to the House to indicate in respect of which recommendations the Government is prepared to act. There were, for example, recommendations made in regard to the position of the Coloured people, recommendations relating to occupation of land, both in the rural and in the urban areas of East Griqualand. There was the recommendation that they should be given some measure of protection. Many of the Coloured people in that area, particularly Griquas, have lived there for a number of years. They expressed their apprehension at the proposed change, as a result of which the committee which investigated this suggested and recommended that some measure of protection should be given to them. We also know that the committee made certain suggestions in connection with the communications system, particularly the road and the railway. The committee recommended that the road and the railway, parts of which pass through the Transkei area, should be somehow augmented in an effort to bring about link-ups with the rest of Natal without having to go through the Transkei section to which I have referred. I want to ask again whether the Government has given consideration to those recommendations.

Fourthly, I must ask what the future is of the Griqualand East parliamentary and provincial seats which, with the Transkei development on the one hand and this development on the other hand, now find themselves pretty well denuded, both in area and in voting population. I want to ask particularly—and I want an assurance from the Minister—that this Bill will not be used in order to upset the political balance which presently exists in the province of Natal. In other words, until such time as there has been a redelimitation, I trust that there will be no intention on the part of the Government of attaching those two seats to the province of Natal. [Interjections.] This is said seriously, Sir, because quite clearly there is a delicate political balance in parts of Natal at the present time. Quite clearly, it would be totally wrong if this measure were to be used to upset that balance in favour of the Government of the day.

The other seat to which the Government will have to give some attention, is the constituency of Aliwal. Both the Griqualand East and the Aliwal constituencies were, in terms of the last delimitation, created as special electoral divisions. If the hon. the Minister refers to the Government Gazette of 8 February, 1974, he will find that it contains the report of the 13th Delimitation Commission. That report deals specifically with Aliwal. I quote from the report—

The report goes on to indicate the special electoral divisions which were created. These divisions included both Aliwal and Griqualand East. The same report, on page 12 of the Government Gazette I have referred to, goes on to say, dealing with the Aliwal constituency—

With this development and with certain of the polling districts of Aliwal being taken out of the Aliwal constituency and attached to Natal constituencies, it seems that that constituency will find itself in a category which is beyond the confines and the scope of the recommendations of the Delimitation Commission. I think the Minister should give us an indication as to what the Government intends to do in view of that situation.

While I am talking about the transfer of polling districts, may I ask the Minister to investigate the allocation of polling district 503, i.e. the Kokstad area. In terms of this Bill it is allocated to the South Coast constituency. If that polling district is to be transferred, it seems to me that it is more logical, if community of interests and matters of that kind are to be taken into account, that that polling district should be transferred to the Mooi River constituency rather than to the South Coast constituency. I think the hon. the Minister should indicate whether that would not in fact be preferable.

With those few comments I want to say that we give our general support to the principle of the Bill as a logical development. I have endeavoured to indicate certain areas of difficulty, particularly in relation to the Transkei situation and in regard to recommendations on facilities which might be provided for the area in the future, but with those reservations we on this side will support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is a significant moment, because for the first time in history a member for Griqualand East rises on this side of the House to speak. This moment also ushers in a closing episode, for now the last of the newcomers is joining the fold. Please grant me the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to express my thanks and appreciation for the cordial reception which I have had here as a greenhorn. The friendliness and the helping hands have been overwhelming. I have never felt lost or strange. I also wish to convey my sincere thanks and appreciation to the Secretary and the officials of Parliament. The dignity with which the hon. Chief Justice undertook the inauguration made a lasting impression upon me, as a newcomer, of the solemnity of the occasion and the honour of the office of being a member of this House. My thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, for your tolerance and the atmosphere of calm which you create. Thanks also to the Chief Whip of the Government and the Whips. Heartfelt thanks to the hon. Leader of the House and thanks to the hon. Prime Minister for his welcoming words here in the House.

On 20 October 1977 there were two parliamentary candidates who were also parliamentary candidates in April 1948. Since then until the dissolution of the previous Parliament, they had uninterrupted sitting in this House. One of the candidates has been re-elected and is presently the member with the longest period of service in this House. He is the hon. the Leader of the House. I congratulate the hon. the Leader of the House on this achievement. May he receive strength from above to continue with the task to which he has been called.

The other candidate has not been reelected. He is the well-known former Chief Whip of the former UP. He was also chairman of the caucus of the party. After that he was Chief Whip of the NRP. I pay tribute to that veteran parliamentarian, Mr. Gray Hughes, who represented his voters in this House for 29% years. Before the year 1966, a part of Griqualand East was represented for 24 years by Mr. Miles Warren. I wish these two gentlemen a restful old age in my constituency, Griqualand East.

