as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Select Committee on Co-operation and Development, as follows—

1. (a) The farms Bokseputs, Bokseputs Annex, Riemvasmaak and Wagenbrand, in extent 70235,6240 hectares, in the District of Gordonia, Province of the Cape of Good Hope,

1. (b) the farms Polar 428, Radobil 431, Didima 433, Renfield 430 and Agar 429, in extent 26735,8745 hectares, in the District of Vryburg, Province of the Cape of Good Hope.

H. J. D. VAN DER WALT, Chairman.

Committee Rooms

House of Assembly

29 September 1981.

Report to be considered.

Proceedings to be printed.

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Select Committee on Co-operation and Development, as follows—

H. J. D. VAN DER WALT, Chairman.

Committee Rooms

House of Assembly

29 September 1981.

Report to be considered.

Proceedings to be printed.

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed and considered.

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Select Committee on State-owned Land.

Report and proceedings to be printed and considered in Committee of the Whole House.

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Select Committee on State-owned Land.

Report and proceedings to be printed and considered.

Mr. Speaker, in the days to come this House will proceed to dispose of its business in the sequence in which it will appear on the Order Paper.

Order! Before I call upon an hon. member to speak, I must point out that the principle contained in this clause has already been discussed fully and approved during the Second Reading. In accordance with the custom in this House, I shall therefore only afford one hon. member of each Opposition party one opportunity to put the standpoint of their various parties as regards this clause, and allow the hon. the Minister to answer them. Further discussions will be strictly limited, in accordance with Standing Order No. 63, to the particulars of the clause and amendments to such particulars.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House have made it clear over the past two days that we are against the principle of this clause for various reasons. Firstly I want to point out that after a considerable time and much research a package deal was formulated. It is obvious that this was of cardinal importance to Ciskei. Were they aware of the extent of the departure from this package deal when they voted in the referendum? Secondly, the referendum was held under duress. Ask a man who is suffering the difficult conditions that the Ciskeian in Port Elizabeth lived under whether he wants freedom, and he will associate the word “freedom” with freedom from all his troubles. The fact that he shares a tap with 1 800 other people and all these physical conditions will be associated with freedom or non-freedom. In addition, we believe that this move has either been totally inadequately researched or, alternatively, we in this House who have to debate the most significant alienation of land and people, have not been informed of the results of that research. If independence is going to be successful, South Africa, the Ciskei and Dr. Sebe must know these various things, otherwise we will sow dragon’s teeth. The hon. the Minister has no right to take South Africa and Ciskei—even if at this stage we are hand in hand—on some great leap into the dark. If proper research is not carried out, the present euphoric atmosphere can turn sour. There will be charges and counter-charges of gross misrepresentation, and a lot worse. When the hon. the Minister and Dr. Sebe have long left the scene, others will be interpreting this legislation. It will be misunderstood by those whose expectations have been raised, as well as by those who have failed to fulfil those expectations. The whole thing is too loose, too ill-conceived and too vague.

If we want to give this independence any chance of success, we must have some clarity. When a far-reaching agreement involving hundreds of millions of rand and millions of people—and I use these figures advisedly—is being considered, it is important for both sides that the situation should have been thoroughly investigated. This has not been done, Sir. For example, has the RSA committed itself to any bracket of annual aid? If so, should this House not be told what this is? Have projections been made, for even periods of five years or ten years, at varying growth rates of say 3%, 6% or 9%? All these things could easily be done. Has a calculation been made to show what South African inputs such varying degrees of growth would require? I ask this because, as the hon. the Minister will know, if the growth rate were very promising, a greater and not a lesser input would be required from South Africa. We have a five-year plan for South Africa. Has an economic plan, however, been worked out for Ciskei? Has Dr. Sebe been shown the implications of these growth rates against the background of the demographic projections for the Ciskeian people? Has Dr. Sebe been shown an estimate of his unemployment statistics for various planned growth rates? I ask that because that is an area in which tremendous pressure could be exerted on him, a quarter from which a tremendous amount of trouble could come. Has Dr. Sebe been given a bracket of growth rates at which it is suggested that his country can develop, with an undertaking that we would at least supply aid to meet the minimum figure within that bracket? [Interjections.]

Order!

These are all critically important issues. We are not trying to pass a dud buck or do a quick deal. Our people have to live together for centuries. It is therefore fundamental to any agreement that the parties should come together with a clear understanding of what each is both giving and getting. There must be no hidden agenda and no secret objectives amongst the parties who hope subsequently to live together in constructive association.

No small print either.

In this regard there was a remark about me made across the floor of the House by the hon. the Minister. If I heard him correctly, he said that my attack on this agreement and the viability of Ciskei was destructive in that it would frighten would-be investors away. Is that correct?

I did not refer to you specifically. I did say, however, that the denegration of Ciskei by some of the speakers in your party was not conducive to persuading investors to go to Ciskei. I did not attack you for that, though. [Interjections.]

I do believe that we should want the potential investor to know all the circumstances. Since such an investor is investing his shareholders’ money, he must be told what the pros and cons are. He must be told what South Africa is prepared to do to make his investment a reasonable one. This brings one, however, into a very dangerous grey area. An industrialist who goes to that area is, if he is the type of industrialist we want, going to be a long-term investor. It is therefore not only important for him to know on what terms he is coming into the area, but also for how long his involvement there is going to continue. He does not, of course, want to be left high and dry in 10 years’ time. We therefore have to know for how long this type of assistance will continue.

This brings us to the next question. What are Dr. Sebe’s expectations of industrial development? What undertakings have been given to him? Where does he expect this development to take place? Does he expect it to take place in Ciskei or in East London and Berlin? Have we made any assessment of what the promotion of this industry is going to cost, and over what period? I know that it is already costing us a lot in the sense of unseen tariff reductions, etc. They are, however, all costs that South Africa has to bear. South Africa can afford to support and encourage industry to establish itself in an area like East London or Port Elizabeth for the Ciskeians, but it cannot afford to establish new industries in new concentration areas unless they have some particular strategic value or strength and bear on some resource that is currently not being used and is, to a degree, unique. Otherwise we are trying to take oak trees and plant them on a vlakte in the Karoo, and when one does that, one will have to try to keep that oak tree alive for the rest of one’s life. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and Land Affairs yesterday asked a question, and I believe a very good question, across the floor of the House. He asked: “Is economic viability an indispensable prerequisite to independence?” Was that the hon. the Deputy Minister’s question?

More or less.

I think it is a very good question. The hon. the Deputy Minister knew as well as I did that a quick reply across the floor of the House was impossible, because one cannot simply say “yes” or “no”. I believe a country must be able, in the long run, to pay its way. However, I completely accept that there will be periods when a developing country will not pay its way. The money will have to come from elsewhere to get things going, just like in any other business. In my previous speech I said that I believed that Ciskei was not viable and could not be viable. I would be delighted if somebody could tell me that the country is viable. I do not want it not to be viable. If Ciskei were viable, I would be only too delighted, but it must be admitted that we have not been told how or why it is viable at all. The questions which I have asked here might have been answered but not to us.

I wish you were not so damn negative.

In the light of this, we cannot support this clause. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish to confine my remarks on this clause, which establishes the independence of Ciskei and removes all authority of the Republic of South Africa from that territory, to our attitude to the question of independence—and specifically our attitude to the question of this particular independence which is referred to in the clause. The impression has been given—and it is incorporated in the preamble which we shall deal with at the end of the debate—that Ciskei is, in vacuo, desirous of becoming an independent State. That is, of course, quite incorrect, as the debate has shown. Ciskei accepted independence on the clear and specific understanding that, simultaneously with the acceptance of independence, the country would enter a confederation with South Africa. In other words, there was never any question of Ciskei simply taking independence. The basis of all the negotiations and debate was the presumption of simultaneous acquisition of independence and entry into a confederation. When we deal with clause 5, which deals with treaties and conventions, we will be able to deal in more detail with the so-called confederation convention which the hon. the Minister tabled during his Second Reading speech. We can deal with it more fully then, and therefore I do not intend to analyse it at this stage, other than to say that it is quite clear and I believe common cause in the House that there is no confederation in existence. Therefore the pre-condition of simultaneous independence and acquisition of membership of a confederation does not exist at this time. What we are doing is that we take the first step of independence and trust that the second step of confederation will come about, without account to the form that confederation will take and to the extent to which it will meet the three pre-requisites placed by Ciskei on their acceptance of independence, viz. common citizenship of a confederation of Southern Africa, for all its citizens; the question of movement and the question of the right to employment within the confederation. These issues are dealt with only in a preliminary agreement or convention which has now to be accepted at face value as something that may lead to a confederal structure. We believe that this is putting the cart before the horse. Independence should have come about simultaneously with the conclusion of the final convention which would create the confederation. Negotiations have been continuing for about 18 months and during that period it should surely have been possible to have come to this House with both the legs on which this independence should stand—the form of independence itself provided by clause 1 and the detailed structure of the confederation which was to replace the present status of Ciskei.

I want to say again that this could have been a major break-through and, instead of being a matter of controversy, could have meant the opening of the door to a new future for South Africa. Instead of that, Ciskei is going into this in an atmosphere of controversy, an atmosphere of reluctant acceptance as was demonstrated by the hon. the Minister when he read a letter from the Chief Minister of Ciskei yesterday. In the letter which the hon. the Minister quoted we heard the reluctant acceptance of the situation in regard to citizenship. [Interjections.] That appears in Hansard. It was clearly a reluctant acceptance and the expression of the hope that the position would one day be changed. Firstly, therefore, I believe that the Government has fluffed the opportunity to make this a major step forward for South Africa. Secondly, I believe that where South Africans of all races are seeking a new constitutional future, we should have offered them something so clear, something so obviously the basis for a real new future as to grip the imagination of Black and White. It is not only the homeland Blacks of Ciskei who are watching this development. It is not only Ciskeians who are interested in this independence measure. The Blacks of other non-independent homelands are equally concerned and interested to see what this “confederation” offers South Africa and what it could offer them.

Equally, however, for non-homeland Blacks it is an important step because the extent to which a confederation can replace the Westminster system, the extent to which it can offer the Black people of South Africa an acceptable alternative to the unitary system, to the one-man-one-vote, common roll, single Parliament system will determine their attitude in respect of future political trends and changes in this country. We should here have shown them a package deal that gripped the imagination to the extent that the pressure to be part of a unitary system would have been relieved and that instead, confederation would have been seen as a real alternative not only for homeland Blacks but an alternative that could have become part of an overall solution for all our South African people. This is what we have missed on this occasion. We have missed it because the Government has not successfully negotiated a confederal agreement to its natural and full conclusion with Ciskei. That is why we in this party are not prepared to support and will oppose this measure. In fact, we opposed it in principle at the Second Reading. We accept—it is part of our policy—that where a homeland wishes to take independence in order to become part of a confederation, it is a process we can support. We can support it because we see S.A.’s future as a confederal future and so we would not oppose the acceptance of independence simultaneously with membership of a confederation. We do not oppose the independence concept per se, but we oppose the concept in so far as it creates a new independent State technically in a vacuum, on its own, because the confederation, the finks with South Africa do not yet exist. The agreements which are before us are not sufficient to create that binding force which we believe is essential if we are to have a common destiny.

The hon. the Minister quoted President Mangope who talked of a single road ahead and a single destiny. Transkei feels the same, and that is why we want to see that single destiny in a proper confederation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise just to ask for some information from the hon. the Minister arising out of the point that the hon. member for Durban Point has been making. It concerns the relationship between a confederation and independence. I think there is confusion. I think the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister have one concept of confederation and the hon. members of the NRP another concept.

That is correct.

This creates problems concerning the whole principle of independence, and therefore I should like to ask for clarity. I am not trying to create further confusion. The hon. member for Durban North made it quite clear yesterday that within their conception of confederation they would not like to have independence; they would advise against independence. In other words, within their conception of confederation it is possible to take binding decisions in some kind of central decision-making body, whereas the hon. the Ministers do not have that conception. If that is the case and the hon. the Minister continues with his conception of confederation, then I put it respectfully that the preamble does not make sense at all. Here of course I am referring to the preamble which the hon. member is going to move later on.

I shall come back to it.

Mr. Chairman, let me say at once that it is surely very obvious that for us in the Department of Cooperation and Development, who are dealing with the whole matter of the independence of Ciskei, it is very difficult process to have everything finalized on the date on which the Ciskei decided it wanted its independence and wanted to become a free nation, viz. 4 December 1981. If we had had a choice, we would have preferred it to be a little later, owing to practical problems. This is, with all due respect, something which the two Opposition parties cannot seem to understand, with the result that we are talking at cross purposes, for the hon. member for Durban Point said just now: “It is not correct to say that the Ciskei is desirous of independence.” The fact of the matter is that it must be accepted that the Ciskei is desirous of independence, and yesterday I tried to make this as clear as I possibly could.

I said per se.

Per se they are interested in taking independence and per se they want to take it 100 years after they lost it.

*This must be understood once and for all. That is why they decided on 4 December 1981 as the date of their independence. In their terminology it was precisely 100 years ago that this nation lost its freedom. Consequently, and let us settle this very clearly with each other, the Ciskei is in the first place interested in emancipation per se. That is why I did not speak of independence, but of a nation which is rising again. This is the truth, and hon. members must simply understand this.

Nonsense.

That hon. member says it is nonsense.

It is not true.

The hon. member knows as much about this matter as the man in the moon if she says it is nonsense. Actually she understands even less. [Interjections.] I am stating the first important, cardinal fact to hon. members, viz. the historic course of events, the desire of the Ciskeian nation which it indicated by way of a referendum, that it wished to be emancipated. A confederation was not at issue in the referendum. The referendum was concerned with independence per se. Please understand this! The question of a confederation was one of the points of the package deal. This is the main point we must, in the first place, understand very clearly. Having settled that with each other, we come to the second point.

The hon. member for Durban Point said “this could have been a major breakthrough” in the establishment of a confederation. My reply to that is quite simple. I said here repeatedly yesterday that—hon. members had something precious in their hands here, but did not realize it. This is indeed a “major breakthrough” and…

It is a major breakdown.

… history will show this to be true. There is no doubt about that at all, and I am very grateful for it. The Ciskei has played a very important and cardinal role as a small nation in availing itself of the opportunity with which it has been provided. How does one make a confederation meaningful if only two parties are involved? It is the same as when a husband and wife talk to each other. They may get along well, but surely they cannot form a confederation, and if there is only one of you, one is, of course, even less able to do so. If there are three, it is still rather difficult, but if there are four or five, it is becoming meaningful. This is what is happening here.

I do not want there to be any misunderstanding over this matter and for that reason I now want to reply to the matter which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised here, for there is obviously a misunderstanding here. Yesterday the hon. member for Durban Point explained the NRP’s policy. I listened to it very attentively. What their view amounts to is that self-governing States must be able to form a confederation. On the other hand the contention of this side of the House is that it is not feasible to establish such a confederation in South Africa. With the Ciskei which is now being added there are already five partners that have obtained equal status. Then there are still four or more remaining—let us not argue about the figures, for there are other points which are of importance in this regard—that do not have equal status yet. Consequently, if one argues that one can establish a confederation of self-governing States, it is the submission of those of us on this side of the House: How will you get the central Government to surrender its independent status? Surely it will not do so. Yesterday I challenged the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to try to talk President Mangope out of his independence and the status his nation had acquired. Let him try to do so with Venda, the Transkei and the Ciskei. It is not feasible. There must be equal status between the “constituent partners”. We on this side of the House say that the central issue in a confederation is equal status. Consequently there must be equal status. There is, therefore, a diametrical difference between that side and this side of the House. When dealing with the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point I shall consequently have to say that it is not acceptable to me since the preamble to the Bill as it reads at present states very clearly and simply what it is concerned with, viz. independence and not in the first place a confederation. I shall concede to the hon. member for Durban Point that the preamble which he is proposing—we may perhaps be able to use it later—is a very fine proposal and may be feasible when we reach the point where we have to draw up a charter for a confederation. In that case it is feasible, but here we are concerned with something else per se viz. to acquire independence and equal status among various partners. That is to say, between the different constituent partners.

I do not want to take up too much of the time of this House. If only I could bring home the position to the official Opposition and the NRP. Now I am really speaking in the interests of all the people of the Republic of South Africa. If there is anyone in this House who thinks that we in this country could find a solution to our political and other problems in a different way and by adopting a different course than that of affording the various partners equal status—to achieve equal status between the constituent partners—I want to say that, based on all my years of experience and based on the scientific knowledge I have gained after having studied these matters in depth, this is simply not possible. If only I could bring this home to hon. members opposite. This is the golden key to the solution of South Africa’s relations between Whites, Coloureds and Blacks. There are other plural societies in the world who have also shaken their heads, just as the hon. member opposite is now doing.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, I am speaking in earnest now, not in jest. I take it I cannot convince the hon. member. In that case he will simply have to listen to me. Then he can spend some time reflecting on the matter afterwards. There are other countries in the world, consisting of plural societies, who thought that they could find a solution by adopting different courses to that of equal status among the various components or partners, but to their sorrow they were unable to do so. This has been demonstrated through the ages. In some cases a revolution was necessary to convince them of it. I do not want to take this too far now, and hon. members need not listen to me if they do not want to, but I beseech them to spend some time reflecting on this matter so that we may on some future occasion discuss it seriously again. It is not possible to get these people to the conference table and then I am not even referring to political matters, but to the establishment of an economic development bank for example, and to such material matters as those which the hon. member for Walmer is able to discuss with expertise. It is not possible to get these people to the conference table unless the persons involved have equal status. This is a problem we are faced with and it would be really stupid of us to think that we could avoid it. The official Opposition will not be able to avoid it; nor will the NRP, this side of the House or the Black people. No one will ever be able to avoid it. It is the golden key for a plural society. If this Committee Stage would only bring us to the point where there is greater understanding for the importance of this fact, we shall make more rapid progress towards finding a peaceful solution to our problems.

As I have said, I do not want any misunderstanding about certain matters. Let me make the view of my side of the House on confederation very clear. The Government has already taken firm decisions on the principle of confederation. Allow me to explain them briefly. The Cabinet has no objection to the following definitions of “constellation” and “confederation”. The concept of “constellation” is used to describe the rationalization and expansion of co-operation with all States on the subcontinent of Africa. This is simple and I think easy to understand. The concept of “confederation” is used in connection with the structuring of inter-State relations between the Republic of South Africa and the States that were formerly part of the Republic of South Africa. Let us call them the family States, to use a nice word. Although there are specific structures on the constellation level, for example the rand monetary area, the S.A. Customs Union and Rhosa, the concept of “constellation” will for the foreseeable future be indicative more of proposed co-prosperity activities than of a structured co-prosperity unit among certain independent States, as is the case in a confederation.

The Cabinet has approved the use of the following definition of “confederation”. I am now going to give that definition here. I am going to make it very clear, and in so doing reply to the question of the hon. the Leader of the NRP as well, so that there need be no further uncertainty about this matter. The difference between us and the hon. members of the NRP on this aspect, and the very clear view which the NP has of a confederation, will then become apparent. The definition is that a confederation is an association, a union or association of sovereign, independent States, without a central Government which is formed by way of treaty for the realization of specific aims.

That is correct.

Yes.

That is the point. It is also simple, very simple. I do not want to make a political issue of this, but I do want to make it clear to hon. members of the official Opposition that they should give serious consideration to this matter. With all due respect, I honestly believe that the standpoint which they are adopting cannot be implemented in the South African set-up. They must reflect seriously on this matter because, if we wish to obtain peaceful solutions, I believe they are within our grasp. I honestly believe this. I discussed this matter in earnest yesterday. These are matters which rest on very firm foundations. Consequently I cannot understand why we are unable to achieve fundamental unanimity on these matters. If we could in fact achieve unanimity, as we did to a large extent with regard to sport when I was still Minister of Sport … [Interjections.]

What about your abortive cricket arrangements?

Oh well, the Aurora Club is something of the past. [Interjections.]

*However, if we do achieve unanimity with regard to this matter, we shall have made enormous progress.

Allow me to explain this further. The Cabinet also accepted certain confederal principles. In the first place the sovereignty of an independent member State may under no circumstances be affected in the process. In the second place the equal status of all the parties must be guaranteed. In the third place the purpose of the confederation, for example for economic co-operation and collective security, must be stated in an unambiguous way to be the primary consideration. In the fourth place the existence of the confederation must not prevent member States from liaising bilaterally with one another. In the fifth place the essence of a confederation is that the parties have the right to withdraw. On the question of permanent confederal structures the Cabinet decided that it would content itself at this stage with the concepts which are at present being used in the existing activities, for example “summit conference”, “interim secretariate”, “multilateral committees”, etc.

I am pleased about the opportunity which has been afforded me to have been able to make this matter very clear. Consequently I trust that there will be no further misunderstanding in this regard.

I trust that I have now replied to the questions of the hon. member for Durban Point. I now want to address myself to the hon. member for Walmer. If only the hon. Oppositions would not harp on the same old, worn-out arguments during the Committee Stage. I believe that we did, after all, settle certain matters here yesterday. The hon. member for Walmer said yesterday that the referendum had taken place “under duress”. On our part this is untrue. Consequently I wish that hon. members opposite would stop using that argument. On the part of the Ciskei it is untrue as well. It is not true at all. On our part and on the part of the Ciskei it was a free referendum, a referendum which was born out of the heartfelt desire of a nation. This is how it happened. Let us clear up this matter once and for all.

To go on to say that “sufficient research was not done in this instance”, is not at all feasible or true either.

It is absolute nonsense.

It is absolutely not true. To begin with, there was the Quail Commission.

Which found against independence.

Just allow me to complete what I have to say. Surely the Quail Commission also carried out research and made economic inputs.

