As hon. members know, tomorrow will be the 50th anniversary of the Official unfurling of our national flag on Parliament Building and throughout South Africa. I think it is particularly fitting that Parliament should mark this occasion. On the motion for the adjournment this afternoon, short speeches honouring our flag will be made on behalf of the various parties in the House.

Hon. members are invited to join me after the adjournment to attend a flag-lowering ceremony in front of the main entrance to the Senate in which the Navy will take part and which has been arranged to honour our national flag in the customary manner.

*Tomorrow morning I shall be present on behalf of Parliament when the flag on Parliament building is unfurled, as happened 50 years ago. I realize that some hon. members are going away, and that others have fixed appointments, but I want to express the wish nevertheless that as many hon. members as possible join me at 09h00 for a short ceremony which will be concluded with a reading from the Scriptures and prayers. The wives of hon. members are welcome to attend both functions.

reported that the Standing Committee on Vote No. 10.—“Social Welfare and Pensions”, had agreed to the Vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night, I was dealing with the background against which, I believe, this legislation should be seen. I had made the point that if we were living in a normal country, in a normal society with a normal government, and had then looked at this Bill together with the existing legislation, we would certainly have rejected it. [Interjections.] In doing so we would certainly have asked ourselves a number of basic questions.

In the first instance we would have asked ourselves why, in view of the fact that this Bill dealt with fellow South African citizens, they were not represented, or provision was not made for them to be represented, in this Parliament. [Interjections.] We would also have asked why, in view of the fact that this Bill dealt with good, loyal, patriotic South African citizens, we should be bothering ourselves to deal with some sort of separate dispensation for that section of the community. I said that what we should be doing in South Africa at the present time was to devise ways and means in which this could become possible against the background of a constitutional framework which could meet the normal and reasonable aspirations of all sections of the South African society. However, for the moment this cannot be. We are not dealing with a normal society and we are not dealing with a normal Government. [Interjections.] What we are dealing with here is a society which is forever forced into racial compartments by a Government which is obsessed with White top-doggism and race at all levels of our society. [Interjections.]

That is why, when one looks at the objects and the range of this Bill, and when one tries to place it in perspective, there is an immediate conflict in evaluating its merits against the broad perspective of history on the one hand and the perspective of the limited span of apartheid and separate development of the NP on the other hand. That is where the conflict lies.

To deal with its broader perspective, in the first instance the Bill will be seen for what it is: simply a few crumbs being thrown from the White man’s table to a section of our population in South Africa. [Interjections.] It will be seen as a measure which provides something which is too little too late. History will certainly show that this is simply another instalment in the plan to perpetuate group differences in South Africa. History will also show it to be yet another stage in the accentuation of group differences which, in the end, can result in infinite hostility and antagonism with catastrophic consequences for all in South Africa. I think it might also be shown in the broader perspective that this debate and this Bill constitute something of a preview or a trial run for the Government’s new constitutional proposals. There are certainly many features of this legislation which are very similar indeed in substance to what little is known about the Government’s plan to create so-called separate Parliaments for Whites, Coloured and Indian people in South Africa as part of its new constitutional dispensation.

In looking at this as a preview, one would notice that trappings of a Parliament-in-embryo are in existence in this Bill. One would also notice the symbols, the oaths of office, the rules of procedure and other matters of that kind. One would also notice the interesting feature of the total complement of members stipulated in the Bill. The Bill stipulates that the new Indian Council is going to comprise some 45 members: 40 to be elected and five to be nominated. It is an interesting comparison, when one compares this with the Government’s constitutional proposals, or with the releases that have been made in terms of those proposals, which indicate that the proposed Indian Parliament will have a total membership of 46 members. Why the difference? What is the mystery about the missing one member?

The mystery is that the Indian people asked for 40 plus five.

And is there any connection whatsoever with the proposal that there should be 46? That is what the NP proposes in terms of their constitutional proposals.

[Inaudible.]

We therefore have an arbitrary figure of 40 plus five which will constitute the Indian Council. There is, nonetheless, a resemblance between the total number in this Bill and the total number envisaged by the NP. There is the strange provision that this council is going to be part elected and part nominated, just as we are told the new Parliament will be when the NP’s constitutional plans are made known. There is also a similarity with regard to the method of election and operation of the Executive. It is indeed very similar to the procedure mooted for the proposed new Cabinet in the Indian Parliament. One notices these similarities. Inasmuch as this Bill may be represented as a further step towards the ultimate in representation for the Indian community on a separate or group basis, we certainly cannot find favour with that, as I said last night, and inasmuch as it may well be a trial run or prototype for the Government’s new constitutional proposals, we on this side of the House have indicated that we would reject the philosophy behind such a move. In that context it denies the realities of the South African situation. It perpetuates group consciousness and group thinking in the political sphere, and it does so in a manner which can only be harmful to peaceful co-existence in South Africa in that particular context. Therefore, seen against the broad historical perspective, we can find very little to attract us in this kind of legislation.

There is, however, as I have indicated, a narrower perspective which must be taken into account. As I have pointed out, that is the perspective of the limited horizon of the existing apartheid or separate development policy being pursued in South Africa. When we view the legislation in that perspective and bear in mind that there is already in existence a nominated Indian council which is designed to constitute some sort of link between the Central Government and the Indian community, one must ask oneself whether it is better for this council to be largely elected or totally nominated. I think the answer is obvious; the answer must certainly be that it is far better that it should be an elected body and in that sense this Bill represents an improvement on the existing situation.

Sir, I believe that a nominated body can never be regarded as being representative of the people it purports to represent, and this has certainly been a very patent and almost fatal weakness of the Indian Council to date. I think the Indian Council itself has been conscious of this disability, and certainly the community as a whole has treated the council very largely with a good deal of suspicion, scorn and disdain. It has been alleged, and correctly so, that this is a nominated council and therefore cannot be a representative body of the community in respect of which it operates. However, since it will be an almost totally elected council, one must acknowledge that it will in future be seen as something of a barometer of Indian public opinion, which cannot be ignored. The Indian people will at least have some options open to them in regard to the exercise of their rights of citizenship. I do not know what the options are going to be and what options they are going to exercise, but I believe that one should look at some of these options. The first option which might be open to the Indian community could be that they could adopt a particular attitude and say: “We do not like this type of separate legislation and we do not like this type of separate council. Therefore we are going to boycott anything to do with these elections.” However, I think it is totally unlikely that that will happen at this stage, in view of the fact that is known that the Indian people have responded to requests to register as voters. I think the response has been very good; over 70% of the Indians have responded to date. It therefore seems clear that the Indian community will not use boycotts as a mechanism by which to show their feelings in regard to this council. The second option open to the Indian community would be to participate in the elections to the extent of returning candidates who will support the policy and the general political philosophy of the NP, but I believe that is equally unlikely. The third option is that they can participate in the elections for members of the council to the extent that they return members to the council who will use that council to serve their community and who will also use it as a platform from which to be critical of Government policy and as a platform to forge alliances with other racial groups in South Africa to bring about peaceful change in this country. I believe that the latter is probably the most likely course of events which will be followed, and I believe that the Government must appreciate and accept that this is a distinct probability in the present circumstances. The Government must accept that they place the Black minority groups in South Africa, both the Coloured and the Indian communities, in an impossible position when they expect them to sit back cosily and accept the separate dispensation which ignores the aspirations of the majority of the Black group. They must also realize that the temptation and the desire will always be there for these communities to use the platforms given to them to form alliances with other racial groups amongst the Black community. The Coloured and Indian communities, I believe, are daily growing more conscious of the dangers inherent in any so-called solution based upon isolation or separatism. So whatever the alternatives, the operation of free elections in terms of this Bill, for the bulk of the membership of the Indian Council, will none the less provide, as I have said, a useful barometer to guage Indian public opinion.

For that reason and because we view the Bill, within the limited context of which I have spoken, as an improvement on the existing legislation, we on this side of the House will support the Second Reading of the Bill. [Interjections.]

Why are you supporting it?

We see it as an improvement on the present situation in the sense that instead of having a council which is entirely nominated, there is now going to be a council which is largely to be elected. [Interjections.] In many circumstances that is an improvement. I have gone to great lengths, however, to indicate that in its totality this type of legislation, this type of separate development, this type of separate representation for people in the South African community, is something that we on this side of the House are completely opposed to.

I want to deal now with certain detailed provisions which are in the present legislation before the House, provisions which can certainly be discussed in the Committee Stage. [Interjections.]

Order!

I think it would be useful if the hon. the Minister, in his reply to the Second Reading debate, could deal with some of the points I now want to raise. I want to deal, first of all, with the provision making this a council which has both elected and nominated members. As I have said, the hon. the Minister indicated in his introductory speech that the Bill makes provision for five nominated members … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members should not talk so loudly.

The Bill makes provision for five nominated members, three to be nominated by the leader of the majority party on a proportional basis, and two by the State President, and the Bill uses the words “on the advice of the majority leader”. I want to know, in effect, how these two types of nominated members differ. I should like the hon. the Minister, when he replies, to explain to the House what the particular difference is. In the one instance one has three members who are going to be actually nominated by the leader of the majority party…

Go and look at the constitution of our own Senate.

I am asking the hon. the Minister to tell us really what the particular magic is in the two who are going to be nominated by the State President on the advice of the majority leader. What are the options of the State President in this matter? Does he have the option to reject the advice of the majority leader? These are the questions I should like the hon. the Minister to answer. It seems to me a curious provision and I should like some elucidation of what is envisaged by this type of nominated member. We find it a strange provision anyway that this council which, as I have said, is now very largely to be elected, should still have provision made for nominated members in two different categories, as set out in the Bill. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us what the situation would be if the majority leader were to give advice on the two members to be nominated and the State President were to reject the advice. Could there not be a situation of deadlock or conflict arising out of this sort of provision?

Another matter I should like to deal with in some detail is the question of the provisions in clause 3 which allow the State President to extend the life of the council if its termination coincides with White or Coloured elections. There is a provision to the effect that the State President can extend the life of the council for a period of some 12 months. Quite clearly this again is a curious provision for it seems to be designed to ensure that one cannot even have elections for this Parliament, for the CRC and for the Indian Council if they should coincide in time. If that is the intention, it seems to be a curious intention. Does the Government suggest by this that there can never be issues in South Africa which are going to be common to the three racial groups about which I have spoken, thus making it possible to have the elections at the same time? Surely the Government has no need to go to these lengths to ensure that elections are held at separate times in the election calender in South Africa. It seems a strange provision. One wonders what the Government really believes it is going to achieve by such a provision. We have to realize in this House that we are dealing with groups of people who are part of one country, and from time to time they are all going to be affected by common issues which will affect all the groups. As I say, it seems extraordinary that the Government should go to these lengths in order to ensure that there will never be a coincidence of election times for these particular racial groups.

Then there is a question I want to raise in connection with clause 8 of the Bill which relates to the vacation of seats by nominated members if the chairman of the executive committee vacates his office by reason of another political party having obtained a majority in the council. Provision is made in the Bill that the nominated members must vacate their seats if the majority in leadership changes. It is not clear in this context what the word “majority” means. Is it the majority of the elected members or is it the overall majority of the elected and the nominated members in the council? Perhaps the hon. the Minister will deal with that as well when he replies to the Second Reading debate.

Then we have a further question relating to the composition of the executive committee. Here again there is reference to the powers of the State President to appoint members to the committee “on the advice of the chairman of the executive committee”. We see that phrase repeated here again. The question I want to put is similar to the one I asked in respect of the other instance, viz. what in fact is the authority of the State President in regard to the appointment of members to the executive committee. The chairman of the committee will nominate members and he will advise the State President of the members he has nominated. Does the State President have any options beyond that? Does he have the option to turn away from that advice?