If I survive this day, I am going to stick to it and strive to represent my constituency in this House for a record period, just as they did! [Interjections.] Since 13 November 1977, when Griqualand East was suddenly in the news because it had sent a Nationalist to this House, certain questions have been hanging in the air, e.g.: Where is the constituency of Griqualand East? Where is the main town? Then also the question: What does the constituency look like?

I should now like to answer those questions. Kokstad and Matatiele, with their magisterial districts, are known as Griqualand East and are part of the Aliwal constituency, except for the voters on the farms on the northern, eastern and southern side of the town of Kokstad. 268 voters of the Griqualand East constituency live here, and my constituency has been named after this little area. 43% of the constituency’s voters are registered in the Republic of Transkei, which consists of 24 magisterial districts.

The rest of the constituency consists of the easternmost part of the Eastern Cape, namely Gonubie Town, the eastern parts of the East London and King William’s Town districts together with the towns and districts of Komga and Stutterheim. Please note, that the districts of Komga and Stutterheim border on Transkei in the north, and on the western side, the Kei Road and Stutterheim districts border on Ciskei. To summarize, the Griqua-land East constituency stretches from Gonubie near East London in the South, to Umzimkulu in the north. Our neighbouring constituencies are South Coast and Mooi River in Natal, Aliwal, Queenstown, Cradock and King William’s Town. The constituency comprises five magisterial districts in the Republic of South Africa and 24 magisterial districts in another country. It comprises an area of approximately 4,5 million ha.

My home town, Stutterheim, was designated as the main town of the constituency after the election was announced in September last year. I believe that this is the only constituency in which such a thing happened during the past election. In terms of this legislation, the constituency will consist of the area known as the “White Corridor” between East London and its hinterland. This corridor is by no means a narrow passage. On the contrary, it is an area which extends over four magisterial districts and which at its widest, from the sea at Kei River Mouth to the western border of Stutterheim at the Keiskammahoek district, is perhaps 120 km. The area of this “White Corridor” is approximately 356 000 ha. This corridor has great agricultural value, while it is still slumbering from an industrial point of view, and strategically it is of such value that the hon. the Prime Minister made a statement about this corridor ob the occasion of his first public appearance in East London in 1966.

When the almost 3% of the voters are transferred to the South Coast constituency, the Griqualand East area will vanish from my constituency. The designation of “Griqualand East” was, and is, terribly confusing to voters in the constituency as well as to those outside the constituency and to the general public.

†To my mind this is an opportune time to change the name of my constituency and to call it by its true name, Kaffraria. Sir, you may well ask why I suggest “Kaffraria”. Bear with me, and I shall give you sound, convincing reasons. According to the Standard Encyclopaedia of Southern Africa, volume VI—

I quote from the same source the following description—

Mr. Speaker, our part of the country is known as Kaffraria. Some farmers are breeding the Kaffrarian polled merino; the area is well known for its fine Kaffrarian wool. Voters put their money in the Kaffrarian Savings Bank and send their children to Kaffraria Girls High School. They enter into contracts with the Kaffraria Building Company and deal with Kaffraria Fertilizers. Two years ago the four divisional councils who operated in the constituency amalgamated and called themselves the Kaffraria Divisional Council. Mr. Speaker, in your constituency Kaffraria Steam Mills are very much busy rendering a service to the bakers.

Mr. Speaker, I request, with respect, the hon. the Minister for the Interior seriously to consider, when he goes to the Other Place, to add a clause to the Bill before us, to legalize the name “Kaffraria” for my constituency so that it may be called as such.

*Mr. Speaker, my constituency has often been requested to sacrifice land. We have made that sacrifice without complaining, we hope that the Government’s purpose with that land will be a great success. It is known that the Government has also formulated the policy that the Black spots in my constituency must become White. I shall exert myself for the implementation of this policy, and I have made that quite clear to my voters. I shall ask for that as many times as it may be necessary.

I want to conclude by expressing to you, Mr. Speaker, my heart-felt wish as a newcomer. That is that my conduct and actions may always be such as to preserve and promote the character of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, it is of course a privilege and a great pleasure for me to welcome the hon. member for Griqua-land East here and to congratulate him on his maiden speech. On behalf of hon. members in these benches I should like to express my pleasure at the tribute he paid to our old friend, Gray Hughes, who served the people of that region for so long in this House. As I have already said on a previous occasion, I should like to point out to him that he won with a very small majority and we promise him that we shall do our best to insure that he does not stay in this House very long. I can assure him of that. In the meantime I welcome him here and I hope he will enjoy his stay here.

†Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us, as the hon. member for Musgrave has said, signifies a great historical moment in this House. Where we are moving towards a totally new political dispensation in South Africa, a change is being made in the status of the people who live in the area known as East Griqualand. I must admit that I find it a little ironical that this area is going to be incorporated in the Province of Natal which, since 1910, has been in the safe and good hands of the NRP and its predecessors, the UP and the SAP. There is, of course, talk of a delimitation taking place and if the people of East Griqualand should fall within the Mooi River constituency, it will become even safer than it was before, and that is saying a great deal. When it comes to a delimitation I do feel that it is going to make a great difference to the seats of several other hon. members in this House. I may mention the constituencies of Klip River and also South Coast as we will inevitably take this constituency back.

There are many reasons why I welcome the change that is taking place. What is really happening is merely a bit of historical justice. That is what it is, because this area should have come to the Province of Natal, or the Colony of Natal as it was called then, a hundred years ago. It was only the imperialism and ambitions of the old Cape Government at that time which prevented Natal from taking it over and governing it from that time onwards. It must be understood that the people of East Griqualand are weft and warp of our weaving; they are part and parcel of the whole life of the province of Natal, as the hon. member for Musgrave has said. They attend our schools, they have members in our cricket team, and sometimes they sneak a few chaps into the rugby team of Natal. I must say the way our cricket team has been playing this year, we may need a bit of help as they have not done quite so well.

What about the NRP?

I am referring to the Natal cricket team. I find it of particular interest that this area should be incorporated into the Mooi River constituency. The hon. member for Griqualand East was having trouble with the name of his constituency, and the hon. member for Aliwal is going to have trouble with his constituency as well.

I wish to make the proposal—I shall move it during the Committee Stage—that the areas of the hon. member for Griqualand East and Aliwal should be consolidated into one constituency. They can then give me Kokstad and I shall take the salary that now goes to the two of them. I am certain that Parliament would like to show some kind of consideration to a member like myself who is prepared to take all these areas which hon. members are going to get rid of. I think one can with justice say that a certain amount of consideration, like a stop order for R100 per month on the salary of the hon. member for Aliwal, should be included in the deal.

What is in a name?

The hon. member asked that his constituency should be called Kaffraria. We have put our heads together here and came to the conclusion that Pluralania might be a better name for it and we suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should consider that name.

When we talk about this area becoming part of the Mooi River constituency, there are three very good reasons why we think it should do so. When we in Mooi River have taken them over, we shall not only have the best farmers in South Africa and some of the best in the world, but we shall also have the best trout fishing in South Africa, some of the best in the world, and we shall certainly have some of the best polo players in South Africa, if not perhaps the best in the world.

These people will be very much at home with us and I wish to make it quite clear that, as we see the situation, there is no way in which the members of the Provincial Council of the Cape Province can be transferred to the Provincial Council of Natal. The hon. member for Musgrave referred to the delicate balance which exists there, and as far as we can see there is no chance that the members of that area will be included in the Natal Provincial Council. The hon. member for Musgrave raised certain problems, matters arising out of the report. For instance, there is the attitude of the Transkei Government in this regard. There are many authoritative works on the question of the occupancy of the area of East Griqualand by Black people before it was incorporated into the Cape Province. One of the works that comes to mind is a book produced by one of my constituents, a book entitled People of the Eland which deals with the life and habits of the Bushman. This book makes it quite clear that at the time when the first treaty was made in 1844 between the Cape Province and the chief of the Pondo people, that area was barren, open and uninhabited. It was, in fact, one of the areas of dispute when the Zulu chief Chaka himself was leading raids down into that area seeking the Pondo people to butcher them and to take over all the cattle that they owned. The reason why the constituency of my friend, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, bears that name is that Chaka on occasion stopped at the stream there, took a drink of water and said: “Au Amanzi ngathaMtoti”. That is, to my mind, reason enough to say that we do not think Transkei figures in this situation or has a reasonable claim to that ground or territory.

Can you give us a translation of the words you just used?

When Chaka stopped at the stream, he said: “The water here is very sweet indeed.”

And so is Amanzimtoti.

I will not pass an opinion on what the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said.

A road that will link up this area with the area of Underberg in Natal is already being planned, contracts are in the process of being negotiated and it will not be long before there is a main road from Kokstad right through Underberg into Pietermaritzburg, binding these people closer to us all the time.

Therefore, whatever the outstanding problems are, we in the NRP, running the province of Natal as we do, welcome these people into our midst. We include them in the whole atmosphere which has made our province what it is under our guidance for the past many years. We have asked for a Turnhalle where all the people of Natal can get together to work out the outstanding problems that exist between them and we can assure the people of Griqualand East that, if they come to us, we will be able to cope with and take care of any problems that may arise from the fact that they are being transferred from the Cape of Good Hope to the province of Natal. Therefore I welcome the legislation and I support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should very much have liked to reply to the few political statements the hon. member for Mooi River made. However, I have more important things to say at the moment. This is really an historic moment today. I do not think the hon. members realize exactly how historic this occasion really is. It was in 1910, with Union, that the boundaries of the provinces were changed. On that occasion the old Vryheid Republic, which included the districts of Vryheid, Utrecht, Paulpietersburg, Babanango and Ngotchi, was annexed to Natal. Natal therefore has experience of absorbing and accommodating parts of other provinces. One also finds that some of the old Transvaal statutes are still operative in Natal today. Therefore there are not going to be any problems. The incorporation of East Griqualand will take place by means of a gradual phasing in process. What we are now experiencing, is that Natal, because of its vitality, is also going to swallow up a part of the Cape Province. I just want to set the Free Staters’ minds at ease. I do not think Natal will swallow up any part of the Free State, because we understand that the Free State belongs to the Land Bank in any case.