[Inaudible.]

Now what is the old lady arguing about again?

Surely this was a piece of research of the best calibre in the world. Nevertheless the hon. member for Walmer says: “There was no research”.

The finding of the Quail Commission was against independence. [Interjections.]

Neither the hon. member for Houghton nor the Quail Commission could write or talk Ciskei out of its birthright, out of its right to accept independence.

*Nor will they succeed in doing so in respect of the other States. The hon. member for Houghton was not present in this House yesterday and as a result of that she missed a good speech. [Interjections.]

The point is that the hon. member will not be able to talk the other States out of it either. A great deal of research has, of course, being carried out with regard to this whole matter. I want to furnish hon. members with only a few examples in that regard. Academics are investigating the development potential of the Ciskei. According to indications this report will be available early in 1982. This is a highly scientific investigation which is being instituted into the whole matter of economic development in the Ciskei. The working committee in connection with the independence of the Ciskei, under the chairmanship of Mr. Raath, will, in addition, submit a report of the potential requirements for such economic development of the Ciskei to the Government before independence. A great deal of progress has already been made in this regard. Several months ago the Wentzel Committee went to institute an in-depth investigation into those areas of the Ciskei which hon. members opposite also visited, i.e. Thornhill and other areas, and came forward with planning which extends over the next five years. Even the amounts which are to be utilized for that purpose have been cleared in advance with the Treasury and the relevant amount is R27 million. Is this not forward planning?

Furthermore I want to point out to hon. members that there are certain things which have not yet been finalized, but the Van der Walt Commission has repeatedly gone to carry out an intensive examination into the whole business in connection with Berlin with the view to stimulating economic development there to the maximum and to getting meaningful economic development off the ground as rapidly as possible. Is this not forward planning? Over the past few weeks we have held long-drawn-out discussions on this matter with the Ciskei and at present there is a major undertaking in respect of the IDC which is carrying out a feasibility study as to whether the project, which is in the order of R200 million, cannot be presented as a co-prosperity project. I, personally, as well as the hon. the Deputy Minister are involving ourselves to a considerable extent in the project since we would be extremely grateful if it could be implemented successfully. It has already reached the stage of a feasibility study. If it is found to be favourable by the IDC, we shall proceed with it. We have said from the outset, once one has established one project there, others will follow and then there will be no end to them. What is more, during the past two years this Government has, after the Carlton Conference, given few matters as much attention as the whole question of economic regional development, and in saying that I am referring to economic regional development in the Ciskei and the adjoining area as well. After all, hon. members are aware of the fact that this resulted in the establishment of a small business corporation. Surely the Ciskei is benefiting from this. Is the benefit of this not the result of forward planning? Surely hon. members are also aware of the fact that this Government has made a great deal of progress in the establishment of an international development bank. Is this not forward planning in respect of economic development? Did hon. members not hear the hon. Mr. Van der Walt saying during the Second Reading debate that they were working on five co-prosperity projects in the Ciskei? Is this not forward planning? Consequently, with all due respect, the hon. member’s argument is not feasible. Allow me to say with the greatest positiveness today that I have accompanied the Ciskei on this course and that we are filled with enthusiasm and inspired to enable the Ciskei to develop to the greatest extent and as rapidly as possible.

On the other hand the Ciskei is filled with enthusiasm and inspired with the ideal of developing far more rapidly than before in the economic sphere once it has attained its independence, and we are going to try to achieve this ideal together. For example, I could just mention that Dr. Sebe is at present in Germany. Apart from that he has during recent months undertaken various overseas trips, inter alia, to Taiwan. Did hon. members not read in their newspapers that delegates from Taiwan had paid a visit to the Ciskei and that they were interested in investing in the Ciskei? Meanwhile Dr. Sebe has been to France, Britain and West Germany as well. As I said, he is now in West Germany again. Before South Africa became a Republic Dr. Verwoerd also said that before we accepted independence he wanted to be reasonably certain that South Africa would be better off than before independence. Dr. Sebe is following Dr. Verwoerd’s example with remarkable success. Consequently, if the hon. member argues that there was no forward planning in respect of Ciskei’s independence, it pains me, for in that case the hon. member does not know the facts I have referred to.

I want to mention a final example in this regard. Ciskei’s budget for 1981-’82 amounts to R126 million, but according to the provisional estimates it will, in the first year after independence—this is included in the agreement—amount to at least R200 million. Hon. members can work out what percentage this increase represents. If the hon. member wants to talk about forward planning, I can assure him that the Treasury is not only considering the needs of the Ciskei for the coming year only, for surely we know what the position with a confederation is. We are taking the next five years into account and are ascertaining what can be achieved. We are working according to a financial formula, for it is not only the Ciskei that we have to take into consideration, but the TBV countries as well. We cannot take a certain decision in respect of the Ciskei whereas we take an essentially different decision in connection with the TBV countries. Consequently I trust that I have clarified this point. If the hon. member wishes speak of forward planning, this Government is and has been giving proper attention to such planning very successfully. In addition the Commission of Co-operation and Development is, during the next few weeks going to make progress in establishing certain growth points in the industrial development area of the Ciskei.

I trust that, in respect of the points raised by the hon. member for Walmer, I have indicated that we have done a great deal in this regard and that we can give a concrete reply to the questions he put. There is no question of “secret agreements” here. Furthermore I have explained to the hon. member what type of assistance was being given to the Ciskei and what further industrial development was being envisaged.

Hon. members were able to read in this morning’s newspapers that there is unparalelled development in the agricultural sphere in Bophuthatswana. In fact, it is being suggested that it could soon be an export country. In other words, Bophuthatswana has already reached the stage of “self-sufficiency”. This would not have been possible if that State had not become independent. The progress in respect of mining, too, is astonishing. Go and take a look at…

Mafikeng.

Yes, go and look at Mafikeng. In addition there is the show business complex in Sun City, in Bophuthatswana, where a great deal of money is being generated. Based on the realities and the facts we are, therefore, looking forward to the prospect of the Ciskei, after independence, not only being able to make a growing contribution, but of it really being able to develop more rapidly on a planned basis, which will be the fruits of not only months but of years of work. This is their aim and their ideal, Sir.

Mr. Chairman, in consequence of what the hon. the Minister has just said in answer to the hon. member for Durban North, I should just like to put a few questions to him. I am grateful for the clear way in which he explained the concept of confederation as hon. members on the Government side see it, but after he had explained it, he also said that the idea of equal status was the golden key to constitutional development. I should like a little more information from the hon. the Minister on this. The concept “equal status” is not a concept the meaning of which is obvious. In point of fact it can mean anything. “Equal status” can refer to equal economic status, which obviously is not the case with the Ciskei and South Africa. [Interjections.] It can also refer to population density, but clearly this is not what the hon. the Minister had in mind.

Helen has put you up to this.

If I understand the hon. the Minister correctly, he means equal constitutional status.

Yes.

But is that possible? In what way can we ascertain whether there is equal constitutional status between independent Ciskei and South Africa? We can take international standards, in other words the standards of international law. However the hon. the Minister knows that it is then not possible …

Yes.

… because Bophuthatswana, the Transkei and Venda do not have equal status with South Africa in international law. That is why there are problems. [Interjections.] But suppose they do in fact have equal constitutional status, to what extent is that significant? Does it mean that they have equal bargaining power, or does it mean that the one is in a less dependent position over against the other? Surely not. With the English lawyer we can say: “The Supreme Court, like Claridges Hotel, is open to every member of the public.”

That is right.

That does not, however, mean anything. It depends on what one does, on what one’s bargaining position is as a member of the public.

*If I have a great deal of money, I can obtain far better legal advice when I resort to the Supreme Court. In this regard it is therefore important to know what the hon. the Minister means. [Interjections.]

Order!

If the hon. the Minister says that equal constitutional status is in fact the golden key, what exactly does he mean by that, with reference to the relationship between Ciskei and South Africa?

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to speak at length on this subject now, because it is not necessary. I have already said very emphatically what the aim is. If words have any meaning, what I am going to say now, does in fact have a meaning. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has a good understanding—and I accept that he has—we shall not have to argue about this for much longer. [Interjections.] I can hear there are certain hon. members who are calling this into question. A confederation is an amalgamation of sovereign independent States. That is the answer.

That is not the answer.

But of course it is the answer.

No.

What more is there to say? Unless I am misunderstanding the hon. member, his entire argument is merely an academic one.

No.

In our book …

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

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition may put his question in a moment. In our book we define a confederation as an association, a bond or an amalgamation of sovereignly independent States, without a central Government, which is formed by way of treaties for the fulfilment of specific objectives. That is the answer.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister where the equality of the separate sovereignties lie? Is it internationally recognized, or is it recognized only by Ciskei and the Republic of South Africa? If this is the case, surely they do not have equal negotiating abilities.

That is correct.

In pursuance of what happened with the TBV countries—and is now going to happen with the Ciskei—the TBV countries have achieved equal status with regard to political matters, a status equal to this central Parliament.

That means absolutely nothing.

Of course it means a great deal. The equal status lies in the fact that the Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda are sovereign independent States. This is something that the Ciskei will soon achieve too. Surely then it belongs in those ranks too. If President Matanzima pays a visit here, he is received with equal status, the same as that of our own President. [Interjections.]

They consider it a joke.

Yes, it may be a joke to them. However, these are the facts. As far as we are concerned, there is nothing more that can be said in connection with this matter. It is an equal status in a political dispensation. This is what it is in reality. If those hon. members want to begin to argue that there is an imbalance with regard to economic matters, that the one country is larger or richer than the other, then I say that surely it is the case with countries throughout the world. After all, there is equal status between Britain and America, and America has a population of 200 million people as against Britain’s population of 80 million. However, nevertheless there is equal status. Similarly, there is equal status between the Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and, when it has become independent, the Ciskei and the central Government of the RSA. That is not all. There is equal status, with respect, between the Transkei and America.

That is not true.

But they are not recognized by anybody. [Interjections.]

Let us now analyse this matter in depth.

Order! At the beginning of the debate I ruled that only one speaker from each of the Opposition parties and the hon. the Minister could discuss the principle of the clause. But I also gave the hon. the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to put a question to the hon. the Minister, and I do not think hon. members should go beyond that question now. Since I gave the hon. the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to ask another question and it seems to me that the hon. member for Durban Point wants to ask a question too, I shall allow him to do so.

It is not a question, but actually just a reaction. [Interjections.]

I can allow only one speaker from each party to discuss the principle, and therefore I cannot allow the hon. member to react further. I am not going to allow any further discussion of the principle of clause 1.

Mr. Chairman, the clause before us makes reference to certain districts in schedule A of the Bill. There are seven of these districts, viz. Hewu, Keiskammahoek, Mdantsane, Middeldrift, Peddie, Victoria East and Zwelitsha. These seven districts will form the territory of Ciskei, the sovereign State of Ciskei about which we have heard so much. My objection to the provisions of this clause is that, besides the fact that we reject the principle and the concept, the clause is incomplete. It is incomplete in terms of resolutions already adopted in this House. I want to refer hon. members to the proposed amendment to schedule A on page 139 of the Order Paper, and I wish to quote the proposed part 2(a) of schedule A. There are certain areas in the districts of Queenstown, Victoria East, Cathcart, King William’s Town, East London and Stockenström that have already been scheduled and adopted as such by resolution of the House on 16 May 1975 and in the Senate on 27 May 1975. Furthermore, not only have these areas been accepted in 1975 by resolution of the House; they are also areas referred to by Chief Sebe in his package deal. These are the areas we have promised to transfer to Ciskei by the end of December 1982. That is a solemn undertaking which the Government has given to Dr. Sebe.

The question I am asking is: Where are these areas set out in this clause or in this Bill? Why have they been omitted from the Bill? What sort of an untidy rag tag affair is this that we are now debating? We are being asked here to pass a clause which details the area to be known as Ciskei in the full knowledge that there are other areas of land already agreed upon between the Governments of the Republic of South Africa and Ciskei which have not been included in this clause. It would appear to me that the sensible way to set about conferring independence on a territory, if such independence is considered desirable, would be to sit down with the Government concerned, agree upon the boundaries of the territory before the day of independence and then introduce the kind of clause that we are currently debating.

Mr. Chairman, we are opposed to this clause because to vote for it would be to vote for a State that does not exist and which will not exist. In terms of the land already made over in the Queenstown, Stockenström and East London districts, for example, the State of Ciskei is already very different from the one that is referred to in clause 1 of this Bill. What is more, Sir, when all the land that has been promised in terms of the 1975 proposals has been made over, it will look even more different to what we are being asked to agree to in this clause.

The provisions of this clause create a false impression of the State of Ciskei, whether independent or not. It is for these reasons that I wish to move the amendment to this clause standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member as the amendment to Schedule A upon which it is dependent (a) seeks to extend the scope of the Bill as read a Second Time and (b) involves increased expenditure and consequently requires the State President’s recommendation.

I should also like to point out to hon. members that the moving of amendments the inadmissibility of which they have foreknowledge of, is a circumvention of the rules.

Mr. Chairman, I shall abide by your ruling and speak to the clause itself. Your ruling was quite correct, Sir, but it is a pity, because I think that this is the nearest that Parliament has come during this whole session to identifying clear policy differences between the Government and an Opposition party. This is the first time that we have had absolute clarity of difference and we shall return to this point later.

I should like to deal with the term “sovereign and independent State” as included in this clause, the meaning of that term when taken in the light of these agreements, these two volumes of agreements between the Republic of South Africa and Ciskei. The hon. the Minister referred to these himself. There are 70 agreements of which 33 have been concluded and 37 are still under discussion. In terms of almost every one of these agreements the Republic is going to be empowered to carry out duties and tasks in aspects of government administration in Ciskei by way of agreement. We can take them one after the other. For example, there is the provision of aid in educational matters, development research, meteorology, aviation matters, merchant shipping, financial institutions, State Tender Board, and so they go on. Agreement after agreement provides that the Republic shall continue to administer these or assist in their administration or have a share in their administration. I want to relate that to the term “sovereign and independent State” because I believe this is the crux of the difference which we were starting to identify between the Government and the NRP. We see a confederation in a different light. We believe these agreements in effect detract from or reduce total sovereignty by ceding some of that sovereignty to the Republic, because that is what is happening. Ciskei is ceding elements of its sovereignty to the Republic so that the Republic can administer some of the affairs of Ciskei. This is what we see as a confederation. It is being done by agreement; similarly in a confederation it will be done by agreement. That is why we can visualize independent and autonomous self-governing States working together within, in effect, a formal structured confederation. Ciskei sees it as a strong confederation with federal-type overtones.

We see the aspects of sovereignty to be exercised by agreement by South Africa as the sort of things which should be exercised by the confederal centre, and this is where the divide comes between Government thinking and our own. It strengthens our opposition to the clause because we believe there is not complete equality—what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to as equal status. The equal status to which he referred is constitutional status, but it is not “equality” in practice because the one State in practice is going to carry out many of the functions of government in the other State for that other State. This is why we stand for a confederation so that it will not be one State doing things for another bilaterally, but acting together jointly including joint decision-making. These matters of common concern will be dealt with jointly by the confederation—all the member States and not by only one State for the other.

We shall come back to this when we deal with the preamble. We shall also come back to it in clause 6 on citizenship. I think, however, that while we are on clause 1, this is the occasion, because we are dealing specifically with sovereignty, to emphasize and point out that for the first time South Africa now has a clear definition of what the Government means and what the Government sees by confederation.

We explained this long ago; many years ago.

South Africa can see the difference between what we and Ciskei see as confederation, because the Government’s definition of Ciskei is now quite clear. It therefore strengthens our opposition to clause 1.

In closing I may say that I am surprized to see amendments here from the official Opposition because they are totally opposed in principle to independence whether or not it is in a confederation. Yet they are participating and trying to improve the measure.

So what?

Well, it is just an unusual approach. What I want to say is that I hope it means that they are looking again at the question as to what the ultimate future is going to look like and whether this sort of Bill could have any place in that future.

Mr. Chairman, I want to turn just for a minute to the issue of equal status as far as sovereignty is concerned. I want to ask the hon. the Minister specifically that when he deals with this issue, he should answer the point that I now want to make. Is the answer to the question of equal status as far as sovereignty is concerned and whether or not there is such equal status not to be found in the convention agreement itself? If the Republic of South Africa and Ciskei were to be equal in status as far as sovereignty is concerned, is there not a total contradiction when one looks at the convention agreement? It provides, inter alia, that a Ciskeian citizen can get a South African travel document if he wants to travel overseas, but it does not provide the reverse and that is that a Ciskeian travel document would be of any value to a South African citizen if he travels overseas. So, where is there equality in status? The convention agreement itself suggests that there cannot be equality in status as far as sovereignty is concerned, because special provisions are being made for the new independent republican State to acquire certain rights via the larger partner in the arrangement, i.e. the Republic of South Africa. This certainly suggests that there is not equality of status as far as sovereignty is concerned. I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could answer that specific point.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I should just like to have clarity in regard to your decision regarding the amendment of the hon. member for Albany. Am I correct in saying that we may not discuss the amendment, but that we may deal with the arguments that he raised?

I ruled that the hon. member for Albany’s amendment could not be allowed, but the hon. member did in fact speak before he moved his amendment and, in so far as it does not concern the principle, I shall therefore allow the hon. member to reply to it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think one can deal with the arguments of the hon. member for Albany in a very short space of time. In the first place what is at issue here is the land that has already been ceded to the Ciskei and which is no longer necessarily trust land. The hon. member mentioned the districts of Stockenström and Queenstown as well as other districts. In those areas all of the land that was earmarked in 1975, has not yet been purchased. A great deal of that land is in the process of valuation or at the stage where people have received offers for their land. Therefore, it is not possible if one wants to define the borders of the Ciskei on a constitutional basis now, to include that land at this stage. The Development Trust and Land Act of 1936 makes it impossible for us to do so at this stage. I do not think there are any illusions about exactly what the territory of the Ciskei is, except with regard to the outstanding proposals of the Van der Walt Commission. For the rest, however, we have clarity with regard to which land has been earmarked for the Ciskei. However, we cannot define it legally yet in the way that the hon. member proposed.

I should like to say something about the question of sovereignty which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as well as the hon. the Leader of the NRP raised. I think where we are talking at cross purposes in connection with the concept of independent sovereign States, is in the respect that the hon. members are not prepared to accept the National Party’s standpoint that we are granting freedom to nations and not necessarily to territories. I now want to tell the hon. members that we took a great deal of trouble when we looked at the position of Mafikeng, inter alia. Now if we take that situation and project it a little, it is as clear as daylight to me that the objection that hon. members are making to these agreements when they say that South Africa is still going to administer these States, simply does not hold water. It is simply not true. If we make an agreement with these States regarding education, we would be doing so because we have a specific need, in this Southern African situation, to discuss education with one another. Let me give an example. The railway line from Mafikeng to Salisbury belongs to the Rhodesian Railway Company. The land across which that railway line runs, belongs to Britain, from Mafikeng as far as Salisbury. Surely then one has to make agreements in order to deal with this type of matter. Not only do we have agreements with Zimbabwe or Mozambique, but we also have agreements deep into Zaïre, as far as the Railways is concerned, inter alia. Now it is quite simply a question of having to accept—it is on record that I have said it in this House—that the economy of Southern Africa is not divisible. On the one hand it is the indivisibility of the South African economy that is at issue and on the other, the freedom of nations. If we talk about the sovereignty of this State, we are talking about a nation that has been freed.

We are talking about equal sovereignty.

Yes, equal sovereignty. Those people are just as free. As far as national freedom is concerned, the Ciskei is just as free as Lesotho is.

That is factually untrue.

It is just as free as Lesotho is, but the Ciskei has as little chance of being economically free from Southern Africa as Lesotho does. It is as simple as that. [Interjections.]

I shall tell you, Sir, what those hon. members’ problem is. They want to judge the de facto situation in Southern Africa today through the same spectacles that the British used when they dealt with Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana. Even today there are agreements between Swaziland and Britain. Even today there are agreements between Botswana and Britain. There are agreements that had to be made between Botswana and Bophuthatswana because of the agreements that exist between Botswana and Britain. Now it goes beyond me that, when we talk about sovereign independence, they say that there cannot be a number of contracts like those that we have made here.

No, I did not say that.

I want to ask hon. members whether West Germany is sovereignly independent vis-à-vis France.

Yes.

Within the European Economic Community there are more agreements between West Germany and France than there are between South Africa and the Ciskei.

[Inaudible.]

Wait a moment. After all, hon. members cannot run away from that point. Their problem is that they do not want to admit …

In State administration or business?

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to speak to these political squatters. The hon. members of the NRP are now trying to justify something after they have voted wrongly according to their own conviction. As far as I am concerned, they are of no significance in this debate. The debate is being conducted between the NP and the PFP and the other members have no part in it. [Interjections.] I want to put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. If one grants freedom to a nation as we are doing in this case and as we also did with Bophuthatswana, Venda and the Transkei, is there a difference between the freedom that was granted to those nations and the freedom that was granted to Lesotho?

Yes.

Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must explain it. The position is that the hon. members argued that most of the people of this sovereign independent State, the Ciskei, are outside the Ciskei. Most of the people of Lesotho are outside Lesotho too. [Interjections.] I cannot understand how hon. members can argue in this way. I think we must simply summarize it in a single sentence: “Sovereign independence” in terms of NP doctrine means the granting of freedom to a nation and not necessarily breaking all economic ties in the process. No State in Southern Africa can be economically free. Indeed, I do not think any State in the Western world can be economically free.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt put a question to me and I should like to reply to it. He asked me whether there is a difference between the freedom of Bophuthatswana and Lesotho or, say between the Transkei and Lesotho. Of course there is a difference. I am not talking about differences in the economic sphere and such like. I am talking about them as sovereign States in terms of international law. There is a difference. We may possibly complain to one another because there is a difference—that is another matter. However, it is the de facto situation that is at issue. It is easier for Lesotho to obtain international loans, for instance. It is easier for them to approach the World Bank for assistance. [Interjections.] It is easier for them to obtain assistance from agencies of the UN. Why is this so? It is because their international status, their sovereignty, is different to that of Bophuthatswana and the Transkei.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he would support it if the UN recognized the independence of the Ciskei?