Then I should like to make some general comments on this Bill. There are details provided for, such as questions of procedure, the question of the authority of officials of the S.A. Indian Council, the question of the type of oath members are going to have take and other regulations of this nature. If the Government is serious about giving the Indian people a council that is elected and that will presumably enjoy a considerable measure of autonomy, one wonders why it is that the hon. the Minister should find it necessary for this Parliament to prescribe details of this nature in respect of that council. Why can such details not be left to the council?

What sort of details?

I am talking about details such as prescribing in this legislation the type of oath to be taken, regulations for the governing of the council, etc. One wonders why this is not left to the council itself to decide on when it meets in the fullness of time.

To sum up, we on this side of the House will support the Second Reading of this Bill because we believe that the principle of having more elected members is a better principle than the principle of having a council that is totally nominated and because we believe that it will provide a better barometer for judging the opinion of the Indian community. I want to emphasize, however, that our support must in no way be seen to be support of a separate council or Parliament for a particular group in South Africa as a substitute for real and meaningful rights of citizenship. On that basis we will support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Musgrave started in this debate this afternoon by saying that we have an abnormal Government. I wonder whether it is not a matter of an insane Opposition. When the hon. member for Musgrave made his introductory comments in this debate last night, he attacked the Government’s policy of separate development as it affects the Indian people in South Africa. He asked why the Indian population should not be represented in Parliament and he rejected group representation. What he in fact meant was that, according to the rather vague policy of his own party, we should have a completely integrated society both socio-economically and politically. He also referred to the members of the Indian population as being loyal patriots. I do not deny that, although I have certain reservations as far as some of them are concerned. However, the rather vague alternatives which the hon. member stipulated in the course of his speech, is to my mind nothing but a farce, for the simple reason that they offer an integrated society, a system which has not solved any, problem in the world. Britain has its racial problems and the United States has tried for over 40 years to force an integrated society by using the law, their Army and their Police Force; nevertheless they have more discrimination today than ever before. In point of fact, it would appear that they are moving towards a society in which the accent is on ethnicity to an increasing extent. I think there is enough evidence to support this contention. In any event, an integrated society in a country like South Africa, where the majority of the population is Black, stands even less chance of success. The Electoral Laws Amendment Act of 1977 as well as the Bill before the House to my mind provides for the realization of an ideal which is in accordance with the aspirations towards which the Indian population as well as the Indian Council have been striving for many years and which has been expressed from time to time by hon. members on this side of the House.

Legislation of this nature can truly be regarded as another historic event in the constitutional development of the Indian population of South Africa. This has mainly come about as the result of the very responsible manner in which they have conducted their affairs and in which they have performed their functions over the past years. The process of negotiation dates back to long before the original Act, Act 31 of 1968, and the 1972 legislation, Act 62 of 1972. In 1974 the Indian Council passed another resolution indicating that a fully elected council was desired and requesting that the legislation be adapted accordingly. The Executive Committee had further negotiations with the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to this matter in 1975 and the principles involved were approved at that time. In 1977 the Electoral Act for Indians was promulgated. All the details of that measure were agreed upon by them. A start was accordingly made with the general registration of voters, which was conducted very successfully indeed. The Bill before the House is the realization of an ideal and, more important still, it brings us one step closer to the ultimate realization of the political aspirations of a people, in accord even with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the International Court of Justice states the following very clearly, and although I must admit that it refers to territories, it can also be applied to the peoples of a particular country—

1. (a) to ensure due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social and educational advancement, their just treatment and their protection against abuses;
2. (b) to develop self-government to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions according to particular circumstances …

I stress “according to particular circumstances”—

I make bold to say that we have indeed sincere and due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, also in terms of this Bill. We have also taken account of their political aspirations as is further embodied in this Bill. I consider the step taken by the hon. the Minister as a courageous one, and I think that I speak on behalf of all those who earnestly wish to see the Indian community thrive in South Africa and who wish them all the best on their road to self-realization as a community. I have no doubt that they will make vigorous use of the instruments of government which are provided for in this Bill. If they do, it would certainly be to the benefit of everyone concerned and they will have a powerful tool of government in their hands. The principles involved in the Bill are not new and are really merely an extension of existing provisions. The most important provision is to increase the number of members, and to regulate the constitution of the executive committee of the council. Practically speaking, it is now going to be a fully elected council with the addition of a certain number of members. If this Bill is seen in conjunction with the Electoral Act for Indians, 1977, one must concede that the political process for the Indians is now brought into line with our own Parliament, which is really an adapted form of the Westminster parliamentary system. This is certainly a more practical arrangement as far as our own peculiar circumstances in South Africa are concerned.

The hon. member for Musgrave tried to debate the issue in the light of the new constitutional proposals. I do not think that this should be debated at this stage, because it does not apply to the provisions of this Bill. This is a matter to be debated in future. The aspects which the hon. member mentioned about particular provisions of the Bill could be debated more properly in the Committee Stage. The hon. member for Musgrave questioned the mutual decision-making powers of the Indian population of South Africa. I can only tell him to wait and see. The Government has always done what they said they would do. I therefore gladly support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make this party’s attitude towards this Bill abundantly clear at the outset. We welcome the Bill for what it is, i.e. an extension of the powers of the Indian Council. It turns the currently nominated council into one that has no fewer than 40 elected members and five nominated members. These members are to be nominated by the leaders of the majority and minority parties in the council. To all intents and purposes, as the hon. member for Newcastle had pointed out, it is therefore a fully elected council. The hon. the Minister knows full well what our reaction would be. He should know, because he knows that the thinking of this party follows on the thinking of its predecessor, the UP. He also knows, because he was one of the architects of the thinking of the UP …

He still believes it.

And he still believes in a lot of what the UP upheld. I wish to emphasize that our support for this Bill in no way ties us to the proposed constitutional plans which are to be put before the House at a later stage in respect of the Coloureds and the Indians. I say that our support must not be construed as agreement with or acceptance of, the Government’s future planning. Our support of this Bill is due to the fact that the Bill is completely in line with our policy of structured pluralism. To illustrate this aspect further, I want to point out that the Bill before us today is an historic one because it is the beginning of the end of the South African political structure as we have known it since Union. I think hon. members on the government benches will do well to note this. This is the start of the end of the unitary system as we know it. This is the dawn of the era of pluralism, which this party believes in. This is the dawn of the era of the “nuclear” State … [Interjections.] … which has been so eloquently and ably outlined by the hon. member for Mooi River and sniggered at by my hon. friends here on my right. White domination in South Africa is on the way out, and this is a welcome step towards putting the decision-making process, as regards our South African Indians, where it belongs: In their hands. The hon. the Minister is to be commended today for taking this bold step. [Interjections.] The decision-making process is now going to be put in the hands of an elected body, and let us sincerely hope that this body will be given more and more powers as time goes by to deal with problems affecting the Indian community.

What is the attitude of the Official Opposition?

Heaven knows!

The hon. the Minister is quite right: Heaven alone knows.

[Inaudible.]

You are going around in spheres!

Mr. Speaker, I do wish the hon. members for Bryanston and Hillbrow would contain themselves and not get quite so hysterical. [Interjections.] I wish to ask the hon. member for Musgrave a simple question, and I hope he will give me a reply to it.

If it is simple enough he will be able to answer it.

It is a very simple question and merely requires a “yes” or a “no”. His party has stated that they want to see the Coloureds in this House. [Interjections.] Last night in his Second Reading speech he stated that they would not rest before they saw the Indians in the House. I wish to ask him whether this attitude applies to the Blacks also. Does he or does he not want to see the Blacks in this House?

Of course!

Right, now we have a situation where the hon. member for Musgrave says—I do not know if it is also his party’s policy—that he wishes to see the Blacks, the Indians and the Coloureds in this House. I now want to ask the hon. member: Is this the hon. member’s party’s official policy? [Interjections.]

You know what our policy is.

I know what their policy is! Mr. Speaker, they do not know themselves what their policy is, and yet the hon. member tells me that I know what their policy is. I want to quote from an article which appeared in The Argus of 16 May 1978—

The article continues—

Yet, this hon. member says that I know what their policy is. [Interjections.] In heaven’s name! As I now understand it they want the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians in this Parliament, and I now should like to ask him: How he is going to protect the minority group, which is the Indian, from the Black, the White or the Coloured? How is he going to do that? [Interjections.]

Order! I am allowing the main spokesmen of the various parties quite a great deal of latitude in expounding their political philosophies as far as separate political institutions are concerned, but I must point out that that is not really the main subject of the Bill. I must request hon. members to keep to the Bill as much as possible.

The hon. member for Musgrave, who is the chief spokesman for the PFP on Indian affairs, spoke at length last night and again today about normality. It appears to me that in respect of this Bill, nobody in this House is, in his view, normal except them. They remind me of a troop of soldiers with one man out of step and it is that one solitary man who claims that he is the only one in step.

I want to ask, where in the world has any Government or any Parliament ever had an Official Opposition which has sat in a House of Assembly without a declared policy? Well, Sir, only in one Parliament, viz. in this Parliament, here and now. I want to ask whether that is normal.

Where in the world has any Parliament come close to the end of its first session with an Official Opposition which states that it will make known the findings of its policy review committee later in the year? Is that normal?

I feel sorry for the hon. the Prime Minister, because his sandwiches will become stale while he is waiting for them to state their policy. There is only one thing that is normal about this Official Opposition and that is that when they are faced with a Bill of this nature, they want to sit on two stools. They know full well they cannot either wholeheartedly support or wholeheartedly oppose this measure, because if they support this Bill wholeheartedly they will be pre-empting their much publicized congress they are going to call in order to thrash out a policy and if they oppose the Bill, they know it will incur the wrath and indignation of the Indian people who have given it their support. [Interjections.] Thank heavens, we in the NRP know what we are doing, that we can walk tall and with confidence and that our policies are loudly stated and declared for all to see, debate, criticize and reject if needs be. At least we have a clear identity and it is that clear identity which gives this measure today the support it richly deserves. We are not alone in this. The Press in Durban, which I think is a voice to be heard, also supports this measure. I quote from an editorial in the Daily News of 19 May 1978-

It goes on to say—

The Press looks upon this as a step in the right direction, as we do. However, we have problems with certain aspects. I wish to refer to clauses 1(b) and 1(c) in particular. I should like to give the hon. the Minister an example by way of illustration.

Let us suppose that we found ourselves with an Indian Council with a majority party of 21 and a minority party of 19. According to this amending Bill it would mean that the leader of the majority party could nominate two additional members and the leader of the opposition party, one. It would also mean that the State President could appoint two members on the advice of the leader of the majority party. We would therefore find ourselves with a situation where the ratio would be 25:20. We have difficulty with this because we feel that we would like to see nominated members in proportion to the representation. I should like to hear the hon. the Minister in this connection. I should like to know whether he would consider an amendment which we think we may put on the Order Paper in this connection and I should like to hear what he has to say about it.

I should also like to question the hon. the Minister in connection with the proposed new subsection 10(2) which states—

Am I correct in asking whether this is currently the situation in our constitution appertaining to the White Parliament? If this is so, any problem we may have in that regard I am sure will fall away. We note with interest that there will be four members of the Executive Committee and not five. We had a problem with that, but the hon. the Minister gave us his reasons in his introduction to the Second Reading and we in this party are happy to accept those reasons. We feel sure that each member of the Executive Committee will have just sufficient hay on his fork and that a fifth member would have been a supernumerary.