I should like to pay tribute on this occasion to the late Senator Hanekom. He was the person who set this process in motion. He made this his task and always said the right thing at the right time in the right place. We know that Griqualand East belongs with Natal and we are pleased that we can pay tribute to Senator Hanekom today. He was not only an old university colleague of mine; he was also my hostel friend. I think I played a part in the fact that he as a son of the Cape went to practise as an attorney in Natal. Today I am pleased that I persuaded him to do so.

When one looks at the Steyn Report, one really cannot but pay tribute to the people who compiled the report and one simply knows that the incorporation of this part of the Cape Province into Natal will be an easy matter. The report is very thorough, sympathetic, historically absolutely correct and particularly objective. The report, which comprises 173 pages, gives one an insight into Griqualand East. It is as though one were sitting high up in the Drakensberg looking through a kaleidoscope, because the whole of Griqualand East comes to life before one’s eyes. It was very easy for the provincial councils to draw up a White Paper with the aid of this report. The White Paper makes thorough recommendations in respect of provincial matters, education, hospitals, library services, capital works, roads, local government, nature conservation, town planning, etc. There are altogether 66 recommendations. We have no doubt that this change will take place thoroughly. There are 13 recommendations which require the attention of other Government departments.

I should like to single out a few aspects of this report. I am a little apprehensive that there may not be sufficient time for me to say everything that I wish to say, but I should nevertheless like to quote a few historical facts. History is a hobby of mine. History is a wonderful subject. It makes one realize how small and insignificant one is and how vast the Creation is. I have studied the history of the areas involved, and I have also studied the history of this report. History repeats itself. With reference to the more recent history, I should like to quote what the anthropologist, Dr. Peter Becker, says in this connection. He says—

According to archaeologists there were no signs of a permanent Nguni population in that area at that stage. When one climbs the Drakensberg, one sees many Bushmen paintings. The Nguni population avoided this part. We know from history that Faku and the Pondos were driven to the south of the present Umtatu River by Chaka en Dingaan when the Zulus were still very powerful. We also know from history that when Uys, in 1834, undertook his reconnaissance of Natal past the south of Basutoland to see what the area looked like, whether it was inhabitable, he met Faku, who was then paramount chief of the Pondos, and that Faku pleaded with him to come and settle in that region, so that a buffer zone could be formed between him, Faku, and the Zulus. We know what happened during the Great Trek. The Voortrekkers trekked northwards. Piet Retief concluded an agreement with Dingaan, after which Dingaan bartered away to him the area south of the Tugela River as far as the Umzimvubu River. When the Republic of Natalia was established in 1840, more than three-quarters of the present East Griqualand fell within the boundaries of the Natalia territory. We are experiencing the historic moment when that land again becomes part of Natal. The subsequent history is known to all of us. It was known as no-man’s-land. We know about the Coloureds, the Griquas and the Whites who settled in that area and bought out some of the land.

I like to refer to this history so that one can have a clear picture and know what happened. It is really remarkable that today we can pride ourselves on the fact that at this historic moment, this land again becomes part of Natal.

I also want to refer to the roads in the area. The area has two road connections with the rest of Natal. The hon. member for Mooi River has referred to one of them. Unfortunately there is just one shortcoming in the White Paper and that is in connection with the road between Kokstad and Harding. There is a strip of 6 km which runs through the Transkei. Certain recommendations are made in the White Paper. At a great cost, a road is being built to run through the areas of the Whites, Asiatics and Coloureds and not through the Transkei, while the 6 km strip through which the road to Harding runs, could be incorporated into Natal because there is such a small difference between the borders. Submissions in this connection have been made to the Department of Foreign Affairs by the Farmers’ Association of Harding, and by myself and others. In the White Paper certain recommendations are made in this connection and I should like refer to these.

I just want to address a few remarks of a political nature to my friend the hon. member for Mooi River. One may well ask why those people so willingly agreed that East Griqualand could become part of Natal, while their area is part of a province which is governed by a stable NP provincial authority. [Interjections.] Now there is a flutter in the dovecote. They think those people are stupid. But those people are far more intelligent than those hon. members think. Their timing is correct. They know it is merely a matter of time before Natal is also an NP province. [Interjections.] Look at that little party sitting there. They remind me of the song “Hoe ry die boere sit sit so”. Only they are not sitting on horses; they are not even riding on donkeys. They are sitting on a barbed-wire fence. The normal thing when people sit on a barbed-wire fence, is that more and more barbs are encountered and they must eventually fall off, to one side or the other.