It would be one test which one could apply in international law in order to judge whether the sovereignty to which the hon. the Minister referred, is the same. [Interjections.] I am asking the hon. the Minister to give me the tests, but all he says is “sovereignty” and “sovereignty”. It means nothing. [Interjections.] When I put a question courteously to the hon. the Minister, it is no use if he and hon. members on the other side become excited about it and start shouting at me. I simply want him to reply to my question. I too support the idea of equal sovereignty. I have no problems with it. Of course, it is better to have equal sovereignty between countries when they negotiate with one another. The legal and constitutional situation that I am trying to elucidate here, is that, if the hon. the Minister says that the idea of equal status is the golden key to constitutional development in South Africa, it is important that, in this House at least, we should have clarity about exactly what that equal status means. As long as we do not have clarity on this, we shall continue to talk at cross purposes. Thus far we have not yet had an answer to this.

Mr. Chairman, let us consider what clause we are discussing at the moment. Words ought, after all, to have some meaning. In the explanatory memorandum on this Bill we read—

Has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition any problems in connection with what “the sovereignty of the Republic of South Africa” means?

Of course not.

The hon. Leader has no problem in this regard. Very well. At the moment we are dealing with a Bill concerning which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party have stated their standpoint and have voted. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has no problems as regards the sovereignty of the Republic of South Africa. However let us see what is also said here—

Now what is the problem? [Interjections.] Surely words have meaning?

Yes, of course.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that he accepts the sovereignty of the Republic of South Africa. We are concerned with a simple exercise here. It is set out clearly in the Bill. It is also set out clearly in the explanatory memorandum—

In other words, to a State as fully sovereign and independent as the Republic of South Africa is now. [Interjections.] I have just been quoting from the explanatory memorandum. Let us see what the Bill says. It is stated very clearly in the Bill, if words have any meaning—

What is being enacted?—

And that is where the problem starts.

Surely that is what is involved. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition accepts that the Republic of South Africa is sovereign and independent, what do sovereign and independent mean? I think that the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt explained it very well. To be sovereign means, in the first place, to be the only authority in a specific territory.

Yes.

That is what it means, after all. To be independent, surely also means not to be subservient to any other authority in any way. I had thought I had a very “smart” conclusion to my Second Reading speech when I told hon. members that I hoped one day to see the situation of a community of States “In no way subordinate one to the other”. That is what “sovereign and independent” means.

In conclusion I want to point out that if hon. members understand what the sovereignty and independence of the Republic of South Africa means and if they accept the legality and authority of this Parliament, they will realize that this is a very simple matter. It is as simple as the wording of this Bill. All that it amounts to is that the sovereignty of the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa is hereby transferred to the districts specified in the Bill. All that is enacted is that those districts are excised from the Republic and that the sovereignty and independence of the Republic of South Africa is transferred to that new State. This is what the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt said here too, on good authority. There is no difference between the independence and the sovereignty of the Republic of South Africa and that of the USA, Lesotho or any other State. In the same way there is no qualitative difference between the sovereignty and independence of Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda, Ciskei when it becomes independent, and other States in the world. All that does happen, however, is that the UN deems it expedient to recognize Lesotho and other countries, for example the Hebrides, which are a hundred times smaller than Zululand, but because they are playing a political game, they do not recognize the independence of our own states. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. the Minister has not yet replied to my point on the convention argument, may I ask him if he will reply to it now?

Mr. Chairman, I, too, should like to try calmly to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition something about sovereignty as a principle.

Can the hon. the Minister not do so?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition bases his argument on the fact that the Ciskei will not be recognized internationally.

It will never be.

But international recognition has nothing to do with sovereign independence. For years Communist China was not recognized by the USA. For years East Germany has not been recognized as a State by West Germany. To date Angola has not been recognized by the USA. The fact that they are not recognized by one or more countries does not detract from their sovereign independent status. The important thing that the hon. the Minister has just emphasized is that the relationship between South Africa and Ciskei is one of independence and sovereignty. Years ago, when Great Britain gave independence to South Africa, it did not matter whether South Africa was recognized by the international community or not. The fact that Great Britain, which was a sovereign independent State, gave South Africa independence, was sufficient to give South Africa sovereign independent status vis-à-vis Great Britain.

Now I should like to come to the argument raised by the hon. member for Berea. The hon. member for Durban Point also raised it. He said that because a number of agreements had been entered into, this meant that in so far as those agreements existed they detracted from sovereignty. However, the opposite is true. If there were no sovereignty, there would be no need for agreements. Then the one State would have considered it the duty of the other to provide those services. The mere fact that independence has now been granted means that there is a voluntary arrangement, a voluntary arrangement in terms of which the one asks the other to provide certain services. The hon. member for Durban Point said that if political administrative services were provided, it was proof that there was no sovereignty or independence. When Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho were granted independence by Great Britain, Great Britain continued for some time to provide political administrative services to those countries. They were independent, they were sovereign, but the services were still provided. In other words, the argument that because there are agreements on these matters, there is no independence, is incorrect. As a matter of fact, the opposite is true. Sovereignty is in fact transferred from one sovereign State, which at the moment has control over a sovereign region of South Africa, to another Government, and vis-à-vis South Africa there is now sovereign independence for Ciskei. International travel arrangements as such have nothing to do with this.

Do you want a Ciskei passport?

The fact remains that inside South Africa all citizens of the Ciskei can travel according to the arrangements made between South Africa and the Ciskei. In other words, in relation to South Africa, as a sovereign independent State, Ciskei is now being granted independence. If there is another country which does not recognize Ciskei’s independence, it does not affect the Ciskei’s sovereign independent status. This is a fact.

That is a play on words.

It is no play on words, but an absolute fact.

I also want to refer to a matter in regard to which, to a certain extent, I did the hon. leader an injustice when I quoted something he had said, and I believe this is the appropriate time to set the matter straight.

Does it concern this clause?

It was during the Second Reading, but it concerned this aspect, namely the reason for independence. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition quoted from a speech by Dr. Verwoerd which appears in Hansard of 10 April 1961. He then went on to say (Hansard, 28 September 1981)—

He ascribed this standpoint to Dr. Verwoerd, and to prove it, he quoted something which Dr. Verwoerd said. I also referred to this and said that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had left out part of the late Dr. Verwoerd’s speech. I now want to put matters straight by saying that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did in fact quote that part of the speech. Later in my speech I said (Hansard, 28 September 1981)—

As I have already explained, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did in fact quote the extract in question. However, there is a further aspect which I want to put straight. In his motivation the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that Dr. Verwoerd’s reason for independence was to perpetuate White rule in the rest of the Republic of South Africa. Later in his speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said (Hansard, 28 September 1981)—

As regards that quotation, Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was being wilful, because Dr. Verwoerd said very clearly—and it appears in the very same speech—that parallel organizations must be created for the national States and also for the Indians and the Coloureds. There was certainly no intention to perpetuate White rule over Indians, Coloureds or anyone else. In that regard the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was in fact being wilful by attaching an incorrect meaning to Dr. Verwoerd’s standpoint.

Order! The question of the principle has now been covered. Another Standing Order states that hon. members may not repeat arguments. I believe that this Standing Order also applies to questions. I therefore want to make an earnest appeal to hon. members on both sides of this House not to repeat questions. A question may be put and answered, and that must suffice.

Mr. Chairman, I accept your ruling, and I also accept your ruling in connection with the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Albany. However, a great deal confusion prevails in connection with the territorial definition in terms of this clause and as contained in Schedule A. I therefore request your ruling as to whether we may debate the confusion existing under Schedule A because it is important.

In my opinion Schedule A states very clearly what regions are included. However, I shall afford the hon. the Deputy Minister an opportunity to explain any difficulties there may be.

I just want to clear up the confusion in connection with the allegation which the hon. member made regarding the definition of the territory involved. In yesterday’s Second Reading debate there was a clear exposition of the phases in accordance with which the land question, as it affects Ciskei, is dealt with.

Phase 1 determines the territory defined in this status legislation, i.e. the territory which must afford Ciskei territorial status. This consists of three groups of land. In the first place there is the 1913 land, namely the designated areas. In the second place, there is the land added in terms of the 1936 Act, i.e. prior to the proposals of 1973 and 1975. This gives us a total surface area of 533 000 ha. However, after the 1972 and 1975 proposals, we continued to buy up land, inter alia, the Peddie district and the Poplar Grove area. In the Peddie district in particular, some of that land was added to the territory of Ciskei. This means an additional 100 000 ha was included, and this gives us a total of approximately 630 000 ha. This is what the three groups of land comprise. I hope this is very clear. The rest of the territory, as the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt called it, is land still in the process of being bought up. I understand that hon. member is a farmer. He must therefore be a practical man and will therefore not expect us to incorporate land in the territory of Ciskei before it has been bought up.

But it is still quota land.

This brings us to phase 2. What happens to the land which must be bought up before 1982? It is land which has been promised and is included in the schedule to the legislation on the extension of the boundaries of national States. I see the hon. member for Houghton is nodding her head. She therefore under stands that. Then there is phase 3. This concerns land about which the Van der Walt Commission still has to negotiate further. I think that is clear.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister why it has taken 45 years to get this far and yet we have still not completed the quota in terms of the 1936 legislation? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer specifically to clause 1 and the remarks made by the hon. the Minister. I particularly want the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt to listen to what I have to say, because then he will become aware of the contribution that this party has to make towards a better understanding of the implications of the content of this particular clause.

Let me say that listening to the arguments of the hon. the Minister on this clause, one detects very serious structural problems in what the hon. the Minister and hon. members on that side of the House visualize, and because of those structural defects we can only come to one conclusion, and that is that the hon. the Minister has no intention of taking the independent States into a confederation of any consequence. That is what the effect is of what the hon. the Minister said. That is why we have specifically insisted on the fact that one should also examine the concept of self-governing authorities coming together in a confederal constructure for joint decision-making.

I shall illustrate what I have to say. In the first instance, the hon. the Minister will agree that the arrangements between the Republic of South Africa and the so-called independent Ciskei and the other territories which are independent will result only in bilateral and multilateral agreements. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with that. There will be no forum created for joint decision-making and, because of that, there will be differentiation and variance in the multilateral and bilateral agreements between the different component parts of the so-called confederation visualized by the hon. the Minister. Joint decision-making can only take place in specific formalized structure of a confederation. If one insists that only sovereign and independent States as provided for in this clause, can form these bilateral agreements, we contend that the hon. the Minister and that side of the House have absolutely no intention of forming a real confederation of States in Southern Africa. The historical imperative in South Africa, economically, socially and politically, will prevent the equality of status which the hon. the Minister spoke about in terms of the bilateral agreements between South Africa and Ciskei if it becomes, as this clause provides, sovereign and independent. The hon. the Minister will recognize that. The historical imperative already provides a bias to the bilateral agreements which pre-empts that equality. Therefore, as my hon. Leader also indicated previously, we find it impossible to support this clause in the context of the confederation vizualized by the hon. the Minister.

I should also like to repeat this question to the hon. the Minister: What can Ciskei as a self-governing territory not do now that it may be able to do when it is an independent State? I ask the hon. the Minister to tell the House about that.

Lastly, I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that it is impossible to take the classical model of a confederation from the European theatre and try and fit that over the body of South Africa which is a unique, plural society which requires unique solutions.

Order! The hon. member is not applying himself to the details of clause 1. No mention is made of a confederation in the clause. I must request the hon. member to confine himself to the clause.

Sir, I shall conclude my comments by saying that the hon. the Minister visualizes a sovereign and independent State within a confederation. I was replying to that point.

I should now like to come to clause 1(2), which reads—

I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that in terms of what he visualizes, that will only be a de jure separation and not a de facto separation. Again, the inequality will be there. South Africa will, through the bilateral agreements, exercise considerable authority over that State. For the reasons I have mentioned, among others, we find it impossible to support the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make one or two comments in particular about the expression “sovereign and independent” which have not been made before and which are implicit in this clause. The first point I wish to make …

Order! I do not know whether the hon. member was here, but I have ruled that I am not going to allow the repetition of questions or anything of that nature.

Very well, Sir. The first point is that the hon. member for Klip River tried to use the analogy that America did not recognize Angola but that that did not mean to say that Angola was not sovereign. That is quite wrong. There is a difference between recognizing a State and recognizing a government. America does not recognize the government of Angola but of course it realizes the sovereignty and the independence of the State of Angola. There is a fundamental difference between recognizing a government and recognizing a State. The tragedy about Ciskei is that it will neither be recognized as a government nor as a State.

I should like to deal with just three points.

That is not our fault.

It is not a question of whose fault it is. I do not believe that we want to enter into this new situation if there is any doubt in regard to the meaning of the expression “sovereign and independent”. This is not an abstract concept. It must have real content for everybody if it is going to have any meaning. The point here is that South Africa can say, as we do in this Bill, that Ciskei shall cease to be part of the Republic. We can give away territory but what we cannot do is to confer sovereign independence upon another territory because that sovereign independence depends upon three factors, firstly, on the will of the person who is ceding; secondly, on the will of the people who are receiving; and thirdly, on the status in the international community. [Interjections.] Whether we like it or not, those three elements have to be present. I should like to put a point to the hon. the Minister that has not yet been put to him. Let us for a moment forget about international recognition in the sense of passports. The hon. the Minister has said that Ciskei is sovereign and independent and equal in status to South Africa. I want to ask him whether Ciskei will have access to the International Court of Justice in matters affecting its rights and its claim to sovereign independence.

You are now being quite ridiculous.

I am putting this point very carefully because in terms of international law the International Court of Justice is the arbiter. This is what we want to know. Can we confer sovereign independence? The answer to that is: No we cannot. We can excise a territory from our body but we cannot confer sovereign independence upon it. This is how South Africa may see the position and perhaps this may be so bilaterally but sovereign independence is not a bilateral situation. It is a multilateral situation. It must certainly be recognized by the International Court of Justice because if it is not recognized by the International Court of Justice it has no status in law. Therefore, the first point we want to make is that it does not make any difference what we say here in this Bill. We can give Ciskei away but, having given it away, we cannot confer a status upon it because we have lost control of it. Once we have excised it from our body we cannot give it a status. From a bilateral point of view we may consider it to be sovereign and independent but from the multilateral and international point of view it does not have the same status as South Africa.

The second point I wish to raise links up with a point made by the hon. member for Durban Point. The series of agreements entered into involve a considerable diminution of sovereignty. These agreements involve the significant surrendering of sovereignty in respect of a large number of matters in Ciskei itself. Perhaps one can have agreements surrendering sovereignty between two equal bodies. Once they are sovereign then one can have agreements for example in regard to the allocation of naval bases or affecting various other matters. However, here the agreement has been entered into before the body has become sovereign. In other words, we have actually entered into an agreement while Ciskei is still a creature of South Africa. The hon. the Minister has in fact entered into an agreement with his own servant, with his own creature, and now he is elevating it to an agreement with an international status. The very fact that he is doing this, the very fact that he is requiring Ciskei in advance by convention and by agreement before it has attained independence to surrender some of its independence is going to make the attainment of international recognition even more difficult.

As far as the third point is concerned, international recognition and recognition by the International Court of Justice depend on a whole series of circumstances. There are tests some of which may be subjective and some objective. Let us look at the immediate question of viability in terms of a sovereign independent status. According to the latest Benso figures the facts are these. In 1978-’79 when the latest figures were available—we are testing equal sovereign status in this connection—the total revenue of Ciskei was R55,3 million. Of that amount of R55,3 million only R10,6 million came from inside that territory. The remaining R45 million was the statutory amount from the Treasury of South Africa. Therefore we have the situation where in terms of international recognition and the International Court of Justice which determines international status, and because it has already surrendered part of its authority to the other power before it has achieved independence; in other words, it is still in a servile state, and because it requires for its very existence as a State revenue to the extent of 81% from its original parent body Ciskei cannot be seen to be sovereign and independent in regard to any multilateral international status. We are left with the situation where we are playing games. We say that we are conferring a sovereign independent status on people. That may be the wording of the statute but in terms of the reality of the situation this State does not have the same qualitative and real sovereign status in practical and real terms as has the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to react to the argument of the hon. member for Sea Point, but I do not want to embarrass you in regard to your rulings.

If the hon. member is afraid that he may do so, he must try to avoid it.

I shall try to avoid it, but may I respectfully draw your attention to the fact that the hon. member for Sea Point has now raised a cardinal element of clause 5 in his argument? I therefore just want to know if, with your leave, I may deal with his arguments without introducing a new aspect into the debate.

The hon. member may reply to that very briefly.

I shall do so by responding solely to what the hon. member for Sea Point said.

The argument we are now engaged in concerns the creation of equal status for States to obtain contractual capacity in order to negotiate with one another with a view to a confederation. That is what is involved in this situation. The element which the hon. member for Sea Point has now introduced is also the subject of an international argument vis-à-vis the international recognition of states as such and the role which the International Court of Justice plays in this regard.

It is not correct to contend that legal norms are decisive in determining whether a state is recognized or not. Of course there are obvious legal norms which apply, but States are guided by political rather than legal arguments. The hon. member says we cannot express or measure the Ciskei’s independence because the International Court of Justice will not adjudicate on it. This is not correct, because the fact that the International Court of Justice does not recognize a State’s contractual capacity as a subject of international law, does not detract from the fact that that State may be an independent State.

I just want to respond briefly to the allegation that we have now contracted with our servant. That allegation is not correct. Perhaps we can deal with this matter more calmly when we discuss clause 5, but I am already saying that that allegation is not correct, because it is expressly provided in the provisions of the Bill that the agreements we are now entering into with the Ciskei—i.e. between two Governments or two Cabinets—may be ratified as an international convention or international treaty. The fact that the International Court of Justice and the UN as such require each State to register an agreement with it and contend that a State which is not so registered cannot make use of the International Court of Justice, does not detract from the fact that a State can be an independent or sovereign State.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down suggested that the whole reason why independence was being given was in order that Ciskei should have equal status so that it could have a trade agreement with South Africa. If that is the only reason, then it is a very stupid argument to make out and a very stupid sort of reason.

It is one of the reasons.

The hon. member did not say “one of the reasons”; he said “the reason”.

I want to come back to the economic independence of Ciskei and I want to deal specifically with subsection (1) of clause 1 to discover from the hon. the Minister what precisely it is over which we are giving independence. We realize that in Schedule A we have a number of districts spelt out but we are also aware that this does not cover the whole situation. I want to question the hon. the Minister in connection with two subjects.

Order! I have ruled that I will not allow the repetition of arguments and questions. I think the matter of the constituent areas of this new State has been canvassed fully. Therefore, I will not allow the hon. member to discuss that matter any further.

Mr. Chairman, I accept your ruling totally. It is not the areas but what will be on those particular areas that I want to discuss. The hon. the Minister in the Second Reading debate told us that there were going to be five cooperation projects, I think he called them, within the overall area of Ciskei and the border corridor, the East London area. We have had no clarification from the hon. the Minister of where those projects are going to be. Are they going to be in Ciskei or are they going to be, for instance, in Berlin.

Order! Standing Order No. 63 provides that—

The hon. member has made reference to something which the hon. the Minister said in a previous speech but I cannot find anything in regard to what the hon. the Minister said contained in the details of this clause. Therefore, I cannot allow any discussion of it.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, if I may explain this again to you, this particular clause gives sovereign independence over a certain area of Ciskei. The principle of sovereign independence over that particular area has been established. The hon. the Minister in motivating his remarks said that certain things were going to happen. What I am trying to establish is where those particular things are going to happen. Where will those cooperatives be? This surely concerns a detail of the clause rather than the principle of independence which has been accepted. We are now trying to go further into the details of what precisely is intended.

Order! As the present incumbent of the Chair, I see the Second Reading as the pre-natal stage of a Bill. The Committee Stage I see as an opportunity for hon. members, except the first speakers, to clinically examine the particulars of each clause. The Third Reading I see as a kind of post-mortem in regard to the Bill and the effects it will have on those at whom it is directed. These matters can be discussed during the Third Reading stage and I will not allow any further efforts to circumvent my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, there is actually only one question I must answer. I feel we have debated the other points to good effect. Of course we must also respect your ruling.

In the light of the fact that equal status has been established the hon. member for Berea asked whether the convention does justice to the concept of equal status.

Especially as regards travel documents.

Yes, as regards travel documents. I want to refer the hon. member to Point l.A of the convention where this is spelt out very clearly. The heading also tells us that this is a bilateral convention. If words have any meaning, the following words have a very specific meaning—

So it is very clear …

It is as clear as mud.

Of course it is clear that there is no breach here, as far as I can see, in regard to the question of equal status.

What about 1(b)?

Yes, but the question concerned 1(a). 1(b) reads as follows—

Here one has exactly the same thing, namely the concept of reciprocity to keep faith with the concept of equal status. Here one has two independent States in the fullest sense of the word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister a specific question. When one is dealing with what is anticipated in 1(b), clearly what one is talking about is the question of travel documents abroad. So one is talking about passports. In practice we know and the hon. the Minister knows that a Ciskeian will not have a passport which is going to be recognized overseas. So we are now making provision for him to have a South African passport because we think that that is stronger. In other words, the sovereignty of South Africa in that regard is a senior sovereignty over any sovereignty the Ciskei might have. [Interjections.] My question to the hon. the Minister is how he can then talk about equal sovereign status.