With these few words I should like to assure the hon. the Minister that the Bill has our wholehearted support, but we shall possibly raise a few issues with him during the Committee Stage, particularly in connection with clause 1.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation at present before the House, makes provision, in the first instance, for making the Indian Council a fully elected council, and further, for granting the Indians what they have asked for. Moreover, because this is the policy of the National Party, the Official Opposition Party must concede, in all fairness, that we are giving effect to the wishes of those people. Furthermore it is very clear and indisputable that the hon. the Minister keeps his word. When I say that, I should like to quote from the Natal Mercury. It is very clear to me that those people are with us, and that they are satisfied with what the Government is doing. The article, under the heading “Steyn keeps promise to Indians”, reads—

It is a fact that whenever legislation of this nature comes before this House, the Official Opposition conjures up spectres. It even goes much further than that. Because the Government is introducing this legislation, it will— according to the Official Opposition—be instrumental in bringing about the downfall of man and its own downfall. In this connection I refer to what the hon. member for Musgrave said last night. He started his speech by stating—

What does the hon. member see in this legislation? How does he view what is being done? Are the Government’s actions a surprise to him? Surely the hon. member is fully aware—or at least he should be—of the consultations being conducted with the Indians. The hon. member should also be aware that this legislation is in the interests of the Indians. The hon. member nevertheless goes on to state (Hansard, 29 May 1978)—

Now this immediately compels me to say that if we had not had a simple Official Opposition, this country would have been much better off. [Interjections.] But the hon. member goes even further and states—

Now the hon. member immediately changes his tune. He further states—

I can only say, thank you very much for that. I am truly grateful that the hon. member was so honest as to come forward and to state that he and his kind do not belong with us. Let them rather stay where they are.

I should like to quote further what the hon. member said—

My question, however, is whether the hon. members of the PFP have ever been normal. If one makes a charge against Parliament, against the Government, against everyone in this House, can that be regarded as normal? Can it be regarded as normal to say things like this? All I can say, is that that insinuation by the hon. member is rejected with the contempt which it deserves. But the hon. member goes on to state—

On a previous occasion, that, same hon. member used identical words in this House. He now compels me to ask why—while we are busy with legislation to the benefit of the Indian community—there should be such manifestations of pettiness here. Was it not the idea of the hon. member that what he said, should be published in overseas newspapers? I specifically ask the hon. member whether that is where some of our problems originate.

I am quoting further what the hon. member said—

As far as the first part of this is concerned, I agree with the hon. member. But I do not agree with him on the second part. In my view, the hon. member ought to be informed—he ought to know—that the measures contained in the Bill under discussion, are not without foundation. After all, it is the policy of the Government to give the Indians precisely what the Whites demand for themselves. The hon. member also stated—

Once again, Sir, the man is naïve. I ask this question out of conviction: Is he not aware that this Government is giving those people precisely what he has referred to? He has attacked us on that score, but we are engaged in giving them just that. I want to request this afternoon that the Official Opposition should acquaint themselves with the steps the Government is taking. When legislation is placed before this House, they should study it and find out the reason behind it. They must not simply seek in it what is aimed against them as the Opposition. Sir, there is a further quotation which I should like to make. This hon. member also stated—

Now I want to tell the hon. member: Wait patiently; rest assured that what we have said will be done, will in fact be done.

But, Sir, while this legislation is being introduced to grant the Indian community greater autonomy to enable them to help themselves, I should also like to reply to the hon. member’s questions by quoting from the Daily News of 22 May. This extract embraces precisely what we are engaged in today. I want to quote from a letter which an Indian in Natal wrote to this newspaper. He wrote—

There, Mr. Speaker, we have the reply to all the questions put to us and to all the allegations made against us. While we have this legislation before us today, I make the clear and unequivocal request: Before the Official Opposition expresses criticism in this House and tries to break down what is being done, they should first go and talk to those people. I talk to them. I know their feelings, and I can state in anticipation that those people support what we are doing.

Before I conclude, I should like to thank the hon. member for Umhlanga very much. He sees that matter in the right perspective. I therefore ask that we in this House should, in future stand by what is being done for other nations in our midst, because we ought to do for them what we claim for ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that we do not oppose the Bill, for the obvious reason that we are dealing here with an improvement of the principal Act and because the principle of an elected council, instead of a predominantly appointed council, is being recognized. Whether there should be a separate Indian Council at all, is not relevant here. That is not an issue we can discuss here now. It exists, and I think it at least has the advantage of creating the opportunity for the establishment of an elected national leadership corps for the Indian community that can negotiate about the future place of the Indian community in the political set-up of South Africa with whatever party may be in power or come into power.

What bothers me in connection with this Bill, however, is, firstly, that the hon. the Minister did not give any indication in his introductory speech of joint deliberation between the White Government and the leaders of the Indian community, in so far as they can be seen as leaders, in connection with this Bill and the place to be taken by the Indian community. If I understand the position correctly, the Government is here engaged in laying the foundations for a so-called Indian Parliament. I think the Government should have realized by this time that political decisions about people should no longer be taken in this Parliament, but that they should be taken fully, and in the greatest detail with those people.

The Government has a great deal to say about the right to self-determination for all the various population groups. It says every population group is entitled to this but it never, as far as I can see, really reaches the point of practical acceptance of all the implications of that philosophy.

As far as the Bill is concerned, it is not clear whether the provisions concerning the nomination of additional members by the leader of the majority party, the Official Opposition in the Indian Council and the State President, carry the full approval of the community. We believe it should be a fully elected council, and I should like to hear whether the appointment or nomination of members has the approval of the Indian Council.

I can now say “yes”.

Practice has shown that nominated members in a national assembly, an assembly which is similar to a House of Assembly, are always at a disadvantage. They are always looked upon as imitators and can never really make a satisfactory contribution to that council if that council is supposed to be chiefly a House of Assembly and elected body. I want to know why the body cannot consist entirely of elected members. Let us treat the Indian community as adults and give them the opportunity, as is the case with us to elect a council that will be fully elected.

Then I want to raise the point of the 40 constituencies that the Indian population is getting in terms of this Bill in the three provinces of the Transvaal, the Cape and Natal—the Free State is not included because there are no Indians there. It will be expected that the members of those 40 constituencies that will be delimited, will have to represent the community properly and efficiently. In the relevant three provinces the Whites have 151 constituencies. In addition they have 151 provincial councillors. This gives a total of 302 representatives as far as those three provinces are concerned. Nevertheless we always hear the complaint that constituencies are too large and that it is impossible for members properly to represent constituencies that are too large. Nevertheless, we expect the same territory to be divided into 40 constituencies for the Indian community. I am dealing here with the problem of large constituencies that cannot be represented and handled efficiently. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has not thought of discussing with the Indian community and with the Indian Council in particular, whether there is not another system that could be introduced which may be better.

For example, in South West Africa it is envisaged that instead of constituencies being delimited for the new general election which will be held there, saddling them with all the waste of time, trouble and problems involved with constituencies too large to handle, voting will simply take place on a party basis. At least, these are the proposals of the most important political parties there. Every party will have the opportunity to present a panel of candidates who will then be elected in order of preference according to the number of votes they receive. I believe a system of this nature will be much more effective for smaller bodies like the Indian Council as well as for the Coloured Persons Representative Council. This is why I am worried that that consultation is not taking place with the leaders of the Indian community, that a meeting is not being held with them in order to work out an acceptable constitution for the Indian community.

During the Committee Stage we shall discuss the question of what the Bill envisages with the concept of a majority party. The question is: Does the majority party form the executive authority, even though it does not have a general majority over all the other parties? What is the position as far as the majority party is concerned, if a coalition should take place in the Indian Council? Would it then officially be the majority party? If not, if what the Bill proposes, were to lead to there being a minority party in respect of votes, which would be called the majority party, would that be democratic?

If this Bill is really intended to be the foundation of a so-called Indian Parliament, I want to ask the hon. the Minister why it contains the provision that the State President can dissolve the council if he so wishes without being requested to do so by the council or by the leader of the majority party. I know that the hon. the Minister raised the argument that this is what is happening here, that the State President has the right to do so in regard to the House of Assembly. We must be reasonable enough, however, to realize that regardless of what the Government may determine for the future, the State President is selected by the White voters only at this stage. In fact, he is part of the political set-up of the Whites and furthermore he is seen as such. It means one thing only to me, viz. that the State President, acting on the advice of the White Government, still retains the power to dissolve the council as well as to dissolve the Executive Committee, as he wishes. To me this indicates at once that the Government is simply unable to reach the point of having showing confidence in the body and the future of the body which it itself wants to create for another population group. Furthermore, why have the provision that elections for the House of Assembly, the Indian Council and CRC may never fall on the same date, and that the life of the Indian Council may in fact be extended by a whole year if there is a possibility of such elections coinciding? I cannot accept the argument that it is being done because there will not be enough officials to handle affairs should simultaneous elections take place. The Indians—and the same applies to the Coloureds—will have to have their own trained officials for this purpose in any event.

Yes, in due course.

Such officials should be available now.

Oh, come on!

It should not be difficult because there is no training of White officials for this work. They just have to read the instructions and struggle on as best as they can. I feel this measure is merely aimed at bringing about further political division and partition. The fact that elections for the House of Assembly, the Indian Council and the CRC may never take place simultaneously, will mean in practice …

Where do you find the word “never”?

Is the Bill not intended to be permanent?

Where do you find the word “never”?

The clause provides that elections will not be held simultaneously.

Why does the hon. the Minister put such a provision in the Bill if this is not the case? Why is it at all necessary? After all, we know what the Government’s policy has always been.

What clause are you referring to?

I have read the clause carefully. It is in clause 3, and it reads as follows—

I have no doubt about what it means, and I am quite satisfied.

Where did you get the idea that it will never happen?

This is the policy after all. However, if the hon. the Minister tells me that that is not so, I shall be satisfied, because then I shall agree with him. I still want to know, however, why such a provision appears in the Bill. We must not play with words. If my interpretation is wrong, I am quite satisfied because then we can vote for it. After all, this is what we are debating here. As I interpret the spirit of this clause, it is the intention that election of members of this Parliament, the Indian Council and the CRC will not take place simultaneously. This will mean in practice that every time a general election is called to elect members for the House of Assembly when a national issue is at stake—it may even concern war and peace—the Indian community, as well as the Coloured people, will have to remain outside the national debate, even in their own political bodies, and remain mere spectators. We should rather move in the direction of joint responsibility, even if it has to be in separate bodies. Time and again there is fresh evidence that the Government is still imprisoned by its old ideas of apartheid instead of really going ahead to obtain the co-operation of the other population groups and seeking their joint-responsibility on the major issues affecting our country.

We see this once again in clause 11 of the Bill. That clause determines that the State President appoints the leader of the majority party as chairman of the Executive Committee in spite of the fact that that party may be in the minority in the council as a whole. The State President also appoints three other members on the recommendation of the leader of the majority party. But it is not laid down that the State President must accept that advice. He may therefore reject the advice and appoint his own people. Why can we not make a final break with all signs of “baasskap” and give the Indian Council the right to elect its own Executive Committee? Why can it not nominate its own chairman so that we can move closer to the Government’s policy of the right to self-determination for every population group? I am therefore testing it according to the Government’s own standpoints and even then they do not come out on top. In addition, it is also determined that the members of the Executive Committee hold office as long as the State President wishes. Of course, once again he acts on the advice of the White Government. It is remarkable that it is clear throughout the Bill that the Government does not actually have any confidence in what it is creating. The Bill falls short in various other respects as well. For instance, there is no indication in the Bill that the council’s powers are going to be enlarged in any respect. After the general election, many expectations were created in regard to parity among the various population groups. We are still keeping, however, to the meagre array of powers laid down in section 10(a) of the Act of 1968, and I predict that we shall never really progress further than that. When the vote of the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs was being discussed, I asked him unequivocally whether he would declare for once and for all in this House where the line will be drawn between what will be considered individual interests, individual Indian interests and individual Coloured interests, and joint White interests.