We arc very grateful for this opportunity which we have been afforded. I should have liked to have elaborated on the qualities of those wonderful people. We say to all of them: “Welcome to Natal!”

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the hon. members for South Coast and Griqualand East sit together on that side of the House. I congratulate the hon. member for Griqualand East on his maiden speech. Why I find it interesting that they sit together is because I think both these hon. members are in fact one-term members. The hon. member for South Coast got in by the accident that a third party came in between, and the hon. member for Griqualand East got in by the accident that half his voters were registered in Transkei and on polling day had to do all their voting by special and postal votes. A lot of these votes were incorrectly filled in by the magistrates concerned and were thus rejected. Be that as it may, I wish them both luck in their stay in this House, brief though it may be.

I now want to come to the origin of East Griqualand, and refer to the fact that has been referred to before, namely that this area was originally a no-man’s-land. As a no-man’s-land there were no permanent inhabitants within this area, other than the bushmen. However, Adam Kok III, the Griqua leader, came to an agreement with Sir George Grey and lead a great trek, I think one can call it, from Philippolis over the high Drakensberg to East Griqualand in about 1860. There were 2 000 to 3 000 people involved in this trek, 20 000 head of stock and 300 vehicles. This was a great enterprise. It took two years and encompassed many disasters. The greatest of these was Ongeluksnek. Ongeluksnek, I believe, was littered for years and years afterwards with skeletons of the stock and skeletons of the vehicles that had been wrecked going over this particular pass. The first settlement of East Griqualand was made by the Griqua people, led by Adam Kok. The Whites only afterwards began to come in and settle the area. The combined efforts of the Griquas and the Whites turned East Griqualand into the beautiful and well-farmed area that it is today.

I also want to move on briefly to the reasons for the move and why this move was recommended that East Griqualand should become part of Natal. As the hon. member for Musgrave has mentioned, basically the reason is a reason that has come up during the last year or two, namely the independence of Transkei, which has cut East Griqualand off from the majority of the Cape. To visit their provincial government, they have to travel from Kokstad almost 1 600 km, which is an awfully long way to go when one sends a deputation on this, that or the other provincial matter, be it hospitals, roads or whatever it is. It may even be to see the Receiver of Revenue, because the people in East Griqualand have to report to the East London Receiver of Revenue, and that is a four to five hour drive away from Kokstad. They would also have to take their travel documents. They would have to have passports or books of life to come through to the Cape, unless they wanted to go onto the most dreadful road which goes over the top, and in and out of the Transkei. On this road there are no border posts. It is obviously far more convenient for them to have Pietermaritzburg as their head office, which is only 200 km away. Living in East London, as I do, we do rather sympathize with this reason, because we in East London are a very long way from Cape Town, which is the head of our provincial government.

Government departments have been administering East Griqualand through Natal for many years. The Department of Justice handles its activities in this area from Natal. Land Bank loans are all handled through Pietermaritzburg for this area. Health matters are also handled from Natal. Yet, on the other hand, hospitals are handled from Cape Town. Therefore, it became blatantly obvious that it was sensible for East Griqualand to become part of Natal. That very excellent commission which was appointed by the Administrators—the M. T. Steyn Commission—investigated this transfer and recommended it. I would recommend that hon. members should get hold of the report because it is a very excellent document. There are some most interesting historical facts contained in the document and it makes very good reading. I am glad that the Government has accepted the report by the Steyn Commission. I only wish that the Government had accepted all the recommendations contained in the Erika Theron Commission. However, that is another story.

There were various problems involved. The first problem involved was that, while the Whites were in favour of this particular move, the Coloureds or the Griquas, who obviously were the original settlers in the area, were not in favour of the move. I think one must take serious note of the fact that these people were not in favour. The Griquas said that they had a rightful claim to East Griqualand, that it had originally been their territory and that it basically still belonged to them. They maintained that if we transferred East Griqualand to Natal a situation would arise in which their claims would fall away. I do not want to comment on the correctness or not of their claims, but I am quite satisfied in my own mind that, whether they are part of the Cape of whether they are part of Natal, they still have the same claim in law. If they have a just claim they can lodge it equally well, whether this area is part of Natal or part of the Cape. Therefore, I believe, that reason falls away.