Sir, I am quite correct in my contention. Paragraph (b) does not concern what the hon. member has just said. The agreement does not mention passports, but “travel documents”. In paragraph (b) what is involved is that if someone travels with such a travel document he will be protected. In my humble opinion it is therefore in any case the intention that there should be real reciprocity here. That is why it is stated that this will be done as far as it is possible for the two parties concerned. If there was ever an honest attempt to bring about real reciprocity and equal status between the participating parties, it is embodied in this convention.

Mr. Chairman, before I resume my seat, there is just one matter that I really cannot allow to pass because I think that would create a very false impression. I refer to the point that was again raised under clause 1 that this State, Ciskei, will in point of fact not be an independent State because it does not have funds at its disposal and is not sufficiently viable economically. I just want to refer to a few figures. We must really move away from this misconception. Between 1977 and 1981 the revenue generated by the Ciskei itself more than doubled. In less than five years it more than doubled. That is strong evidence that the hon. members opposite cannot argue as they have here. In any event, the hon. members know that these are relative considerations. It has been pointed out that the Hebrides generates far less revenue. There are also other States in the world that generate a far smaller revenue than the Ciskei and that also receive aid from other States and the World Bank. They are nevertheless fully independent States. It is therefore not fair for the hon. members to argue in this way.

Order! The hon. the Minister may pursue this matter further in the Third Reading.

Mr. Chairman, with due regard to your ruling I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. I refer to the implication of clause 1(2) in consequence of the remarks made here by the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt. They stated very clearly that what is defined in the schedule is not final, but that there are still processes under way. However, in clause 1(2) it is clearly stated that the Republic of South Africa withdraws its authority over the areas mentioned in the Schedule. In general, when a state is created, it is very much better to stipulate the borders of that State in legislation and not subject the matter to uncertainty. I think everyone will agree on this. Now my question to the hon. the Minister is: What are the legal implications of clause 1(2) when land is excised from the territory of the Republic of South Africa other than by way of legislation? That is my question. We are concerned here with a process in which not only is a new State being created, but the authority of the Government of the Republic of South Africa is also being withdrawn from that specific area. The description of the withdrawal is therefore incomplete because it has already been intimated that it is not correct or complete.

For the purposes of this legislation it is totally correct and complete.

I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me what the legal implications are if land is excised from the territory of the Republic other than by way of statutory measures.

Mr. Chairman, I answer the hon. member’s question with pleasure. For the purposes of this legislation the definition of the area in question is absolutely 100% legal. Our legal advisors investigated the matter very thoroughly. In any case this is already the third example of this kind. In the other cases we had no option either. I fully agree with the hon. member that it would be ideal if the borders could be stipulated by statute before status legislation is tabled in this House. If we could do that, it would be the ideal situation. However, that was not possible.

The borders, as they are fixed at present, are in any case absolutely valid in law. Our legal advisors have confirmed this, and in any case there are no legal implications which can cause any embarrassment.

In the final instance I want to point out that if any new additions of land were to take place, then, as I put it during the Second Reading, the position is very clear, i.e. that such a step cannot be valid in law until it has been approved by this Parliament. That is what it amounts to. In fact, then, there is no problem here because the course to be followed is very clear. The borders are determined in terms of the agreements which have already been published. They are also approved by this Parliament by means of the acceptance of this legislation. To be valid in law, further additions of land must again be approved by this Parliament. If this does not happen, it cannot have legal validity.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, I am simply standing up to announce that we intend opposing this clause. It is part of the whole structure of the independence of Ciskei to which we are opposed in principle. We are moving no amendments to this clause, but we intend to vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member said, the problem with which we are faced is the fact that by ratifying all the measures that were inforce with effect from the introduction of this legislation in the Ciskei, is in fact approving all the measures that are in force in the Ciskei at the moment. Amongst other things, there is a problem regarding one specific proclamation, viz. proclamation 252 of the Ciskei. Therefore, I just want to emphasize that the argument cannot be raised against us that in exercising its legislative powers, the Ciskei was free to accept this proclamation. I accept this readily. However, I want to point out that by passing clause 2, we are accepting co-paternity for what is being provided in the legislation of the Ciskei, more specifically for proclamation 252. We cannot get away from this. The Quail Commission referred to this proclamation too, which provides, inter alia, that—

1. (a) the holding thereof has been authorized in writing by the magistrate of the district in which it is held, and
2. (b) it is held at a time and place in accordance with such other provisions as such magistrate may specify as he is hereby authorized to do.

I cannot deal with the entire proclamation here.

The hon. member may definitely not do so. He must deal with the clause.

However, there are other provisions too, including one which places a prohibition on obtaining interdicts in connection with the entire application of the proclamation. This side of the House is very concerned about the existence of such a proclamation in the Ciskei, and we should therefore like to express our opposition to the continued existence of such a proclamation. In our opinion it places under suspicion the entire question of the validity of the political processes in the Ciskei, and in this regard the question of the referendum as well.

Mr. Chairman, I want to react briefly to what the hon. member has just said by pointing out that the official Opposition is retrogressing (“die kreeftegang gaan”) with regard to the independence of the Ciskei. Hon. members will see in Hansard that the Opposition did not think fit to oppose clause 2 of the Bill concerned when we were dealing with the independence of Bophuthatswana. Here they are in fact opposing it.

“’n Kreeftegang?”

Yes, “’n kreeftegang”, moving backwards as a crab does. The hon. member Prof. Olivier referred to proclamation 252, but with a view to what I am going to say now, it actually encumbers the point. In the different stages of self-government that the various nations have reached, it is their right to maintain law and order in their own country. This is where the origin of proclamation 252 lies. It is already four years old because it was issued on 30 September 1977. Therefore, once again this is evidence of the retrogressive behaviour of the Opposition. However, what is actually bothering me is whether the official Opposition—and I cannot imagine that it could be otherwise—is really in favour of the maintenance of law and order. [Interjections.] I accept that they are in fact in favour of it, but then they must act accordingly. This proclamation was drawn up according to the wishes of the Ciskei, and it is their right to maintain it. It is the authority that they were given when they reached the stage of self-government. They issued that proclamation, and we have nothing to say about it. Looking at it from their viewpoint, it is aimed at maintaining law and order in the Ciskei, because it has a bearing on the Black people in the Ciskei alone.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to say that the NRP will not vote against this clause. The principle has now been accepted that Ciskei will be independent. Clause 1, which establishes that principle, has now been passed by the House, and we feel that it would be illogical to vote against this clause. That would then leave the new State hanging in the air with no form of government at all, because the sovereignty of this Parliament would have been withdrawn. The power of this Parliament would have been withdrawn, a new Government would have been established and, unless this clause is passed, there will be no provision for the change-over to take place. For practical and logical reasons therefore, but in no way with less opposition to the Bill as a whole or to the principle, we will not oppose this clause.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, this clause is the clause which gives formal legislative authority to the present Legislative Assembly of Ciskei. All power will really repose in the Legislative Assembly, and that is what this clause is all about. It will be able to pass laws etc. and that is where the power will lie. I think the Government will concede that at the moment of independence it is very important to see that either the constitution or the bodies that are in power at that stage are the kind of bodies on which one can build satisfactory growth in independence in the years to come. I should like to demonstrate this. If one looks at South Africa’s concern with the independence of Namibia, South Africa said—I think very correctly—the new Government should be based on free and fair elections and that prior to independence there should be an agreed constitution which should contain guarantees both that the democratic process would continue in the future and that there would be protection for minorities. In order to make sure that independence, when it is launched, will continue in the democratic way, our Government in respect of Namibia believes in free and fair elections, an agreed constitution, a guarantee in respect of the democratic process after independence and protection for minorities. All power is being given to the Legislative Assembly of Ciskei. It will be the supreme law-making body in that country. One asks oneself: Is that Legislative Assembly an appropriate body to which this Government should surrender power so that it can run that country? Does the hon. the Minister believe that it is the appropriate body?

But of course I believe it.

I ask this question, Sir, because that Legislative Assembly which will take over after independence on 4 December this year, was not elected for the purpose of independence and it does not reflect the independent situation. It was elected way back in 1978 and it was elected for a purpose other than taking over after independence. That is the first point. Secondly, does the Government think it is appropriate that in a society which we hope will be democratic, three-fifths of the members of the Legislative Assembly referred to in this clause, will in fact be ex officio members because they are chiefs and that only two-fifths will be elected members? Does the hon. the Minister believe that that is an appropriate body? Thirdly, does the hon. the Minister believe that it is appropriate that they should enter independence on the basis of a one-party State? I say this advisedly not only because the present ruling party has all 55 seats in that assembly but because the Quail Commission appointed by the Ciskei Government to all intents and purposes …

Order! I just want to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that this is an enabling clause as far as the existing Legislative Assembly of Ciskei is concerned. In my view this clause does not cover the matters with which the hon. member is presently dealing.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I am not questioning your ruling, Sir, but I should like to inquire whether the hon. member for Sea Point cannot perhaps be permitted to elaborate a little further on this basis. I understand the principle of the clause which is that the Legislative Assembly of Ciskei is being given certain powers, but is it not permissible to inquire as to the implications of the giving of such powers?

I have no wish continually to interrupt hon. members while they speak or in any way to limit their opportunity to participate in the deliberations of this House. However, as I have stated previously today, Standing Order No. 63 provides clearly that only the details of a clause shall be discussed at the Committee Stage. In my view this in effect limits the discussion to dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s. I realize that in the past a certain amount of latitude has been given to hon. members in this regard, but I do not think that such latitude should extend to referring to matters that fall beyond the ambit of the clause. When I interrupted the hon. member he was dealing with matters falling completely beyond the scope of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I think you did say at the outset that you were prepared to allow one hon. member per party to deal with the principle.

That was only in respect of clause 1 because that clause contains the principle of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, you have suggested that there are many principles in this Bill.

No, the main principle of the Bill is contained in clause 1, namely the independence of Ciskei as such. I feel that this principle as well as what may be termed various secondary principles was fully—discussed during the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Chairman, is there not perhaps an irreconcilability in your ruling? If there is only one principle in a Bill, with great respect, Sir, I would submit that the Chair can inhibit the hon. member for Sea Point in his remarks on a particular clause. However, if there are many principles, if, for example, there is one principle per clause, then, in terms of your ruling and the tradition of the Chair, there is one hon. member per principle who may speak on it.

In the circumstances, and without committing myself for the future, I shall allow the hon. member for Sea Point to deal very briefly with the matter he was discussing. The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must say, Sir, that in making these remarks I was guided by the debate during the Committee Stage on the Status of Transkei Bill in which the question of whether the Legislative Assembly of Transkei …

You do not recognize Transkei.

Mr. Chairman, all I want to say is that the debate on the Committee Stage of the Status of Transkei Bill covered the question of whether the Transkei Legislative Assembly was an appropriate body to which this Parliament could hand over legislative authority. Therefore, the question of the principle of sovereignty is dealt with. In terms of this clause, the Legislative Assembly of Ciskei shall be vested with certain powers. I put it to the hon. the Minister: Does he believe that the Legislative Assembly of Ciskei which was not designed for independence is an appropriate body in which to devolve this legislative authority? The question is whether it was elected for the purpose of independence; is it representative of the “volk”? Three-fifths of the members are chiefs and only two-fifths are elected members. Is the hon. the Minister satisfied that in the absence of a constitution …

What is the alternative?

The hon. member is being flippant.

We are here rendering sovereign power to somebody else, but we have not seen the constitution and yet we are asked to surrender that power on the basis of an old constitution. We argue that an old constitution obtains and the Legislative Assembly as composed in terms of that old constitution is not appropriate for independence. This Parliament, however, is just handing over power without its knowing what the new Legislative Assembly is going to be like. This is of fundamental importance. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister: Is he satisfied that the Legislative Assembly, constituted as it is at the moment—the Quail Commission said “To all intents and purposes the Ciskei is a one-party State”—is an appropriate body and is appropriately composed to take over the powers and the functions of a Parliament for a sovereign independent State?

We are convinced.

I shall reply to that.

We do not believe it is and for those reasons shall oppose the clause.

Mr. Chairman, in terms of NRP policy which recognizes pluralism and believes that each unit in a plural society should have the right to determine and control the affairs which are intimate to that group, we believe that in the case of Ciskei, as one of S.A.’s plural units, it is for Ciskei to determine the method which they should follow. This Parliament, as it happens, represents only the White people of South Africa and no-one else. We believe that would be the right of the White society, the White group in the plural system which we envisage ultimately for South Africa—working together with each of the other units within a twin federal and confederal structure …

What about the Blacks outside …

We believe that the Blacks outside the homelands—so did that hon. member before he got all bitter and twisted—should be a unit within a federal structure in the common area of South Africa. They would then be part of the federation and they would be able to determine, within their unit, how they would run their own affairs.

But then you must oppose the clause.

You are becoming a pain in the neck!

Order!

If we want to claim for ourselves the right to control our own intimate affairs as a community of Whites, then we must grant the same to other communities as communities. Therefore we shall support this clause because it gives that right to Ciskei to decide for themselves. It is for them and their people to change the system if they are not satisfied with that system.

Mr. Chairman, in terms of your ruling only a member of each party and the Minister can speak about the principle of each clause. I do not want you to stop me in the middle of my speech and therefore I should like to know beforehand whether I am entitled to speak about this.

The ruling is—I said I am not extending the ruling to the other clauses—that it has been allowed thus far for one member from each of the Opposition parties and the Minister to speak about the principle at the beginning of a Committee Stage.

Then that means that I cannot speak about this.

Yes, that is true.

Mr. Chairman, in what he has said here on behalf of the Opposition, the hon. member for Sea Point has revealed himself as a real Rip van Winkel, as a stranger in Jerusalem. I shall tell hon. members why I am saying this. As early as in 1951, this Parliament passed the Bantu Authorities Act. That Act was based on the power of the chiefs. From it flowed a constitutional dispensation which has been in force in this country for 30 years already. Other constitutional developments too flowed from the Bantu Authorities, to which I should just like to refer briefly. First of all there were the district authorities, then the regional authorities and then legislative assemblies. It took seven years before the first legislative assembly was established. Then a Cabinet was formed. Now the hon. member really comes along after 30 years and asks me whether I am satisfied that these people are in a position to govern their own country. I find this quite unbelievable. It is absolutely unbelievable. If I could have sat down here and cried because they have said this, I would have done so now. I shall state the position briefly.

The position is that these Ciskeian people have a Cabinet that, judging from the long years of experience that I have had of them, is reliable and is of a high quality, that is inspired to do the best for their people and has the ability to do so. There was a Ciskeian who served on the Quail Commission. Repeatedly over the years they have proved that they have this capacity. I have addressed their Legislative Assembly on more than one occasion. It is a dignified institution, just as dignified as ours is here. The people there are the true leaders in their community. They are people who are accepted by their people as leaders of that community. They are people who are venerated as leaders in their community. They are people to whom I listen with a great deal of interest when they rise to their feet in order to speak about their own interests. Over the years I have learned a great deal from them and over the years I have also developed a great deal of respect for them. We are also dealing here with a Chief Minister who went about things in such a democratic fashion that in the progress that he made, step by step and inch by inch, he not only took his Cabinet with him, but his Legislative Assembly as well. The Legislative Assembly has said time and again: But let us call the people together, and the people have also repeatedly been called together at Ntaba KaNdoba. After all this has happened, this hon. member comes here and asks me whether these people are in a position to do so. My reply to him is a resounding “yes”. But the implication of his question was so negative.

The hon. member asks me whether these people were chosen for the purposes of independence. Those people were chosen to govern their people and they have been doing so for many years. If one says that the hon. members opposite do not take the authority of this Parliament into account and then make certain other allegations arising from this, they become angry with us, but if people display this type of ignorance, it must not be held against us if we make certain allegations. I tell hon. members now that not only will we make that type of allegation—I am going to restrain myself from making it now—but we are being given no other choice but to make other allegations too. After all, those Ciskeian people have been elected in the usual democratic manner. If they were to decide themselves that after independence it would be necessary for them specifically to have a Legislative Assembly for the purposes of independence, surely it is their right to have it. No one is preventing them from doing so. Surely then they can hold an election. They can hold an election at any time. They have the right to do so. I charged the hon. members with that in the First Reading debate already when I said that the arrogance that is being displayed here, simply knows no bounds. It is therefore being insinuated that these Ciskeian people do not have the ability to decide or to judge for themselves whether their Legislative Assembly is the right one or not in given circumstances. How am I to decide on this? This Parliament does not have the authority to decide on it. It is those people’s right to do so themselves. Let me simply add for the information of the hon. member for Sea Point that what I am now saying with regard to the Ciskei, applies to kwaZulu as well, where Buthelezi is the Chief Minister. They have the same powers. This also applies to each one of the Black national States in South Africa, with the exception of Kangwane, which has not yet been granted the final phase of self-government. All the others have already received it. The last one to receive it, was kwaNdebele. They received it in April 1981. Kangwane is exerting a tremendous amount of pressure to receive it as well, and we are in the process of investigating this. In fact, they are coming to see me tomorrow. As I have said, this already applies to all the other States. Therefore, my unqualified reply to the hon. member is that it is in fact a suitable body and that in my opinion, it is also in a position with objective judgment to exercise authority over its own people. In any event, it is in the process of doing so.

Let me point out something else which the hon. members opposite do not know either. These Ciskeian people are exercising that authority under extremely difficult circumstances. Let me say that they are setting a very fine example, because they too have people in their midst who are troublesome and who are making it very difficult for them. I could occupy the House for quite some time by telling them how these Ciskeian people are not only doing so in a praiseworthy manner, but in an extremely efficient manner too. They are maintaining law and order in that State of theirs in a way that speaks of the highest calibre.

[Inaudible.]

Finally the hon. member spoke about a “one-party State”. I just want to refer to it briefly.

The Quail Commission says so.

Is the hon. member a foreigner in Africa too? Surely one-party States in Africa are not an abnormal thing.

But are they a good thing?

Once again we see the absolute double standards that are being applied here. With all due respect, the official Opposition is applying double standards in the same way as the UN. As has been proved over the past two days, they often apply double standards to their own people in the Republic of South Africa. I have often pointed out before that whilst they are in favour of independence for South West Africa, they are not in favour of it for the Ciskei. A Black one-party State elsewhere in Africa is quite in order, but in the case of a South African Black State it is a bad thing.

Finally, let me say that the hon. members opposite may be grateful for the sake of their children that the national States in this country have displayed extremely responsible leadership over the last quarter of a century and more. The leaders are accepted by their people because they have proved that they are leaders who are worthy of being accepted as leaders. Their leadership is so responsible that in most cases there is not even anyone on the horizon to threaten their authority. In the case of each one of the leaders of the national States, I do not know of an opponent on the horizon who could oust him from his position. Those States also hold democratic elections from time to time. The Transkei held an election again last week. After all, hon. members saw it. My unqualified replies to the hon. member for Sea Point, to each one of them, are therefore “yes”, “yes” and “yes”. I am grateful to be able to say this. It is based on experienced and I am really not trying to be funny.

Then I should like to express my appreciation towards the hon. the Leader of the NRP for the attitude that he has adopted and the fact that the NRP is going to support this clause.

In conclusion I just want to say that as far as the provision contained in this clause is concerned, the official Opposition did not oppose it in the case of Bophuthatswana. However, they are opposing it now. Why are they doing this?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister compared Ciskei with South West Africa. I simply want to ask him …

Order! I do not think the hon. the Minister drew that comparison.

Yes, he did. He did that just a few minutes ago. In respect of that particular statement I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether a Ovambo or a Herero who was born in South Africa and who has lived here all his life, who has section 10 rights and who is a South African citizen, will, in terms of South West African independence, lose his South African citizenship and …

Order! I am definitely not allowing the question. It is a completely irrelevant question. It has nothing whatever to do with the clause now under discussion.

Mr. Chairman, I should simply like to put it to the hon. the Minister that it is not a question of double standards. The hon. the Minister alleges that we apply one standard to South West Africa and a different standard to Ciskei. We are trying to be consistent. In respect of South West Africa, he says, we want a predetermined constitution …

I only used that as an example.

Well, the hon. the Minister used that as an illustration. It was also said that the continuation of the democratic process should be guaranteed and that minorities should be protected. All we are saying is that if that is the hon. the Minister’s attitude, we want to know whether he is satisfied that that process has been completed in the case of Ciskei and that it is going to work effectively in that territory.

The second point made by the hon. the Minister was that we did not vote against a similar stipulation when the independence of Bophuthatswana was discussed here in the House. The hon. the Minister knows, however, that in the case of Bophuthatswana there was an agreed constitution before the independence legislation was discussed in this House. What is more, there was a Bill of Rights incorporated in that constitution. The hon. the Minister knows it. There was a predetermined constitution and there was a guaranteed Bill of Rights to protect the rights of minorities and individuals. That is why.

We voted against the absence of that in the case of Transkei.

That is correct. We opposed the Transkei independence legislation because this stipulation was not contained in the relevant Bill. Let us be realistic. Does the hon. the Minister believe that there should be a Bill of Rights? Does he believe that there should be a guaranteed democratic process? In the Bophuthatswana constitution provision was made for that. We saw that constitution before the independence legislation in respect of Bophuthatswana was discussed in this House. In this case, however, we are left with a constitution which has led, rightly or wrongly, to a one-party State in Ciskei, as the Quail Commission points out. We do not know what the future constitution is going to be, and yet we are asked to give a blank cheque to the Government to pass this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, in association with what the hon. member for Sea Point has just said …

Order! I have now allowed one speech in which the limits of the clause have been exceeded. Following that I allowed the hon. member for Sea Point—in actual fact, contrary to my own ruling—to reply to what the hon. the Minister had said. I shall not allow any further discussions that do not have a bearing upon the clause as such. They must have a bearing on the particulars of the clause. I feel that I must point out that the hon. member for Sea Point did not confine himself entirely to the particulars of the clause. That is why I do not believe that the hon. member Prof. Olivier can easily associate himself with what the hon. member for Sea Point has said.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with the particulars of the clause. I just want to point out that the hon. the Minister was not entirely correct …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the particulars of the clause only.