The hon. the Minister, however, failed to reply to that. We have now reached the position here where the foundation is being laid for what will be considered a Parliament, an elected council. I feel it is a good opportunity for the hon. the Minister to tell us now what the ultimate powers of this elected council of 40 members are going to be and where the line is going to be drawn between the matters supposedly proper to the Indian population and matters that are of general interest. Until such time as that cardinal question is answered satisfactorily, I feel there will be little confidence in the future of councils of this nature.

We are not opposing the Bill, merely because its main principle, i.e. that a council which is for the most part an elected one, is being introduced, is accepted by us. This does not, however, derogate from the fact that, coming after a general election in which so many expectations were created, the Bill does not augur very well for the success of the Government’s projected constitutional plan.

Mr. Speaker, we have now listened to the hon. member for Musgrave and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout from the PFP. It struck me that there is a great deal of difference in the approach of these two hon. members. As a typical old type of Prog, the hon. member for Musgrave attacked the NP with the customary malice in his usual attempt to confuse everything, while the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—he is a man who has incorporated the idea of federation very strongly into his political system—showed a little sympathy for the element of federation which may perhaps be detected in this Bill. The contrast between the various parties here in the House on the matter of this Bill, is also very strong. The SAP has not spoken yet, but I particularly appreciate the work of the hon. member for Umhlanga and I think the SAP will agree with him because no matter how much one may differ from these two parties, there is nevertheless a place for ethnicity and therefore a place for the White man too, in their political thinking and system. This means that one can at least argue with these two parties on the problems of South Africa. That is all I want to say about the speech of the hon. member for Umhlanga.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that the Government has no confidence in the Indians and in the Indian Council. The statement that those hon. members have so often made in the past 12 years during which I have been sitting in Parliament, is that we have no confidence in these people and that those people have no confidence in us either. According to them everything we do will fail, because there is no joint basis for negotiation. Surely every student of South African politics is aware of the fact that this amending Bill is based on one basic standpoint of the NP, viz. that in Southern Africa, within the borders drawn by imperialism, there is a variety of nations, and that one can only have peace and prosperity, when, on the one hand, one guarantees the identity of those people and on the other hand, one does not assail their human dignity. It is as simple as that, and the NP has followed that very path. The hon. members of the PFP must read all the debates held on Indian Affairs once again. Then they will see how, from the beginning, they have despised the small start that the NP made. Not only did they despise it, they also cast suspicion on it, and they not only cast suspicion on it, they also ran it down, created tension in regard to it and tried to confuse our own people. In spite of all that propaganda, the NP has nevertheless grown as far as its policy in Southern Africa is concerned.

The original fault found with this legislation, was the fact that not all the people are elected. At the time, the entire debate concerned the fact that the Government appointed people. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout dragged the same aspect into the debate once again today. He raised the position of the State President several times. It seems to me as if the hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not have adequate knowledge about the position of the State President within our political set-up. This is the only explanation I can find.

What we have tried to establish from the start, viz. the growth potential of the Indian Council, is coming to fruition today. Even at that time we predicted that this council would grow until it reached the stage where all its members would be elected by Indians themselves, and where the council would discuss and have an interest in their own affairs to an increasing degree. We are accused of never consulting the people. Today the hon. member for Bezuidenhout repeated that we do not have confidence in these people. Do we have to keep on repeating it? Every day, not only on the part of the part of the hon. the Minister and his department, but also on the part of the Prime Minister, discussions and co-operation take place with the leaders and members of the Indian community. This is the declared policy of the NP. The more we do it, however, the more those hon. members say we do not. That is why I say the PFP has no vitality. They are not a unitary party made up of people of one mind and one heart. They are a conglomeration of people who have been grouped together as a result of different circumstances. I want to tell the hon. member for Musgrave that, like its predecessor, the PFP is not building human relations in South Africa, but breaking them down. During every discussion on matters concerning a colour group, the hon. members place us in a position where we must say what we have done. The hon. members accuse the NP of never having done anything, of not liking people of other colours and wanting to oppress them. Consequently we are obliged to prove the contrary every time. One reaches a stage where one becomes tired of this type of discussion. I think the Coloureds, the Blacks and the Indians are also tired of it. We as Whites stand here and argue. The hon. members of the PFP say how bad we are and how little we do, and we then have to react and almost boast of what we have done. Particularly in connection with the Indians, hon. members often force us to make a comparative analysis of the position of the Indians in Southern Africa, and their position in the rest of Africa. We do not want to do so. We do not want to remind the Indian community in South Africa of the events in Uganda, or the conditions in India. I am a descendant of Hollanders who came here 300 years ago, but I do not want to know what is happening in Holland every day. Hon. members force us, however, into this kind of uncomfortable debating situation, a situation that we have to put up with. Of course, the Opposition is fully entitled to criticize us, because we learn from criticism. The problem with that party, however, is that they do not have any alternative policy themselves. The hon. member for Umhlanga also pointed this out. The hon. member for Rondebosch was appointed a few years ago in order to head a commission of inquiry in this regard. Now they have a commission of inquiry once again, and if they come into power, they will ’phone Gatsha Buthelezi.

Order! The hon. member must discuss the Bill now.

Mr. Speaker, I shall come back to the Bill. True to what the NP promised, the Indian Council will become a fully elected council in terms of this Bill. Now that this council will be fully elected, I, as a member of another Parliament, another council in Southern Africa, want to say that we and they can achieve success with our respective councils only when the people elected to them, manage their affairs with the greatest possible sense of responsibility and balance, and with the greatest degree of knowledge of the South African situation.

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on having progressed so far already in his discussions, his meetings and contracts with the Indians. He and the members of the Indian Council can say that the National Party—and I think the hon. members of the NRP and the SAP, too, has full confidence in the fact that those people who will serve on that council, will serve their people and the broader Southern African interests to the best of their ability and true to the requirements of the oath which they swear.

Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to announce briefly that we in the SAP support this Bill wholeheartedly and welcome it. Today we saw the very strange phenomenon of the hon. member for Musgrave arguing about the Bill for half an hour, but at the end of his speech he nevertheless said that they support the Bill. On the other hand, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that there is little good that one could predict for this Bill. If there is so little good in it, why do they approve of it? Could it be that they are under an obligation and are afraid that they will encounter trouble somewhere if they do not support it? We are of the opinion that if discussions are held with the people as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked, a start must be made somewhere. We consider this Bill to be the start. In terms of this Bill the leaders will come forward and the opportunity is being created for holding discussions with the people in future when we have to decide on their fate. We feel the Indians of South Africa are being afforded the opportunity in this way to show that they can decide on the weal and woe of their own people. We trust and hope that they will use this opportunity to show the world that they are availing themselves of the opportunities being created for them, that they can be entrusted with more powers and more authority in the future and that they can look after the interests of their own people. We support this Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, I think the discussion so far can be described in a nutshell by saying that all the Opposition parties agree that it is a good Bill and that it is a necessary one. The point of departure of the different Opposition parties is, however, that their endorsement of the Bill must not be looked upon as approval of the Government’s constitutional proposals. In reply to a question by the hon. member for Umhlanga, the hon. member for Musgrave said that all other race groups should be represented in this Parliament. We can say without fear of contradiction that different groups are found in the Official Opposition and I believe there is just as little chance of other race groups co-operating in this Parliament, as there is for that party’s different groups to exist side by side in this Parliament. An interesting aspect of this debate is that the hon. member for Musgrave said frankly in a reply to a question by the hon. member for Umhlanga, that Coloureds, Indians and Blacks should be represented in this Parliament. In a shouted interjection, the hon. member for Bryanston said: “Their representatives must be here”. I wonder whether the hon. member for Musgrave can tell us today whether it is the policy of their party that the Indians, Blacks and Coloureds personally should be here in this Parliament or whether they should only be represented here.

Surely the Progs are their representatives!

Lorimer says “yes”.

They say “yes”. Now at least we know where we stand in that respect. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout raised two basic objections, objections which I feel have no basis. Firstly, he came up with the story that the problem already exists in this Parliament that we have large constituencies and that it is unfair that there should be 45 members on the Indian Council. I made some rough calculations and according to them, taking into consideration the 650 000 Indians in South Africa, the 45 representatives represent roughly 14 000 voters per constituency. This includes men, women and children. Therefore, that argument does not hold water at all in my opinion.

You do not understand. He means a geographic area.

Is that the point? Another matter that an intelligent member like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout raised here, is that he cannot understand why the Indian Council cannot be given the right to elect its own chairman. Either I am entirely stupid, or I do not understand, but I think clause 7 of the legislation that is before the House, states very clearly that they can in fact elect their own chairman. Therefore, that does not hold water as far as I am concerned.

I am pleased to support the South African Indian Council Amendment Bill. The legislation is a logical additional step in the constitutional development of the South African Indians. It is also a logical development and a step in the implementation of the constitutional proposals of the Government, which are still going to be presented to this House. This process of development began with the creation of the first South African Indian Council in 1964 which was established by means of administrative procedure at that stage. Then, as now, there was opposition, although much more than there is now. This shows that this step which is being taken by the Government, is a good one. In 1964 there was spontaneous reaction from the Indian leaders and the Indian community, and they accepted the task entrusted to them, with open hands. They came forward in order to carry out community services and serve their communities. That co-operation that was obtained from the leaders of the Indian community, encouraged the Government to pass the South African Indian Act by means of legislation four years later in 1968. This is legislation that provided for a statutory council to replace the first South African Indian Council. In 1972 the South African Indian Council Amendment Bill was passed. In this way the number of members of the Indian Council was extended from 25 to 30 and provision was made for the principle of elected members. Certain powers were also granted to the Indian Council in order to manage certain matters concerning the Indian community, for instance social welfare and education. It also provided for the delegation of administrative and executive functions to the Executive Committee either by the Minister, or by the Administrator, or by the Executive Committee of a province. The term of office of the second statutory Indian Council ended at the end of August 1974 and steps were taken to establish the new council on a partially elected and partially appointed basis. On 3 September 1974 it was announced by proclamation that the number of members was being increased. Provision was also made for the election of certain members. That election then took place on 6 November 1974. On that occasion, ten members were elected for Natal, four for the Transvaal and one for the Cape. In terms of section 2(1) of the S.A. Indian Council Act, 1968, 15 members were nominated to the Indian Council. At the moment the Department of Indian Affairs has already made a great deal of progress in drawing up a central voters’ roll for the Indians with a view to implementing the Government’s constitutional proposals. As we have already said, the Bill under discussion is a logical step forward as regards the procedure I have tried to sketch. The principles which are now being laid down in legislation, are generally accepted by hon. members of this House. I therefore do not believe that I need dwell on them further.

Then there is one more interesting aspect. In the light of what the hon. member for Umhlanga has said, viz. that they accept the Indian Council as a good one, I wonder what their policy is at this stage. The NRP inherited the policy of the old UP. At that time, in the ’forties, it was UP policy that Indians should be represented in this Parliament by three White members of Parliament. In the Senate they were represented by two, and in the provincial councils, by one member. I therefore wonder whether the hon. member for Umhlanga, or another hon. member of his party, wants to tell us today where they stand as regards this matter and what their policy actually is. I nevertheless support wholeheartedly this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I merely want to give a brief reply to the question the hon. member for Roodepoort put to us. If the hon. member listens carefully to what I am going to say, he will probably find it possible to understand the evolution of our policy. [Interjections.]

†Mr. Speaker, I think the essentials of this amending Bill have been expressed by hon. members who have taken part in the debate before me. However, in reinforcing the support of the NRP for this Bill, I believe it is necessary to high-light and to look again at a number of the essential principles being propounded here today.

Firstly, I believe that the hon. the Minister himself is probably more surprised than anybody else that the hon. member for Umhlanga has pointed out that the architect of this concept should have come from the old UP into the highest ranks of the NP to create an historical occasion in the evolutionary political development in South Africa. We should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on taking this very bold step.