Secondly, there are of course tremendous noises made by Chief Kaiser Matanzima of Transkei about wanting to take over East Griqualand. Having read the report of the Committee of Inquiry it appears to me that his claims are historically unsound. Again, whether this is so or not, I do not believe that whether that area is part of the Cape or part of Natal, is going to make any difference to whatever claims the Transkei and Chief Kaiser Matanzima might lay to this area. Basically, I believe that the decision to move was a very good one. However, I also want to point to various recommendations which were made by the committee and I want to draw them to the hon. the Minister’s attention, because I believe they are most important. The two that are most vitally important are the following. The first one relates to the land problem of the Griquas. There was a very firm recommendation by the committee that sufficient land should be obtained in the area for the provision of adequate and sufficient residential accommodation in the towns and for the establishment of economically viable rural and agricultural settlements for the Griquas in East Griqualand.

I believe that this should be given very serious attention. I believe one must do what one can for these people who are an identifiable group of their own, an identifiable ethnic group. I believe they should be looked after. The second major fact has already been referred to by other hon. members. This relates to communication between Natal and East Griqualand by road and by rail. At the moment one has to pass through the Transkei in order to get from Natal to East Griqualand and vice versa. There is a road which goes over the mountains via the Union Bridge, Franklin and Underberg and through to Pietermaritzburg. However, this is a pretty ghastly road and I believe that we should immediately, right now, put this road into a better all-weather condition than it currently is, pending the building of a new national tarmac road between East Griqualand and Natal which does not pass through Transkei.

Mr. Speaker, I want to relate to you a small story about a cousin of mine who lives in Matatiele and who had to go to Pietermaritzburg in order to have a baby. This she did, but when she had to return from Pietermaritzburg to Matatiele she could not go via Umzimkulu because her baby, that was then five days old, did not have a passport. She therefore had to go, just having come out of the maternity home, all the way via Underberg, on that very bad road. It was a hair-raising journey which took them a long, long time. I think facts of that nature must be taken into consideration and that situations of that kind should be removed. I therefore hope the hon. the Minister will give this very serious attention because it is unbelievably important to the people in East Griqualand.

Finally, I want to say to the people of East Griqualand, whether they be White, Black or Brown, that I congratulate them on their move. I believe that their position will be far better in the future, particularly as they will now be ruled provincially by the best provincial government in South Africa, … [Interjections.] … in that province which is controlled by the NRP.

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a unique occasion in the parliamentary history of South Africa. It is, as far as I can ascertain, the very first time that provincial councils have approached Parliament by way of petition requesting Parliament to effect a change in their provincial boundaries. The Bill we are debating now is the direct result of the petitions which were filed with Mr. Speaker during April of last year, petitions by virtue of which the two Administrators-in-Executive-Committee of Natal and the Cape Province requested that Griqualand East be incorporated in the province of Natal.

On account of this we are debating this Bill today, but before this, in 1976, it was decided by the two Administrators that a committee of inquiry would be appointed to inquire into the feasibility and desirability of incorporating East Griqualand into the province of Natal. Mr. Justice M. T. Steyn, who is at present the Administrator-General of South West Africa, was appointed the chairman of that committee and hearings took place from 16 August to 19 August at Kokstad and Matatiele. I had the privilege of attending those hearings, and today I want to pay homage, at the outset, to Mr. Justice Steyn and the two members of his committee, Mr. J. S. Retief and Mr. D. C. Sinclair, for the excellent work done by them. I was deeply impressed by Mr. Justice Steyn’s thorough knowledge of conditions prevailing in East Griqualand, with special reference to the developments that had taken place over the past 130 to 150 years. It was obvious to me that he had made a thorough study of the historical development of East Griqualand. I heard later that he had spent a few weeks prior to the hearings acquainting himself with conditions in East Griqualand.

I also want to pay homage to the way in which he conducted the hearings. Each and every witness was made completely at ease by him with a little joke here and there before they came to give evidence. Furthermore, he also made a point of allowing them, with the utmost patience, sufficient time to state their case clearly. This resulted, of course, in quite a number of statements being repeated over and over again, but Mr. Justice Steyn was prepared to allow this to happen. Let me therefore again say how sincerely I pay homage to him and his committee for a very intricate task well performed and well fulfilled.

Those hearings also had what I would term their lighter moments. I am going to mention one or two incidents. One of the witnesses who gave evidence said to Mr. Justice Steyn: “Mr. Chairman, I promise to be very brief.” Mr. Justice Steyn immediately replied: “Mr. So-and-so, let me warn you beforehand that if your brevity becomes too short you might sound unintelligible.” Needless to say that witness subsequently took his time about giving his statement. There was the other incident where one of the representatives of the CRC, Mr. Fynn, who, I believe, claims that his great-grandfather, an Irishman with the name Fynn, owned the land which is at present called the Bluff in Durban, looked at Mr. Justice Steyn and said, “And look at me now. Fancy a Fynn no longer welcome in Fynnland!” [Interjections.] I can continue telling the House about these little incidents which occurred, but before my thoughts wander too far away from the Bill under discussion, I shall rather allow myself to be restricted to and fenced in by the boundary which we propose changing in terms of the Bill.