Mr. Chairman, what the hon. the Minister said with regard to the Legislative Assembly of the Ciskei, had a specific bearing on the details contained in clause 3(2). It deals with the assent of the State President to legislation by the Legislative Assembly of the Ciskei. In this regard the statement was made that there is complete confidence in the Legislative Assembly of the Ciskei and that that body would know best what to do.

The present position is that all legislation that is passed by the Legislative Assembly of the Ciskei, must be submitted to the State President for his approval, in terms of section 31 of the National States Constitution Act. Once the Ciskei has become independent, its Parliament or Legislative Assembly—this I can understand—must have carte blanche to pass legislation whenever it wishes. Of course, this is if the Ciskei is independent and sovereign in accordance with the definition that the hon. the Minister has formulated for it. Then the Parliament or Legislative Assembly of that State will be able to pass legislation when it wishes without it having to be referred to this Parliament. However, until the Ciskei has achieved that status, it is not yet independent, and therefore its Legislative Assembly is not yet sovereign.

In clause 3(1) it is provided that the Legislative Assembly of the Ciskei—a Ciskei that is not yet independent—can draw up a constitution and that it does not need to submit that constitution to the State President. If it is correct that the panegyric that was delivered with regard to the Legislative Assembly of the Ciskei here, is just as applicable to the other States that are not yet independent, the question arises why the hon. the Minister does not then take steps to waive that clause …

Surely that is not stated in the clause.

… with regard to the other non-independent States as well. I think the hon. the Minister will grant me the fact that it would indeed be much better if this Parliament were in a position, as it was in the case of Bophuthatswana, where we knew what the new constitution for the new State was. If this Parliament cannot do this, it appears to be essential to me that at least the executive authority of this Parliament, i.e. the Cabinet, should be in a position at least to supervise that new constitution. It is in that regard that I say that I regret that there is a provision in this clause that provides that the approval of the State President is not required for the drawing up of that constitution.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member Prof. Olivier raised a few random thoughts here, otherwise he would most definitely have moved an amendment. The position is that this legislation comes into operation as is provided in clause 7, viz. when the State President so provides by proclamation in the Gazette. Until such time as this happens, the Ciskei is not yet independent and this legislation is not yet in force. When the Ciskei becomes independent on 4 December, it has the right in terms of its status to pass the legislation that it wants to pass itself, and of course this includes the constitution. In the first place the constitution is the responsibility of a specific country, the country where that constitution is going to apply. That is why I think it is the correct thing in this case for the constitution to be drawn up by the Legislative Assembly of the Ciskei when it has the right to do so. That is why the authorization of the State President is not necessary in this case.

Mr. Chairman, I am absolutely convinced that the intention as stated in the explanatory memorandum with regard to clause 3, is correct and that this House can act accordingly with full confidence.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House oppose this clause for two reasons. What the clause provides in effect is that Ciskei shall be bound by all such treaties, conventions and agreements which are at present applicable to it by virtue of the fact that they are treaties, conventions and agreements binding upon South Africa.

And they may denounce them.

The first reason why we oppose it is because the words used are that “Ciskei shall” be bound. That is, of course, pre-emptory. It makes it obligatory for Ciskei to be bound by treaties of the Republic of South Africa. If Ciskei is going to be independent, however, why must it be bound by us? Ciskei itself ought to legislate for its relations with other States. [Interjections.] I shall be coming to that point in a moment. Ciskei can declare itself bound by a batch of treaties, agreements or conventions if it wants to. The point I want to make is that this situation is not like the one in clause 2. Here it is not a question of having to have some set of laws existing until Ciskei can enact its own laws. It is not like that at all. The clause before us now is not an enabling clause. It is not a clause enabling relationship to be maintained with other States. It is an obligatory clause. It does not grant Ciskei rights. It places obligations on Ciskei. We are, in effect, emposing legal obligations on our own child. We are saddling our own child with legal obligations when it is quite unnecessary to do so. So instead of giving it rights, we are saddling it with obligations. We are saying it “shall” be bound. That is the first reason for our opposition. [Interjections.]

The second reason for our opposition is that this clause is a brutum fulmen and has no force in law. I say this because any treaty, agreement or convention must at least be bilateral. One cannot have any such thing as a unilateral agreement. An agreement, convention or treaty must at least be bilateral. It may, of course, be multi-lateral, but it cannot be unilateral. What one cannot do is to have party A creating a bilateral agreement between party B and party C. It cannot be done. It is impossible. One cannot have a unilateral act by party A creating a bilateral agreement between party B and party C. It is quite ludicrous. What is happening here is that party A is saying unilaterally that party B is going to be bound to party C in an enforceable agreement, but in law party B cannot be bound to party C in an enforceable agreement unless party C agrees to be bound to party B. [Interjections.]

Surely the will of the people can bind anything.

Clause 4 is therefore really quite meaningless. It means nothing, it is ineffective and it is unrealistic. What we are trying to do is to intervene in matters which are in essence bilateral or multilateral. In short, it is just not worth the paper it is written on. With respect, it is typical of the whole academic exercise we are going through here in creating fictitious independence for Ciskei. We therefore oppose this measure.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member who has just resumed his seat should get together at some stage and decide which one of them is in fact representing that party’s standpoint.

Pitman for the White man.

Within a few moments I shall take a closer look at the hon. member’s argument, but first of all I should just like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the hon. member for Sea Point was in fact arguing with us because we are giving the Ciskei certain things to do. However, that hon. member says that we cannot prescribe to the Ciskei what it should do. We agree 100%. However, the hon. member must simply read on to see what else is being provided in the clause. It is provided that the conventions and treaties remain in force—

Surely this is an enabling clause that we have here. [Interjections.] The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, actually agrees with me, because now he is laughing at his own argument. This is how simple it is. These conventions and treaties must remain in force until the Ciskeian Parliament is in a position to decide for itself, and they can do so as soon as they become independent. Then they can denounce everything. After all, the hon. member knows that we are not prescribing to the Ciskei what they should do. We are telling them that they can do so if they wish, but we are not telling them that they must denounce those conventions and treaties. It is clearly stated in the clause—

Then it is the task of the Ciskei to negotiate with the people with whom they have treaties or agreements, and then they can decide themselves whether they want to proceed with them or not.

In conclusion, I want to ask hon. members not to waste time with this type of argument, as the hon. member for Pinetown has done now.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to record that we in this party shall support the clause since it is a logical part of the process that has been established by clause 1. I listened with disbelief to an advocate, a legally trained person, saying that they are opposing this clause because it imposes treaties unilaterally on another Government, in a clause which specifically provides—

[Interjections.] What happens if one does not have this clause? Ciskei adjoins Transkei. Transkei is part of the Rand Monetary Union. If the treaty between South Africa and Transkei on monetary affairs is not continued, one immediately has a hiatus. If Ciskei, however, does not like the treaty, it can revoke that treaty the day after independence.

The point is, Transkei can revoke the treaty.

Or Transkei can revoke it. Any treaty can be revoked. One must, however, give the option to the parties involved.

It is not an option. It is compulsory.

It is an option to continue or to revoke a treaty or convention. If one does not have this, one is giving no option; one is revoking all treaties and saying: “Start again ab initio and draw up your own treaties.” That is not practical. It sounds unbelievable that this can be put forward as a serious argument. We are not going to make fools of ourselves. We will support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Durban Point is not going to make a fool of himself this evening, I wonder why he agreed to make a fool of himself on 10 June 1976 when he and the hon. gentleman sitting next to him and one or two others who might have been here at the time voted with us in opposing an identical clause in the Status of Transkei Bill. [Interjections.] I am not interested in the NRP. I am only interested in the names which appear in column 8673 of Hansard of that year, and there I see the names of the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Umhlanga etc. They agreed with us that this was a nonsense clause. I am not interested at the moment in whether we are imposing a treaty on Ciskei, although that is a very valid argument. What interests me, Sir, is that we have taken the step of extending treaties that existed between the Republic and other countries. We are now extending those to Ciskei. How we can do this is beyond me because no country in the world outside of Bophuthatswana, Venda, Transkei and the Republic, is in fact going to recognize the independence of Ciskei. That is what makes of this a complete nonsense clause. [Interjections.] That hon. member has come to his senses whereas the hon. member for Durban Point now says that we are making fools of ourselves. All I can say is that the hon. member for Durban Point is now going to vote for the identical clause that he opposed in 1976. As I say, not one single country outside of the existing three independent States of Bophuthatswana, Transkei and Venda, and the Republic of South Africa, is going to recognize an independent Ciskei. I think that even the hon. the Minister must be realistic enough to know that that is the case. I am not merely referring to the United Nations. I am referring to every country throughout the world. How are we going to impose unilaterally treaties on those countries which are not even going to recognize the existence of an independent Ciskei?

Mr. Chairman, I accept what the hon. member for Houghton has said in regard to what happened in 1976. [Interjections.] The hon. member referred to certain hon. members here who voted in a certain way at that time. However, I should like to remind the hon. member for Houghton—and she knows this—that at that time it was the United Party making that decision and that at that time we had not developed the confederal philosophy in which we now believe. We are now the NRP, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to take this argument one step further. The hon. member for Houghton mentioned the ridiculousness of trying to bind Britain or the United States to treaties with Ciskei. However, if we take this argument right back to our backdoor, that is, to Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda, the question to be asked is: How can Ciskei or those other States be bound by an agreement which in fact does not exist? If there is an agreement or convention which exists between, say, South Africa and Transkei or Venda or Bophuthatswana, then those conventions or agreements are binding upon the Governments of South Africa and of Transkei, Venda or Bophuthatswana. However, there is absolutely no legal basis whatsoever on which to transfer unilaterally the powers or obligations or duties or even privileges of an agreement between two countries where suddenly a third country is interposed. Such an agreement or convention cannot be binding on either Ciskei or Transkei and therefore it is void.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that two of his colleagues laboured the same point to some extent.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to try to clear up something of a misunderstanding. If hon. members would look at the provisions of the explanatory memorandum on this Bill with regard to clause 4, then it would appear to me as if the few words that they have overlooked are the following: “conventions and agreements binding on the Republic and capable of being applied to Ciskei”. These are the cardinal words as far as this clause is concerned. What we are doing here, is very reasonable and it is to make the agreements that are at present binding on the Republic and applicable to the Ciskei, binding on the Ciskei as well. When the Ciskei becomes independent, we do not start with what they call a “clean-slate” process. This means that the Ciskei would have to conclude agreements from scratch. Surely it is much better, with the introduction of these cardinal words, to allow what is applicable to the Ciskei to be transferred to the Ciskei as existing binding agreements after independence. Take certain agreements that we have, but which are not going to apply to the Ciskei. Perhaps we can think of the agreement concerning Simonstown in this regard. It is not necessarily applicable to the Ciskei. An agreement that we have to combat stock diseases or other diseases—there are many examples to which one could refer—is surely applicable to the Ciskei as well. All we are saying now, is instead of taking the roundabout way of a clean slate process so that they have to conclude those agreements from scratch, those agreements that are binding to us and that apply to them, can be continued if they wish.

But how can a third party be bound by it?

We also say that they can repeal it at any stage later on should they wish to do so. In the case of the other States that have become independent, this method is working excellently.

Give us an example.

But it is working extremely well with the TBV countries. There are posts and telegraph agreements and there are other agreements too.

But those are with us.

If they are applicable to them and they do not want to repeal them, we are working together. After all, there is such a thing as tripartite cooperation and this is the case here. I honestly think that if we understand one another on this point, there is no problem.

Mr. Chairman, this is only a question. Can the hon. the Minister give us an example, a concrete example of a convention involving two parties, one being South African at the present time and the other one another party which I should like him to disclose, which has a bearing on Transkei? Could he give us such an example?

Applicable to the Transkei?

To the Ciskei.

As far as the Ciskei is concerned there are many. I have already referred to the agreement with regard to the combating of stock disease.

With whom is the convention?

If we have an agreement with another Africa State, for instance, surely we can do this. If we have an agreement with any other country on various matters, surely we can do it. I do not have it at the tips of my fingers now so I cannot give specific examples, but there are such examples. All we are doing here, is that we are merely opening the process so that it will not be necessary, as I have already said repeatedly, to do so on a clean slate method. If there is an agreement that is applicable to them at the moment—after all, the words say very expressly if it is applicable to the Ciskei at present—it may be binding on them after they have become independent, unless they denounce it unilaterally.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately that is not good enough, because that is not the question that was put.

Not at all.

We asked for a specific example.

†I asked that question because I would like to obtain an idea of whom the third party could be, the outside party …

And how it could be bound.

Yes, that is what I am getting at.

Who is the third party? Is it another country? Is it an organization? Furthermore, how can that party be bound to an agreement which it never signed with Ciskei? If that third party cannot be bound to the agreement, then that agreement is void; there is no such an agreement. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can deal with this specific point. It is no good saying that Ciskei can make a decision; Ciskei can do this or that. I say whether Ciskei stands on its head and waggles its thumbs, it does not have an agreement to agree to.

It is no good talking about the rinder pest either.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sandton is not correct because the basic supposition regarding who may form contracts with the State, is being called into question according to his philosophy. The example that he is looking for, is an agreement that this State made with the Transkei with regard to rail transport, roads, stock disease and so on, but which is applicable to the Ciskei as well. That is why the Ciskei can take over such matters that affect them, as part of the contracting parties.

How can they? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman … [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, this is my maiden speech in this Committee and I should like to address myself to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti just to get the record straight as he tried to do. I would be very glad if he would give us his attention and I would also be very glad to hear from him after I have sat down.

Order! The hon. member must adhere to the ruling of the Chair.

Yes, Sir, absolutely.

It is his first speech, Mr. Chairman, will you not be a little more lenient?

I am a newcomer to this debate, Sir. The hon. member for Durban Point made it clear that the NRP would be supporting this particular clause.

This time.

Yes, this time. The hon. member for Houghton then reminded the hon. member and some of his colleagues that when we discussed the Status of Transkei Bill they actually voted against a similar provision. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti, however, quite correctly, he thought, told this House that when they did that they were still in the old dark days of the United Party and could therefore not be held responsible. Now they have a new policy all about confederation. Now I ask the hon. member concerned to refer to Hansard, cols. 8993 and 8994 of Friday, 15 June 1979 where the official Opposition, that is us, and the New Republic Party, which I think is their name, dissented and actually voted against clause 4. Would the hon. member now please tell me whether they have a new policy of confederation, whether it is a new idea or whether they have simply not done their homework? [Interjections.]

Order! I put the clause.

No, Mr. Chairman …

Order! Is the hon. member going to apply his mind to the details of clause 4?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I should like to say just one thing to the party which finds this clause so amusing. I want to remind them that in the instance of Venda we opposed the Bill for a completely different reason which was that there was a Government in power which had not been democratically elected by the Venda voters. We opposed the Bill on that basis.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! I regret the hon. member for Sandton has already had three opportunities to speak.

No, Mr. Chairman, one was a question.

Order! I am bound by the rules. The hon. member has had three opportunities to speak.

One was a question, Sir.

The hon. member took some time to put his question.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May I ask whether you keep a record of the speeches?

I do.

And you have recorded three speeches by the hon. member for Sandton?

In this case because of speeches being short, a record is actually only being kept of the time occupied by members. None of the members have used up their time up to now.

Mr. Chairman, do you not recall the hon. member for Sandton asking permission to put a question?

Yes, that was his last turn to speak.

But it wasn’t a turn, Sir.

Yes, but his question then became a speech.

No, Mr. Chairman.

I ask you to reconsider, Sir.

Put it in a letter to the New York Times.

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

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether he intends before the voting on this clause to deal with the point raised and, if he does not intend to do so, whether he is unable to do so or incompetent or does not understand the legal point which has been raised relating to the question as to whether Ciskei itself can be bound to an agreement which does not exist?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member was not present at the debate and now he comes in here and makes allegations of that nature. That is a little unfair. I shall really exercise restraint. [Interjections.] The hon. member now wants examples. I have already given examples. The agreement on the combating of stock diseases which has been entered into with certain countries applies to Ciskei. This provision is intended to provide that it continues to apply to them unless they do not wish it. They have the right to denounce the agreement after independence. Then there is the Postal Union Agreement we have with various European countries, which is binding on us and applicable to the Ciskei. All we are doing here is to say to Ciskei that instead of its having to conclude Postal Union agreements with the various European countries, it can do what we have provided in the clause. If it is unable to do so, then it is fully entitled to withdraw, as is stated in the clause. I have furnished examples in this connection. There are other examples one could furnish in the field of postal affairs, radio and various other fields. I have given a number of examples, but the hon. member keeps on pestering. Why does he do it?

How could it be binding on the other countries?

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with all the treaties, conventions and agreements entered into between the Government of the Republic and the Government of Ciskei prior to Ciskei’s becoming independent, and which will still be in force at the time of independence. Clause 5(2) states—

This presumably means any time in the future as well as any time in the past—

I must say that we have already seen some of these agreements which have been concluded between Ciskei and the Republic of South Africa. I think some 33 agreements have already been agreed upon between the Cabinet Committees of the two countries. The hon. the Minister, however, mentioned to us that there were about 70 in all in the making. That means that we are therefore being asked to approve of agreements which we have not seen at all.

I gave the hon. Leader of the Opposition a full list of all these agreements.

Yes, that is correct, but they are not all there. Only the titles are mentioned there. What subjects those agreements are going to cover we do not know. We also do not know the details of the agreements.

They are all there.

Well, I do not know. I do not think they are all there at all. The hon. the Minister should let us have a recent certificate of the agreements; not one dating back to his Oxford days. [Interjections.]

There are a number of treaties about which we know. Some of them are going to be very formal treaties between the Government of this country and the Government of the future independent Ciskei. As I have already said, however, we are unable to approve of those agreements because of our objection in principle to an independent Ciskei. Of course, there are many agreements which we have not yet seen.

Mr. Chairman, the argument advanced by the hon. member for Houghton as to why the official Opposition is unable to support this clause, is a totally fallacious argument. Nowhere is there any obligation on the executive to submit the treaties it enters into this Parliament for ratification. Her argument is therefore fallacious.

The clause exclusively concerns the casting of agreements entered into before the stage of independence, in the form of an international treaty or convention after independence. This is the essence of this specific clause. In order to eliminate a false impression stemming from an argument advanced by the hon. Leader of the Opposition during the Second Reading with regard to the matter, I just want to point out with regard to this clause that the basic treaty provides for its own enforcement mechanism, as stated by the hon. the Minister. I therefore do not think the arguments advanced are valid as regards the approval of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, in accordance with your ruling I shall not belabour this point except to re-emphasize to the hon. the Minister and to other hon. members why we shall be voting against this particular clause, viz. because we believe that the agreements are inadequate within the framework of a confederation. In addition, they are unspecific, and we cannot therefore support this particular clause.

Mr. Chairman, among the agreements that have been discussed this afternoon is the one which the hon. the Minister referred to very enthusiastically and made available to us yesterday. I have a problem with regard to the discussion of this particular agreement, because parts of that agreement in fact fall under other parts of the Bill. For example, looking at the last part of that agreement, we see that it is covered by section 6(3). I therefore take it, Mr. Chairman, that your ruling will probably be that as regards that part of the agreement between the Republic of South Africa and Ciskei, I should discuss it under that subsection.

I do not want to limit the hon. member in the discussion of the details of the clause, nor do I know what the hon. member has in mind, but before the hon. member discusses anything of that nature I just want to tell him that I shall not permit him to discuss specific treaties, conventions and agreements, because they do not form part of the details of the clause, and accordingly they are not before the Committee.

That of course places this side of the House in an extremely difficult position. However we appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister put at our disposal some of the agreements that are available.

Long before the time.

I appreciate that. However, the problem that arises in this connection is that in terms of this clause, provision is being made in one of the agreements for the concept “nationality”. As the South African legislation reads at present, a distinction is not drawn between nationality and citizenship. It is precisely due to the existence of this agreement that it is impossible for us to support the clause.

Mr. Chairman, in terms of your ruling we are not going to be allowed to discuss any of the details of the agreements, but that is exactly the contents of this clause, if I may say so on a point of order.

This clause provides that conventions, treaties and agreements entered into by the two Governments before the introduction of this Bill shall remain in force as international treaties etc. I cannot stipulate what these conventions etc. are. The treaties, conventions and agreements as such are not before the Committee at the moment. They do not form part of the body of the Bill and definitely do not form part of the particulars contained in this clause. Therefore I cannot allow any discussion of them.

The hon. the Minister gave the hon. Leader of the Opposition a whole pile of agreements and they are called “Ciskei Independence—Proposed Agreements—Volume I—between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of Ciskei, approved by the Working Committee and the Joint Cabinet Committee”, and there is also Volume II.

They are not before the Committee.

What then is before the Committee under clause 5?

The Bill as such and clause 5 specifically are at the moment under discussion. I have given my ruling.

So we are being asked to vote on a clause that refers to treaties and agreements which apparently we are not even supposed to have had sight of.

I take it that the hon. member had those documents before the Second Reading.

Sir, one cannot discuss the details of 70 agreements during the Second Reading debate.

It is not the details of the treaties, conventions and agreements that are before us now.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May I take this a little further?

I have given my ruling.