I think it augurs well for the future that the hon. the Minister has decided, perhaps accidentally, that this historical evolutionary step which is being taken here today should coincide with the 50th anniversary of the South African flag. I think there is a certain amount of significance in the coincidence of these two dates. I think that what is taking place in this House today is really an historical occasion, not only in the South African context, but also in the broader context of Africa, and in all probability, in the context of the world-wide political restructuring which is so characteristic of the years in which we live. I think the only note which does not have the ring of true metal here today is that we found the disappointment of an Official Opposition without a policy. I think it is significant that this hon. Official Opposition finds itself in a dilemma which has been so clearly expressed by previous speakers on their side of the House. The step which is being taken in terms of this legislation is an important one, as the hon. member for Roodepoort has said. In passing, I may say that the hon. member will not get to know our policy if he is never here in the House. This step which is being taken is a logical step to change the Indian Council from a nominated body to an elected one. What is terribly important to us in this regard—it is also the main reason for our support of this legislation—is that it is a logical, evolutionary and peaceful step in the right direction in the field of political development in South Africa. It is consistent with the policy of this party, which is aimed at the devolution of power to those groups who are concerned about their own affairs. We believe that the devolution of power in South Africa is the correct way of creating an infrastructure for power participation on the part of all the ethnic groups in South Africa. We also believe that this is one of the first major steps which has been taken by this House in the development of what will ultimately become a federal political structure with a coincidental confederal structure in the Southern African context. We believe it is a correct evolutionary step which is consistent with the realities of South Africa and politics in Africa, inasmuch as it is the first time, to my knowledge, that a political structure is being developed in Africa which takes full cognizance of the plural nature of the society in which it is to operate. Furthermore, I should like to highlight the fact that for the first time in African history we are finding peaceful evolutionary change taking place in this respect. I repeat: We believe we are heralding a new era in the political dimensions relevant to the frustrations and problems of all the people in South Africa. We have heard today ample evidence of the support for this measure by the Indian community, the community which is most radically affected by this legislation. We have seen evidence of the fact that there is developing a political system, which is here in embryonic state, for the protection of minority rights, and this is again an historical first in the African context. We believe that as the evolution of this process continues, we will find that the building in of safeguards for minority rights will find fulfilment in this type of structure. Fourthly, and lastly, in giving our support to this measure, I should like to say, for the benefit of the hon. member for Roodepoort, that this party does believe in the recognition of the dignity and the value of all human beings who make up the society of South Africa. We believe that this step taken by the hon. the Minister with this amending legislation will provide one of the most important ingredients for self-respect and dignity, and will also be our most reliable bastion against communism in Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the debate we have been listening to this afternoon and last night, was very interesting. Because this Bill amends existing legislation, it was difficult to discuss the general principle, and hon. members had to confine themselves to a great extent to the details of the Bill. This sometimes made the discussion sound like a Committee Stage. I am not going to reply to all the points raised with regard to the particular clauses this afternoon; there will be an opportunity to do so during the Committee Stage. However, I want to refer to the most important points raised, and also say something in general at the beginning and end of my speech.

A few hon. members asked me whether this Bill was the result of discussions with the Indian leaders. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout in particular put that question to me. I want to say immediately that it is true that this Bill is the result of discussions with the Indian leaders. I submitted the draft legislation to the full Indian Council. They appointed a committee consisting of four members of the majority group and four members of the Reform Party, the minority group. In a meeting of the Indian Council they listened to my proposals and then came forward with their own ideas and counterproposals. Eventually unanimity was reached with regard to the principles of this legislation. In this regard I am thinking, for instance, of the number of members, the fact that they will be elected, the fact that the executive will be formed from the majority, and the fact that there will be appointed or nominated members. We were in complete agreement on this. There are minor details which were not specifically submitted to them and to which I cannot hold them. This measure was read for the First Time on the 17th of this month, i.e. May. Therefore it has been available for 14 days, but no protest or complaints have been received from the Indians. Their Executive is meeting in Durban today. I think they also met yesterday. I have asked my department to establish whether they have made any representations to have anything amended. The message which I have received, is that we have heard from Durban that the Executive Committee of the S.A. Indian Council had a comprehensive discussion on the Bill today. They are very satisfied and also accept the appointed members, as they have already done. Their argument is that it could be of some assistance to involve knowledgeable people. As a result of this message from Durban, I can state with absolute confidence that I am bringing this Bill to Parliament with the full support of all the members of the S.A. Indian Council, including the Reform Party, a party which is usually very easily and readily critical in the extreme of the actions of the majority and also of the actions of the Department of Indian Affairs. Therefore I think that that little matter should be clear now.

Then there is also something else which I want to say, and in so doing I want to associate myself with the words of the hon. member for Durban North and also with what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana emphasized, and that is that this Bill is a tribute from this Parliament to the responsibility and ability of the Indian community of South Africa. They have had their own council for a number of years now. Initially it was a fully nominated council and later one of which half the members were nominated and half were elected by a kind of electoral college. We are convinced that, by virtue of our experience of the way they are using their own institution, their own council, they deserve to have it become a fully elected council and be constituted in the same way as this Parliament is constituted. They will consequently be able to elect their executive authority in the same way.

Then I come to a further point. A number of members have asked me—right at the outset the hon. member for Musgrave— whether this is a forerunner of the new dispensation which will, according to expectations, be put into effect in this House next year. The proposals which I took to the Indian Council, I necessarily had to take there—for we are dealing with realities—with the new dispensation in mind. Here I am trying to create a model council which, should the new dispensation come, can be adapted to it as easily as possible, not as far as its powers and other details are concerned, but certainly as far as elections and the delimitation of constituencies are concerned to enable elections to take place. Without repeating the whole process of registration of voters and delimitation, it will be possible to fit this Indian Council into the new dispensation.

In reply to the point raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—a good point—I want to say that this Bill does not deal with the powers of the Indian Council. The powers of the Indian Council will be dealt with when this council is integrated with the new dispensation. That will be the right time, the proper time to do this for all three Parliaments. The dispensation will consist of a State President and three Parliaments, which will form the sovereign authority in South Africa. That time will still come.

Now I want to take a brief look at the more important points raised by hon. members.

In a very interesting and illuminating speech, the hon. member for Musgrave asked why there are nominated members. The idea of a nominated member of the Parliament of South Africa has existed since 1910. It is part of our tradition. A member is not nominated by an outsider, but by his own people, by elected members of the provincial council in the case of the Senate. The position has always been, since the days before we became a Republic, that the governing party nominates eight members of the Senate. Then a number of members are elected by an electoral college consisting of members of the House of Assembly and of the provincial council concerned. We are not thinking of a separate Senate for the Indians when they get their Parliament. Nor will there be a Senate for the White people in future. We want to retain the fine, sound and well-tried principle which has been in operation since 1910, i.e. that a number of members be nominated by the State President on the recommendation of the leader of the majority group in Parliament and that certain members are also appointed through a form of election by own members. It is a good system. It is a system which is also found in the recent constitutions of other countries, for example West Germany. It is a system which enables the parties to afford people who were unlucky during the election and lost, but who have proved that they can make a first-class contribution to Parliament, the opportunity to come to Parliament. The Opposition or the governing party may have a person with outstanding qualities, a man who can make an exceptional contribution to the politics of his country, but who, for some or other reason, could not survive the frenzy, the hustle and the bustle of an election. In terms of this system such a man can be appointed. That is why we are doing this. In many respects it will make Parliament more representative and it will also enable people who would otherwise perhaps not be able to come to Parliament, but who could render good service there, to be brought in. This is part of the tradition of South Africa which we are preserving for the Indians and which we will also be preserving for the Coloureds and Whites in the new dispensation.

The hon. member also wanted to know why details, for example in respect of the oath, are being prescribed. He wanted to know why there are so many details in this Bill. Just as the British Parliament originally had to pass an Act in Westminster to establish our Parliament, an Act which also went into details—because this was the only legislative body which was competent to do so—this Parliament is, at the moment, the only authorized legislative body to establish an Indian Council. That is why we are doing this. I take it that as they make progress and gain confidence and experience, they will want to amend their own rules and will want to amend other measures as well. They will have every right to do so. However, they have to start somewhere and it has to be with the body which has the authority and power to do so, i.e. this Parliament.

Several hon. members, including the hon. member for Musgrave, put questions as to why the State President has to nominate members and has to appoint the leader of the majority party as head of the Executive and why the chairman of the Executive has to recommend the other members of the Executive to the State President so as to be appointed by him. This is our practice. We are amending the Westminster system, but we are not abandoning the Westminster system completely. There are extremely important aspects of the Westminster system which we shall retain in the new dispensation. In fact, I hope that we will be retaining those aspects for a very long time to come.

One of those is, for example, the principle of responsible Government, the principle that the Government is responsible to the majority in Parliament. Should they lose the support of the majority, they must resign. This is one of the principles which is an integral part of the Westminster system and which we will probably never abandon in South Africa. It accords with our nature and with our concept of democracy. The same applies to the matter we are dealing with at present. It is the practice in South Africa, and therefore we shall retain it as such. I hope that we shall continue to retain it for a long time to come. The Head of State acts conventionally in these matters in the case of the Mother Parliament in Britain, but statutorily in South Africa. However, he acts on advice of the leader of the majority party in the House. This is all we are introducing here.

Can he refuse to accept the leader’s advice?

I believe that the conventions existing in other Parliaments, will inevitably apply in this case as well. Should the State President, perhaps in the most exceptional of circumstances, something which one can scarcely foresee, refuse to accept the advice of the leader of the majority in a Parliament, he will immediately find himself in tremendous confrontation with that Parliament. Therefore I am not worried about this, for I think it is extremely unlikely that anything like this will ever happen, as unlikely as it is that it will ever happen in Britain, where it is not even defined in law.

The hon. member for Umhlanga—who to my mind was very refreshing in his approach—made a political speech of a type we have not often heard from the Opposition during this session. I want to thank him for that. It was sparkling, lively and intelligent, and aggressive where necessary.

†He indicated that we now had some recognition of structural pluralism in our Constitution. That may be true. But structural pluralism can mean many things to many people. He knows what it means to him and I know what it means to me, and on that basis we are in agreement although it may be that we do not have the same idea of what it means. He was concerned that the system of nominating members, partly by the leader of the majority party and partly on the basis of proportional representation, may result in a party with a small majority being unduly strengthened. That is perfectly true. It can happen, but at the same time it is good because a stable government is perhaps the greatest asset that any country or community can have. Once the people have given their support to a particular party, even though that support may be small, that party then has the duty to govern the community or the country concerned. In that case it is just as well if there is machinery in the Constitution to make it possible for that party to do his job efficiently and effectively. I therefore do not find anything objectionable in the fact that the majority party will find its position strengthened against the minority, provided it has achieved its majority at a properly conducted election.

*The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked whether this is an agreed measure. I have already replied to that. He also asked whether it would serve as the basis for the Indian Parliament as well. I have also replied to that. He went on to complain that the constituencies would be too big. It is possible that the constituencies will be very big, but surely such a state of affairs is not unknown in South Africa. In 1936 the hon. member supported the UP when Native representation was abolished and three Native representatives were appointed for the whole of the Cape Province. He supported that measure, and it worked. The hon. member was still a member of the UP at a later stage, when the NP abolished Coloured representation and when the Coloureds were given four members here to represent the whole of the Cape Province.

My old constituency was the biggest in the country.

He never complained…

I am not complaining, but am merely asking that the system be investigated.

I cannot understand why the hon. member is suddenly so worried. There will not be four, but 40 members. The point which the hon. member must realize is that approximately 5/6ths of the Indians in South Africa are concentrated in Natal. The majority of the constituencies will therefore be there, and in comparison with our constituencies, those constituencies will be rather small, in fact much smaller than in the case of the 20 White representatives of that province. In the Transvaal and in the Cape Province it so happens—with exceptions, but not significant exceptions—that the Indians are concentrated in the urban areas.