*I wish to say at the outset that it is very clear that the evidence given at the hearings, was overwhelmingly in favour of the joining of East Griqualand to the province of Natal. It was immediately obvious, as other speakers have already pointed out, that for many practical reasons, East Griqualand is to all extends and purposes a part of Natal. I should like to mention a few of the reasons.

In the first place it appears that geographically East Griqualand adjoins Natal. If one takes into account that the independent state of Transkei at present stretches from the Indian Ocean to the border of Lesotho, one can understand that it is only realistic and practical that that part of the Cape Province situated to the east of the Transkei should be incorporated in Natal. That was also the finding of the committee.

The area can also very easily be connected with Natal by means of roads with a permanent surface, as has already been stated. I also wish to mention, as the hon. member for Mooi River has said, that it has virtually been decided already that the road in question will be built to connect the area with Natal by means of a road with a permanent surface.

Apart from that, most Government departments with an interest in East Griqualand, are already being administered from Pietermaritzburg. The farmers’ organizations, women’s institutes, chambers of commerce and sports bodies of Griqualand East are already affiliated with Natal and have no connections whatsoever with the Cape Province. Pietermaritzburg, the capital of Natal, is situated approximately 184 km from Kokstad (and therefore from Griqualand East), whereas Griqualand East is 1 528 km from Cape Town. Having regard to the fact that as far as local authorities and other bodies are concerned, there must often be contact on a personal level with departments, one can understand that an awful lot of time is wasted and that it is also very expensive when our people must undertake journeys from East Griqualand to have personal interviews in Cape Town, while those interviews might just as well be held in Pietermaritzburg.

As far as schools are concerned, there are three high schools in Griqualand East. It appears that many of the scholars who have to receive instruction in subjects for which these schools do not make provision, are frequently compelled to attend boarding schools elsewhere in the Cape Province, at great inconvenience and cost to their parents, while the Natal schools are much nearer home.

All the farmers’ associations there—and I found that important during the hearings—which represent approximately 400 farmers, are affiliated to the Natal Agricultural Union and they were therefore all eager to be incorporated into Natal.

We also have a few cases where one could talk about divided control. The police and the magistrates’ courts all fall under Natal, whereas the Supreme Court falls under the Eastern Cape. I should like just to mention that we have calculated with the aid of tariff scales that a case which would cost R4 390 in the Supreme Court in Cape Town, would cost only R2 800 in Pietermaritzburg, as a result of the fact that it is situated closer to Pietermaritzburg.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my time has more or less run out. I close with the following words. I am being asked whether I am prepared to sacrifice this part of my constituency. If one takes into consideration that my constituency has an axis of almost 500 km, that in order to attend to this part of my constituency, I have to travel through the independent Transkei every time and that there is no proper road with a permanent surface, but that the roads there look as if the stones have been embedded with their sharp points upwards, I want to say that my car would appreciate it if I did not have to travel that road. I further want to tell the hon. member for South Coast that the voters whom he will acquire, are good people. I want to add that their opinions and political insight have changed considerably during the last couple of years.

They are good NRP supporters.

No, Nationalists. I want to ask him to look after them well. To the hon. member for Mooi River, who is so fond of passing remarks, I should like to say that the voters he gets from me, are disciplined, stable, steadfast people; but above all, the voters he is going to get from me, are good Nationalists. His constituency which is known as Mooi River, has been rather dry since the NRP has come into power there. I want to assure the hon. member, however, that these people are the ones who, at the next general election, will change the name of this constituency to “Mooi Nat-rivier”.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to react at once to what the hon. member for Aliwal said and say that the voters concerned are losing very good representatives in the hon. members for Aliwal and Griqualand East. However, I also think that they are getting very good representatives in their place, in the hon. members for South Coast and Mooi River—only there is a little something wrong with the politics of the hon. member for Mooi River. As far as the question of exchanging representatives is concerned, I think that in general, the voters can be pleased with the quality of their representatives.

I want to thank hon. members on both sides very much for the interesting and constructive speeches which they made. Unfortunately I am battling against time, because I want to try to get all the stages of the Bill disposed of today. I shall be pleased if hon. members will help me to do so. I should therefore like to come to the chief objections of the hon. member for Musgrave at once. I do not think the question of the Transkei’s attitude towards claims in regard to East Griqualand are relevant to this debate. The claims of the Transkei involve changing international boundaries, and this is not relevant here. It is a matter—I do not want to evade it—which the hon. member may profitably take up with the hon. the Prime Minister or my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, on another occasion. The most important matter which the hon. member raised, is the question of proclamation No. 93 of 1928. In this regard I have the following legal opinion at my disposal—

I am therefore confronted with the situation of having to determine whether this legal opinion is correct. I have done so to the best of my ability and have discovered that the legal opinion is in fact correct. I have therefore accepted that the status quo is that proclamation 93 of 1928 is no longer applicable. After consulting with many bodies and persons, including the Executive Committee of Natal—which most definitely has the biggest say in this regard—and with the Executive of the CRC, I decided not to include a statutory provision again which would bring the relevant proclamation into the legislation. I trust this answers that important question of the hon. member.