May I just put this to you; Mr. Chairman? Assume for one moment that it was common knowledge that there was a particular convention in force, would you permit us to move an amendment expressly excluding that particular convention from this clause? Let me test it in this way. If there was a particularly obnoxious agreement of which this Committee was aware, surely we would be allowed to move an amendment providing, let us say, “save for a convention on fisheries”? With great respect, Sir, I cannot see how you could possibly rule such an amendment out of order. If that is so then surely the hon. member Prof. Olivier would be correct in saying that there is one obnoxious treaty, agreement or convention that he wishes to bring to the attention of the Committee?

I am now talking off the cuff, but as I understand it, conventions will be attended to by the State President, by the executive. It is therefore not within the power of this Committee to discuss these matters.

A convention such as the one the hon. Chief Whip has in mind might be criticized by the House under a substantive motion or under the Prime Minister’s Vote or something of that nature, but I cannot see the House or the Committee having any power to pass judgment on such a convention except by way of a substantive motion. I therefore think the hon. member must abide by my ruling.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! I will not allow any further discussion on this.

Mr. Chairman, I just want some further elucidation on your ruling. I do not want to query it. Am I to understand that we may not discuss the content of the convention?

Yes, that is my ruling.

May we, however, refer to the contents of the convention as the reason for not wanting it included in this clause, because that is material? It is because of the content of the convention that the hon. member does not want to vote for the clause. Therefore she wants to use it as a motivation. It is not a question of wanting to comment on it in principle, but she wants to use it as the reason for not accepting this clause.

Order! I have already given my ruling in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, what you are asking this House to do is to vote blindly. I would like to ask you to rule whether it is permissible for the House to be asked to give its judgment totally blindly. I say this because that is, in effect, what your ruling means. [Interjections.]

Order! The Chair cannot enter the debate, nor does it wish to be drawn into the debate. The Chair has already given a ruling, and with that the matter has been closed.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, the clause we are dealing with now deals with what is probably the most sensitive issue arising out of the whole proposed independence of Ciskei. It was certainly the most sensitive issue in the previous Bills of a similar nature. As it reads, the clause has the effect of stripping away from every person referred to in Schedule B their existing and future rights to be citizens of the Republic and makes it obligatory for such persons to be citizens of the proposed new Republic of Ciskei. In other words, it is a mandatory consequence of independence the moment this Bill becomes law. The immediate effect will be that all people described or referred to in Schedule B of the Bill will immediately lose all their rights of citizenship as citizens of the Republic of South Africa and will automatically become citizens of the Republic of Ciskei. It is this consequence of the so-called independence situation of all these new states which is the most bitterly resented by vast numbers of individuals because it strikes at their very identity as individuals in the South African society. From the previous Bills we know that thus was the provision most resented and most rejected by the people concerned. We know that this is a thoroughly sensitive area and it is perhaps one of the worst features of the Bill we are discussing at present. During the Second Reading debate we had all the pious talk from the Government speakers of the great move towards nationhood, of national pride which this Bill is supposed to represent.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when business was suspended I had indicated that this clause is in many ways the most sensitive clause as it deals with the most sensitive issues relating to the question of independence. I said so because it in fact strikes at the very identity of individuals in the South African society.

During the Second Reading debate we had all the pious talk from Government speakers of the great move that this represented towards nationhood and of national pride which the Bill is alleged to represent. Government speakers said that here was real evidence and real recognition of the rights of others to develop their own national soul and to move along the road to self-determination. This really was the main theme from the Government benches throughout the Second Reading debate.

I want to ask whether the Government has ever stopped to think of the possibility that there is another side to the coin of this belief in the development of a national soul, this seeking for a national identity. Have they ever stopped to think that there are Ciskeians, for example, by origin who take pride in the fact that they are citizens and part of the greater South African nation and society? These people were born as South Africans. Has the Government ever stopped to think that the patriotism and the national pride of these people is towards South Africa together with that of all other groups who comprise the South African society? One wonders whether the Government has stopped to think that these people, who for generations now have contributed towards the growth and the prosperity of South Africa as a whole, believe in fact that they have a stake in its wealth, development and potential in the future.

The whole development of South Africa, the gold mines, the great industrial development, the economic prosperity, the potential of South Africa are the result of the collective contributions of all South Africans including those whom the Government now seeks to make citizens of Ciskei and yet in return for citizenship of a tiny, underdeveloped corner of South Africa, we are in this clause denying hundreds of thousands of people the right to share in the benefits of the greater South Africa.

That is not true.

The hon. member says it is not true, but it is absolutely true. If one looks at Schedule B of the Bill to which is referred in this clause, one notices that it excludes every category in that it provides that every person who was a citizen of Ciskei in terms of any law at the commencement of this Act and every person born in or outside Ciskei, either before or after the commencement of this Act, of parents one or both of whom were citizens of Ciskei at the time of his birth, are the people who are now being excluded. It goes on to talk about “every person who has been lawfully domiciled in Ciskei for a period of at least five years, irrespective of whether or not such period includes any period prior to the commencement of this Act” and it talks of “every South African citizen who is not a citizen of a territory within the Republic of South Africa, is not a citizen of Ciskei in terms of paragraph (a), (b) or (c) and speaks a language”, and so forth. One goes through Schedule B and one finds that it is an all-embracing schedule which is excluding hundreds of thousands of people of their right to South African citizenship.

We know also, whatever the Government may have said earlier, that in the run up to the referendum the question of citizenship was a major issue in so far as these people were concerned as indeed it was in the pre-independence discussions of the other independent States and that it has been a running sore ever since of people who find themselves deprived of South African citizenship. We know also that it was a major part of the package deal which was or has been or is being negotiated relating to citizenship. It was a major factor also in the recommendations of the Quail Commission.

The hon. the Minister, when he talked about these convention agreements, this great diamond which he said we had in our hands, referred to this as something which would be a major compensatory factor for these people. It does not compensate in any way for their loss of citizenship, their inherent right to be citizens of the Republic of South Africa.

When one looks at these rights in relation to a diamond, the diamond looks like a shabby piece of glass compared with the rights of those people. If one accepts the argument of the Government in regard to the right of people to self-determination and their right to develop a national soul, I want to ask the hon. the Minister, if he is so certain that this Bill is going to be to the advantage of the people concerned, why does he not grant them the option of choosing which national soul or identity they wish to adopt? If he is so certain of what he is doing now—he says it is to their great advantage—if this process of nation building is going to be to their advantage, let them choose now on the question of citizenship. [Interjections.] Let the 1,4 million Ciskeians who five outside Ciskei have an option to choose whether they want the citizenship of Ciskei or the citizenship of South Africa. Let the individuals decide after independence which citizenship they will adopt. Why is the Government afraid of that? Why is the Government not prepared to offer them that option? If they are so sure that this independence holds such advantages and benefits for these people they can surely have no fear that the majority of the people concerned will see those advantages themselves and will therefore opt for Ciskeian citizenship.

The hon. the Minister this afternoon talked about per se independence. The hon. member for Parys said the other day that those who voted in the referendum knew that they were voting for the forfeiture of their South African citizenship. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to put this to the test. Give these people the option after independence to decide which citizenship they want. That is why I want to move the following amendment which is printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (l)(a) Every person who at the commencement of this Act is domiciled and resident in Ciskei as defined in Schedule A, shall be a citizen of Ciskei and shall cease to be a South African citizen: Provided that every such person shall be entitled to elect, on or before 31 December 1982, not to become a citizen of Ciskei, whereupon such person shall be, and shall be regarded as, a South African citizen.
2. (b) (i) Every person who before the commencement of this Act is a citizen of Ciskei and who at the commencement of this Act is domiciled and resident outside Ciskei as defined in Schedule A, shall be entitled to elect, on or before 31 December 1982, to become a citizen of Ciskei, and such person shall thereupon be regarded as a citizen of Ciskei.
3. (ii) Every person who does not elect to become a citizen of Ciskei in terms of paragraph (i), shall be a South African citizen.

The first part of the amendment gives people in Ciskei an option. They may be White people or they may be Black people but let them decide which option they want to exercise. The second leg of the amendment relates to people who are citizens of Ciskei and who at the commencement of this Act are domiciled and resident outside Ciskei as defined in Schedule A. They should be entitled also, in terms of my amendment, to elect on or before 31 December 1982 to become a citizen of Ciskei and they will thereupon be regarded as a citizen of Ciskei. In other words, in the second leg of my amendment, I am referring to the two-thirds of the Ciskeian people who are going to be affected by this clause.

Order! Firstly, the hon. member’s time has expired and, secondly, I must inform the hon. member that I regret that I am unable to accept his amendment as it is in conflict with a principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Are you referring to both amendments?

It is only one amendment.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on a point of order?

Order! I have given consideration to this matter, I have referred to the authorities and I have given my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, will you afford me the opportunity of moving an alternative amendment?

I will give the hon. member an opportunity to move a further amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as you have ruled that the amendment as printed in my name on the Order Paper is out of order, I want to move an alternative amendment. I want to abandon paragraph (a) of the amendment that I have moved and I want to move the following amendment—

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members to comply with Standing Order No. 105.

Pretoria West!

Order! I want to draw the attention of the hon. member of Pietermaritzburg North to the fact that the rules expressly provide that when the Chair is giving a ruling, it must be heard in silence.

But, Mr. Chairman …

Order! The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North must resume his seat. What applies to one hon. member applies to all. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that hon. members may not converse aloud. I sometimes find it very difficult to hear what the speaker is saying.

The amendment is now restricted to people living outside Ciskei and gives those people the option of deciding whether to remain citizens of the Republic of South Africa or become citizens of the new State of Ciskei.

The same arguments I used earlier obtain in this regard. If the Government, again, is so certain that an independent Ciskei will be such an attraction to Ciskeians living in the Republic, the two-thirds of the people who live outside Ciskei and presently enjoy South African citizenship, let them then by the end of December 1982 decide which citizenship is more attractive to them. It is a very simple proposition. It puts the Government’s attitude to the test. As I have said, if the Government is correct in its assumption that this is an asset and a benefit, it ought to have nothing to fear from allowing people this option. At least it will give these people the chance of deciding whether they want to give up their birth-right to the whole of South Africa in exchange for rights in a small corner of South Africa. I think it is a totally reasonable proposition. I think it tests the Government’s sincerity. I think it tests …

“Die volkswil”.

Yes, it is “die volkswil”. It gives the people the option and the right to decide. I believe it is a totally reasonable suggestion and I believe that, if the Government is sincere in all the claims it has made about the great benefits of the Bill before us, it should not be afraid to allow those people—the Quail Commission tells us there are probably 1 400 000 Ciskeians—to decide whether they want to relinquish their present status as citizens of the Republic and become citizens of the Ciskei. It is really the basic test of what this whole Bill is about. It is a test of the will of the people, of “die volkswil”. Let them decide. If the Government is sincere in its attitude, the hon. the Minister cannot refuse to accept this amendment.

Order! I will allow the amendment.

I am very grateful to you, Sir, for allowing this amendment. I believe it is in order, and you have confirmed that.

I want to make the point to the hon. the Minister in all sincerity that this is what the Bill is all about. It is the test of his sincerity. It can be the test of the attractiveness of this proposal to Ciskeian citizens. Sir, I look forward to a positive and affirmative response from the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, we in the NRP will also oppose this clause. I have no quarrel with the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Berea pertaining to his new amendment. I want to approach the provisions of this clause, however, on a much more fundamental basis. Running like a golden thread through the negotiations which preceded the introduction of this Bill has been the one issue on which Ciskei has insisted all along. That is contained in a document which could be described as the precondition for Ciskei’s consideration of independence. I quote—

I do not want to continue quoting from this document. In fact, I can quote half a dozen repetitions of this same statement before, at the time of and after the referendum. In the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech, he mentioned an agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and that of Ciskei. In the preamble to that very convention or agreement, the following is said—

And so it goes on. In fact, however, that desire is rejected in the convention itself, and the agreement is limited to travel documents.

I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister …

[Inaudible.]

I am dealing with citizenship. This clause deals with citizenship. The agreement announced yesterday deals only with travel documents and with the protection of people abroad on a reciprocal basis.

[Inaudible.]

Well, I should like to see where in this document there is any reference to common citizenship. The provision here …

What does (c) say?

That deals with the protection of nationals when they travel abroad. The first one—that is (a)—deals with travel documents and (b) deals with the protection of nationals when they travel abroad.

I am referring to (c).

That deals with job opportunities, residential rights, etc. It does not deal with nationality or with citizenship. Clause 6, which we are discussing now, deals with citizenship.

[Inaudible.]

It deals with other privileges relating to their sojourn in the Republic, but in terms of other agreements those rights and privileges are subject to the laws of each country. In other words, they are subject to the laws of the Republic of South Africa. That is why we objected right from the beginning. We said this was a meaningless agreement. It is meaningless because it states intentions and objectives. In clause 6, however, a clause which deals with citizenship, it does not provide for a confederal nationality which is the ultimate minimum for which Ciskei asked.

I should like to challenge the hon. the Minister here tonight. I want him to deny that when it came to the question of citizenship and a confederal nationality the Government said that this was not negotiable. In the letter from Chief Minister Sebe which the hon. the Minister read out, he said that he accepted with reluctance—I forget the words but it was a reluctant acceptance—that this would not be accepted by the South African Government. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it would be wrong to say: “Ciskei is not entirely happy but accepts that this is as far as the Republic of South Africa will go at this stage.” In other words, in the negotiations South Africa placed a non-negotiable tag on the question of a confederal or South African nationality which would apply to all citizens.

That was not so either.

Well, I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister again: Would he say that it was untrue if somebody said when talking about citizenship—and I am quoting further—

It deals with the difference between “nationality” and “citizenship” and it goes on to say as I quoted and repeat—

In other words, Ciskei wanted a South or Southern African nationality but the Government would not accept it. All they would accept was travel documents. It states further here on this issue—

In other words, my point is that in the negotiations on this issue the South African Government said that this was non-negotiable. That is one of the reasons, among others, why we cannot accept this clause or the Bill. We cannot accept them because the prime objective of Ciskei was non-negotiable to the Government. We, like Ciskei, believe that in our concept of a confederation designed for South Africa, there should be a confederal citizenship or nationality—I shall not quibble over the meaning of the words—a confederal nationality in which Ciskeian citizens would participate. But that has been rejected and therefore the basis of the understanding has been watered down to travel documents, protections when abroad and rights in South Africa in regard to employment, residence, etc. provided they fall within the laws of the Republic of South Africa. Those laws can be amended at will. We have seen what happened during this session with regard to the citizens of another state.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether the confederation which they propose will also be able to have independent, totally sovereign States as members, and if so, whether those people will then have dual citizenship in terms of their proposal?

The hon. the Minister was not present when we were discussing this matter; otherwise he would have known. We envisage that in the confederation, there may be independent States as well as self-governing autonomous homelands.

What is the citizenship position?

The citizenship position can be the way it was in the Commonwealth—a dual citizenship.

Oh no!

It is easy to arrange that. That is what Ciskei was asking for. They were asking for citizenship of the Ciskei and nationality of the confederation.

That was their aim. We envisage a common nationality or citizenship of the confederation as the basis of the co-operation, the binding together of a confederation in South Africa.

†That is why we have said all along, and this clause reinforces that belief, that the form of confederation as envisaged by the hon. the Minister is purely a consultative arrangement and does not meet the essential requirements. We cannot vote for this clause and this clause, more than anything else, is one of the reasons why we cannot support the measure as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, when I moved the amendment which you allowed me to move, I omitted a second section. The amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper is in two parts. I abandoned 1(a), while I have already moved 1(b)(i). It does, however, go further as there is 1(b)(ii) which rounds the amendment off. I should therefore like to move as an amendment to my amendment—

With your permission, Sir, I should like to add that to the amendment that I have moved. In other words, the amendment should then read as originally moved, with the addition of the above paragraph.

I think it is technically in order. I will allow the hon. member to move this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is true that clause 6 is the heart of the Bill and therefore also the heart of this whole matter. I therefore ask that we approach this matter with the utmost responsibility. It is a very sensitive matter and I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. Opposition to bear in mind that we are, or ought to be, here engaged in seeking to maintain a peaceful country and dispensation in South Africa. For this reason we must approach this matter with circumspection, as the Government has indeed thus far sought to do. I personally have gone out of my way to try to do this at all times and in all circumstances, and I should very much like to do so this evening.

Bound up with this matter are certain difficulties which really create a difficult, thorny and extremely complicated problem. No-one can have any doubt on that score. I explained to hon. members yesterday what Ciskei had asked for and what agreement we had reached with them after many discussions, and I have tabled that here. However, I wish to quote once again what Chief Minister Lennox Sebe said to me after consensus had been achieved. He writes—

These are eloquent words, Sir. He states: “… we see no relevant alternative”. Since we have now entered into an agreement with Ciskei concerning this extremely thorny problem, we must treat the matter with the necessary circumspection in future because there are other Black people in the country as well. We must determine exactly what we are doing, how it is to be dealt with and what we have already achieved in South Africa at this stage in regard to this matter of cardinal importance which concerns every child in the country, whether he be White or Black. What did we do in this connection in the first place? I have before me a document entitled “Proposals relating to nationality and citizenship in the confederation of States, also a constellation of States, which were presented to representatives of the Government of Ciskei, by representatives of the Government of South Africa”. I said during the Second Reading debate yesterday that my colleagues who were concerned with these matters—the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information, etc.—had on not one but many occasions sat around a table with the Ciskeian Cabinet and discussed these matters at great length with one another, because we did not want to steamroller anyone in any respect. We made a joint effort to find an answer to a very troublesome and complicated problem.

This brings me to the hon. member for Durban Point. He challenged me for having said South African citizenship was non-negotiable. I accept his challenge and say to him, coolly and without mincing matters, that we did not do that. That was not the spirit or attitude in which this matter was approached. I have said on innumerable occasions that Ciskei wants to become independent. There is not the least doubt about that. [Interjections.] But it is true, after all. Then they came along and said that this was a package deal. Stemming from this, an agreement on the package deal between Ciskei and South Africa had to be reached. One of the cardinal points in the so-called package deal was the issue of citizenship. Another issue was the creation of a confederation of States. We then sat around a table to find a solution. Therefore we did not sit around a table in the spirit of the challenge of the hon. member for Durban Point. What did we do? I quote—

That was a very cardinal point; otherwise we should, after all, only have been bluffing. [Interjections.] Of course! Then we should only have been removing the foundations from under our feet and the foundations which, as I said yesterday, have been very firmly laid and have been built up together by White and Black in South Africa over more than a quarter of a century with so much success that we have peace and order in this country, in spite of predictions, just after the Second World War, that South Africa was the one country in which it would be impossible to prevent a revolution. I do not want to go into that now, but hon. members know that that was said. However, in spite of that, we have had peace for all these years. Therefore we cannot detract from the “quality” of that independence.

I quote further—

That was the point of departure. This brings me to the “points of departure”. I quote—

Hon. members must recall that even at that stage we had already had the Nieuwoudt Commission. There was the Mills Committee, too, and the inquiry which was associated with it. The senior officials of the department have been dealing with this problem for many years, in the closest co-operation with other departments such as Internal Affairs and with the Black leaders in South Africa. After all those matters had been disposed of, what did that committee of experts have to do? I quote further—

That is reasonable, after all. I quote further—

We are now back to that point. The following is also said—

Let me say here and now that this is one of the reasons why Chief Minister Sebe expressly said—

[Interjections.] But my goodness, man, in an agreement one does concede. That is how agreement is reached. That hon. member must not make me angry now—

I am trying to impress upon hon. members the fact that we are concerned here with a difficult matter, one which has been and is being handled with the greatest circumspection. One of the reasons why Chief Minister Sebe wrote “because we see no alternative” is that one is saddled with the fact that one cannot argue one’s way out of, and that is that Transkei has had its independence for some time now, that Bophuthatswana has its independence and Venda as well. Then one should also bear in mind the special relationship between the Transkei and the Ciskei in regard to other matters, but I am not going to elaborate on that further at this point because I do not wish to take up too much time. If one of the three independent States were to turn around and say: “But listen, I have had my independence for so many years now and I am quite satisfied with the agreement I entered into with the central Government and I am not going to permit anyone to detract from the matter of citizenship as we agreed to it” what does one do then? If one begins to tamper with it, then it is as if one has built a house of cards and one pulls out one of the cards. The whole edifice collapses. That is something Chief Minister Sebe could see very clearly. We sat around the table for hours and weeks speaking about these matters, and we did so in the best spirit. We did not do it in the spirit of “This is what we want, this is what we say and that is that”. We thrashed out a very complicated, sensitive problem together and dealt with it in depth. We went further, and the fourth point reads—

The fifth point reads—

That is a point on which the TBV countries, that have had practical experience of this matter over a long period, feel very strongly.

May I ask you a question?

Let me just finish first; after that the hon. member can ask me a question with the greatest pleasure. I am dealing with a delicate matter and I am trying to give hon. members the facts in an effort to convince them. [Interjections.] The hon. member may ask me a question, but just let me finish first.

Don’t get excited.

No, I am not excited, I am simply saying that. How did we deal with the matter further? [Interjections.] If that is not good enough, I shall curtail my speech and then we can vote on the clause and have done with it. [Interjections.] I am trying to inform hon. members, to see whether we cannot see eye to eye in this regard. [Interjections.] I quote further—

1. (a) Associated citizenship;
2. (b) Southern African confederal nationality.

[Interjections.] That is what that small group of hon. members in the NRP think. I quote further—

1. (c) Retention of South African nationality after independence;
2. (d) Convention or multilateral treaty.

Those were the four possibilities that we considered in great depth. I do not wish to take up too much of the time of this House but I should like to quote the following—

After we had thrashed out these matters at length, there was the following comment on it—

Hon. members can go and look at it; it is actual fact—

And that is a fact one cannot get away from.