Therefore the size of the constituencies will also be completely manageable there. I know the hon. member raised this matter in all sincerity, and my reply to him will make him realize that this will not create any special problems.

He raised two matters of significance. In the first place he was worried because we used the terms “the leader of the majority party” in the Bill. Unlike America, where they speak of “plurality in majority”, this concept can have two meanings, for the majority party could be the party with the greatest number of supporters, but not necessarily with more supporters than all the other parties together. I see the hon. member has placed an amendment on the Order Paper and if he would word it correctly—I am sure he will do so—we shall accept that amendment so that this uncertainty may be removed from the legislation.

The hon. member has also pointed out that at present it seems strange that so much say and so much authority in the Indian Parliament is being granted to the State President while the Indian community has no share in this election. I want to concede that it is a basic weakness that the Head of State is also part of that Parliament. A Parliament, i.e. the legislative authority, always consists of a Head of State—this is still the case today— plus the councils forming Parliament. The weakness is that the Head of State is not yet being elected by the Indian community as well today. However, it is a temporary phenomenon and, as hon. members know, an electoral college will be formed in terms of the new dispensation in which the three permanent groups of the S.A. population will be represented. Therefore, the State President will be elected by Whites, Coloureds and Indians. As I have said already, the Indian Council is still in a transition period and will still have to be adjusted to and fitted into the new dispensation.

Then I should also like to express my sincere thanks to each hon. member on the Government side who participated in the debate. They met the ideological objections of the Opposition head-on and furnished very thorough replies. They were also able to reply to the details and it was clear that they spoke with knowledge and conviction. What I found most heart-warming of all was the fact that they have great expectations of the new dispensation which will be established in South Africa in the near future. It is my fervent wish, as it is theirs, that the new dispensation will really, not only in name, but in essence, become a new dispensation for South Africa.

†I would now like to come back to my hon. friend, the hon. member for Musgrave, and when I call “my hon. friend”, it is not just a formality. I want to object to some of the language—although it was parliamentary —that he used and to some of the suggestions that he made in his opening speech last night. He persisted in referring to us as being abnormal, as being an “abnormal” party and an “abnormal” Government. He further persisted in referring to his own party as the “normal” people, the “normal” party in this House. It is strange that a man who is a member of an organization with only 17 members in a Parliament of 165, can look upon his group as being normal and the more than 100 Nat. MP members as being abnormal. [Interjections.] It really puzzles me, and, what is more, it makes us look at any human society. There are always small minorities in a society which that society, in its own defence, has to isolate, very much like the PFP is isolated in their little comer over there. These minorities are in fact deviations from the norms of that society. They are the “abnormal.” In every country of the world institutions abound where the abnormal are confined as a minority. The interesting aspect is that every inmate in those institutions looks upon himself as “normal” and sees the entire society outside as being “abnormal”! This indicates to me that Parliament is, in fact, a microcosm of South African society, which means that it is a good Parliament, as it should in fact be.

Question agreed to.

Bill read for a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, the main argument and discussion on the registration of political parties will take place when clause 8 is put. However, clause 1 does in fact introduce the concept, by virtue of the definition of a “political party”, of the registration of all political parties wishing to take part in the democratic process. If one considers what this definition means, one sees that a political party which does not register on the basis set out in clause 8 will, in fact, not be recognized as a political party in terms of the Act as a whole, nor in terms of several electoral procedures and services which are provided to political parties through the electoral office. So, although registration of a political party is not compulsory, failure to register will entail serious handicaps. I do not believe the mere act of the registration of a political party is necessarily wrong. However, the proposed method of registration and the structure required for registration in terms of the provisions of this Bill, and also the consequences which flow from registration in terms of clause 9 of the Bill, cannot and, in fact, do not find favour with us for reasons which we shall explain at length when we come to clauses 8 and 9. So without becoming involved in any deep argument at this stage on the merits of registration or otherwise, let me say that I believe it is correct that we be consistent at this early point in stating that it is our feeling that this clause should not be passed.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sandton has quite rightly pointed out that we can argue later about the merits of registration. I therefore want to be brief now and merely say that unfortunately I cannot agree with the hon. member.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister will remember that I mentioned, at the very beginning of my Second Reading speech, the fact that we hoped that obstinacy would not prevail in the light of logic. If I remember correctly the hon. the Minister retorted that he hoped he would find reciprocation of that statement. I should like to demonstrate the bona fides of this side of the House at this point, because during the Second Reading debate two arguments impressed me.

The first argument was brought forward by the hon. member for Durban Point. He stated that while he understood the motivation for the amendment to clause 2 which I had on the Order Paper—an amendment which is aimed at reducing the intervals between general registrations from 10 to seven years—he felt that it would not be wise to have a registration so soon after a general election and so long before the next general election. I think that was a sensible and correct point. In his reply to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister also made a point which I think was reasonable. He stated quite clearly that he was having difficulty with the proposed new system and that he required time—in fact as much as would be necessary—to establish the best procedure for a new system for introducing voters’ lists. He told us that he had had discussions with local authorities and that he was considering the question of decentralization of the voters’ rolls, a procedure which would take a certain amount of time. I think that argument is a valid one which should not be ignored. Accordingly I shall not move my amendment as printed on the Order Paper, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister to accept the hon. member for Durban Central’s amendment which he will move presently, because in that amendment provision is made for a general registration to be undertaken in a shorter time than the ten years envisaged by the hon. the Minister. In particular it covers the question of the next general election, which was the main question of complaint of this side of the House in relation to this clause.

Come and join us!

No, I am merely trying to establish that in the face of logic, obstinacy in these benches will not prevail. That is all. I think that hon. member’s amendment is perhaps better worded than mine. It is quite clear, however, that the basic problem does remain, and that is that the new system, which it was the intention to introduce by July 1978, is in fact not feasible at this time. The main complaint, acknowledging that the new system cannot soon be brought to bear, is that it is folly to allow the old system to run itself down. At Second Reading the argument was used that at no stage would the system of registration of voters be allowed to run itself down because the political parties become involved and because they themselves see to it that the voters’ rolls are kept up to date in the constituencies in which they are interested. It was also mentioned that certain work was to be done by the electoral office to ensure that the voters’ rolls are kept up to date. However, this only scratches the surface of the problem of a proper registration of constituencies because, as we who have been in politics for some little while all know, only a properly conducted general registration of voters can, in fact, clean up the voters’ rolls and create a basis from which to start. I believe that if the hon. the Minister accepts the amendment which I hope the hon. member for Durban Central will move, the method suggested by the Select Committee when it sat, should be used, and that is that the general registration period be lengthened and that only people who are not on the voters’ roll be registered. In other words, one does not re-register people whose names appear on the roll and still live at the same addresses. However, we feel that this task should not be neglected altogether. It cannot be argued that the rolls are in a good state; they are not in a good state. There has been no re-registration since 1972. For all the reasons used at Second Reading, namely the question of the independence of the two homelands, East Griqualand, the depopulation of the platteland, the growth of certain peri-urban constituencies and Walvis Bay, and if this is allowed to continue it will certainly have a very undesirable result on the fair holding of an election if it is held before 1983.

Let us assume the next election takes place when it has to take place in terms of the Constitution, namely some time in 1983. If the new revised system does come into play in 1982, a broad spectrum of constituencies throughout South Africa will still be very seriously affected, because the political parties will have to have a period of time in which to adjust their own methods of operation and to allow or promote a new vision of how to operate amongst the public. I mentioned the universities, and some hon. members were slightly derisive. However, I am sure that hon. members will understand that when a man enters his address in his Book of Life, he does not enter his university or college address; he enters his home address. People who apply for their Books of Life through the population registration register enter their home addresses on those documents. When the Book of Life documents are used to formulate a voters’ roll, virtually all the students registered at all the universities will once again find themselves registered at their home addresses, and this will result in a major depopulation of certain constituencies. Therefore the purpose of the amendment which I would have moved, or which I hope the hon. member for Durban Central will move, is not to hinder the hon. the Minister, but to ensure that the rolls are as up to date as possible if an election takes place before 1983. I realize and recognize the department’s manpower problems. The hon. the Minister will have help and advice from this side of the House if he seeks it in regard to his and the department’s administrative problems.

We shall assist to the best of our limited ability in trying to solve those problems.

The hon. the Minister, however, must try to help us as well, and not only us. He must also help the electoral process by allowing a proper registration in the constituencies before the next general election. I believe that the amendment I would have moved is the safest one but perhaps not the best. However, I do ask the hon. the Minister to accept the amendment if moved by the hon. member for Durban Central.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to say that one can quite appreciate the concern which the hon. member for Sandton feels about the condition of the voters’ rolls. The fact is, however, that the worse the voters’ rolls are, the more incomplete they are, and the more it reflects on the governing party—whether it be at a by-election or at a general election. The party that suffers is the governing party, the party which gets the most votes. I do not think there is any party in this House which is more enthusiastic about this and more desirous that we should obtain the best voters’ rolls as soon as possible. It is clear, however, that at the present stage, we cannot simply accept the population register as the basis for our voters’ roll. I have personally approached the hon. the Minister, knowing what the viewpoint of the subcommittee was, to make representations to him and to request that while he has the opportunity, other things, apart from the population register, should also be taken into consideration—other means of creating a decent, proper voters’ roll, the best we can get. I requested him to take the time to investigate the systems we had seen overseas, so that we can have the very best. For that reason, the hon. the Minister agreed. But that does not mean that we have to wait until 1982. I therefore do not know why we should split hairs with an amendment changing the period from 10 to nine years. What will be achieved thereby? The fact remains that the hon. the Minister has already agreed to the request by the hon. member for Sandton, that there should be general surveys. In his statement issued during the debate on his Vote, he stated that he needed time to investigate certain matters, for example periodical general surveys of voters. That will be done if it is essential. I can therefore not understand why we are quibbling about matters on which we are all agreed. The hon. member for Durban Central and his leader both agree that we need time. What does he want to accomplish now with all this bickering about changing ten into nine? In my view, a period of nine years is too long. We can do it sooner. I think the hon. the Minister will give hon. members the assurance that his department is just as enthusiastic as hon. members to do it in the shortest time, because in any case, it is the Government which will be hardest hit if the voters’ rolls are not in order. I therefore request hon. members opposited that we should rather fight about other things over which we can fight in principle, and leave these things as they are so that we can do a proper and decent “job” while we are dealing with it.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot accede to the request by the hon. Chief Whip. It does not concern me whether or not the Government is the suffering party. In fact, it does not matter to me which party is the suffering party. All I am concerned about is the best and easiest way in which we can enable voters to exercise their democratic vote with the least inconvenience.

I therefore, move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I must say that I have every sympathy with the viewpoint of the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister has promised that in the years to come, he will do everything in his power to ensure that there is a changeover to the new system, and that everything should run smoothly and in an orderly fashion. During the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister undertook to do that as well. He has also furnished us with various other items of information. However, the question is still what is going to happen if the department does not succeed in carrying out its excellent administrative intentions within the next four years? What will happen then, especially if a general election is pending? As far as I am concerned, it will be an impossible task to have a general election while the voters’ roll is in a still poorer condition than it is at the moment.

During the recent election, the condition of the voters’ roll was already deplorable. Within a matter of another four or five years, the voters’ rolls will be in a still poorer condition. However, we are trying to be fair. The hon. leader of the NRP is very enthusiastic that we should give the new system the maximum possible chance. But now we are faced with the problem that 1982 will probably be the year in which the next general election will take place. If we have to find out in 1982 that it is too late, we will be saddled with a tremendous problem. That is why we specifically ask for a period of nine years. A period of nine years will bring us to 1981.

I must admit that I appreciate the reasonable standpoint adopted by the hon. member for Sandton. The hon. member was actually first with his amendment—an amendment in which he proposed a period of seven years. However, I could appreciate the problem in that connection. If we were to adopt the period of seven years, that would bring us to 1979. That would mean that we should not be giving the hon. the Minister and his department sufficient opportunity to give effect to all their good intentions. That is why we moved that a period of nine years should be the absolute maximum. If it appears, after nine years, that things are not going to work out, it would only be responsible thing to realize that the last stage has been reached in which proper attention can be given to the matter. If things go well, however, there will be no further problems.

I just hope there is not going to be another early election.

†Nevertheless, I can feel it in my bones—it is only according to the law of averages—that for once the NP will allow a full period of five years to pass before calling an election… [Interjections.] Anyway, I therefore feel that nine years is quite a safe period. That will put us in a position in which we will be able to fight an election, not to the advantage of any political party in particular, but to the greatest advantage and to the convenience of the electorate. That is why I moved my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. the Minister replied to the Second Reading debate last night, he objected to my having ostensibly—as he put it—played off his predecessor against him. I just want to assure the hon. the Minister that I had no such intention. Only, I should not like to see the new hon. Minister—and entirely in good faith—make the same errors of judgment his predecessor made in connection with the problems relating to the compilation of a voters’ list on the basis of the population register. My reservations in connection with clause 2 of the Bill were strengthened by the statement which the hon. the Minister himself made. In his statement, he said—

In that statement, the Minister gave no indication of the time factor. He gave no indication that the solution of this problem was regarded as urgent. Only after this work in respect of the population register has been completed, will he decide—in consultation with the political parties—what system is best for the compilation of a new voter’s list. That is our problem. We should like to have an assurance from the Minister that he is aware of the urgency of a decision about what system will be used to compile the voters’ lists in future.

†The previous Minister, in all good faith— it was not a question of bad faith—said to the political parties that the rolls were going to be compiled on the basis of the population register, and that millions of rand would be saved. I want to quote what he said at the time. Addressing himself to the parties, he said—

In other words, he said to the people: “Do not go and fill in RV1 forms. Our request is: Stop filling in RV1s.” That is the position we are in at the moment. We cannot have a situation where on the one hand we are asked to stop filling in RV1 forms, while there is an amendment in the Bill which indicates that a general registration may not take place for another four years. We would like from the hon. the Minister some assurance that he accepts that a decision in respect of this system is a matter of urgency. He must give us an assurance that he will come back to the House next year and say, by way of a report or during the discussion of his Vote, how far they have got in this connection. He must tell us whether he has consulted with the parties. In any event, he must not wait until the population register is completed before he decides on a new system of registration. So, what we want from the Minister is a declaration of intent which will reflect an awareness of the urgency of the situation. We cannot have a situation where these two systems run concurrently for much longer. I gathered that the Minister said yesterday that the parties must go back and get the people to fill in RV1 forms. Mr. Chairman, should we be encouraging everybody to fill in population registration forms and to furnish their changes of address, and simultaneously get everybody to fill in RV1 forms and changes of address in respect of those RV1 forms? In other words, we are being asked to get the public to do a double job so that both systems can be fed simultaneously into the department’s computer. We believe that if one wants a response from the public, one has to say one thing or the other: “We are going for the population register,” or “We are going for a different system.” We want to ask the Minister to give us some assurance that he is going to apply his mind to this system and that he is going to give a clear-cut directive to the public as to what they should be doing at the present time. Should they be filling in RV1 forms, should they be applying for Books of Life, or should they be doing both of these things concurrently? It is in this spirit that the hon. member for Sandton had an amendment on the Order Paper, and it is in this spirit too that we accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central. There must be some indication of an awareness of the need for clarity and urgency in respect of a new electoral registration system.

Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying of course that as Minister of the Interior, I shall be under the greatest pressure for a voters’ roll which is complete and correct, not so much from the Opposition parties, but from my own party. It is also obvious that I shall do everything in my power for the sake of all the parties to find a solution as soon as possible to the problems which we have with the voters’ lists and the population register. I hasten to give an assurance to the hon. Leader of the Opposition in this connection. If the statement I made during the debate on my Vote, is ambiguous, then I want to correct it very clearly now by stating that I will not wait until the population register is completed to my satisfaction before I direct my attention to a system which will work 100%. Our basic problem with the population register is that the entire system will work well up to the stage where it is complete. We have no basic problem with that, except that there is a backlog of work, but that we can make up. The basic problem is, however, what does one do from there on. Then the serious problems include the question of changes of address. I reported during the debate on my Vote that our backlog as far as that was concerned was already a quarter of a million. I want to state quite frankly that this backlog is becoming more serious by the day, and unless we do something about it, it will have assumed dangerous proportions by this time next year.

I therefore give hon. members the assurance that I will do everything in my power to put the system in order, that we shall retain the population register, but that I will try to tighten up the system of the updating of the population register and, consequently, also the voters’ lists, inter alia, by giving serious attention to the decentralization—not only decentralization to the local government, but also to regional representatives. Let me give an example. It seems to me to be far more sensible that a person should submit his application for an identity document to a regional representative. That regional representative must then complete a card for that person and see to it that the application form is properly completed, instead of the application form going direct to head office, as is now the case, and head office being saddled with thousands and thousands of incomplete applications. I want to give the assurance to the hon. members who have spoken, that I will do everything in my power to put the system in order within a minimum period of time. In the meantime, however, we must improve our voters’ lists, and the only way in which that can be done in the meantime, is to complete RV. l cards. In this connection, I want to make an appeal to political parties to assist me. I am not acquainted with the technical details of this particular computer, but my information is that the RV. l system works separately. In other words, if we now complete a number of RV.1 cards, it is not going to cause a further bottleneck in the population register system. If hon. members will therefore assist me with the RV.1 cards, we can to a great extent—or at least to a reasonable extent—put our voters’ lists in order as far as that is concerned, and if there were then to be a snap election, we should not have to encounter the same problems as those which we encountered last year. As I have said, ten years is the maximum period. I shall, of course, feel happy if I can issue a proclamation for a general registration within nine years, or even within eight years for that matter. Therefore I am not prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central in respect of the nine-year period.

I now come to the wording of his amendment on the shorter period to ensure that it will precede the election of the seventh Parliament. In that connection, I should just like to say that the decision to prorogue Parliament and to call a general election, is the prerogative of the State President, and that this cannot be made subject to a prior general registration of voters. Nor is the motion of the hon. member feasible in practice, for how must the Department of the Interior know when there will be a general election so that it can have a general registration of voters before the election? In view of all these circumstances, I request hon. members to trust the department as far as this is concerned, and to co-operate in establishing a better system and a better voters’ roll.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, we will support this clause, but I have two questions I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. This clause relates to the question of registered persons living in one of the independent homelands. The first question I want to ask is the following: Will the people living in independent homelands be a factor in the loading and unloading of seats and will the geographic area of the homelands where these voters are based be taken into consideration when determining the extent of the special area seats? I now come to the second question I should like to put. It would seem to us that the registration of the voters in those areas is not an on-going process. The question therefore is: Will the voters’ roll be kept up to date as regards the death of any of the voters living in those areas because presumably their deaths will not be recorded in the Republic of South Africa? If the hon. the Minister does not have an instant answer to those questions—and I do not necessarily expect him to have answers to those questions immediately—I would be grateful if he would supply the answers to those questions in due course.

Mr. Chairman, the names on the voters’ roll will affect the loading and deloading constituencies in the normal way. We have an agreement with the independent homelands to supply us with the necessary details in respect of deaths, etc.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether, as regards loading and deloading, the hon. the Minister has taken into account the change in the areas of special area seats as a result of this provision in the Bill?

Mr. Chairman, I shall have to furnish the hon. member with a reply to this at a later stage. I shall furnish the necessary details later on.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, this clause contains a provision which lengthens the period between the proclamation of an election and nomination day. We will support this provision, but I think it must be read in conjunction with clause 9 of the Bill which is, of course, the disputed part of the Bill dealing with the acquisition of 300 signatures. The point that was made at Second Reading, and I think that must be made here briefly without argument, is that this provision allows the people who are not registered, i.e. independents, and political parties which have no representation in any of the provinces or Parliament, only 23 days to obtain those 300 signatures. If one takes Sundays into account—and I assume most political parties do not collect signatures on Sundays—that will probably only allow 20 days for this to take place. I just wish to point out that if this provision is proceeded with and is not amended—I refer to the 300 signatures—the period involved, though we welcome the lengthening of it, will in our view be too short to allow a reasonable time for independents and for the small parties to collect their signatures. The argument was that it would take at least five visits in many areas to enable a party to persuade one person to publicly put his signature to a nomination. I must therefore warn that this provision, despite its leavening of the procedure, will nonetheless assist in a later provision in militating against new political parties seeing the light of day. It will also militate against independents taking part in elections. The answer lies in two areas, and perhaps even in three. One method is that this period could be lengthened even further, but I do not think that is a desirable thing to take place between proclamation day and election day. The other method is to allow the 300 signatures to become a much smaller number, or to do away with the requirement completely. The third way is to allow a person who is collecting such signatures to collect them over a longer period of time. However, I want to warn at this point …

Order!

Has my time expired, Mr. Chairman?

Order! The hon. member’s time has not expired but what he is saying is not relevant to this clause.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 9, in line 33, to omit all the words after the first “chief” up to and including “officer” in line 34 and to substitute:

1. (2) on page 9, in line 41, to omit “as well as” and to substitute “and, if any,”;
2. (3) on page 13, in line 30, to omit all the words after “chief” up to and including the first “and” in line 32 and to substitute:

Mr. Chairman, I put this motion in terms of my undertaking also to accommodate other parties in respect of the denomination of the executive officers of the parties.

Mr. Chairman, firstly I want to react to the amendments moved by the hon. the Minister. These amendments were placed on my desk approximately three to five minutes ago. As the hon. the Minister is aware, I have some 11 amendments on the Order Paper. The three amendments moved by the hon. the Minister radically affect the 11 amendments which I have moved. I therefore find it very difficult, at such short notice, to correlate those aspects of what the hon. the Minister has included which may be helpful to my amendments, with what he has not included.

He accepts your principles.

Having read the hon. the Minister’s amendments very briefly, however, I think that they are acceptable and I assume this debate will not proceed for longer than a few moments. Therefore I will not move amendments (1) and (6) printed in my name on the Order Paper. These amendments relate to a language issue, and as the hon. the Minister now knows—and he obviously did not know this before the Bill was published— there is no such thing as a chief leader, a chief secretary and a chief executive officer in English. The term is, in fact, leader or national leader. He has incorporated this wording in the amendment that he has moved. The amendment recognizes that fact and the issue is therefore accepted. My amendments Nos. (2), (3) and (7), now amendments Nos. (1), (2) and (5), are related to the structuring of the party itself. In this respect it was necessary, in terms of the provisions of the Bill, to have provincial offices designated, to have provincial office bearers designated and to have them sign documents. The argument that I would place before the hon. the Minister is that all parties are not structured on a provincial basis as is, for instance, the NP. All parties do not have a provincial office and they may be divided into regions which are totally separate. Accordingly I shall move these amendments as I am not quite certain, at this moment in time, whether the amendment which the hon. the Minister has moved directly affects that. I therefore move amendments Nos. (1), (2) and (5), as follows—

1. (1) On page 9, in lines 36 to 39, to omit paragraph (ii);
2. (2) on page 9, in line 41, to omit all the words after “party” up to and including “party” in line 44;
3. (5) on page 13, in line 32, to omit all the words after “officer” up to and including “officer” in line 34;

The benefit that will flow from this is that it will then at least be acceptable in textual form in so far as the general structure of parties is concerned.

My amendments Nos. (4) and (5), now amendments Nos. (3) and (4), relate to fees that are to be paid on registration and to annual subscriptions. The amendments propose both to reduce the initial fee and to delete the annual subscription. Our feeling here is that the amount should be an arbitrary figure. I am not going to argue unduly about it but we feel that R300 is quite sufficient for an initial registration fee. We can therefore not understand why it is necessary that an annual subscription should be paid to the electoral office to enable a party to retain its registration. I simply cannot see the reasoning or the necessity for that. I therefore move amendments Nos. (3) and (4), as follows—

1. (3) On page 11, in line 33, to omit “five hundred rand” and to substitute “three hundred rands”;
2. (4) on page 11, in lines 34 to 40, to omit subsection (2);

I now also move amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11, now amendments Nos. (6), (7), (8) and (9), as follows—

1. (6) On page 13, in lines 40 to 45, to omit paragraph (b);
2. (7) on page 13, after line 45, to insert:

1. (2) In the event of a dispute arising within a political party in regard to the dissolution or proposed dissolution of such party, the chief electoral officer shall only accept as notice of dissolution as duly certified copy of a resolution passed at a properly constituted meeting of the national congress of such party in terms of which the dissolution of the party was agreed upon by a majority vote of the delegates attending such congress.

1. (8) on page 13, in lines 46 to 50, to omit subsection (2);
2. (9) on page 13, in lines 51 to 65, and on page 15, in lines 1 to 14, to omit subsection (3).

In this respect the Bill provides that a party’s registration is cancelled if the fees are not paid and it also provides that a party’s registration is cancelled when notification is received from a fairly large number of officers. This is once again, to my mind, based on the Government party structure. In the Official Opposition’s structure, however, the supreme body is the national congress of the party. It is not the provincial congress, the leader, the chief executive officer or a secretary. The supreme body in the PFP is, in fact, the national congress which has the power to instruct its leadership, its caucus and the supreme policy-making body of the party. We therefore feel that cognizance should be taken of the national congress. Amendment No. 7, which I have moved, allows that if a dispute arises—this could happen as a result of dissolution—the say of the national congress of the party will be final. Amendments Nos. (6), (7) and (8) relate to the cancellation of registration if the subscriptions are not paid. We do not agree with the payment of these subscriptions and therefore we do not agree with the right of cancellation. [Interjections.] I shall sit down in a moment. I think I have moved all the amendments, and there is only one further matter, relating to the principle of the clause itself, which I shall discuss when I have the chance to speak again.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, before I officially move the adjournment of the House, I should like to associate myself with the announcement you made earlier today. Since tomorrow will be a very special day to us as a Parliament, because it will be exactly 50 years ago that our national flag was hoisted for the first time above this building, I should like in a few words to pay a fitting tribute to our national flag on this 50th anniversary of its first hoisting. It has been a stormy time, and the flag which was created then has become the symbol of unity and nationhood to all of us.

With a view to the flag hoisting ceremony of 31 May 1928 the late Senator C. J. Langenhoven had written his improved flag song as early as 25 April 1927. Dr. F. J. Joubert of Paarl composed the music for this song. In that way we also received together with the flag, which became the symbol of our nationhood, a moving song expressing in beautiful words the feeling which exists for that flag.

It is interesting to note what some of the eminent members of this hon. House said about the flag at the time. This is what the then Minister charged with the introduction of the Flag Bill said on that occasion—

Those were the words of the late Dr. Malan. The late Gen. Smuts, referring to the flag, stated—

C. J. Langenhoven himself described the flag in the flag song as—

We are lucky in that Langenhoven was also able to write the English text of our flag song, in which the tribute he pays to our flag is equally fervent. One is grateful that Parliament was able, by the good offices of the late Miss Sarah Goldblatt, to declare both the words and the music of the flag song the property of the nation in 1974. I think it is fitting that that should have occurred.

†Parliament through the years not only set an example to honour our national flag, but also encouraged the public to do so in various ways. I feel convinced that Parliament as a whole will gladly join the nation to commemorate this great occasion of 31 May 1928. Tomorrow we shall look back in pride to another 50 years of achievement in the history of the building of a nation.

Mr. Speaker, I now move—

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has afforded me, as the most senior member on this side of the House, and as that member of Parliament who in 1954, proposed that South Africa should have one flag and one national anthem only, the privilege of paying tribute to our flag on behalf of the Official Opposition.

Not everybody knows that the first hoisting of our flag in the world took place at an international conference in Havana, the capital of Cuba. That was two months before it was officially hoisted above this Parliamentary building, on 31 May 1928. The enthusiastic ambassador responsible for that, was the late Mr. Eric Louw. I think it should be a matter of pride to us that on the one occasion our flag flew in Cuba, it was hoisted there as a symbol of peace, friendship and international co-operation. In the light of what is happening in Africa at the moment one can only hope that the day will come when the flag of Cuba will not fly on our borders as a banner of war and imperialism, but also as one of peace and friendship.

Our flag was born out of discord. There was discord on the question of whether we should have a flag of our own at all. There was discord about its colour, its composition, whether it should be our only flag and whether it should remain our flag in its present form. For that reason it has often in its history been called the flag of strife. It has, however, been a flag of strife which, remarkably enough, has always won the battles fought about it. Tomorrow we celebrate the day when a full 50 years will have passed since it first became the main symbol of our independence above this Parliament building. It has stood the test of half a century in a country which is politically only 68 years old. What the future holds in store for us, nobody can say for sure; what we do know, is that we shall all be put to severe tests. We all dream of a new South Africa. Whatever happens, it is certain that further tests await our flag. Let us say, in all honesty, that it has still to stand the test of true acceptance by all the population groups of our country that are at present in the process of being assimilated, in one way or another, into the political system of our country. Who knows, this might prove to be the greatest test of our Union flag, our Republic flag: whether it is going to remain a flag of strife or whether it will indeed be a flag of the future.

It is in the light of this that we believe that the greatest tribute that we could pay to our flag, tomorrow and in the years to come, would be, first of all, to resolve to do everything in our power to ensure that the flag of South Africa will be recognized, in all circumstances and with enthusiasm, as the flag of all South Africans.

†Secondly, we must resolve to do everything in our power to ensure that our flag attains a place of honour in the first rank amongst the nations of all the world. A certain writer has said that a thoughtful mind, when it sees a nation’s flag, sees not the flag only, but also the nation, and whatever may be its symbol or its insignia, he chiefly reads in the flag the constitution, the principles, the truths and the history which belong to the nation which sets it forth. At all times we would remain conscious of the fact that our flag reflects our country and what it is and stands for; and we can pay no greater homage to our flag than to dedicate ourselves to ensuring that our country is one, and will always be seen to be one, of high principles and of human understanding and dignity.

The colours of our flag have a long and noble history. We are told that the orange, white and blue were used in the battle flags and standards of the Sea Beggars—die Watergeuse—during the Eighty Years’ War of Independence against Spain in 1568 to 1648. The English and Scottish troops sent by Queen Elizabeth I to assist the Netherlands armies had regimental flags consisting of orange, white and blue bands. The battle flags under which the Dutch, the French, the Germans, the English and the Scottish troops of Prince William of Orange were victorious in the eighty years’ struggle for independence were the orange colours of the prince. In 1652 the orange, white and blue—die orange, blanje, blou—was introduced into South Africa by the founder Jan van Riebeeck, officially to become our national colours 276 years later, in 1928.

On behalf of those of us here I wish to express the fervent hope that our flag, wherever we unfurl it in the world, shall be carried and unfurled there as an emblem of peace and friendship and never as a banner of imperialism; and that as often as we unfurl it at home, we shall raise it as a symbol of the independence which we shall always defend, and as a symbol of the love that we have and of the gratitude that we owe to our country.

Mr. Speaker, I am one of many whose youth was spent in the after-math, of the controversy which marred what was to become a settlement by agreement on our flag, a settlement which bridged deep and violent emotional differences. I was one of those who looked to the flag at that stage as a political symbol, and then, with the passing of the years, as one of the nearly 350 000 South Africans who served under that flag in countries all over Africa and in Europe, I found that it ceased to have that significance. It ceased to have that significance, I believe, partly because of the 12 080 South Africans who gave their lives for that flag. They were followed later by others who served in Korea and others who gave their lives there. Our flag therefore became no longer a symbol of compromise, but a symbol of pride, of nationhood and of patriotism. I wonder if there is such a man—I hope there is not— who, when he is in a foreign country, sees our flag flying above the embassy, does not square his shoulders a little and walk tall in the knowledge that this is his country’s flag. When one sees it flying at the lonely bases where our troops are serving South Africa at this moment, one sees it with a sense of pride in the history which it symbolizes.

*Now we are moving into the second half of the century of the flag’s existence to meet new challenges both in South Africa itself and in Africa as a whole. What is going to lead us, is this flag: They symbol of a settlement of the past which may serve as an inspiration to us when we face the problems of the future. A settlement which at first seemed impossible in the ’twenties, was eventually accomplished. That compromise has borne fruit.

†I therefore believe we can look forward with confidence to the second half of a century, the second half of the first 100 years in the history of our flag, when I believe it can fly with pride over a greater, a safer and a more powerful South Africa, a South Africa built upon the lessons of the past, having learnt to outgrow prejudices and divisions. I hope that it can fly over a South Africa in which all the peoples for whom South Africa has meaning, will look to it with the same pride, with the same dedication and with the same faith and hope with which the generation that I am proud to belong to looks to the flag we serve.

Mr. Speaker, fine words have been used in this House to describe a flag. A flag is not a mere piece of cloth. A flag symbolizes national existence. A flag is a living thing. It is the repository of national sentiment. A flag is able to create the greatest enthusiasm. A flag is able to move to tears. A flag can stir the deepest springs of action and can inspire the noblest efforts. A flag has to do with what is more than material possession. A flag has to do with the soul of a nation.

Those words were spoken by the late Dr. D. F. Malan, then Minister of the Interior in the Pact Government, in introducing the Nationality and Flag Bill in 1925. That Bill was subsequently withdrawn.

These are emotional and stirring words. However, a flag is, if anything, an emotional and a stirring symbol. If one reads the debates of this House in the period 1925 to 1927, if one reads in old newspapers the reports of the establishment of flag committees throughout South Africa, of meetings and protests; if one reads the Select Committee reports of this Parliament on the issue of a national flag, then one realizes the intense emotions that were aroused by the decision to give South Africa an own flag. One is also lost in wonder and in humility that, in the space of only 50 years, these emotions have been stilled in our country.

They form part of our history. Our flag was born out of that history, out of strife and reconciliation, out of the suspicion and the distrust of some, and ultimately out of the mutual forbearance and the cautious optimism of most South Africans.

*How South Africa acquired a flag of its own, how long it has had that flag and what the flag looks like, are matters of historical interest only. What is important, however, is that we do have our own national flag. That flag is to us the symbol of our sovereign independence and the symbol of the unity of our people. During the past half a century the flag has been a witness to our disappointments and a witness to our greatest achievements. For that reason every patriotic South African can and should rally with pride around our flag. It is the symbol of the totality of our South African culture and history. In international affairs our flag is the symbol of stability, of integrity and reliability. To many people all over the world, on battlefields and on sports-fields, and even in the forums of the world, our flag is symbolic of the determination, the perseverance and the remarkable bravery of a small but proud South African people.

What we say about our flag here today, might possibly be described as being not very important. But with respect, and out of a profound sense of gratitude, we must pay tribute to our own flag today. Let our deeds henceforth attest above all to our reverence and dedication to our national flag.

†Our flag flies on the surface of the moon. Our flag flies on the ice floes of Antarctica. What could be more stirring to us South Africans, what could give us greater pride in ourselves than to fly the former Union flag, which is today acclaimed as the flag of the Republic of South Africa, to the words of the final lines of the first verse of Die Stem van Suid-Afrika—

Question agreed to.