As far as polling district No. 503 is concerned, I really think that the hon. member should agree with me that this question should now be left at that. A fair division was made there, to the best of our ability. According to the figures which I have here in front of me, Mooi River received an additional 1 382 voters from the Aliwal constituency, and South Coast an additional 1 328. In other words, we feel the division is fair, and it is a matter which must please be held over until the next delimitation takes place.

As far as such aspects as rail and road connections are concerned, I think hon. members will probably concede that these are aspects which will be solved by the various bodies or persons to the best of their ability and as efficiently as they are able.

The hon. member for Musgrave asked if the Black people were consulted. We went out of our way to do so. An advertisement was placed in the Kokstad Advertiser in which all population groups were invited to make representation to the Steyn Commission. I also consulted the Department of Plural Relations and Development in order to determine whether there is a representative body for the Black people which the commission could invite by letter to give evidence. There is, however, no such body. We therefore went out of our way to ensure that everyone knew about the sitting of the Commission. As far as I know, the Black people did not come forward to give evidence.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think I have replied to most of the questions of the hon. member for Musgrave.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Griqualand East sincerely on his maiden speech. As regards his suggestion in connection with renaming his constituency, I just want to say that he has left us with a very stimulating idea.

It will undoubtedly provide for the people in his constituency with food for thought, and this may lead to a stimulating exchange of views. I feel that his constituency will ultimately support him in his endeavour to change the name of his constituency. Unfortunately, I cannot give him any assurance in this regard, because it is exclusively the sphere and prerogative of the Delimitation Commission. Therefore, I feel that the matter should be held over until the next delimitation.

I want to apologize to the hon. member for Mooi River for the fact that the name of his constituency has been spelled incorrectly in the English translation. Unfortunately it is a mistake, but it can be rectified without any motion having to be made in this regard. Furthermore, I also want to thank the hon. members for South Coast, East London North and Aliwal for their contributions to the debate. The hon. member for East London North referred to the problems in connection with land, but I think that this is also a matter which can be better discussed on a subsequent rather than the present occasion.

With these few words I want to express my sincere thanks to all hon. members for their pleasant co-operation in this regard.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief comment in regard to this clause, a comment which is applicable to the next clause as well. I think the Bill is, correctly, allowing latitude to the registrars of deeds and the Surveyors-general of the two provinces to get on with a job and to make this a fait accompli. I hope the hon. the Minister will use his authority and encouragement to ensure that whatever staff requirements these officers need, will be given to them. This was also part of the recommendations of the committee, and, quite clearly, in the interim period there might be delays which might be disturbing to individuals who want to transfer land or property. I hope the hon. the Minister can give us the assurance that he will try to assist the two registrars concerned in regard to staff requirements or whatever other requirements they have in order to facilitate their task in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, although the matter does not, of course, fall directly under my department, it is obvious that I will use my influence in the relevant departments as far as possible in this regard, in order to ensure that the transfer and other concomitant tasks will be carried out as well and as efficiently as possible.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the hon. the Minister’s explanation in regard to the allocation of the polling districts and I want, once again, to draw to his attention the fact that I think it is incorrect that polling district No. 503 is being allocated to the South Coast constituency. Area No. 503 falls in the Kokstad area. It is a farming community and is very similar to the farming community of Mooi River. Thus it will have much more in common with the Mooi River constituency than it will have with the South Coast constituency, which is a coastal constituency of an entirely different type. I hope the hon. the Minister will, perhaps between now and the time when the Bill comes before the Other Place, reconsider the matter and rectify the situation.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to hon. members that the South Coast constituency includes the Ixopo, Creighton, High flats and Harding districts, and that the people of Harding and Kokstad are very close to one another. They attend the same farming days, they are served by the same research station and go to the same auctions.

Mr. Chairman, since there is so much peace and goodwill in the House at the moment, I shall promise the hon. member for Musgrave to look at the aspect which he mentioned, and if possible to take the matter further in the Other Place.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to clause 7(b) which states—

I wonder if the hon. the Minister could briefly explain why it has been decided to do it this way, rather than to add to the quota land of Natal.

Mr. Chairman, I want to be quite honest with the hon. member and admit that I do not know why it was decided to do it this way. In any event, the hon. member will concede that the objective we are pursuing can be achieved in this way as well. I honestly do not think that it matters which way we do it.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.