What about commonwealth citizenship?

Let me continue—

It goes on—

The hon. members know that.

It was violently criticized.

Yes, violently. At the time we allowed the matter to leak out and it elicited a great deal of criticism. In fact, the criticism it elicited was unpleasant. I quote further—

I now come to the second possibility considered and that is “South African confederal nationality.” As far as this is concerned, I quote the following—

†What was the comment on that after we had discussed it ad nauseam? I quote—

*Secondly, they say—

In the third place—

There you have it.

That was in that connection and at this point I am not discussing the convention on which we agreed. This has nothing to do with that, but with travel documents.

That is the reality of the situation.

I quote further—

†I think this is obvious—

We shall have to amend the Act. I quote further—

Then—

*At the moment the United Kingdom is reviewing its entire citizenship legislation de novo due, inter alia, to the point I have just quoted. Then, too, there are a number of other things in connection with that matter but for the sake of brevity I shall leave it at that.

†I quote further—

I have just read these out to the House—

Consequently those were found not to be acceptable in the circumstances. Therefore the Ciskei Government and this Government together looked for an alternative, for an equitable, acceptable alternative. That is how we arrived at this in this spirit after having gone into it so thoroughly, as I have tried to indicate to hon. members. Then I have not even dealt with the Nieuwoudt Commission’s report. I quote further—

Then follows what hon. members already have in their hands.

*Therefore the point I want to make is that after a tremendous amount of trouble had been taken, we reached this agreement and it was acceptable to Ciskei. This is very important. I just wish to make the point that when hon. members are so quick to say, as they did here this evening, that “they lose South African citizenship” with all the emphasis laid on that, we should just bear in mind the problems we were faced with and the effect of that kind of attitude in view of the facts I have just furnished. After all, the facts are obvious. This Government is engaged in a completely honest effort to find an acceptable solution to a very thorny and sensitive problem. After all, we have already made great progress and we are making progress in connection with this matter too. I therefore ask hon. members that we approach this matter in a responsible fashion. Let us approach this matter as we have approached other matters. Let us base it on strong foundations and build it brick by brick. After all, it is in the interests of those hon. members opposite just as it is in the interests of those other gentlemen opposite and just as it is in the interests of all of us. If we can reach agreement on these points with the leaders of the national States, then I ask: Who are we then to come and say in this House that it should have been done differently? What are these Ciskeian people losing if we implement this convention?

Their birthright.

Really, Sir, that is clearly not true. We are trying to place Ciskei in a position in which the Ciskeians will not only lose nothing, but will be better off after independence. What is the position now? After all, we must settle this matter with one another. Surely the position now is that the independence of Ciskei definitely means the establishment of a new State. There is surely no method this side of the grave whereby to establish a new State if there is not also citizenship of that State. Surely that is impossible. One does not make a house or land independent; one makes people independent; one makes a people independent. If not, one has nothing, one has an empty shell. If the hon. gentlemen could only understand that—I see that they agree with it—then all at once we are at the heart of the problem I have tried to state. Then we must adopt as a point of departure that that State is going to become independent and a new citizenship is therefore essential because one is making people independent.

I want to say—and this is based on long experience; I speak with authority, although one’s common sense ought also to tell one this—that there is not a single leader of a national State in the Republic of South Africa who does not want as many citizens for himself and for his State as he can get. Chief Minister Buthelezi has repeatedly asked, inter alia, on television—I saw it myself—whether the White people in South Africa were unable to understand that a Zulu remained a Zulu whether he was born in Ulundi or in Soweto. I am now putting this in my own words.

He is a South African citizen. That is what he is.

Can we not understand that? Prof. Ntsanwisi also asked on television whether the people in this country were unable to understand that a Shangaan remained a Shangaan whether he was born in Gazankulu, Soweto, Katlehong or Thembisa. Those are the facts.

He remains a South African.

Let me complete my argument. It is not I who say so. It is the Black Chief Ministers who adopt that standpoint, and they are right to do so. Hon. members can go and speak to Chief Minister Buthelezi. If they tell him that we want to take his citizens who are outside the national State, then surely that will create major problems for him. That goes for every national State. Therefore the hon. members must accept the second premise. We are now concerned with the realities of the South African situation. They must accept that these Chief Ministers want for themselves as many of their own citizens as they can get together. They are proud of their citizenship, they are proud of their people and they are proud of their ethnic links. That is the absolute fact of the matter.

This Bill expressly provides that people who are citizens of Ciskei will not be deprived of any of their existing rights except that as citizens of the independent State, they will exercise their political rights in that State. If one does not do that then one cannot make a State independent. As I have already said, we are not making land independent, but people, the citizens. The citizens of Ciskei lose none of their existing rights. They lose absolutely nothing. I therefore wish to say—and I say it as gently and nicely as I can—that these dreadful arguments that are being advanced, and these statements that are publicized to the effect that these people lose everything when, on independence, they accept their own citizenship, of which they are proud—are untrue.

Will you give them the option?

That is not fair either. In discussions we have had with these people they have told us that they attach value to the following kinds of thing: Preferential treatment vis-à-vis aliens as regards working in the Republic of South Africa, and that is included in paragraph (c) of the convention; secondly, the right to enjoy social benefits in the Republic of South Africa; that is also in the convention; thirdly, the right to live in the Republic of South Africa and participate in the 99-year leasehold system, etc.; that, too, is in the convention; the fourth is the right to enjoy school facilities, hospital facilities and other community benefits; that, too, is stated in the convention; and the right to enjoy welfare services such as old-age pensions, child allowances, maintenance allowances and so on in the Republic of South Africa. All this is in the convention. I therefore contend that the approach of the hon. members opposite is grossly irresponsible. Sir, I am expressing myself as gently as I can. I mean this honestly and sincerely. [Interjections.]

If these are the facts—and what I am furnishing here, are facts—then surely it is very irresponsible, in the first place, to try to persuade Black people from this Parliament that they are losing everything. Surely that is not true.

Of course it is true.

In the second place, it is far worse to make the allegation in this Parliament that that is so. After all, it is untrue. These matters are already incorporated in agreements with Ciskei and also in agreements with Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda. Not only do these agreements protect existing rights and privileges; the list may, by agreement, be extended to include matters about which further agreements could be entered into. This is stated in the convention which I put at hon. members’ disposal. I refer hon. members to point 6 of the convention. It is very well worded. What does it actually define? This brings us to the fine words: “Any rights and privileges sanctioned by law or usage as further agreed upon.” A whole world is locked up in those words. It is—to use that excellent expression again—“an open-ended trust”.

You are fooling yourself.

Therefore, if there are other things which can still be added to the convention, we shall be prepared to do this.

In conclusion, I want to reply to the questions of the hon. member for Berea. Against this background, and in the knowledge that 297 000 citizens of Ciskei outside Ciskei voted for independence …

No.

Definitely not.

A total of 299 000 voted, and considerably more people outside Ciskei than inside voted for independence. [Interjections.]

No.

I have the figures before me. I can provide them to hon. members. In fact, I quoted the figures here yesterday. The fact is that considerably more people outside Ciskei than inside voted for independence. For that reason it is really not…

[Inaudible.]

Oh really, I shall provide the figures. Let me just look for them among my documents here. In any event, I quoted them here yesterday. [Interjections.]

What is wrong with them? You quoted the figures to them yesterday. It is unnecessary for you to do it again. [Interjections.]

I shall find them in a moment. I do not want to launch a search here now. I do have it here somewhere. I said yesterday that these were figures I had received from the electoral officer.

For the reasons I have already furnished, it is quite impossible for me to accept this amendment by the hon. member for Berea. It is simply impossible. As I have said, we are making people independent and therefore we cannot accept his amendment. If I were to accept his amendment, what it would amount to would be that citizens of Ciskei outside that country, including those who had voted in favour of independence, would lose their citizenship of Ciskei unless they elected to become citizens of Ciskei. That is the implication. I emphasize once again that we are not liberating individuals but are liberating peoples and making them independent.

As far as the second part of the amendment of the hon. member for Berea is concerned, I just want to point out to him that Ciskei is to become independent on 4 December 1981. However, if we were to accept this part of his amendment, it would mean that Ciskei would not know before 31 December 1982 who its citizens were. In view of the implications of the hon. member’s amendment, one really cannot believe that the hon. member was quite serious when he moved this amendment. In any event, that is the only conclusion I can reach.

What are you afraid of?

We are not afraid of anything.

Of course you are afraid.

We are afraid of nothing. We are dealing with a very thorny problem in the most responsible way possible, and we have made a great deal of progress on this road. We asked for the co-operation of hon. members of the official Opposition, if at all possible. Let us please continue on this road because the establishment of a confederation is a beginning of a new path, the beginning of a path with great potential, the beginning of a path which could prove to be an exciting one. For that reason we cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member, and at this point I give him advance warning that unfortunately, I am also unable to accept his other amendments, which are along the same lines, for the same reasons, reasons which I have tried to enunciate here to the best of my ability.

Order! Just before I call upon the hon. member for Sea Point to speak, I should like to point out again that I have allowed an hon. member of each of the Opposition parties as well as the hon. the Minister to discuss the principle of the clause. Therefore I shall from now on apply the provisions of Standing Order No. 63 very strictly.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to deal with the principle Of the clause, but I want to deal with one or two very important matters that were raised by the hon. the Minister. I hope the hon. the Minister is going to correct the impression that he created because, as the matter stands at the moment, it was one of the most irresponsible statements made by this hon. Minister in many years. He left the impression that Chief Minister Buthelezi and Chief Minister Hudson Ntsanwisi both wanted and said that the people of kwaZulu and of Gazankulu wanted to abdicate their South African citizenship in favour of a Zulu or Gazankulu citizenship.

If I created that impression, it is wrong.

You created that impression.

I did not say that.

This matter now becomes very important because what the hon. the Minister said was that they prized that citizenship above anything else.

No.

That was the analogy that he used. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Minister is running away from the implications of what he said. If in fact what he was saying was that while they wanted citizenship of kwaZulu, what they really prized more than that …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: What does this argument which the hon. member is now putting forward have to do with the provision of the clause?

I shall listen to what the hon. member has to say.

This matter now becomes absolutely critical. We are asking people to abandon South African citizenship and the hon. the Minister left the very clear impression that as far as kwaZulu and Gazankulu were concerned, their leaders wanted them to abandon South African citizenship. I want the hon. the Minister to withdraw that allegation. I want him to withdraw that insinuation.

If I said anything of that kind I withdraw it immediately.

I am pleased to hear that, but why did you make it then? [Interjections.]

But I did not make such a statement.

Why did the hon. the Minister make it if he then withdraws it? [Interjections.]

Order!

I never made such a statement.

One cannot withdraw a statement that one did not make. The hon. the Minister made an insinuation and the first time he is challenged, he says that he withdraws it. [Interjections.]

Order!

The whole argument in this debate revolves around the fact of whether or not the purpose of this clause is to deprive people of South African citizenship or, alternatively, to give them an opportunity of exercising Ciskeian citizenship. That side of the House says that the Ciskeian people want to be free, they want to be a “volk” they want to be citizens of Ciskei, but we say that this Government is forcing them to take Ciskeian citizenship. That is the difference in the argument. The hon. member for Berea asked: What is the litmus test? Let us forget the people who five in Ciskei and let us take an ordinary, average South African Ciskeian living in the rest of South Africa. Let us give him an opportunity to decide whether he wants to be a Ciskeian or whether he wants to continue to be a South African. The hon. the Minister says we do not make people free, we make nations free. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: When a West German or a Portuguese comes here and wants to become a South African citizen, does he bring his whole nation with him or does he as an individual decide where his citizenship shall be? I now want to put a particular case to the hon. the Minister to illustrate this point.

Order! I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but the hon. member told me that he was not going to discuss the principle of the clause. However, he is now straying very far from the details of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal with a particular detail.

The hon. member may proceed.

I want to put to the hon. the Minister the case of a Black South African who fought in the First World War for South Africa, who came back after the war and went to Ndabeni and who at that stage was on a common voters’ roll, voting together with other South African citizens for members of this Parliament. He subsequently had children who moved to Langa. They voted for this Parliament and they then voted on a separate voters’ roll. They had never been to Ciskei. They subsequently had further children who are living in Langa and Guguletu today. They are third generation people. They are known in this part of the world as Cape borners. They, their father and their grandfather were born here. They have voted for this Parliament and have always been citizens of South Africa. They have never been to Ciskei. They are proud to be citizens of South Africa. All the hon. member for Berea says is that if this is a great national occasion, why debase it by saying to this third generation South African: “You will be forced to renounce your South African citizenship and take up Ciskeian citizenship”? All we are saying is that those people living permanently outside Ciskei, those people who were born here and have lived and worked in South Africa and who have jobs, houses and families here, should have the option. If there is a great national urge on the part of the Ciskeian people, surely these people will be drawn along with it? However, if it is not the urge of the Ciskeian people, if, in fact, it is a stratagem of this Government, then they are going to be forced to accept it.

I want to put one further point to the hon. the Minister. In respect of this question of citizenship and nationality, I want to quote the very last sentence at the bottom of the document that the hon. the Minister has given us, as follows—

I should like the hon. the Minister’s attention, Sir. He is saying here that if it should be necessary to describe a citizen of Ciskei as a national of South Africa on a travel document, it will be done. I say that this hon. Minister is collaborating in conniving against the sovereign independence of Ciskei. That is what it amounts to. One cannot suddenly say on a travel document that a certain person, although a citizen of that other country, is a national of this country. I say this because the hon. the Minister himself has said that nationality is essentially a term in international law which indicates that there is a legal connection between the individual and the State. In spite of the fact that the hon. the Minister will argue that Ciskei is independent, there is a legal connection between that citizen of the Ciskei and the South African state, and we cannot have that legal connection and still argue sovereign independence.

The hon. the Minister has gone to great lengths to explain the problems of citizenship but he has not given us the answer in respect of citizenship—the simple answer as to why there should not be a voluntary option on the part of those people living outside Ciskei. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea, although the hon. the Minister has indicated that he is not prepared to accept it. The hon. the Minister spoke at length on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea, and he said that this was a very sensitive issue. At least he admits that it is a sensitive issue. However, what he does not admit, or what he does not appear to realize is that this is, in fact, the issue of the entire measure that we have been examining over the past few days. This has caused more heart-searching among Black people living outside the homelands than any other single measure that I can think of, apart from the restrictions on movement, and that is the pass laws. Does the hon. the Minister remember that the Cillié Commission stated that the loss of citizenship that took place in regard to Transkei in the same year as the Soweto riots began, was one of the main contributory causes of the riots? [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister has stated that Dr. Sebe has said: “… we see no relevant alternative”, and that is why they have accepted this.

[Inaudible.]

They see no relevant alternative, because none has been suggested. The reason why none has been suggested is that the deprivation of citizenship is, of course, what is behind every measure to grant independence to the homelands.

That is what it is all about.

It is why the Government persuades—or attempts to persuade—homeland leader after homeland leader, from Matanzima of Transkei all the way through to Sebe of Ciskei, to take independence.

What do you do?

The reason is that they want to reduce the number of Black citizens in this country.

It is very irresponsible of you to say that. [Interjections.]

But that is the reason.

Your predecessor said it was.

That is the actual truth of the whole matter. [Interjections.]

It is the ultimate objective.

The hon. the Minister has avoided giving us the key objective in what he is doing with this measure.

The golden key.

That is why there is no relevant alternative, because the only alternative would be to undermine the whole objective of these homeland independence measures. That is why no alternative was granted in any single case. All of them, from Matanzima onwards, have taken independence reluctantly because their own people were deprived of South African citizenship.

No. I challenged your leader yesterday to talk Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda out of it.

The hon. the Minister is, of course, not giving us the full story either when he says that the Ciskeian people voted for independence. Dr. Sebe wanted independence, not the Ciskeian people. Dr. Sebe and his Cabinet wanted independence, but certainly not the Ciskeian people.

Why did the people vote for it then?

The people did not vote for the kind of independence they will be getting in terms of this Bill. They voted for the package deal, as all of us know.

That is nonsense, Helen.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition quoted at length from the statements that were put to the people of Ciskei over and over again at gatherings of the nation at various times, telling them of the content of the package deal and denying that they would, under any circumstances, accept independence if they were deprived of South African citizenship.

What did Zimbabwe vote for?

That is, however, what has happened. They are now being deprived of their South African citizenship. They did not, however, vote for that at the time. Dr. Sebe knows it and the hon. the Minister knows it. The Cabinet committees of both Governments are also well aware of the fact that those people did not vote for what they will be getting in terms of the measure before this House tonight.

They know exactly.

It is scandalous that the hon. the Minister still says that they voted for independence. I have to point out again that two-thirds of the people who could register to vote refused to do so at all. This of course shows an eager population clamouring for independence, does it not? They know that a referendum is going to be held on the issue of independence—though in the event it was on a phoney sort of independence—but two-thirds of the people do not bother to register. What sort of eagerness is That?

It depends on your figures.

Only slightly more than 59% of the people who had the right to vote bothered to go to the polls, and hardly any of the people living outside Ciskei bothered to go to the polls.

That is not true.

I do not therefore know where the hon. the Minister gets his statement from that more people outside than inside Ciskei voted for independence. Where does he get those figures from, because he is quite wrong? They are mere figments of his imagination. This also goes for the statements he told this Committee tonight were made by Chief Buthelezi and Chief Ntsanwisi. They are also figments of his imagination. Let me quote a piece from the Quail Commission’s report. It relates to the Chief Minister of Gazankulu and states—

Those are not the words of a man who is clamouring to gather together all the citizens of Gazankulu, those living both inside and outside Gazankulu. I charge the hon. the Minister tonight with telling us not even half the story he should have told us. I would say he told us probably a quarter of the story he should have told us.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to make just two points at this stage. With all due respect, I have already put the case in respect of the other points and I do not think it is necessary for me to follow that path again.

†I want to be very clear on the point which was raised by the hon. member for Sea Point, namely that I had created the impression tonight that Chief Minister Buthelezi, as he put it “would want to abandon South African citizenship”. I want to state categorically and very firmly that I did not make such a statement and that I did not intend to make such a statement because I know exactly what the feelings of Chief Minister Buthelezi are. Therefore, let us please understand one another clearly on that point. [Interjections.] I also did not ascribe such a statement to Prof. Ntsanwisi.

What was the point you intended to make?

I shall say it again: As long as that point is clear and we understand each other on that point now, the other point is equally clear and that is …

What is the point you intended to make?

Well, let me make it again. The point I made originally, was the fact that Chief Minister Buthelezi had stated categorically on television and on more than one occasion that a Zulu is a Zulu wherever he is bom. [Interjections.] That was what I said. I did not say anything else. When I made that statement, the hon. member for Sea Point came along with the inference which he made. I have now repeated it and the hon. member can go and look up my Hansard tomorrow. That is the statement which I made, and I stand by it. It is absolutely correct. Prof. Ntsanwisi has made similar statements and other Black leaders have also made similar statements. However, the inference drawn by the hon. member for Sea Point from the statement I made is utterly wrong. I corrected it because I am here to try to build up good relationships with the Black people in the country. I do not want to have any misunderstanding whatsoever.

*Furthermore I want to say that I was quite correct in the figures I mentioned with regard to the voting. I mentioned the figures yesterday. Let us once and for all understand one another very clearly on this point, for it is clear to me that the hon. member for Houghton, who was not present yesterday—and I understand that quite well—does not understand this.

That is ridiculous … [Interjections.]

Yes, I know, but the hon. member does not understand this point. Let me give her the facts now. I furnished them in the House yesterday, and when I furnished them again a short while ago, they were called into question. I have the documents at hand again, and as I said yesterday, this is the announcement of the result of the Ciskeian referendum by the electoral officer. The figures are as follows: Yes, 295 891; No, 1 642; spoiled papers, 2 198; total number of votes recorded, 299 731; total number of registered voters, 503 334. The “yes vote” comprised 98,5% of the total percentage vote of 59,5%. These are the facts. If one analyses the figures—and this is the point I want to come to—I was quite correct when I said last night again that 205 404 of the voters who had voted “Yes”, came from within the Ciskei. [Interjections.] Furthermore—and this is the point I want to make—297 935 of those who voted “Yes” were outside the Ciskei. [Interjections.] These are the facts.

Why did they not do their homework properly?

The point I want to make—and this is really true—is that more people outside Ciskei voted “Yes” in the referendum than those who voted in favour of independence inside the Ciskei.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister really ought to get an Oscar for his performance tonight. The only trouble is that he does not deal with facts, but puts up a great show. Let me illustrate what I have in mind. One of the very first facts the hon. the Minister ought to know—we can check on it later—is the one which I want to put to him now. Inside Ciskei 166 000 people voted and outside Ciskei 133 000 voters. This is a fact and I am surprised that the hon. the Minister does not know it. I notice that the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt is talking to the hon. the Minister and I am glad the hon. the Minister is now being told what the facts are.

I want to do two things. In the first place I move the amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 4, in line 23, to omit “doubt” and to substitute “any dispute”;
2. (2) on page 4, in line 24, after the second “any”, to insert “aggrieved person or any”.

In the second place I want to support the hon. member for Berea in his amendments. The hon. the Minister has read to us from the letter of Dr. Sebe who says “we see no relevant alternative”, but what Dr. Sebe is really saying is that the South African Government will not consider anything other than terminating South African citizenship. Dr. Sebe has made it clear that he does not want to terminate South African citizenship.

The hon. the Minister bases his whole argument on the following: We cannot give them citizenship in Ciskei plus citizenship in South Africa because we cannot have some kind of hybrid thing, but the hon. member for Berea has given him the perfect alternative. He says let those people who are outside Ciskei, if they wish, have South African citizenship. The hon. the Minister and the South African Government, however, will not consider that. They will not consider it because, as the hon. member for Houghton has said, the whole purpose of this exercise is to deprive Black people of the vote in South Africa. That is the whole purpose of the exercise.

I now want to deal with the amendments I have moved. The deprivation of citizenship is a deprivation of the most fundamental rights of a human being. Here, of course, I am referring, like the hon. member for Berea, to the deprivation of citizenship in the land of their birth. It is a right which not even the Supreme Court of South Africa can take away from anybody.

What about Parliament?

Of course Parliament can do it and that is why this Parliament is doing it. Parliament is the only body that can do it and it is determined to do it. What does the legislation do in this clause? It takes away citizenship not voluntarily but compulsorily and automatically.

The first of my two amendments is in respect of subsection (2) and it suggests that the word “doubt” be substituted with “any dispute”. What is the clause providing as it stands? It provides—

The next point is that clause 6(2) goes on to say that in the event of doubt any authority in the Republic or in Ciskei may refer the matter to a board. We suggest that this subsection should be amended to read that “any aggrieved person or any authority” should be able to refer the matter to a board. Any person who disputes the loss of his citizenship must obviously himself have the right to take the matter to the board. He must obviously be able to protect his own rights. He must obviously have some locus standi in the matter. One cannot just leave it to some authority in Ciskei or in the Republic. He must have some right to protect himself and to protect his citizenship. We suggest that you cannot leave it to an authority, particularly as subsection (2) provides that the decision of the board shall be final. We therefore suggest that a citizen must be able to initiate an investigation into the matter of his citizenship where it is in dispute. As the Bill stands only an authority can do so.

This legislation is taking away the rights of two million people. It is taking away their citizenship rights and it is a scandalous suggestion that they should not be able to initiate proceedings to establish their own citizenship in the land of their birth.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to query any of the principles because that has already been ruled out of order. However, I have a couple of questions which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister which I think are pertinent to this particular clause. In view of the fact that it is proposed that the Ciskei State will be a sovereign and independent State but that it is unlikely that it will be recognized overseas, it has been agreed that South Africa will issue travel documents for Ciskeian citizens. I ask the hon. the Minister whether in terms of the agreement made with Ciskei the South African Government will be compelled to issue travel documents to Ciskeian citizens who are clearly anti-South African and wish to go overseas to work against the interests of South Africa. I mention that because we had a similar instance recently in respect of Bishop Tutu. I believe this is a relevant point.

The second point is whether any Ciskeian citizen will be entitled to South African travel documents. Again I ask this because it may well be that Ciskei may have totally different immigration regulations to those obtaining in South Africa. They may, for example, for a fee make citizenship available to people whom we in South Africa would consider undesirable, or perhaps Stateless persons whom we consider undesirable, or possibly even people who have communist leanings. In terms of the agreement that has been made, does South Africa have the right to issue or refuse travel documents? I cannot help but feel that this is an important point because if we have the right to say yea or nay in this issue it would clearly mean that the autonomy of Ciskei is in fact in some position of suspicion.

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

I must admit, first of all, that I do not accept the assurances that present citizens, before the date of independence, are going to have all their future rights protected as the hon. the Minister has claimed. In other words, people who are at the moment citizens of South Africa and of a homeland which has not yet become independent, i.e. Ciskei—at the moment there is dual citizenship status—will be deprived of any rights they presently enjoy, rights of residence, employment, community facilities and social benefits. I do not accept that. I do not accept it because of the experience we had at the beginning of this session with the Transkeian citizens who were given similar assurances which, I believe, were quoted during the Second Reading debate by the hon. member for Berea. Those assurances given by the then Minister, Mr. M. C. Botha, were that not only would those citizens enjoy the rights they had always enjoyed before losing their South African citizenship, but that in fact they would have an even more protected status: They would be given first option for jobs and they would be given assured treatment as far as housing, hospitalization and education were concerned. The hon. the Deputy Minister shakes his head. I wonder why.

Because they are still in the wrong if they do not have proper travel documents.

I am not talking about travel documents.

Well, I am!

I am talking about the unfortunate people who were bussed back to Umtata although many of them were in fact legally here. Despite this business of everybody being processed most carefully, a number of people who had residential rights here were bussed back. They qualified to be here.

That is not true.

Well, that hon. the Deputy Minister always just thinks that, if he says it is not true, that is it.

You do the same. If you say it is true, it must be true.

There are people appearing in court now. People who were arrested have appeared in court and were discharged and found not guilty. That, I think, is evidence that they had rights. In any case, they were afforded no protection. Indeed, they were treated as aliens and it was under the Aliens Act that they were deported. So I do not believe that story anyway.

Let me say what it is I want to try to do, at least in terms of the law, in regard to the descendants of people who have certain rights which they are now going to lose, i.e. rights of citizenship. I am talking about the people who have rights under section 10(l)(a), (b) and (c) of the Urban Areas Act. Under that section those people are supposed to be protected since section 6 allows them to retain those rights even after Ciskei gains its independence. However, one has to be a citizen at the time of the passing of the legislation granting independence. Many of those people who, as the hon. member for Sea Point mentioned, were born here and are section 10(l)(a) Blacks, are still having children, whether the Government likes it or not. The children born after the date of independence therefore enjoy no rights. I may say that that was particularly emphasized when the Urban Areas Act was amended in 1978. The hon. the Deputy Minister might remember that. He was not a Minister at the time. The Urban Areas Act was amended and there was no doubt whatever that children born of the section 10(l)(a), (b) and (c) Blacks who were citizens at the time of independence, if those children were born after that date, were to be considered as section 12 Blacks. In other words, they would be foreigners. So they lost all the rights they might have had if the Urban Areas Act had not been amended and which they will lose if this legislation does not include the amendment I suggest which will protect them as far as residential rights and the right to 99-year leasehold are concerned. I know that there is a legal dispute about this. The legal opinion I am given differs from the opinion the hon. the Minister has been given in regard to the right to take out 99-year leaseholds. However, I think there is very little difference of opinion on the right of occupation in respect of that 99-year leasehold by people classified as section 10(l)(a), (b) or (c) urban Blacks who are born after the date of independence. I think the least the hon. the Minister can do is to ensure that those people who are still to be bom, those children who are still to be born after 4 December 1981, will be protected by the existing rights which their parents and their brothers and sisters already alive presently enjoy.

The hon. the Minister pointed out that paragraph 1(c) of the convention was very important. I agree with him that it is very important. It deals with preferential job opportunities, residential rights, uniform and uncomplicated procedures regarding use of community facilities, social benefits and other rights and privileges sanctioned by law or usage as further agreed upon. I agree with the hon. the Minister that these things are very important. We want to protect, however, the rights of those people, the rights of their descendants as well as of the present generation. It is a very precious right in law which those people enjoy at the present time, and I think the least the hon. the Minister can do is to agree to insert the words “and their descendants”.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the arguments of the three hon. members. Before I do so, however, I want to state one thing very clearly in case there may be some misunderstanding about it. It has a bearing on the number of votes in the referendum. The figures that I provided yesterday and once again today, are absolutely correct. 205 404 people inside the Ciskei and 297 930 outside the Ciskei participated in the referendum. This gives us a total of 503 334. This is the number of registered voters that participated in the referendum. These are the figures. [Interjections.] We do not have to argue about them now. [Interjections.] What is important, is that there were many more registered voters outside the Ciskei than inside it. Of those who participated in the referendum, 98,5% voted in favour of independence. Now hon. members can work out for themselves how many of the registered voters inside the Ciskei voted against independence. There were only just over 1 000 votes against independence. This is the point that I want to make and it is a valid one. Therefore let us not argue about it any further. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Pinetown also moved an amendment. If I understood the hon. member correctly, he was referring to doubt that may arise when someone has inadequate information in regard to his background. If this is in fact the case, the position is now that an investigation can be undertaken by the board so that the facts can be properly established. When I read his amendment, I have one problem with it. There does not exactly have to be a difference. There may merely be doubt, and it should then be able to be cleared up by that board in the interest of the person concerned. In any event, this is our experience in the case of other national States where such a board also exists.

In the second place I just want to point out that there is no question whatsoever here of an injustice being done to anyone. A person may merely ask for his citizenship to be established so that he knows where to obtain his travel documents, for instance. I am honestly of the opinion that this is the position. I therefore note the hon. member’s argument with appreciation. However, I want to point out to him that the problem that he is experiencing has in fact already been solved in the Bill, viz. in clause 6(2). We do not think that a difference will arise, but if any doubts should arise, the board is there to solve the problem.

As far as the argument of the hon. member for Umbilo is concerned, I concede that it is an extremely important one. We feel that this agreement as it is worded at the moment, enables us to deal properly with cases of the kind to which the hon. member has referred. If an agreement exists between ourselves and the other State, surely we will also react in no uncertain terms when we are faced with a case where someone wants to travel abroad or elsewhere against the interests of South Africa. In any event we will make sure that the necessary provision is made in the agreement for cases of that nature so that problems can be dealt with properly.

†I now come to the hon. member for Houghton. We are not dealing here with the removal of rights of people, and the hon. member must please understand this. We are dealing here with a very positive aspect, and in dealing with this positive development one finds oneself in a great dilemma in regard to the issue which is under discussion at this very moment. Therefore the hon. member must please understand that we are not dealing with the removal of the rights of people. I have given ample evidence to the contrary here tonight.

You do not really believe that?

I do not intend covering that ground again.

*The hon. member must also understand it when I say that we are dealing with a specific group of people here, people who have existing rights and privileges, and we want to protect those rights and privileges. After all, one cannot include provisions in the Bill with regard to unborn persons, because unborn persons do not yet have existing rights. I repeat that we are not taking rights away here. If problems arise with regard to this matter in future, the correct time to deal with this type of issue is when a confederation is formed. Therefore I hope that I have satisfied her because this is how we have to deal with this matter now. I see no other alternative.

That is exactly what I have suggested.

Mr. Chairman, there is still a great deal to be said about this matter. I should like to discuss the amendment of the hon. member for Berea and also the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton. I listened with respect to the appeal by the hon. the Minister that this matter be treated with great circumspection and responsibility. And this is as it should be, because it is, as I have indicated, one of the most sensitive aspects of this entire matter. The hon. the Minister said that in consequence of discussions with the Government of the Ciskei they eventually came to an agreement on the basis of the fact that there was no “relevant alternative”. I shall therefore be pleased if the hon. the Minister would answer this simple question for me: Was the gist of the amendment moved here by the hon. member for Berea put to the Ciskeian Government? In other words, was the Ciskeian Government told at any stage that the South African Government would consider giving Ciskeian citizens resident outside the Ciskei the choice of either accepting Ciskeian citizenship or retaining South African citizenship? I think this is a very pertinent question. I want to know, when we speak of “a relevant alternative”, whether this alternative was in fact put to the Ciskeian Government.

The second point I want to put to the hon. the Minister is that when a State is created—and we have seen this throughout history—there must be people to whom citizenship of that State is granted. One cannot merely create an empty shell. If one looks at history, one sees that what in fact happens during the transfer of sovereignty is that those people become citizens of that State who, in terms of the ius soli or in terms of the ius sanguinis, were resident in that State.

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

A little later please if the hon. member does not mind. I just want to finish what I was saying. However, here we have people who are resident in South Africa and, as I have already indicated, will probably remain resident here all their fives. The loss of their citizenship is not a matter which involves only the Ciskeian Government. The South African Government and the ordinary citizens of South Africa, you and I, also have the greatest interest in how these Black people who have been deprived of their citizenship, will react and how they feel about this. It is therefore a matter of as much concern to us as to the Government of the Ciskei, and we shall not allow the Government of the Ciskei to prescribe to us what should be done in respect of these people.

I have just said that as far as the transfer of sovereignty is concerned, it is a fact that citizenship is granted to people who are resident in the new State. However, I do not know of a single case in which sovereignty has been transferred and in which people who had citizenship of the State through which that sovereignty was transferred, were deprived of their citizenship. Take for example the case of the USA and the Philippines. When the Philippines became independent, the population gained citizenship of the Philippines, but not a single Philippino who had American citizenship, in terms of American legislation—not nationality, because at that stage the Philippines had American nationality and not citizenship—lost that citizenship.

We could also consider the British colonies that became independent, and we shall find that the same procedure was adopted there. Not a single person who was a citizen of a British colony, but was also a British citizen in terms of British legislation, lost his British citizenship when the specific British colony became independent. The same also applies to the independence granted to the colonies governed by the Netherlands. I therefore repeat that there is not a single case in history in which anyone had citizenship in terms of the legislation of a State, and owing to the transfer of sovereignty, lost that citizenship. We are therefore creating a precedent here. We are doing something here which, as far as I know, is totally unknown in international law. It is only for this reason that this clause is totally unacceptable to me.

The standpoint has been stated on more than one occasion that it is the citizens or the nation that are being emancipated, and we have already replied to this.

Order! I do not want to restrict the hon. member unnecessarily but he is now covering a very wide field indeed. I therefore ask him to limit his discussion to the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I am now discussing the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea, namely that people living outside the Ciskei should be given a choice.

We have already dealt with that point.

However, that is what I am talking about. The hon. member for Rissik would do well to listen to this.

Order! The hon. member must please not repeat arguments that have already been raised.

Mr. Chairman, as far as I know, this argument has not yet been raised.

The hon. member is repeating his colleagues’ arguments. [Interjections.]

When Israel became independent every member of the Jewish faith had the right to return to Israel and gain citizenship of that State. It was a right, and not a privilege, which they received, and not a single country in the world where people of the Jewish faith were living, said that because they had citizenship of Israel, they would be deprived of the citizenship of that specific State. It is as simple as that. There is therefore no logical justification for the depriving those people living outside the Ciskei in South Africa of their citizenship.

In conclusion I wish to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister on the question of nationality. As far as I understand what the hon. the Minister said, the idea is not that a confederal State is going to be created.

No, definitely not.

Correct. Nationality means the public law bond between a natural person and a State in terms of which the status attached to being a member of that State is regulated. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, surely the matter has already been put very clearly, but I want to repeat it, and I want those hon. members to listen carefully. In terms of existing arrangements, no Ciskeian loses any of his existing rights when his State and his State’s citizens become independent on 4 December.

They lose their citizenship.

As far as existing rights are concerned they lose absolutely nothing. [Interjections.] I have said repeatedly that their existing rights are entrenched and protected by means of the convention hon. members have before them. For example, they get total franchise in their own Parliament. That is why I am emphasizing the existing rights. [Interjections.] These are the simple facts. However, we are not on the same wavelength in this debate.

The hon. member again asked whether Ciskei was given the choice when we negotiated with the Ciskei on this matter. I cannot say whether it was put to the Ciskei in the words of the hon. member for Berea’s amendment, but after all, I explained here at length how exhaustively joint discussions were held on all imaginable possibilities and that we came to the conclusion I have already set out here, which is embodied in the convention, as being the best solution to this thorny problem.

This brings me to the hon. member’s question in connection with nationality. In this regard he is absolutely right. A confederal State is not being created. The extract I quoted to the hon. member is quite clear. I repeat the quotation—

There need not therefore be any misunderstanding as to any of the points raised by the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the hon. the Minister, I should just like to explain something else. I said nationality means the public law bond between a person and the State. Consequently, if a confederal State is not created, nationality cannot exist. Arrangements can exist, such as those contained in this agreement, arrangements in terms of which a State may say that if citizens of another State do not enjoy international recognition—for example if their passports are not recognized—they may use the passports of the other State. [Interjections.] However, that is not nationality.

Order! I am afraid that the hon. member is repeating the question the hon. the Minister has just replied to, only in different words. That cannot be allowed. The hon. member must therefore advance new arguments.

Mr. Chairman, I abide by your ruling.

You are obstinate.

No, I am not. These are serious matters. Although the hon. member does not think so, the hon. the Minister may think so.

I have already replied to that.

I now come to the amendments put by the hon. member for Houghton. The one problem I have is in connection with possible statelessness. Hon. members are aware of the fact that there are a large number of conventions to try to prevent statelessness. The attitude being adopted here is that this legislation does not entail the possibility of people being made stateless.

Yes.

If the Ciskei, Transkei, or whatever State it may be, refuses to accept persons as citizens, it is alleged that this is after all the responsibility of the Ciskei or Transkei. However, that argument does not hold water, because we then have the right to deprive people of their South African citizenship, whereas the Transkei and Ciskei do not have the right to deprive people living here of their citizenship. The primary responsibility therefore rests with us. In the second place I refer the hon. the Minister—and I think he is very well aware of this—to the position of the Blacks in Griqualand East. The Transkei refuses to accept those people as its citizens, and the attitude we adopt is that they are not our citizens either. In actual fact we have therefore created stateless people. With the kind of situation we have here it is possible that we will to an increasing extent be creating stateless people in South Africa. This is unfortunately the case, and we have only ourselves to blame for this, and not the Ciskei or any other State.

I now come to the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton.

Order! The hon. member has just spoken about the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton. In point of fact, the hon. member reversed the question of citizenship and spoke about statelessness. He is out of order in that regard as well.

Sir, in connection with the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton …

Nic, can I put my question now?

Very well.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place, can the hon. member tell us whether he and the other hon. members of his party received orders from the Ciskeian Chief Minister or the Ciskeian Government to vote against this legislation? In the second place, if a national convention were held and the Ciskei asked for independence, what would that party have said? [Interjections.]

Order! I am afraid the hon. member’s questions have nothing to do with the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea. I have been trying to ask the hon. the Minister a question for the last hour, but I have not been able to rise, largely because of the fact that my hon. colleague Prof. Olivier was speaking. Instead of putting it as a question, I should now like to spell my point out a little more, but I shall be extremely brief.

The hon. the Minister has repeatedly told those of us on this side of the House that the people of Ciskei are losing nothing.

They are not losing any “bestaande regte”.

Order! The hon. the Minister has already elaborated fully on this matter.

Yes, and almost every time that the hon. the Minister got up, it was quite clear that there was an essential difference between the hon. the Minister and ourselves on this very issue. I now want to try …

Order! I have already ruled that I will not allow repetition of questions or replies. The hon. member must proceed with his question by way of a speech.

Mr. Chairman, let me put it as follows: The hon. the Minister’s reply reminds me of a story. [Interjections.]

Order! I am now giving the hon. member a last opportunity. He must apply himself to the clause.

Sir, you have not yet heard the illustration I want to give. I promise you it will take only one minute, and then you can tell me whether it is right or wrong.

The hon. the Minister’s dilemma reminds me of the story of a mother trying to teach her children the lesson of giving rather than receiving. This is exactly the point which the hon. the Minister has been making. One of the ways in which she did this was to take two apples, one very large and one very small. She then gave it to her elder son and said: “I want you to share this with your little brother.” That son of hers was big. He was well-built, while his brother was small. She told him: “Be sure that you give your brother first choice.” Later on she found her elder son, die frisgeboude kêrel, eating the enormous apple. She then asked him: “Are you sure you gave your little brother first choice?” He said: “Of course I did.” She then asked: “What exactly did you say to him?” His reply was: “I said to him: “You can have the little apple, or nothing”. That was the choice, and that is exactly the choice which the hon. the Minister is giving the people of Ciskei. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member—I do not want to put it to him in this way, but I have to—is circumventing the rules in a way which is not becoming his station. I have to ask him to discontinue his speech.

Amendments moved by Mr. R. A. F. Swart put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, but I believe that this amendment, which proposes to make the date of independence subject to the provision that all the land promised to Ciskei must first be made over to Ciskei, would for two reasons not be acceptable to the Chair. Firstly, the amendment is subject to the amendment that I moved to clause 1, and you have already ruled that out of order. Secondly, I would not want it be said that we on this side of the House were unnecessarily lengthening the debate. Therefore I shall not move my amendment.

Therefore the hon. member must now confine himself to the particulars of the clause.

We wish to oppose this clause …

Order! The hon. member has already indicated that.

This clause makes provision for a date for the granting of independence. We do not even know what the final shape or extent of the country to which this independence is going to be given is going to be. We on this side of the House, particularly those of us with an agricultural background, are very conscious of the wisdom which lies behind the old proverb “One must never buy a pig in a poke”. One must at least know what the pig looks like. [Interjections.]

Order! That has nothing to do with this clause.

I am talking about the date on which independence is to be granted.

Order! The hon. member should not try the patience of the Chair and the dignity of this House too much. I think he should rather resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on that?

No. I have already given my ruling. I cannot allow any fooling around with the procedure of the House.

There is no fooling around with it, Sir.

The hon. member must please resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman, may I not address you on your ruling?

No.

I cannot understand that, Sir. Why not, Mr. Chairman?

Order! I have given my ruling.

But it is different from your earlier ruling, Sir.

Mr. Chairman, I am objecting to the fact that we are discussing a clause that makes provision for a date for independence for a country when we do not even know what that country is going to look like in terms of extent and size. Therefore we object to this. We feel that the logical sequence should be that we must first determine what the country is going to look like, and what the extent of that country is going to be, and then talk about the date for independence, but not before. We are here putting the cart before the horse. That is the reason why we are opposing this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand the argument the hon. member for Albany has now advanced, viz. that we do not know what the territory will look like. If the hon. member looks at Schedule A he will see that the area is properly defined in the form of districts. What is the requirement? The requirement is that an area must be properly defined with boundaries which are properly determined from point to point. This has already been done. The boundaries have already been properly defined. That is why they appear in the Schedule. The territory has been completely defined. The hon. member’s whole idea is however …

Order! I ruled the hon. member for Albany out of order because the definition of Ciskei is contained in clause 1. I do not think the hon. the Deputy Minister need pursue the matter further.

Clause put and the Committee divided: