House of Assembly: Vol108 - TUESDAY 16 MAY 1961

TUESDAY, 16 MAY 1961 Mr. SPEAKER took the Chair at 2.20 p.m. FIRST REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON STANDING RULES AND ORDERS

Mr. SPEAKER, as Chairman, brought up the First Report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, as follows:

Your Committee, having considered the Report of the Committee appointed to investigate the Emoluments of Members of Parliament, laid upon the Table of the House on 14 April 1961, begs to report that it approves of the recommendations contained therein.

H. J. Klopper, Chairman.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Unless notice of objection to the Report is given before the next sitting of the House, the Report will be considered as adopted.

QUESTIONS

For oral reply:

No Milk Dumped in Table Bay *I. Capt. HENWOOD

asked the Minister of Health:

  1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made by the Medical Officer of Health for the Cape Divisional Council, and reported in the Press, that the 2,300 gallons of separated milk being dumped in Table Bay daily could, if processed, be used to reduce the death rate among small children due to gastro-interitis;
  2. (2) whether he will take steps to have this wasted protein utilized for health purposes; if not, why not; and
  3. (3) whether he will have the matter investigated; if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF HEALTH:
  1. (1) Yes;
  2. (2) and (3) investigations have revealed that no milk, either whole or separated, is being dumped in Table Bay or otherwise wasted, but that 4,000 gallons a week of pasteurized, sweetened and flavoured separated milk is being sold by the Cape Town Milk Board to the Cape Peninsula School Feeding Association at 7 cents per gallon for distribution to 87 Bantu and Coloured schools in the Cape Peninsula. This price very little more than covers handling costs, including the cost of distributing the milk.
Statement by Minister of Bantu Education *II. Dr. D. L. SMIT

asked the Prime Minister:

  1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to a report in the Cape Times of 8 May 1961, of a speech made by the Minister of Bantu Education at a meeting at Kempton Park on 6 May, in which he, inter alia, stated the reason why the Government was spending money on Bantu education and development; and
  2. (2) whether this statement represents the policy of the Government.
The PRIME MINISTER:

(1) and (2) My attention has been drawn to the unfortunate impression which a very much abbreviated report and its heading may have conveyed, and perhaps was intended to convey, by prejudiced reporting.

The gist of the Minister’s statement was that it is unwise to criticize Government expenditure on Bantu development and Bantu education. He had in mind, amongst others, opposition speakers who seek unfair advantage with such attacks during elections in rural areas in spite of their party’s policy and support for such expenditure in Parliament. He therefore stated that everyone should realize that any expenditure on the separate development of the Bantu is not to his advantage alone, but also benefits the White man. Only the proper satisfaction of the needs of both, each amongst his own people, can further progress and goodwill. Aid to the Bantu is essential for the survival of the White man. Even if it should only be for selfish reasons, the White electorate should therefore not oppose such expenditure.

There is nothing wrong in seeking support for a policy of separate development on reasonable lines by advancing either altruistic or selfish arguments, or both, according to what might weigh most with those with whom the matter is discussed.

Persons Sentenced to Death Under Section 330 of Criminal Procedure Act *III. Dr. D. L. SMIT

asked the Minister of Justice:

(a) How many persons in each race group have been sentenced to death in terms of Section 330 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955, as amended by Acts 9 of 1958 and 16 of 1959, for (i) robbery (including an attempt to commit robbery) and (ii) housebreaking or attempted housebreaking with intent to commit an offence, with aggravating circumstances, (b) (i) in how many of these cases and (ii) with what result were the convictions and sentences taken on appeal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court and (c) how many of the death sentences were (i) commuted and (ii) carried out.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:
  1. (a)

(i) Bantu

17

Coloureds

1

Other races

None

(ii) Bantu

3

Coloureds

1

Other races

None

  1. (b)
    1. (i) 16.
    2. (ii) In four cases the sentences were set aside and the cases remitted to the trial court for reconsideration of sentence. The trial court did not again impose the death sentence. All the prisoners in the cases concerned were Bantu.
      In three cases the convictions and sentences were set aside. Two of the prisoners were Bantu and one a Coloured.
      In four cases the appeal was dismissed. All the prisoners were Bantu.
      In five cases application for leave to appeal was refused by the Appeal Court. All the prisoners were Bantu.
  2. (c)
    1. (i) One; a Bantu.
    2. (ii) 12; 11 Bantu and one Coloured.
Permission Refused to ex-Chief Luthuli to Travel to Port Elizabeth *IV. Mr. R. A. F. SWART

asked the Minister of Justice:

  1. (1)Whether his Department has received a request from ex-Chief Albert Luthuli to be allowed to travel to Port Elizabeth on 31 May 1961; if so,
  2. (2)what is the purpose of the journey as stated in the request; and
  3. (3)whether the request has been acceded to; if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:
  1. (1) Yes, addressed to the Chief of Police, Pretoria.
  2. (2) To receive a Christopher Gell Memorial Award and to deliver the Memorial Address.
  3. (3) No, not under present circumstances.
*V. Mr. OLDFIELD

—Reply standing over.

Import Control in Regard to Structural Timber *VI. Mr. MARTINS

asked the Minister of Economic Affairs:

Whether he will consider limiting the importation of structural timber to the same extent as the importation of textile goods and motor spare parts which can be economically produced in this country; and, if not, why not.

The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS:

The importation of structural timber is already being controlled to the extent that import permits therefor are only granted in order to make up the difference between the estimated local production and the estimated local consumption. Import allocations for this year will amount to only 53i per cent of the total allocations for last year and are further being qualified in the sense that only 15 per cent thereof will be valid for the importation of short length soft timber, whilst the balance must be used for the importation of lengths of 16 feet and longer.

No Replies in Regard to Letters of Agitator Organizations *VII. Mr. BARNETT

asked the Prime Minister:

  1. (1) Whether he has recently received a letter from the South African People’s Congress; if so,
  2. (2) whether he has acknowledged the receipt of the letter; and, if not,
  3. (3) whether he intends to reply to the letter; if not, why not.
The PRIME MINISTER:

I have already replied in the House of Assembly to several such inquiries concerning letters written to me by agitator organizations, but do not intend to continue doing so since such inquiries are now obviously intended as part of the propaganda campaign. I am surprised that some Members of Parliament are lending themselves to cooperation in that direction.

Industrial Councils Instituted under Conciliation Act *VIII. Mr. BARNETT

asked the Minister of Labour:

(a) For which industries have industrial councils been set up in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, according to (i) provincial and (ii) national regions, (b) what are(i) the names and (ii) the race of the members of each industrial council, (c) what revenue is derived by each industrial council from contributions by wage earners in respect of each race group and (d) what is the amount standing to the credit of each industrial council according to the latest returns.

The MINISTER OF LABOUR:

It is not clear what the hon. member means by provincial and national regions. There are 94 registered industrial councils with areas of jurisdiction ranging from the Union of South Africa to small local areas. The details asked for in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) are not immediately available. The collection thereof would be a lengthy process and without some information as to the purpose which would be served by obtaining the exhaustive details asked for, I do not feel that the time and labour involved in obtaining the information from industrial councils would be justified.

Clothing Firms and Sale of Blazers in Bantu Schools

The Minister of Bantu Education replied further to Question No. *VI, by Mr. Moore, on 7 April.

Question:

Whether permission has been granted to any clothing firms to visit Bantu schools to discuss the sale of school blazers; and, if so, (a) when and (b) to how many firms has permission been granted, (c) what are the names of the firms and (d) how many schools have been visited.

Reply: The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:

Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House, I wish to give a further reply to QuestionNo. VI asked by the hon. member for Kensington on Friday, 7 April 1961, in regard to school blazers for Bantu schools. Arising out of my reply given on the aforementioned date the hon. member directed my attention to an article in an edition of the Bantu Education Journal containing contradictory information to what I gave. I have consequently caused the matter to be investigated and established that permission was in fact granted to the firm Veka Ltd., Johannesburg to visit Bantu schools. When the firm in question approached my Department it was agreed that school blazers can be of educational value, and it was decided to furnish the firm with written permission as is done in the case of booksellers who wish to visit Bantu schools and offer their services.

I may add that the firm in question does not sell blazers to schools directly. It only caters for the manufacture of the blazers after schools have decided upon the colour schemes. It is not the concern of the manufacturers where blazers are purchased.

I regret having furnished incorrect information in the first instance. This was due to the fact that the professional division of my Department originally dealt with the matter on an inappropriate file, whilst the administration division, which should have dealt with the matter, compiled the original reply without reference to the professional division.

Mr. MOORE:

I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for his statement.

For written reply:

Regional Native Labour Committees Instituted Mr. BARNETT

asked the Minister of Labour:

(a) In which areas have regional Native labour committees been set up in terms of the Native Labour Settlement of Disputes Act, 1953. (b) what are the names of the members of each of these committees, (c) how many disputes have been referred to each of these committees since their inception, (d) in how many cases did the committees secure improvements in wages and working conditions, or otherwise settle disputes in favour of employees, and (e) what were the improvements in each particular instance.

The MINISTER OF LABOUR:

(a) and (b):

This information was supplied by me in reply to a question by the hon. member for Houghton on 17 March 1961.

(c), (d) and (e):

The Committees have been in existence for nearly seven years and have dealt with a large number of matters.

In effect the hon. member’s question calls for a complete survey of the functioning of the committees, and this not a matter which can conveniently be handled within the normal compass of a reply to a parliamentary question.

ELECTORAL LAWS AMENDMENT BILL

First Order read: Adjourned debate on motion for second reading,—Electoral Laws Amendment Bill, to be resumed.

[Debate on motion by the Deputy Minister of the Interior, upon which an amendment had been moved by Mr. Horak, adjourned on 15 May, resumed.]

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

During the course of this parliamentary Session the hon. The Prime Minister said on an occasion that he hoped no accusations would be made about corruption during the referendum campaign seeing that that would only harm South Africa and I was glad at the time that he said that, because that most certainly stopped me from saying certain things that I personally knew of. But after the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) said by implication last night that because Sea Point had succeeded in showing a 96 per cent poll during the referendum, there must have been a ghost vote in Sea Point …

*Mr. VAN STADEN:

No.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

Yes, that was very clearly reported in this morning’s newspaper as well. That is why it has unfortunately become necessary for me to give the other side of the story. What is the position? I take it that this is an honest attempt on file part of the Deputy Minister of the Interior to improve the electoral laws of this country and I am pleased that he has introduced this measure. I am pleased, because I think he and I both started our political careers in the same area and in the same capacity as party organizers and the first seat that I contested was against the Deputy Minister personally and on that occasion he discovered that both of us knew enough about the electoral laws with this difference that the people had more confidence in me and he was severely defeated. However, I say that in passing. Where the hon. The Deputy Minister is now making an honest attempt to change the electoral laws in such a way that dishonesty will no longer be possible, I trust he will agree to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Sunny-side (Mr. Horak) so that Parliament can investigate the whole position and perhaps effect further improvements which are not covered by the principles contained in this Bill. Various improvements come to my mind at this stage, which you, Mr. Speaker, will unfortunately not allow me to discuss because they are not covered by the principles of the Bill, but I trust that in his attempt to present us with the best possible Act, the hon. The Deputy Minister will refer this whole matter to a Select Committee before the second reading and not thereafter.

I want to return to the hon. member for Malmesbury: He has made a number of peculiar accusations. In the first instance he said that his election costs were paid by a political party, and when I told him from this side that as far as the United Party was concerned the position was not that it was taken for granted that the costs would be paid he refused to accept my word. The main reason why we succeeded in obtaining that high percentage poll at Sea Point is probably because the antirepublican agent, myself, gave his services free of charge, he received no remuneration for the work which he did and he was not a paid organizer of a political party. Those services were rendered voluntarily and when you work voluntarily you do much better work than when you are paid for it. That was the main reason why the percentage in the hon. member’s constituency was not as high as in mine. The hon. member goes further however, and says that because there was a 96 per cent poll in Sea Point there must have been a ghost vote. How does the ghost vote operate under the existing Act? I shall tell you where the ghost vote comes in, Sir. You usually have the ghost vote as a result of the postal vote, and fewer than 1,000 people voted through the post at Sea Point whereas at Malmesbury where the hon. member was the republican agent, more than 2,000 people voted through the post, a fact of which the hon. Member was very boastful according to the report that he published in the Burger a week before the referendum was held when he said that the National Party organization had already received 2,000 applications for postal votes. What does that mean? What is the implication? The implication is that in a platteland constituency like Malmesbury where there are never more than about 4,500 to 5,000 Nationalist votes, one out of every two Nationalists was absent on that particular day, under the guidance of that hon. member, with or without his knowledge. Why? Why? Why did the organization of that hon. member send its agents twice to a certain person, who is known to me—and that person was an official of the United Party and they knew that he would vote against the republic—and why did the agents travel a distance of nearly 12 miles there and back that is 24 miles, on two occasions to say to that person “ Old chap, we know you are ill, give us your postal vote. Why should you go to the trouble of letting the United Party ask you?”

*Mr. VAN STADEN:

That is not true.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill.

*Mr. VAN STADEN:

May I ask the hon. member a question?

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

No. What happened to the postal votes? I am sorry that I have to speak about this, Sir, but the hon. member for Malmesbury was the person who raised the question of the oath of secrecy.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must now return to the Bill.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

Mr. Speaker, may I talk about postal votes and point out what corruption is possible under the existing law, and may I give examples?

*Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member may continue.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

I want to give you an example, Sir, of what is happening to-day. You enter the voting chamber and you are under an oath of secrecy. You may not tell outside what is happening there. If the hon. the Deputy Minister makes inquiries in connection with the Sea Point election he will find the following: At my request the postal votes at Sea Point were sealed, signed by me and I also gave the republican agent the same opportunity of signing once they had been sealed. I did that because I had received a sworn statement and complaints to the effect that a certain voter who had voted against the republic had reason to believe that her ballot paper had been interfered with. I had that statement in my pocket and I took it to the electoral officer and I asked the republican agent for his permission for the electoral officer, and he alone, accompanied by another senior magistrate who happened to be present at the counting, to examine that ballot paper and ascertain whether it had been interfered with. The republican agent walked out and said that he did not want to have anything to do with the matter.

*HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

What happened? There were no more than about a hundred republican votes and amongst those there were various ones from people who had first voted against the republic and had subsequently ruled out the cross opposite “ against the republic ” and made their cross in favour of the republic. That is normal; that is possible. But the peculiar aspect of the matter was this that from what I saw there that evening, I got the impression that those people did not make the decision not to vote against the republic alone but that all of them also decided to change it in pencil and all of them used the same pencil.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! What has that got to do with the Bill? The hon. member must obey my ruling and confine himself to the Bill.

*Mr. MOORE:

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member is trying to draw attention to the defects in the legislation.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

I want to repeat that the big danger connected with postal votes is not that the wrong people get hold of the ballot papers, but the big danger that exists under the existing law and that is not eliminated in this Bill, is that postal votes can be interfered with after they had fallen into the hand of one or other political party.

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

Is that your conscience talking?

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

No, it is not I. It is no good the hon. member talking. I as the election agent invite the hon. the Minister to examine the documents relating to Sea Point. As far as Sea Point is concerned my conscience is clear. Neither I nor one of my sub-agents have on any occasion interfered with any vote or committed any irregularity, but few members opposite can say the same.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

I am asking the hon. member for the fourth time to return to the Bill.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

What improvements does the hon. the Minister suggest? Whereas in the past there had to be two witnesses when anybody voted through the post, that is no longer necessary. We know, of course, that in practice, particularly at Sea Point, the Nationalist Party have never taken witnesses along, the witnesses sign in the office.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Aren’t you ashamed of yourself?

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

The one improvement that the Minister suggests is that the person who acts as electoral officer must place the ballot paper in the envelope and the voter has to sign on the back. What does that mean? It simply leaves the door open to intimidation as for example in the case of railway workers, civil servants or parents of children in the Civil Service, etc. Such an agent will now be able to say to such a person: On this occasion you must sign your name on the back so that I can know for whom you have voted. [Laughter.] Hon. members are provoking me but with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall give them further proof. [Laughter.]

*Mr. VAN STADEN:

Thus far you have only talked nonsense.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member for Malmesbury has had an opportunity to make a speech and he has made good use of it.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

What does this amendment mean? It will give further opportunity to the unscruplous party organizers on the Government side to intimidate people and to say to them “ If you do not vote for our candidate we shall kick you out of the Civil Service”. You know how nervous and scared people are that they will be victimized during an election, Sir. I do believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister is sincere in his attempt to make the legislation as effective as possible and I trust he will use his influence with the Cabinet and tell the Cabinet that this whole question should be referred to a Select Committee before the second reading. Those of us who have been concerned with politics for a long time can give many examples of intimidation and this Bill, as it it before us to-day, still lends itself to improvement and the Minister will get a better measure if he accepts our amendment and in that case everyone will know that South Africa’s electoral laws are such that there is no room for dishonesty. I trust the hon. the Deputy Minister will see his way clear to accept it.

*Mr. BADENHORST:

The hon. member who has just sat down had to go to such lengths to find excuses for what happened at Sea Point that I believe that where there was suspicion and where people thought there could be no ground for suspicion, they will now feel that there is indeed ground for suspicion. The hon. member accused National Party candidates of having committed irregularities on a large scale during the past referendum. But the hon. member knows as well as anybody else does what to do in such cases. He could simply have brought such cases to the notice of the police and they would have taken action. The hon. member ought to know what to do n such cases. I want to know from him why he did not report those cases to the police. That was the obvious course. The hon. member also said that their candidates paid their own election costs. I do not doubt his word, but I should like to ask the hon. Member whether he remembers the Trust Fund which his party established a couple of years ago.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Yes, but the Trust Fund has nothing to do with this Bill.

*Mr. BADENHORST:

Mr. Speaker, this Bill provides that it is no longer necessary to make a return of the expenditure incurred during an election and that Trust Fund was an election fund and we should like to know what they did with that £1,000,000. Were the expenses of the candidates not paid out of that?

*Mr. DURRANT:

What has happened to your Republican Fund of £1,000,000?

*Mr. BADENHORST:

We are not ashamed to say that the costs connected with the referendum were paid from that, but why do those hon. members refuse to tell the world what they have done with their £1,000,000?

*Mr. HOLLAND:

On a point of order, may the hon. member over there say “ Hy is ’n meid ”?

*Mr. KNOBEL:

I withdraw it.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

I just want to ask the hon. member this: He said that in cases where corruption or malpractices were suspected it was easy to report those to the police. I now want to ask the hon. member whether he is aware of the fact that no less than three complaints were lodged against a Member of Parliament who sits two seats away from him, but that the Attorney-General did not prosecute in any of those cases?

*Mr. BADENHORST:

I am aware of that, and I think the fact that the Attorney-General did not take any notice of them proves the innocence of the hon. member.

The hon. member for Turffontein objected to the provision that in future it would no longer be necessary for a candidate to make a return of his expenses. He strenuously objected to that and he said a host of things with which I cannot agree, Sir. For example, he said that a poor man was now placed in this position that he would not be able to fight an election. I want to know from the hon. member whether it costs a poor man more to bring his voters to the polling booth than it costs the rich man? It costs every candidate exactly the same to bring his voters to the polling booth. To say that we are leaving the door open to bribery—that was what the hon. member insinuated if I understood him correctly—and that a rich man will now be able to bribe people as much as he likes, is surely not a reasonable argument. There is room for bribery under the existing Act. There is nothing to prevent a person from bribery to-day if he thinks he can get away with it and the provisions which make bribery a punishable offence are retained in this Bill. If the hon. member knows of cases of bribery and he is opposed by a person who is too rich for him to compete with, and who bribes people, he can simply report that to the police.

A great deal has been said about postal votes and the elimination of irregularities in connection with postal votes. I think the Select Committee will eventually find a solution to this problem, perhaps not a solution that will satisfy all of us, but a solution none the less that will limit abuses to the minimum. But I want to add something to that; I think that the penalties for offences in respect of postal votes should be made more severe. That may have a deterrent effect on prospective offenders.

Then we have the case of people who are suddenly notified that they have to leave. It does happen that some electoral officials are very accommodating in such cases. You can take such a person to the electoral official, he signs his application form and the electoral official immediately issues that person with a postal vote before his departure. But there is nothing in the law to compel an electoral official to do so, and you sometimes come across electoral officials who refuse to do so, quite rightly so. I think the hon. the Minister should remember something and that is to make provision so that people who have to leave suddenly may vote before their departure.

The hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) is not present. He had a great deal to say last night. I differ from him in many respects but there are certain respects in which I agree with him. He described our present registration system as clumsy. I agree with him that it is probably clumsy to-day, but he made a suggestion which I do not think will find much support. He said that he saw it operate in America. It may be effective there and in countries overseas where the people are more election conscious. But where you are dealing with voters such as ours, voters who are not at all as election conscious as they should be, I think it will be difficult to make that idea of his popular. He suggests that four or six weeks before the election an office should be opened in each electoral district. That may prove successful in large rural constituencies where there are not many voters, particularly in South West where there are only 3,000 to 4,000 voters in a constituency. It may work successfully there, but what about the urban constituency where there are 14,000 or 15,000 voters and you can only start registering them a month before the election? That will mean that you will have to register more than two voters per minute in order to get the name of every voter on the roll before the election. When will those voters’ rolls be available, Mr. Speaker? You need them in order to fight an election. The hon. Member may propagate this idea of his, but I do not think the time is opportune to give serious consideration to this suggestion.

The hon. member raised another matter, namely, that the elections for the Provincial Council and Parliament should be held simultaneously. I am sorry time did not permit the hon. member to expatiate on that point. I am greatly in favour of that idea of the hon. member for Namib. For years now the voting public of South Africa has gone to the polls every five years, twice in succession. The people are getting tired of it. Apart from the fact that the people are getting tired of the elections, it means terrific expenditure on the part of the Government and also on the part of the political parties. Millions of pounds are probably spent on every election. I believe that a plan can be devised and a method evolved whereby the two elections can be held simultaneously. The hon. the Deputy Minister will remember that in 1950 when he and I went to South West Africa to assist to get the hon. member for Namib elected to Parliament that was the case there. It went off very smoothly. The argument will be advanced that in the Free State and in Natal the borders of the constituencies are not the same in the case of the Provincial Council as in the case of Parliament. That is so, but the borders of a polling district remain constant and what does it matter if a polling district in the case of the Provincial Council slightly overlaps the border of the polling district in respect of Parliament? I do not think this is an insurmountable difficulty and I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I know he said there were difficulties connected with it and that they had already gone into the matter and decided that it was not possible. I think the money that will be saved by holding the two elections simultaneously will warrant the trouble that we will have to go to to achieve it. I want to ask the Deputy Minister once again to give serious consideration to this matter.

Mr. HORAK:

What was done at Wakker-stroom in 1952?

*Mr. BADENHORST:

Wakkerstroom is a different matter, because there the borders of the constituency are the same both in respect of the Provincial Council and Parliament. It should be easy in the Cape Province and in the Transvaal. The difficulty will arise in Natal and in the Free State, but I do believe it can be done.

In conclusion I should like to bring another matter to the notice of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I think this is something which flows from the defects in the existing Act. I am referring to the investigation which the police are conducting at Uitenhage at the moment in regard to postal votes that have been rejected. In that case the Attorney-General gave instructions that the electoral documents should be opened and the ballot papers concerned taken out. An investigation is being conducted. All of us know how easily it happens that the signature on the application form differs from that on the declaration form. The presiding officer may get to a house where the husband and wife have to vote and the documents relating to the one are inadvertently placed in the envelope relating to the other, with the result that the signatures differ. There is no motive behind that. It can also happen easily in another case. The one minute an elderly person may sign his name in the ordinary way and the next minute he may print his name. When it comes to the counting stage those votes are simply thrown out. The Attorney-General for the Eastern Cape has now issued instructions that these documents should be examined at Uitenhage. I do not know why they have selected Uitenhage in particular, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to go into the matter and to ascertain why Uitenhage has been selected in particular. I do not know how the matter was brought to the attention of the police….

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! That is a totally different matter which the hon. member ought to raise under the Interior Vote.

*Mr. BADENHORST:

I am raising it now, Sir, because it is as a result of the defects in the law.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member may refer to the defects in the Act, but he cannot ask for an investigation at Uitenhage.

*Mr. BADENHORST:

In that case I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister please to investigate these defects in the law and to see if anything can be done to remedy them.

*Mr. BARNETT:

I do not intend going into the difficulties mentioned by the previous speakers, who were mostly party organizers, but I want to say that if it is the intention of the hon. Deputy Minister to remove by this legislation some of the irksome restrictions on Coloured voters to make it easier for them to be registered as such, we must and will obviously welcome it. I would also like to endorse the appeal made by the hon. Member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) in regard to the registration of Coloured voters and to stress once more that the time is long overdue where it should be made much more easier for the Coloured people to become registered. I sincerely hope that the recommendations in this respect brought forward by that hon. member will not only be accepted, but that others will be added entitling a Coloured man to be registered in the same way as the European. Mr. Speaker, whilst we are dealing with legislation amending the Electoral Act, may I ask the hon. Deputy Minister whether he does not think the time has arrived to consider seriously the question of Coloured women in regard to the franchise.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! That does not fall under this Bill.

*Mr. BARNETT:

I will obey your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but you are spoiling a very good speech, Sir. I have made the point about Coloured women, and I sincerely trust that the House will allow this Bill to go to a Select Committee before the second reading, so that this very matter might receive attention. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I think it should go to a Select Committee also in order to consider the question of the 18-year-old Coloureds.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! That also does not fall under this Bill.

*Mr. BARNETT:

With all due respect, Sir, and with all seriousness, this Bill has been introduced to amend the Electoral Act and several other Acts, including Act No. 46 of 1951, the Separate Representation of Voters Act, to which reference is being made in Clause 52 of this Bill. My submission to you, Sir, is that once legislation is brought into this House to amend a certain Act, I am, with due respect, entitled to ask the hon. Minister to bring in further amendments to that same Act.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to proceed with that matter.

*Mr. BARNETT:

Then I would like to refer to another matter. The hon. Deputy Minister has brought in the question of the introduction of identity cards at elections. Now, I can probably deal with this matter more fully under the Vote of the Minister of the Interior, but at this stage I would like to ask the hon. Deputy Minister what the position of those people will be whose classification is still under consideration at the date of an election.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Read Clause 54.

*Mr. BARNETT:

I have done so, but there is nothing in that clause which answers my point. As I was saying, Sir, there are many of us who know that there are still thousands of people who claim to be Europeans but still wait for a decision on their classification and who cannot be registered until such time as they have been issued with identity cards. I even know of people whose classification was re-opened after years, even though they were already issued with identity cards. Again, I can deal with this under the Vote of the Minister of the Interior, but at this stage I would like to ask the hon. Deputy Minister: If a man, or a woman, comes on election day and says: “ I am a European, but I have not received my identity card although I have made application for it ”, will he or she then be refused a ballot paper? Will they be allowed to vote? I would like the hon. Deputy Minister to tell me that. Those of us who had experience with cases such as this, could assist the Minister greatly if they bring to his notice those cases they have dealt with. I know that at the last election many people were refused a voting paper because they were removed from the voters’ roll merely by notification from the Department, without any proof that that notice was justified and without any proof that these people were anything else than what they claimed to be, namely, Europeans. I hope. Sir, that the hon. Deputy Minister will once and for all clarify this particular point for us.

*Mr. RAW:

If there is one thing which this debate has made very clear, then that is the urgent necessity for an amendment to the Electoral Act. One thing has been shown up by all speeches from both sides of the House, namely, the many loopholes in the Act, and the many ways in which the Act can either be evaded or is not serving its purpose of giving to the electorate a free opportunity for exercising a free and full choice in the election of the Government. But what is even more significant, Mr. Speaker, is that there was not one speaker so far from the Government side who, while failing to react to it, did not implicitly support the request made by this side of the House that the Bill be considered by a Select Committee before any principles have been laid down by this House. Not one speaker has got up to say that the principles incorporated in the amending Bill are satisfactory and all that needs to be amended, so that we could merely consider the detail. Every speaker has, in every speech made from both sides of the House, pointed out weaknesses in the Act, weaknesses which cannot be dealt with by a Select Committee if certain basic principles are first going to be laid down by the House. The hon. Deputy Minister has explained the three sections into which the Bill falls, viz. registration, identification, and postal votes. These are the three basic issues which are dealt with in the Bill. But there are many other issues which have been discussed in this debate and many other things which have been brought forward which should also be dealt with. There have already been suggestions for four separate instructions to the Select Committee. I will deal with these instructions when I deal with the particular issues, but already in this short debate, four different things which cannot be dealt with if this Bill is not dealt with by an unfettered Select Committee, have been raised in this House. I hope that the hon. Deputy Minister will, even at this late stage, be prepared to show his sincerity to the country to make a proper job in cleaning up the Electoral Act. I am sure that is his desire, because he, as Deputy Minister, has to carry the responsibility of the administration of this Act, and it will make this task easier, as it will make the task of everybody in this House, if we could close the loopholes and streamline or smooth out the rough edges of the existing legislation. There are many sound suggestions which could be considered if the Select Committee has unfettered powers. For instance, I am sure that the hon. member for Cradock was going to make a sound suggestion the other day when he started to interject when we were dealing with the question of identity cards. I am sure he was about to interject that you should merely clip the ears of voters in order to have a good method of identification. Apart from this, however, that is one of the real problems which we face in this Bill, viz. the question of identity. I will deal with that in a little more detail in a moment. Now I would like to deal with certain points raised by speakers from the Government side in connection with the amendment. Firstly, I want to deal with arguments of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) in regard to Clause 2 dealing with the exemption of certain persons from the treason disqualification, and I want to make the point that what we are dealing with here is a principle and not a question of individuals; it is not a question of whether what they did should be forgotten or forgiven or not, but it is a question of principle. By this amendment in the Bill we are, in fact, saying to people that they are quite free to commit treason, provided that the Government which they support ultimately comes into power and by implication condones and agrees to that treason. No matter whether it be this Government or another Government of the future. What would be the position if, for instance, people had been found guilty in the recent treason trial, guilty therefore of trying to upset the form of the State in South Africa? Would this hon. Deputy Minister be prepared to come forward in ten years’ time and to say “ let bygones be bygones ”? It is not an individual instance, it is not why those people were convicted, but it is the principle: You commit treason against the State and not against the Government in power, and if you were convicted by the courts, they have found you guilty of committing treason against your motherland, against your country, and against your State, and not against a particular Government. Ife very Government is to come along and say that it disagrees with the Government of that time, and with the policy it was taking and that it is on those grounds prepared to condone any treason committed by persons who also disagreed with that Government, what respect will we then have for the State or for the rule of law? Therefore, I would like to ask the hon. Deputy Minister to reconsider this issue. I accept the need to forget many things which happened in the past and I accept the necessity of trying to live in the future and not in the past, but I do not think we are going to achieve that object by condoning an act of treason as something which can be linked to a political policy.

Now. Mr. Speaker, having dealt with this point which was raised by a number of speakers, I want to get down to the detail of the proposed amendments and to the proposals made from this side of the House which a Select Committee will not be able to consider if it is going to be bound by a decision on the second reading. The three important issues I want to deal with are: the question of registration and the form of registration, identification, and the form of the postal vote procedure. In regard to registration, the Deputy Minister himself has admitted the difficulties which will arise from having a five-year general registration starting with a completely clean book. Here we must balance the issue of whether it is better to disenfranchise—as you would certainly do—many thousands of voters by not transferring the original registrations to the new roll, or whether it is better not to have a clean roll knowing that by achieving that you are going to disenfranchise many, many thousands of people. Because that is the choice. Assuming that you do not carry forward registrations from the old roll to the new roll at the general registration you must—you cannot avoid it—disenfranchise people. It must happen. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) I think said that it would be a good thing to train the voters of South Africa to register, to train them that this is something which they had to do. But he lives in an urban area! Has he ever tried to carry out a registration two or three months after a municipal election registration? Every house you go to they say they are registered, only to find that they refer to the municipal registration or that they have been registered for something quite different. It will not take years, but generations, for the public as such to register themselves and so to fulfil their obligations. In practice it is the political parties that achieved the present level—even though unsatisfactory —of registration of voters. It is due to the efforts of political parties that so many people are registered to-day. So I say that if you start by not bringing forward registrations, many thousands of people through ignorance or through lack of interest, or through being away on holiday or through one of a hundred reasons, will in fact not be registered— through change of address, through living with other people where forms are left for the householder but not for other residents in the house, such as boarders or relatives, etc. Thousands of people will be omitted in this way. But if you are going to achieve a clean roll, that in itself is something, and I want to ask the hon. Deputy Minister to consider the question of no residential qualification at a general registration in relation to the problem which I have pointed out, allied as it must be with the abuse which can take place if there is no residential qualification at a general registration. You are starting with a clean roll and with nothing to go by. You are starting with a blank piece of paper and every voter must now register.

Whether we like it or not, you will get people in a marginal seat trying to register a few hundred extra people in order to boost up the strength of one or other political party and in terms of this proposed amendment there is nothing to stop them from doing that. A commercial traveller can stay at an hotel and say that, as he is now resident there at the time of the general registration, he is going to register as a voter of that constituency. He then becomes a registered voter while there is nothing in the Act which necessitates that person notifying a change of that address during the succeeding five years. For five years, therefore, he can remain registered in a constituency where he stayed for one night and merely because he signed the card to say that he was resident at that address. And he has not thereby committed an offence, because he was in fact resident at that address at the time of the general registration. He was, in fact, present at that address and residing there and, therefore, he was not committing an offence. But his name remains on the list while thousands of others who are legitimately entitled to be registered as permanent residents may be left off. I would like, therefore, to suggest to the hon. Deputy Minister that he should reconsider the suggestion made from this side of the House that, if he is going to start with a clean roll without a residential qualification, then he cannot avoid introducing a compulsory change of address at the same time.

The hon. Deputy Minister may say that people may re-register. They may, but it is not compulsory—they may re-register if they wish to do so, and there is nothing which anyone can do to force those people to reregister. I have heard the arguments used that other sections of this Bill—Clauses 13 and 30 —entitled the electoral officer to remove the names of persons who are wrongly registered in a certain constituency. But that is not so, Mr. Speaker. Section 13 of the Electoral Act lays down—and it is even clearer in the Afrikaans than in the English—the following—

Behoudens die by sub-artikels (2), (3) en (4) bepaalde, word niemand in a afdeling geregistreer nie tensy en indien…

It is a disqualification for registration. Once he is on the roll, nothing compels him to change his address or entitles any other person to remove his name from the voters’ roll of that constituency. Section 30, on the other hand, gives the electoral officer the permissive right to investigate the qualifications of a person. It says that—

An electoral officer may, by notice in writing, at any time require any person to provide information…

He may, but he is not obliged to do so. He does not have to do so, and even if he gets the information, he is not obliged to remove a person’s name from that voters’ roll. So you have the double evil of on the one hand persons legitimately entitled to be registered, not being registered because they have been removed from the roll, and on the other hand persons who are wrongly registered, deliberately in many cases, and who cannot be removed for five years. I would like to plead with the hon. Deputy Minister that if he wishes to have a clean voters’ roll, then he must change the wording of Section 30 from “ may ” to “ shall ” to start with, so as to make it obligatory for an electoral officer to investigate, upon request, the qualifications of persons to remain registered in a particular constituency, and obligatory for a person who moves out of the constituency after three months, to register at his new permanent address. If the hon. Deputy Minister does not do that, then he cannot blame us if we say that we cannot see the sincerity of his desire to have a clean voters’ roll. It is a simple thing to make it compulsory to change your address. It is compulsory to register, so why should it not be compulsory to notify a change of your address if you move permanently? If you must register, then surely you must register at your residential address, and the hon. Deputy Minister cannot blame us if he leaves this deliberate loophole, a loophole in regard to which we warn him now, a loophole which in the past has been, and in future will again be, exploited for political ends. If he leaves that loophole in the Act, then we will be entitled to say that we doubt his sincere desire to have a clean roll. He is taking radical steps to clean up the roll, radical steps which will disenfranchise many people, but in taking those steps he is leaving open the door which, as he knows and as the electoral officer and everybody who has had anything to do with elections, has been and will again be abused through the registration of persons who no longer live in their constituencies. There is one small village in Natal where 16 stationmasters were registered on one voters’ roll. Over a period of five years there had been that number of changes and they were all entitled to stay on that roll, and they all voted in the election—15 of them by post and one in person. That is the sort of abuse we pointed out. We reported to the electoral officer that these persons had moved, but he was not bound to investigate and said: I have no power to change them unless they apply for re-registration at their new address. So I come back to the point that if we are to have a clean roll then let us accept that people will be left off. They can be put back again, but let us not allow people to be incorrectly registered. Registration is the basis on which every election is fought. Unless the voters’ roll is correct, everything else becomes a farce. You can have the finest election machinery in the world and everything can be foolproof, but if the voters’ roll is wrong the whole election becomes a farce. I agree with the Minister that this is something which must be tackled, but I ask him to tackle it wholeheartedly and not halfheartedly and leaving the door wide open for abuse. Now, that is the question of registration as such, but it ties up with the question of identification, identifying a voter when he applies for registration by his number on the population register, and his identification at the time of voting by the production of his identity card.

Mr. Speaker, I agree, and I think everyone who has been concerned in an election agrees, that impersonation is something which requires attention. If I believed that it were possible to stop the evil through these amendments. I would probably support the Minister’s point of view, but the use of the identity card will not stop the evil. In the first place, let me remind the Deputy Minister that in March this year I asked him how many identity cards had been posted to persons by the Registrar and had not been delivered, and the answer was 266,147, over 125,000 identity cards, 8.9 or a little under 10 per cent of the total number posted were not delivered. When I asked the Minister last year what steps were taken he said that inquiries were being made. I have here a letter from a person to whom, according to the Population Registrar, an identity card was posted three times by registered post. That person has never left that address and has never been away for more than two weeks’ holiday, and only on 7 March this year was a card eventually delivered, and then it was made out in the person’s maiden name and not in her married name. I have a thick file of identity card queries where persons have had difficulty in getting their cards. According to the Minister’s own Department, over 125,000 have been posted but not delivered. Now what sort of opportunity will we give to the electorate of South Africa to vote if it is so difficult in many cases to get identity cards and where many thousands have not yet got them? A year ago there were only 1,300,000 cards issued to White persons, but 110,000 people had died from the start of the issue of the cards up to last year. We assume that a larger number had become 16 and qualified for identity cards, and taking no notice of that wastage we still had less than half of the White adults with their identity cards. Yet we are now asked to pass legislation which will determine a person’s right to vote by the production of an identity card, which I am sure the Minister cannot assure this House is available at short notice to every single voter. I think the Minister will find that instead of promoting the object which he said he had set himself in this amendment, of making it easier for people to vote, he will in fact disfranchise a very large proportion of the electorate. I will take it no further, other than to emphasize that if we pass the second reading we are committed to the use of identity cards. I am sure that the Minister himself would like to hear further evidence on this issue. But we all know that the Select Commitee will have a Government majority, and if he is determined then to push it through that is his right; he is not stopping himself from getting this legislation, but he is leaving it open to the Select Committee to consider the matter unbound by a decision of this House if he allows the matter to go to the Select Committee before the second reading. I will leave that there because I think it is clear to everyone that we are creating for ourselves electoral difficulties in this issue alone which we will find it very hard to overcome in practice.

I do not want to deal with the question of the voters’ roll at length, because it is not a matter of principle, other than to agree with all speakers on both sides of the House who said that it was essential to have the Christian names on the voters’ roll. I think that is vital, but the other amendments to the voters’ roll are welcome. But now I want to come to the availability of the voters’ roll, the question of the roll now being available at the Minister’s pleasure and not two months before an election, as hitherto. We raised this issue in the referendum debate and I raise it here again. I believe that any person who has fought an election will agree that you must have your voters’ roll at least two months before the election. You cannot fight an election unless you have the voters’ roll. This amendment leaves it at the whim of the Minister to have the voters’ roll available whenever he wishes. I plead with him not to accept this amendment but to leave the existing provision of two months. If an election must wait two or three weeks because the voters’ roll is not ready, the world will not come to an end, but if you proclaim an election and do not have the voters’ roll available you are creating untold difficulties for the candidates and an injustice to the voters. I know what the Minister’s answer will be. He will say that he will not be unreasonable, but if he is not going to be unreasonable, why not make it law that there should be this two months’ period?

Now I turn to postal votes, because here, too, the Minister has recognized the need for cleaning up the system, but he has not given us the answer. The specific provisions which I wish to bring to his notice are those requiring no witness to an identity declaration for a postal vote. The Minister said that the production of an identity card would make the use of witnesses unnecessary. Of course it will not, Sir. It will make it doubly necessary, because if a person wants to, any unscrupulous person can register 500 people on any voters’ roll and produce identity numbers for them, and a previous address, as has happened on many occasions which, when investigated, did not exist. And when the card is examined and the previous address is looked up it is found that they were not registered there and they are put on the new roll. So you can have from 100 to 500 people registered with an identity number and an identity card, and they can be registered elsewhere as well. They need no residential qualification if it is at the time of a general registration. All that needs to happen is that one person can sit down and sign 500 E.F.33s, submit applications for postal votes, get them back, cast the votes, sign as commissioner of oaths, and submit that vote without any witness and without any other person having any control. It would be impossible to produce evidence or to go to court to deal with such malpractices. At least if you have witnesses you could get three people before the court and cross-examine them and make sure that their evidence tallies, but if there is only one person his word becomes the sole test upon which the legitimacy of a vote is judged. I agree that if one wished one could make it one witness because invariably there are two people available, usually a husband and wife or a commissioner of oaths and a driver, but it is sometimes difficult to find a third witness. But I submit that you must have at least one witness and that the production of identity cards will not solve the problem.

Now comes the real issue which I think the Minister has tried to solve with his proposal that the voter should sign on the back of the small envelope containing the ballot paper. But I want to emphasize what was said by other speakers on this side, that that signature on the back of the ballot paper is opening the door to intimidation such as we have never known before. Even now the existence of a number on the ballot paper and the fact that the number is recorded on a counterfoil is used by unscrupulous canvassers, and the Minister knows it because it has been reported to him and allegations have been made in this House. He knows that that is one of the objections raised over and over again, that a senior official in the Public Service says to a man junior to him: We will know how you voted because there is a number on your ballot paper. I have tried to get sworn declarations, but people are too afraid to give them. Persons whom I visited gave the names of the canvassers who said: “ As jy Sap stem sal jy jou pensioen verloor” but when you ask them to give a sworn affidavit they say: “No, then I will lose my pension, because then they will know.” All we are doing is to ask those people who are already afraid of intimidation to sign on the back of the envelope so that anyone can say: Now we will know how you voted. It is so simple. It is one of the weapons not open to any party except the Government Party, and therefore the responsibility rests doubly on the shoulders of the Government to remove that opportunity for intimidation. If necessary, let there be two envelopes so that, as before, the envelope containing the ballot paper will be unmarked and will be unidentifiable before it is opened. When you take the ballot paper out at the count and hold it by the corner it will flap open and you can see how the vote was cast, and on the envelope is the name of the voter. I would plead for the Minister either to find some other method or rather to leave the Select Committee unfettered to consider this matter, because I think there is an answer to it. There is an answer to all these problems if we get together and discuss them calmly in the interests of clean electioneering. But there is no answer if the members of this House go to the Select Committee with their hands down by the instructions of the Government. I ask that this Select Committee be given the opportunity to clean up this Act in a way that will satisfy everyone and which will eliminate the houses which take place.

There are also other matters with which such a Select Committee could deal, e.g. the question of obstruction at the polls. That is a matter which I feel could be dealt with. Intimidation by shouting and by grabbing people by the arm as they get out of cars should be dealt with, by the Select Committee. There are other minor issues. For instance, I notice that there is reference in the Bill in Clauses 47 to 54 to the Governor-General and the Clerk of the House of Assembly. Those must obviously be changed under the new constitution to the President and the Secretary. But there are other matters not touched on at all in the form of an amendment which I would ask that the Select Committee be allowed to consider. There is the question of the compulsory notification of change of address. There is the question of the closing of bars and bottle-stores which the Minister touched on, the case of a by-election perhaps at one end of the city, and yet every bar and bottle-store in the whole of the city must close. Last Wednesday we had an example. For the by-election in Constantia every bar and bottle-store in the whole city had to be closed, and again the next day, two days of no business, for the sake of a by-election at one end of the area. I trust the Minister will deal with that, too. I also support the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) on the question of the use of licensed premises for meetings. There are many constituencies in which halls are not available, and that is one of the matters which I feel the Select Committee should consider, and whether relief should be given.

There were other issues raised which are worthy of consideration, like the question of provincial elections being held on the same day as the general election. I know the Minister’s problem. There is the question of the different seats in Natal and the Free State mainly, but there is nothing to prevent consideration being given, e.g., to one parliamentary seat electing two Provincial seats, so that the two would have the same seat. In the Free State it would mean having 28 Provincial Councillors instead of 25, and in Natal 32 instead of 25. History has proved, and I do not think there is one exception to this, that no provincial election has ever gone contrary to the result of a general election which preceded it. Whenever there has been a general election, the provincial election following it has been a replica, within a matter of 2 per cent or 3 per cent, of the parliamentary election. So you will not eliminate the opportunity of the electorate to express their views. You will not change the trend of politics. It would be idle day-dreaming to think that a provincial election would be fought on nonparty lines because the two elections are held a year apart. These elections are fought by political parties on political issues, and so the objection that you are separating the political from the non-political election is day-dreaming. These are things I put forward for consideration, not as concrete proposals, because we cannot consider them. But a Select Committee could well consider them, and it could give to the House a Bill which would eliminate the evils and close the loopholes pointed out so eloquently by hon. members with haloes round their heads which must have been pressing very tight at times, and here I think of the hon. member of Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden). But it does my heart good to think of members having a genuine fear and worry about some of the abuses, and I hope they will stand with us on this side in our genuine desire to eliminate these abuses. I am sure that they do not take advantage of these defects, except the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt), who made an admission in regard to election returns. That was a minor issue, but otherwise I am sure that they would be the first to deny that they ever take advantage of the loopholes of this Act. Therefore we ask them to support us in our desire to close those loopholes so that unscrupulous persons will not be able to abuse our electoral machinery. Let me say this. This Government is making the rules. If they make laws that you can drive a cart and horses through, they must not expect the opponents to fight by the Queensberry rules. They pick the weapons and they will find that there are enthusiastic persons who will take advantage of any loopholes on this side just as well as on their side. So I warn the Minister that if he wishes to make this a decent law and to eliminate abuse he must close the loopholes. If he consciously refuses to close the loopholes he should not ask others to fight with kid gloves or by the Queensberry rules. I think he has found by experience that others are rapidly learning from the electioneering methods members on that side have practised over the years. We are not always slow to learn, but up to now we have resisted the temptation. [Laughter.] I ask the Minister to close the loopholes.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) raised quite a number of matters which were also raised by other hon. members and I shall come back to them in the course of my reply. I just want to refer to one point he made, viz. that the identity cards will not be available and that he had put a question on the Order Paper as to how many identity cards had been sent back through the post. I can merely say that in spite of the number of cards he mentioned which were returned because the addresses could not be traced, since then, most of the addresses have been ascertained and they have been delivered.

*Mr. RAW:

I spoke about one in my own constituency.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

It is odd that the hon. member’s constituents have no addresses. The hon. member asked how long it would take the Department to supply these people with identity cards. If he looks at the reply given to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) on 7 March, he will see to what extent they have already succeeded in making the identity cards available, and that for Whites approximately only 144,000 more have to be made available.

*Mr. RAW:

That is ten constituencies.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Yes, but they are not all voters.

*Mr. RAW:

But they are all 16 years old and they can vote at 18.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The point is that Clause 54 clearly says that if the Bill comes on the Statute Book to-morrow, it does not mean that the very next day the identity cards will be used. Power is taken to determine when that can be done. Why does the hon. member argue as if it is the law of the Medes and the Persians that it will be forced on the country within 24 hours? I will reply to the other matters in the course of my speech.

I want to thank those hon. members who largely discussed this matter on its merits. Unfortunately that is not true of everybody who participated in the debate. There is one exception, and I shall deal with that hon. member later, but generally it was a good debate in the sense that hon. members tried to make suggestions to improve the electoral laws. The main criticism from the Opposition was particularly in regard to two points, the use of the identity number and the question of compulsory notification of change of address. Now I just want to tell the hon. member for Sunny-side (Mr. Horak) that those two points, the identity number and the compulsory notification of change of address, are matters on which he was personally consulted on the occasion when a conference of party secretaries was held. I have the minutes of that conference.

*Mr. HORAK:

Were they confirmed?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

If the hon. member wants to doubt it, he may do so. I cannot help him if he wants to run away. These minutes were drafted by an impartial official, and everybody present was aware of the fact that every word spoken was being recorded. I find that when we were discussing the matter of identity numbers, the chief electoral officer, who was also present, expressed his opinion in regard to identification and he was strongly in favour of the use of the identity number as being the only method by which there could be proper identification. After he had spoken, other speakers spoke and then the chief secretary of the United Party spoke and said the following—

I agree with the previous speaker and I feel that the possibility may even be considered of having the voters’ roll typed alphabetically in street order. I also agree with the chief electoral officer in regard to the use of identity numbers in order to clean the lists.

I now want to give the hon. member the opportunity to say whether these minutes are false or not.

*Mr. HORAK:

But that is not the point.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Did the hon. member agree at the conference that the identity number could be used?

*Mr. HORAK:

Yes, to clean the list.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

If the hon. member is in favour of the use of the identity number, how else can we apply it than by making use of the provisions of the Population Registration Act? The point is that the hon. member for Sunnyside as Chief Secretary of his party agreed that we should apply the principle of having proper identification.

*Mr. HORAK:

To clean the list.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Yes, and if one wants to clean the lists by means of the identity number, then one must have a list which is connected with the identity number. In other words, what the hon. member now opposes he agreed to at that conference.

*Mr. HORAK:

No, no.

*An HON. MEMBER:

How can you say No?

*Mr. HORAK:

This is playing politics.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

No, I am not politicizing. I am merely saying that the hon. member in a sober moment accepted a sound principle. I am not trying to play him off against his party. I believe that the hon. member still feels that way, because he knows it is the only sound thing to do.

*Mr. HORAK:

Of course, in this case, but not to use identity cards at elections.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

My point is that the hon. member was consulted, and through him his party was consulted. Secondly, in regard to the other objection in connection with compulsory notification of changes of address, there were also discussions at that conference. We discussed the matter from all angles and there already the hon. member adopted the attitude that we should again introduce compulsory notification of changes of address. That is on page 7 of the minutes. There he said that he had no objection to the five-yearly registration, but he felt that it should go hand in hand with the compulsory notification of change of address. And when it was pointed out to the hon. member that the system of compulsory notification of change of address, as we knew it, had been a failure, he went further and said that it seemed to him that an objection clause should be put into the Act in order to make that provision effective. The fact is that for years we had experience of an Electoral Act with an objection clause which made provision in respect of compulsory notification of change of address, and the hon. member knows that this caused the greatest consternation and bitterness amongst the electorate.

*Mr. HORAK:

As the result of your actions.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The hon. member should not now try to allocate the blame, because then I can also do so. I do not want to do that. We can do so if it becomes necessary, but I do not think this is the time for it. The fact is that one found unscrupulous people who, if a voter had only been absent on holiday for five or six weeks, actually walked around in the streets to select the voters who were away from home temporarily, or who had gone on holiday, and as many as 600 to 700 objections at a time were handed in in respect of voters who had lived at those addresses for years; and this made that system so unpopular and brought the voters up in arms to such an extent that we abolished it, but now the hon. member wants us to introduce it again—something which had been tried and had been proved to be a failure, something which has caused bitterness on the part of the voters and of which misuse had been made on a large scale in the past. Why should we go back to such an inefficient system?

*Mr. RAW:

With a sworn affidavit.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Speaker, there were court cases about these matters and a sworn affidavit will not help when one is dealing with unscrupulous people who, on the eve of an election, want to cause consternation.

*Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

But the old Act nullified sworn affidavits.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Everything was falsified.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I just want to deal with a second point before I go into more detail. The hon. member said in connection with these two differences in principle which he mentioned, that it was wrong to send this Bill to a Select Committee after the second reading, and that it should be done before the second reading. But now the hon. members have already adopted a standpoint on the question of the identity number and in regard to compulsory notification of change of address. In other words, they have already shown us that in principle they are not prepared to support these measures proposed by the Government and to which the Government is committed.

*Mr. DURRANT:

The Government is not committed to it.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Why should we go to a Select Committee before the second reading in connection with two matters of principle of such a fundamental nature? Let us first settle the principle, because the Government wants to take the responsibility for introducing the identity numbers, and, in the second place, it wants to take the responsibility for introducing mechanization after a general registration, which has to take place on a different basis than hitherto. In respect of these two matters, the Government wants to shoulder the responsibility.

*Mr. HORAK:

Mechanization has nothing to do with it.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Of course it has everything to do with it. When the Bill was introduced, we told hon. members that we could not introduce the mechanization we envisaged unless we used the identity number. We have a very thick report about it. In the second place, I told hon. members that we could not introduce mechanization until we had first had an absolutely new general registration. That is the basis on which this whole Bill rests. I said that in my introductory speech, but hon. members pretend that I never said it, and that the point was never raised. That is the whole basis.

In the third place, we want to take these steps because we believe that not only will this new system result in tremendous savings, but because we believe that we will be able to provide a much more effective voters’ roll; that we will be able to make them available sooner, and that they will be more accurate. After having instructed our experts thoroughly to investigate this matter and we having received a report about it, and after we had demonstrations about it and holding conferences with the various electoral officers—people who work with these things every day (and they agree with it)—then surely the Government must accept, if all the experts agree that it will be a better system, that that will be the case.

*Mr. HORAK:

But let us discuss it.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

But we have discussed it. The hon. member says that he wants to have nothing to do with identity numbers and identity cards. He does not want to have identification by that method. He wants to revert to an old system which experience has proved to be obsolete. What in heaven’s name must we discuss in so far as the principle is concerned?

Then the further objection of the hon. member for Sunnyside was the question of the central index. Clause 14 has intentionally been drafted in such a way that it does not mean the compulsory abolition of the central index. The hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) actually pleaded that it should be abolished. This matter also was thoroughly investigated, and the O. & M. officials who brought out the report on mechanization tell us that it is their honest opinion that this central index, which is an expensive system which has involved high costs, and which is very cumbersome and requires a large staff, is not essential if one mechanizes. But, because we do not want to go so far as to abolish it unless experience absolutely proves that the other system is watertight, it was decided to word this clause in such a way that the Minister will have the right to abolish the central index when he considers it practicable to do so, and, at the moment, it seems to me that we should retain the central index in order to have a double control, in order that we will retain the necessary control, and in order that we can properly test our mechanization, which will also be a new experience for the officials. If it should appear that we can do without the central index, we can consider abolishing it, but then we have the power to abolish it when it suits us to do so without again having to introduce legislation to that effect. That is what is envisaged in this amendment.

Then hon. members raised the point in regard to Clause 13 that, as in the case of the Referendum Act, it should be left in the hands of the chief electoral officer and the Minister to decide on the printing of the voters’ rolls. That is done for purely technical reasons; and if it is important to the Opposition parties that voters’ rolls should be available timeously, it is just as important to the Government party. One cannot make voters’ rolls available to the Government party before making them available to the Opposition parties.

*Mr. HORAK:

There must be a minimum period.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

That is not necessary, because the preliminary voters’ rolls are available in order to commence the preliminary work. We hope that, by means of mechanization, we will be able to make the voters’ rolls available sooner. That applies to all parties, whether it is the Government party or the Opposition parties. Therefore, there can be no idea of this being abused in any way.

*Mr. HORAK:

No, that was not the objection.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Therefore this is not such a serious objection. We now come to the question of the postal vote. The hon. member for Sunnyside quoted an article here from some newspaper.

*Mr. HORAK:

Your Prime Minister’s newspaper.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

As far as I am concerned it can be the King’s newspaper. The fact remains that it is a newspaper. Because it is the Prime Minister’s newspaper the hon. member acted as if it was a suggestion with which I personally was connected. How he associates the two things I do not know. The fact is that we had various proposals before us, and not just one, because I invited all the party secretaries and everybody who spoke to us about the electoral laws, more than a year ago, to send us any suggestions they wanted to make in writing, with the result that we had various suggestions. We even considered other ways and means of dealing with postal votes—not because I personally believe that everything which is being said about postal votes is the truth. I already said in my second-reading speech that many of the stories about so-called abuses in regard to postal votes are exaggerated. It is bragging on the part of people who want to show what they did. But there are abuses by unscrupulous people, and those, one will always have in elections. For that reason we considered various methods, and one of them was, inter alia, a proposal which was more or less the one referred to by the hon. member. It is not quite correct to say that it was that proposal, but the proposal was, inter alia, that postal votes should be taken out of the hands of the political parties completely. The point is simply that if one wants to introduce such a system one will have to accept one thing, namely, that the State will have to spend thousands and thousands of pounds extra just for a start.

*Mr. RAW:

Why?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Because the State will then have to have a representative in each polling district in the country for at least two months or six weeks.

*Mr. RAW:

No.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Of course it will have to.

Mr. RAW:

What about the post office?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Is there a post office in every rural voting district?

*Mr. RAW:

There is one within reach.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

We will have to have a representative in each polling district to represent the electoral officer there, and he will have to be enabled to go to the people who are sick in bed, the aged and the crippled.

*An HON. MEMBER:

With a Government car.

*Mr. RAW:

No.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Of course. Does the hon. member want the old people and those who are sick to go to him?

*Mr. RAW:

They can get a doctor’s certificate.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Speaker, that shows the absolutely unpractical attitude adopted by hon. members opposite. Does the hon. member know that a constituency like Namaqualand is bigger than the Free State? Or does he think that there are no postal votes in Namaqualand?

*Mr. RAW:

There will be fewer; to that I agree.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

These proposals were considered, and it was found that, in the first place, it will cost too much money, and, in the second place, the State will have to withdraw public servants from other Government Departments to do this work, which will harm the administration of the country. Other proposals which I do not like to go into now were also discussed, and finally it was decided not to do it. You see, postal votes were originally instituted with one object only, namely, to give the less privileged voter the opportunity to cast his vote.

*Mr. RAW:

Why the less privileged voter?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The voter who, in respect of transport or in respect of his place of residence or in respect of his health or age, is in a less privileged position than other voters—not only the poor people, but the less privileged voter who finds himself in circumstances which make it difficult for him to get to the polling station in the ordinal way. That was the original object of having postal votes, and we dare not tamper with that principle. It was then decided that we should try to provide methods to ensure that when that voter has made his choice it will not be negatived.

*Mr. RAW:

Made it voluntarily.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Of course. The hon. member is obsessed with intimidation.

*Mr. G. P. VAN DEN BERG:

He feels guilty.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

He told us a story here about a senior official—just imagine a senior official —who threatened voters. I am very sorry that the hon. member did not mention the names, because that casts a serious reflection on numbers of senior officials in the Public Service, and it is the sort of story which does more harm than good. My experience is that in the elections we have had hitherto, and particularly in the referendum last year, our electoral officers, our magistrates, acted in such a way—99 per cent of them—that they can only be congratulated and thanked for the way in which they ran the election. That applies to every senior or junior official of the State who had anything to do with the work. If the hon. member has that kind of complaint, he should get up and have the courage to mention the name of the official concerned. Then we will institute investigation. The Public Service Commission has rules in terms of which such an official can be dealt with. But the hon. member should not cast reflections on public servants here without being prepared to prove his accusations.

*Mr. RAW:

Is it correct that Railway officials were appointed as party appointees, by the Nationalist Party, as commissioners of oaths whilst they were in the service of the Railways? That happened in my own constituency in Durban.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I thought it was a well-known fact that Railway officials take part in politics on both sides in every election. That is nothing new.

*Mr. DURRANT:

Is it a sound principle? That is the point.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Now I just want to say this in connection with the envelope. The objection was raised that identification is so much easier. But can hon. members who have objections on this ground tell me for a single moment that when the counting takes place, where the electoral officer is present in the room, he will sit at a table and allow the people who have to open the postal votes to open every one of them there and to compare them and then to look at the ballot paper to see how the particular person voted? Any hon. member who has ever been present when the counting takes place surely will not for a moment talk such nonsense as to say that it is possible, having regard to the speed at which the people work, for a man to check every one of these ballot papers to see how the voter cast his vote. That is nonsense. But of course it is possible for the Select Committee, if they want to make doubly sure, to say that a second envelope must be used. But we have just incorporated the idea here because there must be some measure of control, but it must be ensured that the envelope is closed before it leaves the voter. Because it is my personal opinion that most abuses do not take place by means of steaming open the envelopes, but in regard to envelopes which were not properly closed. We must evolve some means of ensuring that this envelope, before it leaves the voter, will be closed in such a way that it is clear that the voter was the one who handled it last.

*Mr. RAW:

That will not stop it.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Therefore a second envelope may be considered, but it is for the Select Committee to consider it.

The hon. members had a further objection in connection with the six person to whom I referred, who had been convicted of high treason and whom we now enable to get the vote again. I have the names here. I do not want to read them out. I do not think that is fair towards those people. They served their sentences and those persons, all of them, have once more taken their places in life as self-respecting and valuable citizens of South Africa. Most of them to-day occupy high posts, mostly in the private sector. They are people who live decent lives and are useful citizens of the country. Hon. members now object to that. They do not want us to implement this principle. But in 1931 that principle was embodied in the electoral laws of the country by no less a person than a Prime Minister such as General Hertzog, who was personally responsible for the fact that people who had been convicted of high treason through the unfortunate history of South Africa got their votes back—men like General Manie Maritz. The hon. member for Durban (Point) says: No, we must accept the principle that if a man has been convicted of high treason he should never get the vote. According to that recipe of his, the late Generals de Wet and Kemp would not have got it either.

*Mr. HORAK:

The circumstances were quite different.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I say that to-day most of these six persons concerned are good and useful citizens who are esteemed in their immediate vicinity and in large parts of the country, and it is no more than right that we should do this for them also.

*Mr. RAW:

What about rehabilitated murderers?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

If the hon. member wants to compare political cases of this nature which are similar to the cases of the late Generals de Wet and Kemp with rehabilitated murderers, he may do so if he likes.

*Mr. HORAK:

The circumstances were quite different.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The circumstances were the same in regard to these people.

Then the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin) also objected to the use of the population register and the means provided by that register to link the voters’ roll to it in future. He pretended that this was a grave sin and he spoke about hardships and I do not know what else. We specially instituted an investigation to find out in which other countries the voters’ roll is linked up with the population registers, and we found that in France the voter must prove his identity by producing certain prescribed papers, in particular his identity card. In Italy he must produce his identity card or any other document like a driver’s licence on which his photo appears. In Belgium: “At the actual polling booth the voter must present his identity card”, and the same applies to Austria. In other words, it is nothing new. On the contrary, it is rather the modern tendency to link up the electoral administration with the system of identification and to ensure it in that manner.

The hon. member was also concerned about people who went abroad and who would not have the opportunity to be registered at the general registration. What we envisage here is that we will fix the date for the general registration—no longer, as in the past, a date which stretches over weeks, but that a date should be determined, say 16 May. On 16 May everyone is registered at a particular address, and then we grant a period of 30 days thereafter, and an announcement is made long before the time. I hope that we will be able to make greater use of the radio and the Press, as was suggested by the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé). I hope that to a much greater extent you will have a propaganda campaign to bring it to the notice of every voter that a definite day will be the day for the general registration and that they will make themselves available to give the State the necessary information. But thereafter the man is still given 30 days’ time, and when the general registration has been completed, generally within a short time, there is an interim registration. If he misses being registered in the general registration because for reasons of business or pleasure he is absent abroad, he can be registered at the first interim registration.

*Mr. EGLIN:

But he still remains disfranchised for four or six months.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Yes, but it has always been the practice in this country that after every general registration an interim registration is first held before there is a general election.

*Mr. EGLIN:

The person might be overseas.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Can the State help it if the man is in England?

*Mr. DURRANT:

Is it the intention that acknowledgment cards will be sent to every voter who will now be registered under this new registration?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Yes, I think so, if it is administratively practicable. That has always been the practice.

Then the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) made a suggestion in regard to the appointment of further commissioners of oaths. The Select Committee can consider that. I can see no objection to it. But I think we should understand each other clearly on one point, namely that we cannot make it applicable to every single commissioner of oaths.

The hon. member for Parow referred to the R.G.1 cards and said that they should be made available at post offices. That is the case, and if there are post offices which do not have them available they should just complain to the chief electoral officer, but there is an arrangement which was arrived at with the Postmaster-General in this regard.

Then the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) firstly argued here that one finds a number of names on a voters’ roll—the same surnames and the same initials. I do not know precisely what he is trying to prove, but eventually I drew one inference from it only, namely that he was really advocating the introduction of the identity number, because I cannot understand what other method can be evolved to identify the voter.

*Mr. DURRANT:

I pleaded for the full name to be given.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

But often the names are precisely the same. There are many Magrietha Jonannas—a whole number of them. If the hon. member comes to my constituency and lands amongst the Gerbers and the Standers he will not know where he is. Then the hon. member and also other hon. members also spoke about the maximum expenditure which a candidate could incur in an election, and which we have now abolished. They really made a plea here for the poor candidate. Well, all I can say in regard to the poor candidate is may God save me from my friends, because the fact is that this maximum which has existed hitherto was not adhered to by a single person in the country. The fact is that at every election more money was spent in every constituency than was allowed by the Electoral Act. All that happens is this: When a candidate has spent the maximum amount there is an election committee or a party organization which continues to spend more money. In other words, it is really a system by means of which we bluffed ourselves. Why should we have a provision in the Act by means of which one assists people to contravene the law? That is really what it amounts to.

*Mr. DURRANT:

But it is necessary under present-day conditions.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The fact remains that if a candidate is mad enough to want to spend £50,000 in a constituency he can do so. But why should he put something into an Act which we know cannot be applied? Then the hon. member discovered a terrible thing, viz. that we are busy making preparations here for all kinds of sinister things.

*Mr. DURRANT:

No.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Yes, the hon. member said that the opportunity was being created for corruption at elections. That part of the hon. member’s speech was just a repetition of the old cry we had last year in connection with the Referendum Act, when the amendment of the Opposition, inter alia, said this—

That the Bill should not be passed at the second reading because it does not guarantee a fair and proper test of the will of the electorate and does not provide adequate guarantees against abuses.

It is the old story that we are creating opportunities for abuses.

*Mr. DURRANT:

It was aimed at something quite different at that time.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The hon. member says that the one proof for his allegation is that we are inserting Clause 28 (a). The hon. member said it was Clauses 20 and 21, but he should have said Clause 28 (a). But the fact remains that Clause 28 (a) was inserted because we want to delete something from the Electoral Act which is unnecessary, because if the hon. member looks at Section 85 of the Electoral Act he will see that sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) deal with the safe custody of these documents, and it has always been the practice for these documents to go to the chief electoral officer. They do not remain with the electoral officer. In the second place, it has always been the procedure that the ballot papers remain with the electoral officers and that the counterfoils go to the chief election officer. How can one identify them if these two things are 1,000 miles apart? That shows how ridiculous the hon. member’s argument is.

*Mr. DURRANT:

Why are you taking it out then?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Because it is unnecessary. It is clear from Section 85 (1), (2) and (3) and from Section 64 what should be done with these documents. But to that the hon. member is now attaching sinister motives on the part of the Government to tamper with these things.

*Mr. DURRANT:

I did not say that.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

If that is not what the hon. member wanted to intimate then I do not know what he said.

*Mr. DURRANT:

I said it was dangerous.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I am sorry. The hon. member for Sunnyside and even the hon. member for Durban (Point) and others discussed this matter on its merits, but last night we had from the hon. member for Turffontein just one attempt after another to sow suspicion and to try to cause trouble and to create the impression that there are sinister motives behind this amendment of the Electoral Act. That is what I blame him for after all the attempts made from this side to obtain the co-operation of the other parties.

The hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) definitely raised a few important points. Firstly, the hon. member pleaded for the position in South West in regard to the use of hotel premises. I just want to tell the hon. member that I have already received representations from the chief secretary of the National Party there and from the other hon. members representing South West, and I think it is a matter which, together with what I held out in prospect in regard to the liquor position, may be considered. I am aware of the difficulties there and that is a minor matter which can be remedied.

Then the hon. member referred to the question of the provincial and parliamentary elections and the desirability of holding them simultaneously. Of course that is not a new idea and it has been thoroughly considered for a long time already, not only by this Government but also by the previous Government. I think it was the late Mr. Hofmeyr, when he was Minister of the Interior, who already had investigations made in this regard. One comes up against certain difficulties. In the Cape, the Transvaal and South West it is easy for obvious reasons, but in Natal and the Free State it is very difficult because one will have to evolve a system whereby one ensures that the parliamentary constituencies do not increase to such an extent that eventually one also has a doubling of the number of provincial constituencies, and to keep the proportion right if there is a reshuffling of parliamentary and provincial constituencies. But there is a second difficulty, viz. that the borders of the polling districts do not correspond; they overlap. Then one has the position that on the same day there will be a clash between elections for the same constituency in various polling districts.

*Mr. RAW:

What about my suggestion?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

But I have just replied to that, that the problem is that one will then have to peg it, because supposing the number of Free State parliamentary constitutions increases to 30, one will eventually have a Provincial Council of 60 or of 90.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

Then he deserves it.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I think it would be quite illogical simply to carry on in this way and to allow an increase to take place there without any limitation in the same way that a one-cell animalcule multiplies. This is something which cannot be remedied by an Electoral Act. It is a matter which has to be dealt with on a different basis. But there is a second argument against it, which weighed heavily with the previous Government, namely that one does not want to put the official stamp on provincial elections and parliamentary elections being held on precisely the same basis every time. It is not good for democracy and for the administration of the country that the same points of policy should be raised every time at two elections which really have nothing to do with each other, and it will be made worse if the elections are held jointly.

To some extent I agree with the hon. members. I think the late Mr. Hofmeyr was right in this regard, because the Provincial Councils do good work in regard to many things, and that good work they do should be brought to the notice of the voters to a greater extent than it is now because it is overshadowed by the parliamentary elections.

Then the hon. member pointed to the American system. He asked why we could not follow that example. Well, to some extent we are moving in that direction, although not in the same form. In the first place we move in that direction by introducing mechanization in regard to our electoral divisions, which is a forward step, by the use of quite a different system and by the elimination of much of the manpower hitherto used there, the elimination of typists and the elimination of the human element, the introduction of modern machinery, the filing system, etc. That increases efficiency. But in the second place we are also moving in a more modern direction by now holding our general registration once every five years, thereby ensuring that before the general election which takes place every five years we have a fresher voters’ roll. In the third place, we move in the direction by now fixing a definite date for the general registration, whereby more people can be enrolled at the general registration than has hitherto been the case. Therefore we move in that direction, but now the hon. member should remember that South Africa is different from America. Our political dividing lines and divisions are much sharper, because in America, as far as I know, the political quarrels between the parties really fall away in the period between the elections, and the organizations only get into full swing when there is an election, but in South Africa one has the continual political organization of all parties, and that is a point of difference between us. In the second place, I think that in every country the election system develops in such a way that it fits in with the national character, and I think it would be illogical to transplant the American system holus-bolus to South Africa, just as it would be illogical to transplant our system to America. But hon. members use these arguments, and I do not blame them for it, in order to prove that our electoral system is really a rotten old system, but still the fact remains that during the past two years we have had one inquiry after another from other countries to explain our system to them in order that they might improve their system where ours is better than theirs. So everybody is looking for a better system.

I do not think I should delay the House longer, but there are a few more points I have to deal with. The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) spoke about the insertion of the word “ shall ” in the application for a postal vote. He wants us to say that if a person applies for a postal vote he must say “ I shall be out of the constituency ”. That was considered also and the objection to it is that if one uses the words “ I shall be out of the constituency ” and not “ I think that I shall be absent ”, the result will be that all the applications for postal votes will be handed in just before election day, because all the people will then be afraid to say that they have reason to think that they will not be there. They will sit and wait and the postal votes will mount up until just before the day of the election. These persons will first make sure that they will be away. Then there will be a flood of applications just the day before the election.

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) raised an interesting point. He wants a voter to be able to cancel his postal vote, or rather a postal vote taken out in his name, practically at the polling station on the day of the election. That was also considered. I do not say that we cannot consider it again, but I just want to mention the objections to it, namely firstly that it can lead to victimization. If a big employer knows that his employee has taken out a postal vote and he is not sure how he voted, or he suspects that the man voted differently, he can call him in and say that he must go and cancel that postal vote. That can lead to victimization. But the second objection is that on the day of the election, when the votes are counted, one is to a large extent in an uncertain position in regard to the postal votes, practically until the voting stops, because there can be continuous cancellation which may result in much work having been done for nothing. In that regard I want to say further that I still think that if we introduce the identity number and the identity card we have an effective method of ensuring that wrong postal votes will not be issued.

I have tried to reply as completely as possible on the various points raised. I just want to say that there are provisions here to which we are not wedded, but there are certain provisions to which the Government is in fact wedded, and for that reason this Bill must go to the Select Committee after the second reason. In the final result it is the Government’s responsibility and remains its responsibility to provide a proper election machine, and if the Government does not want to shoulder this responsibility it will eventually have to face criticism. Therefore it is no more than right that it should lay down the principles according to which it wants to organize the best possible election machine, but we are invoking the assistance of the Opposition and of every member to make a contribution within the limits of these principles, in order to assist us in building up an effective election machine by means of which we can improve still further the good Act we already have.

Question put: That all the words after “ That ”, proposed to be omitted stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—89: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Donges, T. E.; du Pisanie, J.; du Piessis, P. W.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Greyling, J. C.; Grobier, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Hey-stek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scholtz, D. J.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Strydom, G. H. F.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. J. Fouché and J. von S. von Moltke.

Noes—49: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Butcher, R. R.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Frielinghaus, H. O.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaflf, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Horak, J. L.; Lawrence, H. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Lewis, J.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Shearer, O. L.; Smit, D. L.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steytler, J. van A.; Streicher, D. M.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Warren, C. M.; Water-son, S. F.; Williams, T. O.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I move—

That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for consideration and report.

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

I second.

Agreed to.

ADMISSION OF PERSONS TO THE UNION REGULATION AMENDMENT BILL

Mr. SPEAKER communicated the following Message from the Hon. the Senate:

The Senate transmits to the Honourable the House of Assembly the Admission of Persons to the Union Regulation Amendment Bill passed by the Senate and in which the Senate desires the concurrence of the Honourable the House of Assembly.

By direction of Mr. Speaker the Admission of Persons to the Union Regulation Amendment Bill was read a first time.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

Second Order read: House to resume in Committee of Supply.

House in Committee:

[Progress reported on 5 May, when Votes Nos. 2 to 27, 34, 36 to 46 and the Estimates of Expenditure from Bantu Education Account had been agreed to.]

Precedence given to Votes Nos. 28 to 33 (Interior and Labour).

On Vote No. 28.—“ Interior ”, R3,578,000,

Mr. MITCHELL:

Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half-hour.

We have, Sir, under this hon. Minister a number of Votes, some of which for administrative purposes fall under the Department of the Interior and in so far as the Minister’s policy is concerned, we naturally will have to touch upon some of those questions.

One of the first points I want to raise here to-day is that concerning the status of the Asiatic in South Africa, and particularly I would ask the Minister to inform us concerning the policy of the Government in regard to the Asiatic. We have progressed a long way since 1948 when the then Minister of the Interior, now the Minister of Finance, in dealing with that question forecast the return to their homelands of the Asiatics in South Africa— that is to say the land from which they or their forefathers were derived. It was a policy of repatriation, with these people leaving South Africa for good. As the years have gone by we have found not only that the number has increased by natural means in South Africa, but that immigrants have been coming in under various provisions of our laws. Now, Sir, I am not for a moment concerned with that aspect at the moment. No doubt the law is there and has to be complied with. But, Sir, we have had statements recently by responsible members on the Government side, including the hon. the Prime Minister, dealing with the future of these people, and it seems that perhaps one should ask this hon. the Minister, under whose portfolio the matter falls, to inform us precisely what the Government’s policy is. We had for example recently suggestions by certain municipalities in my province that municipal franchise might be accorded to the Asiatics living here permanently in South Africa. I think the hon. Minister will agree that the Asiatic population is a permanent part of our population and that repatriation, for which an amount of R5,000 has been placed on these Estimates, is not going to take place. The amount provided is indicative of the belief held by the Government that the Asiatics are not going to take advantage of the provisions of the law which allows them to draw a bounty if they decide to go back. They are here, and I think the Government accepts that they are here to stay. Now, these municipalities that are seeking guidance in the matter of granting municipal franchise, are in the position that they can appeal to the provincial council in the matter which has, amongst its powers, the right to legislate in regard to municipal franchise. But a provincial council cannot legislate in regard to provincial franchise or in regard to Parliamentary franchise, but merely in regard to municipal franchise. Now, in this respect a municipal ordinance can only be valid and can only have the force of law if it is assented to by the Governor-General-in-Council—or, I take it, after 31 May by the President. It is in the circumstances useless for provincial councils to set afoot inquiries—which at the best of times are expensive things—to investigate the whole of the question of municipal franchise for Asiatics in South Africa and as a result perhaps making some provision in an ordinance for some franchise, if in the end the Government can turn round and through the State President either refuse its assent or withhold its assent, thereby rendering the relevant ordinance of no force and effect. This matter has, I understand, been referred to the Government and I hope the hon. Minister will put us in the picture and tell us, quite frankly, what the Government’s intention is in regard to this matter, and also what the Government’s intention is in regard to the matter concerning the future for Asiatics in South Africa. If we see the Asiatics as a permanent part of our population, will we see them gradually building up separate homelands of their own on the lines of the proposed Bantustans? I do not want, Mr. Speaker, to pass beyond the realms permitted, but I want to refer briefly to a letter which has come from a civil servant overseas, which deals with this particular matter, and which has been published in a South African newspaper. That letter recommends the virtual carving up of South Africa for the different races which is, presumably, in line with the policy of the Government, because, I assume, that particular civil servant would not have written a letter of that kind unless he felt that he was on safe ground and had the backing of the Government for his proposal. But whether he has or not, I was very interested to see what he proposes for my own province. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will explain to us just what line the Government is taking in this regard. Does he see the Group Areas Act—which is dealt with under this Vote also—being so applied that new Hindustans are going to be built up in South Africa, and is the major portion of my province either to be a Bantustan or a Hindustan with a small area and a sea port being left to the Whites perhaps? Will there be sandwiched in between a Colouredstan? Mr. Chairman, we want to have from this hon. Minister, as the Minister who is in charge of the Vote of the Ministery of the Interior ranging over the population register, Asiatic affairs, the Group Areas Act and Board, etc., is a clear statement so that we shall know what is the Government’s policy in these matters. We are getting it to-day, Sir, in bits and pieces from various sources. One of the most pressing problems for us in Natal—and I think it will also apply to our colleagues in the Transvaal—is to know what the Government’s policy is in regard to this particular matter and I hope, Sir, that the hon. Minister will be very frank with the House in that regard.

I would also like to deal for a moment with the population register. The population register is, of course, the basic piece of administrative machinery on which not only race classification is founded, but on which the whole of the Government’s development of separate racial areas—the areas for the Bantu people, for the Coloureds, Asiatics, Whites— rests. This entire statutory edifice can only be created if it is based upon the population register and upon the division of the people of South Africa into various racial groups in terms of the documents issued by the population registration registrar. You cannot provide areas for the sole habitation of a racial group, unless you can, first of all, find the members of that particular racial group. To be able to have an area in which the Bantu, for instance, will live, you must be able to define the Bantu. In order to have an area in which the Asiatics can live, you must be able to define and identify the Asiatics. I want to say at once, in regard to the population registrar, that it has created probably more heartburning and bitterness in South Africa than any other piece of legislation which we have ever placed on the Statute Book. Last year, Sir, I had a case under the portfolio of the previous Minister of the Interior, which was one of the most shocking cases that I had seen for a long time. The then Minister afterwards wrote a personal letter of apology to the people concerned. I had not under the circumstances laid any accusation against the Minister in person, but he accepted the responsibility for the Department. I want to repeat that the population register is the basis upon which racial apartheid for Government purposes is constructed for the whole of South Africa. It is the foundation to that structure. If you see the population as a multi-racial population, carrying on their normal avocations without particular reference to race—accept for the purposes of particular laws such as we may have in regard to the mining industry, etc.—then you see a situation where you cannot build up Bantustans, Colouredstans, Hindustans, etc. To see South Africa divided up and balkanized and cloven into small pieces, you have got to see the population register functioning effectively in dividing the people up. As the hon. Minister will know, provision is made there in the case of a married couple for the partner in the higher racial category to take the race of the lower-ranking partner. So that if a White man has married a Coloured girl, he becomes a Coloured person for the purposes of that particular provision and for the Group Areas Act and for the purposes of all other legislation flowing therefrom. Now, let us look at some of the bitterness that has already led to. Where group areas have been proclaimed under the Act for Coloured people, the married couple to whom I have just referred, will live in that area. Now, if the Coloured partner dies, the remaining partner has to get out of that group area and to get into another group area. Where a group area has been proclaimed it is an offence for a White person who has married a Coloured to stay in the White proclaimed area, and a criminal offence for the surviving White spouse to stay in the Coloured area which the law compelled him to occupy, if the Coloured spouse dies. Sir, this is not something that can be worked out on a blackboard. This is not an academic argument in a classroom! It is the lives and well-being of human beings, of men and women and their children. I think I am right when I say that the law says that, at the age of 16 years, the children of such a mixed marriage who will themselves be Coloured—although I understand a certain latitude is being allowed today in order that such children may, under certain circumstances, be classed as Whites— or whatever they may be, will be separated from their father if he is a widower and a White person. This population register I say is the basis upon which the whole of the Government’s apartheid policy, as applied in South Africa, is being based. But that is not the end of it, because classification once established, can again be changed and while it may be argued, as has been done in many instances, that that is fair to the people concerned— people may, for instance, appeal and ask for a higher classification than that accorded to them—it is still a very dangerous thing under the circumstances because it can also work the other way and a person having been classified originally in a higher race group can be reduced to a lower race group. I would like the hon. Minister to go into this matter and tell us whether it is not possible to find a better method altogether for dealing with this question of population registration. Why does the hon. Minister not go back to what is called the administrators’ memorandum of 1947 and deal with the matter in the way suggested therein? A review of that memorandum might possibly offer a way out of the difficulties we are faced with, and out of the heart-breaking and bitterness which are being created at the present time by the population register.

But I want also to deal with another aspect of the matter. I have already asked the hon. Minister to deal with the question of the Asiatics. The hon. Minister will remember that, under the Separate Representation of Voters Act, Coloured people in my province, who were on the voters’ roll at the passing of that Act, were left on the roll, and that no fresh Coloured voter could be added to that roll. These Coloured people have, therefore, even less franchise than the Bantu. But let us take the position of an Asiatic who comes to the Cape Province. While in Natal, he is given a card showing that he is an Asiatic and as such he has no franchise of whatever nature at the present time, but the moment he gets a permit from the Minister to change his place of domicile to the Cape Province and comes and lives here, he becomes a Coloured man for the purposes of that Act and as such acquires a franchise. He will be able to go on the voters’ roll and vote for hon. members here who represent the Coloured people. He, in other words, becomes a Coloured man for the purpose of that particular law, notwithstanding the fact that his card says that he is an Asiatic. While in Natal he was, in fact, an Asiatic and remains an Asiatic for the purpose of his population registration card in the Cape, although he goes on the roll of the Coloured people. This, Sir, surely is a most incomprehensible state of affairs with which we have to battle, because if that man, after perhaps half a lifetime in the Cape, for some reason or other can make a good case to the Minister and return to Natal, he loses his franchise rights he has enjoyed in the Cape as well as his status as a Coloured man and becomes an Asiatic again without any franchise rights at all. These are matters, Sir, which are causing burning discontent and bitterness in the minds of people. In every one of these cases, however interesting it may look as an essay in the illogicality of our laws in South Africa, we are, in point of fact, dealing with people, with human beings having exactly the same feelings as other human beings. You have the position that Coloured people who were not of the required age at the time of the passing of the Separate Representation of Voters Act to be registered as voters, are to-day without any franchise whatsoever, while their brothers in the Cape Province have such franchise; you have also the position that an Indian leaving Natal for the Cape Province, on arrival here gets the franchise as a Coloured person.

Mr. GREYLING:

Would you like to see the franchise extended to the Coloureds in Natal?

Mr. MITCHELL:

I do not know whether that hon. member is listening or not, because what I am trying to find out is what the Government’s policy is in regard to the matter. We are not the Government! I am showing how the law is operating at the present time.

Mr. S. P. BOTHA:

Tell us what is your own policy.

Mr. MITCHELL:

I am certainly not going to answer interjections like that, but surely I have made it clear enough that the hon. member’s party came into power on the broadcast policy of getting rid of all the Asiatics in the Union, and that they have not succeeded in doing that but, on the contrary, have allowed the numbers to increase through immigration. Now they are passing laws of this kind, laws that are creating bitterness and not only amongst the Asiatics. Now they are being compelled by force of history to accept the Asiatics as part of the permanent population of South Africa. We would like to know, as South Africans, where we stand in regard to this matter in so far as Government’s policy is concerned. Where the Government has accepted that policy as the basis for its laws, it is making it a more bitter pill for the Coloured people in Natal to swallow, because they are now no longer capable of being placed on any kind of voters roll for elections to Parliament or the Provincial Council. They are no longer in a position to be registered. Is it any wonder that that is creating bitterness when they see the Asiatics under certain circumstances acquiring the franchise which they as Coloureds are not entitled to? These are some of the difficulties—human difficulties —which we are facing to-day. If we are going to stand up to the mounting pressure in South Africa then the least we can ask from the Government in regard to these matters is that it gives us a clearcut statement of its policy. Let us know precisely where we stand. The Government, I submit, must accept the Asiatic as a permanent part of our population, and let it tell us what exactly it is going to do about it. If Mr. Steward’s letter in so far as it relates to my province is Government policy, then let it tell us what to expect. Are we going to have only one quarter of the land of my province available to the White people, because that is what the claims which are being put forward in certain official quarters amount to—that about one quarter of the land in Natal is going to be left for the White man? I think the hon. Minister will remember that that letter suggested, if my memory serves me correctly, that Natal and the Free State should have the right to secede from the Union and then come back again as independent states along with Bantustans and Hindustans, etc. Is there any such idea in the mind of the hon. Minister? Is the Minister anticipating that there is going to be such a breakup of Union that the provinces are going to be free to come together in a new Union altogether? Or is it merely a civil servant whom we have sent overseas to represent not only the Government of South Africa but to represent South Africa, writing to a public newspaper in South Africa and voicing opinions and views of that kind? This is the opportunity, Sir, which I hope the Minister will take to tell us what the view of the Government is in regard to these matters in order that we as South Africans, can know where we stand.

*Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

I think the hon. member who has just sat down raised one point that I wish to put right, the way I see the position. That is the question of the vote of Indians and Coloureds in Natal. The hon. member said that the Indians in Natal did not have the vote and that the Coloureds did not have it to-day either. He also said that the Indians from Natal could come to Cape Town and register here as Coloured voters. As far as I know the position is as follows that before the Separate Representation of Voters Act was passed any Indian in Natal could appear on the voters’ roll as a Coloured person.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

Till when?

*Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

Till the Act on the Separate Representation of Voters was passed but he had to state on the card which he had to complete, that he was a Coloured. The Indians refused to do that. The Indian in Natal refused to register as a Coloured voter and that was the reason why his name did not appear on the roll. There was nothing to hinder them from completing the card as such and to get on to the roll in that way, together with the 1,100 Coloureds who were still on the roll when the Separate Representation of Voters Act was passed. Then the hon. member said that the Indians came to the Cape Province; that they completed a card here and registered themselves as Coloured voters. I want to ask him whether he really thinks that if an Indian in Natal has consistently refused to regard himself as a Coloured and to appear on the voters’ roll as such, that he will not mind saying he was a Coloured when he comes to the Cape Province?

Mr. BARNETT:

He need not say that.

*Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

He must.

Mr. BARNETT:

No, that is not the law.

*Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

Mr. Chairman, he has to vote on the Coloured voters’ roll. He does not vote on another voters’ roll. He votes on the Coloured voters’ roll, in the case of the few who vote. But the hon. member wants to create the impression that the Indians of Natal have never had the vote. They have had it, provided they were prepared to say they were Coloured. In the Cape Province they had it together with the Coloureds. Whether or not the Indians stated on the card that he was a Coloured, the fact remained that as a voter he was classified as a Coloured, and as far as I know, very few of them did so. I merely wanted to put this matter right for the sake of the record. The hon. member brought the House under the impression that the Indians in Natal did not have the vote. They did in fact have it, provided they stated they were Coloured. I think there were three or five of them on the voters’ roll in 1951 who were prepared to regard themselves as such but the others refused to do so.

Mr. H. LEWIS:

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) is delving into the past again in order to deal with the question raised by the hon. member for Natal South Coast. The point of the hon. member for Natal South Coast is, Sir, that neither the people of Natal, nor I believe the Government itself, know exactly where they stand with this intermingled problem of the population register and the Group Areas Act. I would like, in this connection, to bring to the notice of the hon. Minister a problem with which I have been concerned and which will show to the hon. Minister how true this statement is. I am referring to a group of people in my constituency who has now already been classified as belonging to three different races. This will also illustrate to some extent the point the hon. member for Natal South Coast was trying to make. In my constituency lives a group of people whom the hon. Minister probably knows has been referred to as the “ lost tribe ” as well as by many other names, but the fact is that they were settled in an area on the Bluff some 70-odd years ago. They were slaves that were rescued and eventually settled there. They have been settled on a piece of land purchased for that purpose by a group of Muslims, because these people are of the Muslim faith. The White areas grew up around them and some solution had, in due course, to be found to their problem. The view was taken that they could only be classified downwards, and when I came to be concerned with them in 1958, they were actually classified as Bantu. Because they could not be uplifted, they had to be pushed down. I went into the question, because that classification was going to scatter and break up this group of people who had kept together over the years and after seeing the then Minister in 1958 for the purpose of enabling us to retain and move these people as a group, it was agreed that they should be classified as Coloureds. That seemed to have solved all the outstanding problems and everyone was happy about it. The registrar of the population register himself was very pleased that a solution had been found. I myself received letters from the latter source thanking me for helping to have a census taken of the people and to have the matter placed in order. Now I hear that, because the land which has been bought for the purposes of resettling these people, by the same trust at their own expense, an intervention was made before the Group Areas Board, because somebody wanted to use the land for some other purpose, with the result that the entire question of the classification of these people was again thrown into the melting pot. You now have this group first having been classified as being Bantu, then as Coloureds with identity cards being in the process of issue to them as Coloureds, and now everything is again in the melting pot. I again contacted the then Minister of the Interior and he agreed to see me in Durban in July of last year. This he did. I had an interview with him and at that interview he agreed that one of two things could happen to these people: Either to retain their classification as Coloureds and be resettled in terms of the Minister’s special permit on land bought for them and which has now gone into an area proclaimed for Indian settlement, or that they could be classified as Indians and as such go automatically into that area. He accordingly requested me to call a meeting of these people in order to establish what their wishes were in the matter, and indicated that whatever they elected to be he would honour. That meeting was called and at that meeting these people unanimously elected to remain classified as Coloureds, and to be resettled under the Minister’s special permit. This decision was then conveyed to the Minister by means of a telegram and a letter. The first reply I got to that was one stating that the Minister was away but that my letter would be placed before him on his return. I wrote to him in August but had to write again because nothing transpired and eventually—on 7 January this year—I reached some finality in the matter when I received the following reply—

My Minister has asked me to let you know that the proclamation in connection with the Zanzibari Arabs will appear shortly but it was, unfortunately, not possible to classify them as Coloureds.

The notice of their reclassification as Indians was gazetted after the present Parliament assembled. The points I would like to make with the Minister are these: First of all, here is a group of people who under the population register has been classified in three different ways—as Native, then as Coloureds and now as Indians. Secondly, because of the difficulties of combining the population register with the Group Areas Act, these people—who have been given the opportunity of electing what they would like to be; they were not classified as Coloureds on their own wish but to fit in with the population register and the Group Areas Act—were given a further opportunity of deciding whether they would like to be classified as Coloureds or as Indians and go into an Indian group area. When they elected to remain as Coloureds, in spite of their choice, because I was the man who was asked to consult with them on behalf of the Minister, what has happened is that they have now been re-classified as Indians. What is the reason? It is because neither the Population Registration Act nor the Group Areas Act is working. These people have been re-classified; they have been double-crossed, if you like to put it that way, so that they will fit in with the Group Areas Act. It is as simple as that. Otherwise, why has it been done? Why could they not remain as Coloureds? The Minister undertook to do it. It is because the Group Areas Act has become so complicated and because these things were not taken into consideration when the areas for their resettlement were declared, that these people have now been classified into three different races. [Time limit.]

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise an entirely different matter, namely, the regulations which determine the remuneration for returning officers. I hold the view that the remuneration which returning officers receive is not adequate in relation to the responsible position which they occupy. I know that I am not allowed to plead for increased expenditure here and neither do I intend doing so but as a matter of principle I would like to see something done in this regard. If my information is correct then an official in an unopposed constituency receives R4.50. I find no fault with that but in a contested constituency the remuneration is R30, and if he is not a member of the staff of the electoral officer he is entitled to the approval of a clerical post plus R20 which he can devote to staff, particularly to compensate them for overtime in connection with postal votes. If one compares it with what an ordinary presiding officer at an election receives, in a constituency where between 2,000 and 5,000 votes are polled, then he receives R8 plus another R4 if he is a teller. This means that for the day’s work he receives R12 and if more than5,000 votes are polled then he receives R10 plus R4. This means that he gets R14 for a day which is not very strenuous while a period of at least 28 days and a maximum of 35 days may pass between nomination day and election day. In other words, the returning officer receives R30 for practically a month’s additional work. From nomination day the returning officer is charged with the receipt of postal vote applications and for 21 days before the election he must issue postal votes daily. In constituencies where between 2,000 and 3,000 postal votes are tendered the work of the returning officer has become virtually full time. It may be argued that the returning officer is usually a public servant, a magistrate, who receives this remuneration over and above his normal salary and that it is therefore sufficient. But the fact remains that in most cases, especially where the returning officer is a magistrate, he is expected still to do his ordinary work in the court and his other office work as well as that of a returning officer. This creates definite problems in the urban areas, especially when the returning officer is a magistrate and he cannot obtain enough clerical staff. The position is that in the city courts are so overloaded with cases that the chief magistrate finds it impossible to exempt a magistrate who is a returning officer from his normal court duties and there is no one to take his place. The result is that the candidates and their organizations must simply accept the fact that the returning officer is not available when he is needed most, because when he is needed most he is engaged on the bench. Secondly, one has to arrange one’s affairs to suit the magistrate, when he is available, and often votes are lost through this and it makes it very difficult for the candidates and their organizations. When the people have sufficient clerical assistants to arrange matters for them it is not so bad but my experience at a few elections is that unless the political parties assist the magistrate with typists and staff he cannot cope with the work and one cannot blame him either. I ask whether it cannot be considered to give these people better remuneration in order that they may appoint more staff, or else the State must provide staff for them. It is the duty of the State to ensure that the electoral machinery functions smoothly. One has enough problems during an election and if one has to have extra worries because one has to adapt oneself to the impossible times of a returning officer who tries his best but who simply cannot cope with the extra burdens placed on him, then one feels that life is being made very difficult. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would give his attention to this matter.

Mr. BUTCHER:

I urge that the hon. the Minister should immediately suspend all proclamations under the Group Areas Act and appoint a commission of inquiry to investigate the provisions of the Act and the manner of its administration. I do so against the background of the growing volume of world criticism directed against this country on account of our policy of apartheid. I bear in mind also our expulsion from the Commonwealth and the fact that we are now in a minority of one at UN facing the possibility of expulsion and that the Governments of India and Pakistan have lodged a complaint against South Africa about the treatment of Indians here. The whole world realizes that we are outcasts because of our racial policy and they are waiting to see whether we will have a change of heart or whether we will continue to ignore world opinion. I believe it is very necessary to review our policies and to take a positive and dramatic step to restore our prestige and standing amongst the nations of the world. I believe that the first measure to be reviewed is the Group Areas Act. The principle of the Act was laid down quite clearly by the present Minister of Finance in 1950 when he introduced the Bill. He made it quite clear that the purpose was to legislate for separate areas for the different race groups by compulsion if necessary and by providing the machinery for doing so—and I quote the Minister’s own words—

“ In a fair, equitable and judicial manner ” over a period of years in order to avoid the dangers of racial juxtaposition and racial frictions arising therefrom.

I want to deal particularly with the Minister’s claims that the Act will be administered in a fair and equitable manner. He made those comments on more than one occasion in the debates, and concluded his remarks by saying—

As regards the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill, I just want to say that it will be based upon justice. I also want to say this, that no policy which is not based on justice has any prospect of success.

During the course of the debate he also said—

A second feature is that this object is achieved without recourse to discrimination between the various races. The restrictions imposed on one group are also imposed on the other groups.

I cannot believe that even the most unregenerate Nationalist would claim that this Act is administered with justice, equity and impartiality between all racial groups and that there is no discrimination. I do not have to remind the Minister of the manner in which this Act is being applied, particularly in the case of Indians in the Transvaal—I instance Piet Retief and Rustenburg—and in Natal, where there was recently the proclamation of Cato Manor and Queensborough and also the case of the Coloured people in the Cape. But let us face the fact that it is quite obvious from the statistics given by the hon. the Minister in the House that the great burden of this legislation falls on the non-Whites, and particularly on the Asiatics and the Coloureds. In other words, it falls on those sections which have either only token representation in this House or none at all; in other words, on the racial groups that are politically completely defenceless and who therefore in my opinion have a much greater claim to look to us as privileged Europeans for the most scrupulously fair treatment. The complete repudiation of the Minister’s assurances in the second reading debate in 1950 has recently come from a judgment of the Appeal Court in the case of Minister of the Interior v. S. M. Lockhat & Ors., reported in S.A.L.R. 1961 on page 602. The judgment was delivered by Mr. Justice Holmes and Chief Justice Steyn and Judges Ogilvie Thompson, Botha and van Winsen concurred. It is therefore a unanimous judgment and I want to quote certain passages from that judgment, because it will prove that this Act is not administered with impartiality—

The most important question raised by this group of exceptions is that posed in exception 4 (b), namely whether the Act empowers the Governor-General-in-Council to discriminate to the extent of partial and unequal treatment to a substantial degree between members of the different groups as defined in or under the Act. According to the decision of this court in Rex v. Abdurahman, such a power will not be attributed by the court unless it is given expressly or by necessary implication in the statute concerned. No such power is expressly given in the Group Areas Act, but it seems to me clearly implied. The Group Areas Act represents a colossal social experiment and a long-term policy. It necessarily involves the movement out of group areas of numbers of people throughout the country. Parliament must have envisaged that compulsory population shifts of persons occupying certain areas would inevitably cause disruption and, within the foreseeable future, substantial inequalities. Whether all this will ultimately prove to be for the common weal of all the inhabitants is not for the court to decide…. The question before this court is the purely legal one whether this piece of legislation impliedly authorizes, towards the attainment of its goal, the more immediate are foreseeable discriminatory results complained of in this case. In my view, for the reason which I have given, it manifestly does.

That is a very clear and unshakeable statement, and this judgment is to my mind irreconcilable with the assurances given by the then Minister of the Interior in 1950, and it is completely contradictory of the numerous assurances we have been given in this House by Prime Ministers and other Ministers over the last ten years. Moreover, this judgment by the highest judicial body in South Africa confirms that the Group Areas Act permits racial discrimination and inequality to a very substantial degree, and it provides irrefutable confirmation of the basic criticism of this legislation voiced by the various nations of the world at UN. This Act legalizes injustice as between racial groups. The Government is constantly complaining that they are the victims of misunderstanding abroad, that we are isolated and that we are being victimized because of false impressions created abroad by biased Press reports. But if the Supreme Court of South Africa can deliver a judgment in such unmistakable terms, how can we possibly be misunderstood? After all, the Supreme Court is not a political body but an impartial body, whose only concern is to interpret and apply the laws that this House passes. For the Minister to claim that this Act is administered fairly, equitably and justly and in a non-discriminatory way is simply not true. When the Minister introduced the Bill in 1950, I am sure he made those statements in the utmost good faith. I cannot believe that die smooth and comforting statements he made were made insincerely or with a desire to mislead. I believe that the Minister at the time believed that that would be the case. To suggest anything else would surely be to accuse the Minister of the grossest and crudest form of deception of the non-Whites. Not only is the good faith of the Minister of Finance in question as a result, but also that of the Government. I believe that this position is quite intolerable. I do not believe that this Government can possibly afford to allow this judgment to stand without taking any steps to remedy these injustices either in the Act itself or in its administration, because either the Government intends to administer the Act fairly and justly and without discrimination or it does not. I think we are entitled to ask the Minister to make a statement to let the country and the whole world know exactly how South Africa stands in regard to this legislation which has been so universally condemned on a moral basis by the nations of the world. It is for that reason that I plead on behalf of those of us on these benches that the Minister should consider the advisability of suspending all group area proclamations for the time being and appointing an impartial judicial commission to ascertain the facts of the case, whether the discriminations and inequalities are justifiable and whether it is not possible to eliminate the injustices and the grievances which stem from them. [Time limit.]

*Mr. DE KOCK:

I want to bring a matter concerning public servants to the attention of the hon. file Minister. The institution of holiday savings bonuses is welcomed by all but there seems to be an anomaly in this connection and I am sure that the hon. the Minister will look into it once it has been brought to his notice. In terms of Treasury Circular No. 7 of 1959 in connection with the holiday bonus, £60 is paid to an official who is legally married and receives a salary of not more than £2,850, and £30 for others, i.e., I presume, a person, male or female, with a salary not exceeding £1,560. It appears as if the words “ legally married ” cause all the trouble. A man who is legally married and has five children loses his bonus when his wife dies, while the single man continues to draw his. There is also the case of the husband and wife both being in the service of the state and both being entitled to the bonus. My plea is that a widower with children has more responsibilities than a single man, but the widower loses his bonus upon the death of his wife, even if he has five children. I think it is reasonable to accept that such a widower because of the death of his wife has a greater burden to bear because he now has to get someone to care for his children and he is therefore entitled to the full bonus. I do not think I need emphasize the matter any further, and that the hon. the Minister will give the matter his sympathetic consideration. I can assure him that the entire Public Service will be most grateful to him.

*Mr. VAN DER WALT:

Unfortunately we again had the old story from the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Butcher). One really regrets that hon. members opposite cannot get away from the old tactics of putting their heads into the sand and not facing the fact of what is taking place to-day and what has taken place in past years. The hon. member will not face the fact that no party, not even his own, advocates a policy which will satisfy the world. The Opposition parties must admit that the policy which they advocate will not satisfy the world and therefore one regrets the attitude which the hon. member adopted. Let us examine the history of the so-called discriminating legislation. There has never been a government in this country which has not adopted such legislation. The forefather of the legislation on the Statute Book to-day was the legislation adopted in Natal, in the first place, and secondly in the Transvaal in file days of the Republic, and perpetuated by every government thereafter. No one less than Gen. Botha’s government passed that discriminating legislation in 1919, viz. the Asiatic Land Tenure Act; and none other than the government of Gen. Smuts continued with that legislation in the Pegging Act of 1943 and the Asiatic Land Tenure Act of 1946. In 1946 the world already sneered at it. When the legislation was proposed in this House, the Asiatic Land Tenure and Representation of Indians Bill, Gen. Smuts saw fit to draw the attention of the House to the propaganda being made in the world and he said it was an attempt to frighten the Government but that he was not going to run away from it, and the House adopted it. During recent months the non-Whites have on various occasions declared that they did not accept the policy of the Progressives. Leading non-Whites said it and they even walked out from a meeting addressed by the hon. member for Maitland (Dr. de Beer). It therefore will not help the hon. members opposite to continually put their heads in the sand’ and to criticize this side of the House. Let us rather get together and get clarity on how far each party is prepared to go. I ask hon. members opposite how far they are prepared to go with repealing this sort of legislation which protects the rights of certain groups, or how far they are prepared to go towards eliminating all dividing lines. We must be honest with each other otherwise we undermine the position of the White man in this country. It is not only this side of the House which is supposed to be undermining the position of the Whites, but also that side. I think we should get clarity from the Progressive Party as to what their standpoint is and what their aims are if they should ever come into power.

*Dr. OTTO:

I wish to raise another matter under Vote 28. It is seldom that thanks and appreciation are expressed towards officials but I want to take this opportunity of doing so, and in particular towards the officials of the Bureau of Census and Statistics. According to this Vote a total of R1,135,750 for 1960-1 is made available to the Bureau out of the grand total of R3,500,000 for the whole Vote. The Director of Census and Statistics and his very capable and hard-working staff really deserve thanks and appreciation and I want to congratulate them on the excellent work they are doing.

This Bureau last year had the enormous task of compiling and making available the preliminary details in connection with the Census. The staff worked with devotion and I know that many of them worked overtime to complete that enormous task. The statistics of any Department must of necessity be new and up-to-date and I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on a Bureau of the standard of the Bureau of Census and Statistics which complies with this requirement. I also wish to refer to the Jubilee edition of last year which the Bureau published on Union statistics over the past 50 years. It was issued to coincide with the celebration of the 50th Anniversary of Union. That publication contains more than 400 pages of statistical tables covering all aspects of the Union’s social, industrial, economic and even political development. The latest edition of the official Year Book of which we have received copies is the 30th edition, and just like the previous ones it is an excellent reference book. The general details and statistics are really fresh and new and have been adjusted to the latest developments. All conceivable subjects—economic, social and even the industrial development— are covered. This Year Book is a wonderful reference book for the high school pupil, for the student, for the ordinary members of the public and also for Members of Parliament. The contributors have acquitted themselves excellently of this particular task and they are undoubtedly also authorities on the various spheres in which they tackled the different subjects. Our grateful thanks are also extended to the Departments of State, other public and private organizations and other institutions which made contributions to this Year Book. To demonstrate how modern and up-to-date the contents are I wish to refer to the chapter dealing with the decimilization of our currency, which again proves that the Year Book is adjusted to the latest developments in the country, and also in connection with the new coinage. In conclusion I also refer to the loose-leaf indexes included in this edition; the one index shows the results of the referendum of last year and the other shows the results of the population census of September last year. There are also beautiful coloured maps which are of great value to everyone. What strikes me in particular is the exceptionally low price of R1.50 at which this book is being sold. I think the Department must have given a big subsidy to be able to make an edition of this magnitude with all this information, an edition with 375 pages, available to the public at such an exceptionally low price. As one who takes an interest in education I strongly recommend that if schools have not already got it in their libraries they should place it there for reference purposes. Every person, even outside of this House, can derive great benefit from possession of this excellent book. Once again I wish to express my personal thanks and appreciation to those particular Departments and congratulate the hon. the Minister on a division like the Bureau of Census and Statistics which performs its work so excellently.

Mr. DURRANT:

I wish to raise one or two matters with the hon. the Minister, but before doing so I shall be glad if the Minister can give an explanation for the new item appearing under Miscellaneous Expenditure. I refer to the amount of R200, “ Commission for Technical Co-operation in Africa ”. I understood that these contributions usually appeared under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of External Affairs. This appears to be a new item and I shall be glad if the Minister can give us some details when he replies.

Then I would like to ask the Minister if he can make a statement of policy in respect of that group of South African citizens who are of Chinese extraction. We have a considerable Chinese community on the Witwatersrand who are experiencing considerable difficulty and uncertainty in the planning of then-daily lives. They are probably one of the most law-abiding sections of the non-Whites in this country. There is no group area set aside for these people. They are accepted everywhere else in the world as Europeans. We have the example where people of the same extraction as the Chinese, namely the Japanese, are accepted on a par with the European community in South Africa, in terms of a statement made by the hon. the Minister of External Affairs and where their ambassador is accepted here. Is it the Government’s policy to draw a distinction between the yellow races of the world? Because the Chinese and the Japanese races are of the same extraction. This very law-abiding section of our community on the Witwatersrand is experiencing such uncertainty in their business and their private lives as to their future, that I think the hon. the Minister should if at all possible, make a statement of policy in respect of the destiny of these South African citizens. Are they going to be accepted as part of the White community, with the same privileges as those enjoyed by the White community, in view of the paucity of their numbers, or are they going to be classed with the Bantu or the Coloured or some other non-White group under the Government’s plan? I think it would be appreciated by that community if the Minister could make a statement of policy in respect of their eventual destiny under the group areas plan.

Then I want to ask the Minister what the Government’s policy is in regard to deportations. In the past 12 months a number of people have been deported whom the Government have not seen fit to allow to continue to reside on a permit in this country and in practically every instance the Government’s action has received world-wide adverse publicity. I have a particular reason for asking what the Government’s policy is in this regard. Here I want to refer to Bishop Reeves, and let me make it quite clear that I hold no brief for the views of Bishop Reeves, none whatsoever. Personally I consider him a bit of a crank. But at the time Bishop Reeves was deported by the Government, the Government were approached by a deputation of the Dutch Reformed Churches to allow Bishop Reeves to attend the World Council of Churches, and at that time a statement was made to the effect that the Government relied on information from reliable sources for any action taken in regard to deportation orders and their execution. I should like to know from the Minister on what sort of reliable information the Government base their actions, because here was a well-known cleric whose statements were widely publicized in practically every instance; he made no secret of his views and his dislike of Government policy, but I can hardly imagine that Bishop Reeves was involved in any action designed to undermine the State or that he headed any communist agitator organization or anything of that sort. I would like to know upon what sort of information the Government rely when taking action against persons such as Bishop Reeves. I think it is necessary for the Minister to make such a statement because we see that these deportation orders are increasing. They are made against apparently harmless people and one would like to know upon what sort of information the Government acts and what attempts are made to check the reliability of the Minister’s sources of information before deportation orders are issued.

Then I want to ask the Minister what his policy is in regard to Press censorship. Here I want to refer to a statement made by a member on the Government benches, a member who, I think, aspires if not to full Cabinet rank then to deputy Cabinet rank. I refer to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) who made a certain statement in October last year in addressing a public meeting. He put forward the view that he considered that it should be Government policy, in order to effect adequate Press censorship in South Africa, effectively to control, if I understood the report correctly, the English-language Press. I think he said that a Press commissioner should be established with two assessors and that they should have power to discipline the Press if they find that the Press has been guilty of incorrect reporting. Sir, we have had a Bill before us which has now been withdrawn, and we are being called upon here to vote certain moneys for censorship. Is it the Government’s intention to follow up these ideas of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark who has expressed these opinions on more than one occasion in public? Is there any justification for these views of the hon. member; has he any authority from the Government for stating them, and is there any justification for the repeated statements by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark that it is possibly the Government’s intention to take steps to curb the Press in this regard?

Dr. DE WET:

I never said that.

Mr. DURRANT:

If the hon. member says that he did not say it, I can only say that he implied it on more than one occasion. I think we are entitled and the country is entitled to an answer from the Minister on this point because this falls pertinently under the Minister of the Interior; he is responsible for censorship. Let me put this direct question to the Minister: Has the Government any intention to take steps to set up a separate Press censorship organization? Does the Minister consider it necessary, and if he considers it necessary, does he intend to take any steps in that regard? I think it is time that these statements which are made by Government members and these veiled threats against the Press of the country should be exposed once and for all. If there Is no intention on the part of the Government to control the English-language Press or the Press as a whole, then the Minister should take this opportunity to state the Government’s policy clearly and categorically.

*Dr. DE WET:

The hon. member referred to certain remarks which I made in connection with the Press. Let me say at once that I made it specifically against the English-language Press in South Africa. Last year I expressed the idea that a Press commissioner with possibly two assessors should be appointed to ensure in the first place that the Press does not print lies and secondly that they do not publish inciting reports. The hon. the Prime Minister has made a statement in connection with the Press. He asked the Press to put their house in order themselves, and when he did that he did not stand alone. He did it in company with other world heads of state, among them being President Kennedy of the U.S.A. and also Mr. Macmillan, the Prime Minister of Britain who recently wrote a letter to the Press asking them to ensure that certain things are done to the Press.

*Mr. DURRANT:

But where did they also threaten the Press?

*Dr. DE WET:

I want to point out that conditions in South Africa in regard to the Press differ entirely from conditions in other countries and after what I have seen in the English Press lately I wish to withdraw the idea I expressed at that time because it is far to timid. The English Press is conducting a propaganda campaign and a handbill campaign for the agitators in South Africa. I want to give an example of it. I may apparently not talk about this, judging by the way the Chairman is looking at me.

*The CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member must not go into too great detail about the Press. The Vote concerns interior only.

*Dr. DE WET:

I hope the hon. the Minister of the Interior will not say that nothing will be done to the Press in future because the hon. the Prime Minister has expressed his concern very clearly, and in a manner befitting a Prime Minister, about the way in which the Press in South Africa is behaving. Since the hon. the Prime Minister has asked the Press to put their own house in order I feel one is justified in at least inferring from that that the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government are concerned to some extent about the way in which the Press in the country is carrying on. I just want to mention one example. The Star of last Wednesday, when the State President of South Africa was elected, published a double-column report on the election of the State President. On Friday afternoon they devoted a whole page, apart from the advertisements and one small item, to a big propaganda article about Mandelo, together with a picture, who is described by the Star as the new leader of the Black people in South Africa who want to cause trouble on 31 May. That was an absolute propaganda campaign and I know why they are doing it. The English-language Press in South Africa can no longer get any new readers among the Whites. This source has been exhausted. They can only increase their circulation by getting non-White readers but then they must write for the non-White readers and that is what they are doing. Mr. Chairman, there will be fewer repercussions in South Africa if during a period when trouble is expected some of these newspapers are shut down for a week or two than when a few people are shot dead as happened at Warmbaths or at Sharpeville.

*Mr. DURRANT:

Do you want to shoot the editor?

*Dr. DE WET:

Hon. members may say what they like. The position of the Whites will not be maintained in South Africa if the English-language Press is allowed to continue as they are doing to-day.

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! I have asked the hon. member not to go into too great detail about the Press.

*Dr. DE WET:

I make a friendly appeal to the hon. the Minister of the Interior to at least express his concern, like the hon. the Prime Minister did, about the tremendous role which the English-language Press plays in South Africa in specifically undermining the position of the White man.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Apparently it has become the tradition in this House that the hon. the Prime Minister has to apologize every Session for a speech made by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet). He has already done so once this year and he will possibly have to do so a second time after this latest attack that the hon. member made on the Press.

*Dr. DE WET:

On a point or order, the hon. member says that the Prime Minister apologized. I myself apologized, but when is the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) going to apologize?

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order!

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

However, I want to reply to a few points which have been raised by the hon. member, and I do so in view of his recommendation that the Board of Censors should be given greater powers, particularly in connection with internal Press matters. I was shocked to hear the hon. member’s suggestion that certain newspapers—he talked about the Star and the Rand Daily Mail and I take it that he meant those newspapers—should be closed for 12 days in the event of trouble in South Africa, simply because he does not like the reports that have appeared in those newspapers.

*Dr. DE WET:

I did not talk about 12 days.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

We must have clarity with regard to the sort of report that the hon. member mentioned here.

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is responsible for the Press?

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

No, fortunately not.

*The CHAIRMAN:

In that case the hon. member cannot discuss the Press.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Are you not going to allow me then to reply to the hon. member’s remarks? I hope you will allow me then just to talk in general terms about the way in which censorship is being applied increasingly in this country, censorship as applied by the hon. the Minister of the Interior under the sub-head “ Board of Censors ” which appears on Vote No. 28. Mr. Chairman, we are deeply shocked at the scope of censorship in South Africa at the present time, and we are shocked even more deeply over the fact that this censorship is being applied more and more, and when we hear threats such as those we heard here this afternoon, we cannot help facing the future with anxiety. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister that we are going to be rid of the Publications and Entertainments Bill that was submitted to us last year. I should like him to tell us precisely what the Government’s plans are in that connection.

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss legislation.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

No, I do not want to discuss the contents. I merely wanted to ask the hon. the Minister what his plans are in connection with that Bill itself. To-day there are no fewer that 21 Acts and Ordinances under which books and magazines can be banned in South Africa.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Since when have they been there?

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

South Africa has practically established a record in that connections. Some of those Acts and Ordinances already existed in the days of the old Cape Colony, but the worst of these laws were placed on the Statute Book under this Government, and it is under this Government that we have seen the most stringent implementation of these laws. Has there ever been such a large list of banned books in South Africa as there was in July 1956 when there were no fewer than 4,000 titles on the list of banned books? That list has grown from time to time, and I think the list of books and magazines appearing on the Nationalist Party’s index to-day exceeds 6,000. A list that was published on 15 December 1960 contains no fewer than 351 banned books. It is essential, particularly under the conditions under which we are living to-day, that we should not further restrict freedoms of that kind. As far as censorship is concerned, we ought to reduce it and not to increase it, and it is particularly important that there should be no threats in connection with internal censorship, as contained partly in the Publications Bill and partly in the utterances of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark.

It is not a question, as the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark stated, of conditions in South Africa differing so much from conditions in other countries. Right and wrong remain the same in every country. We find that publications issued by UNESCO are banned here. Some of those publications are possibly not of great scientific value, but large numbers of them are. Why should those publications be banned simply because they contain certain facts in connection with race matters and racial differences; why should their contents not be divulged to us in South Africa? If the information contained in any of those UNESCO publications is wrong, we need only issue one little pamphlet, and that ought to be sufficient to destroy all that propaganda, if it is wrong. When Prof. Einstein made known his theory of relativity to the word, there was a group of, I think, a dozen learned professors in Germany who each wrote an article trying to disprove the theory of relativity, and those 12 articles were then bound in one book. Einstein’s reply to this was: “ Why 12 articles; why such a thick book on the theory of relativity? A single short pamphlet would have been sufficient to prove that it is wrong in fact it is wrong.” The same applies to replies to UNESCO publications.

To me it is also a fantastic idea that if one wants to study one of the most dangerous systems of government, in order to get down to the roots of it and to learn why it is an evil system, a system such as the communist system, one finds it practically impossible to get books dealing with that political doctrine. Apparently all knowledge of all foreign political doctrines, however wrong they may be, is to be withheld from us here in South Africa.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Nonsense!

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I maintain that the present laws and ordinances that we have in connection with censorship in South Africa are more than adequate. A very interesting article appeared in the Burger, by Judge Marais, in which he pointed out that we had a surfeit of ordinances and laws in connection with censorship and in which he stated that it was absolutely unnecessary for us to go further and to introduce a further measure in that connection. He said: “ Let us first see to what extent we can apply the present ordinances, and let us first have conclusive proof that they are totally inadequate, and then we can go further in connection with that matter.” We have too many laws that place restrictions on our freedom to read what we like and to think what we like. I appeal to the hon. the Minister not to proceed with these restrictive ordinances, with the Cronje report and the recommendations contained therein, but rather to set these things aside. They only harm our country in the eyes of the rest of the world. These are things to which we should put a stop and we should do so as soon as possible.

Mr. H. LEWIS:

In the short time available to me I would like to add just one query to the queries put forward by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) on the question of the acceptance or otherwise of the Asiatic population by the Government. The hon. the Minister may be able to deal with this matter at the same time. The position is that whilst the policy was one of repatriation, with the introduction of the population register the Department of the Interior took the line that, where there was any doubt at all in the case of certain Indians, many of whom had spent their lives in South Africa, they were in due course classified as stateless persons. Sir, that has built up until I believe there is quite a large group of these people who are classified as stateless. They pay taxes, they own property; they enter into the general life of the Indian community. I understand that in many cases they are very active in charitable work and work for their own community, but because of certain technicalities which have cropped up in the process of registration these people have been issued with identity cards classifying them as “ Asiatics, but stateless ”. The position is most difficult for some of these people. I do not know the history of many of these cases but I do know of one case where hardship has been brought upon a particular individual who has quite large financial interests and who does a good deal of welfare work for his own community. I think the hon. the Minister can understand the hardship which follows upon this particular classification as “ stateless ”. Here we have a man who must enter into discussions on his business interests; he has to participate in discussions with the various authorities on the question of administering charities and school or educational organizations and the like, but who is classified as stateless because of some doubt as to whether he was brought here after birth or whether he was born in South Africa. There is no doubt at all that he has been here since childhood, and by any other standards he would qualify for citizenship, as many other Indian residents in South Africa have done. He is a man who cannot be repatriated. Obviously it does not seem to be the intention of the Government to repatriate him and the group to whom he belongs, and I would suggest to the Minister that he should consider the position of this group particularly. I do not think it is a very large group but I think they feel this hardship quite intensely. I think the hon. the Minister can perhaps sort that out while he is sorting out the whole of this Indian question and either give those people a home here or let them know where they stand. I think if he did that he would be doing quite a service to a group of people who, I think, have done quite a lot of good in their own communities.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

As a young Minister in the Department of the Interior, a portfolio which I have occupied now for the past four months, I should like to thank hon. members very sincerely for their contributions and the gentle way in which they have dealt with this young Minister. Up to this point it is anything but a difficult task to reply to the various points which have been raised here. I want to express my appreciation even of the criticism that has been put forward, as the result of which I shall now try to throw further light on various matters.

In the first place the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Butcher), on the strength of one single court judgment, has damned everything that we have said and done in connection with group areas as something entirely evil. There has been one point of agreement in this Committee this afternoon and that is that everybody admits that we have a very complex society in this multi-racial country of ours, with many difficulties to overcome. As far back as 1950 the Government made an attempt to make this complex society one in which all races and all groups in our country will be able to live. It is a good thing that this Government did so, because otherwise nothing would probably have been done. There is not a single racial group in our country which is not proud of its origin and which is not concerned about its survival and which is not anxious to continue to exist separately. There is a tendency amongst all nations to recognize that the national pride and national sentiment of the various races cannot be suppressed under any circumstances, and the attempts which are being made to convert multi-racialism into uni-racialism will never succeed in my opinion. All that we can do therefore, if we really want to co-operate and if we really want to make an attempt to find solutions, is to put our shoulders to the wheel, to suggest plans and not to come forward with negative criticism only. In a country like South Africa where this is a natural phenomenon and where the position has always been that each of the various races has its own traditions, its language, its religion and way of life, its origen and its hopes for the future, it is impossible to try to divert all the different streams into one Western stream and to think that in doing so you are going to get the greatest measure of co-operation. That is why the Government has constantly continued to build on this pattern. The Group Areas Act, together with everything that goes with it, is a unique Act. There is not another country in the whole world which is saddled with the problems that we have. Hon. members on the other side cannot mention another country in the world where the Whites and the other groups have remained apart, where they have not thrown everything together and lived cheek by jowl. The South American States are typical examples of this. We in South Africa want to maintain and retain what is our own and we also want to continue to exist separately as a race. With these few introductory words I just want to say that as far as the Group Areas Act is concerned, there has always been this constant evolution of the Act, and because this is a new concept which is not based on the experience of other nations, we have necessarily had to proceed experimentally very often, and very often some of these experiments have not succeeded. But now that we are seeing more and more light, the time has arrived when the Government is able to announce that it takes so much interest in this matter and attaches so much importance to it, that re-organization is contemplated. The Group Areas Board as it now exists and the Group Areas Development Board, with its various divisions, are to be converted into a separate Department. The Group Areas Board and the Group Areas Development Board, together with the National Housing Office, which has always fallen under the Department of Health, complete the whole picture. The view has always been held, incorrectly, that group areas exist only for people of other colours and not for the Whites as well. But the White man also has his group area and the area in which he lives, and what we visualize is a coordination of the whole thing without directly sacrificing the identity of Housing; it will still be looked after by the Housing Commission as before, but it will be placed under the same Ministry. We want to place development of group areas on a basis where it will receive the full attention of a Minister and where it will not be looked after only by the Department of the Interior, as the position is at the moment.I hope that this will be welcomed, for the simple reason that this is a forward step which will make it possible for the Group Areas Board and the Group Areas Development Board, which has been administered in the past mainly by boards, as the name also indicates, to be looked after by a departmental head as secretary.

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Not a separate Minister?

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

That I am unable to say at the moment. It will possibly be given to a Minister as an additional department; it may be a combination. We have only a limited number of Ministers, but it will become a separate Department whose specific function it will be to develop these group areas to the fullest extent and to make them really useful, with the assistance of Housing, so that all these matters will receive attention under centralized control. I hope that the stigma which has always attached to the Group Areas Act as being a terribly unfair and oppressive measure will be removed once and for all when it is understood that eventually this whole development will fall under one department. In my opinion even the Natural Resources Development Council ought to fall under that Department, and all development in that connection should be concentrated in that Department.

*Mr. MILLER:

For all races?

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Yes.

A good deal has been said here to which I should like to reply as briefly as possible. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell), who was the main speaker, began by discussing the Asiatic Division as well as the Population Register, and he asked me what our policy was and what we were heading for. The hon. member will remember that as far as the Coloureds are concerned it has already been announced, and the prospect has been held out, that there will be a re-organization and an extension of the Union Council, with more elected members. I would also remind hon. members that the hon. the Prime Minister held out the prospect as far back as 7 December 1960 that the Indians would be able to develop along the same lines. I hope hon. members have not lost sight of the fact that I announced in February what the Government’s decision was in connection with a Division of Asiatic Affairs, where it is contemplated that the necessary channels and machinery will be created through which the legitimate demands and requirements of the Asiatic community can be brought to the notice of the Government, just as in the case of all the other racial groups whose interests are already being looked after by separate Government departments. The Division of Asiatic Affairs will make it its task to look after and to promote the interests of the Asiatic community in the various phases. I made an appeal at that time to the Asiatics who are inhabitants of the Union, to co-operate with this Division in order to ensure that the greatest benefit is obtained for the greatest number. This Division will sympathetically tackle the task entrusted to it and there will be ample opportunity for consultation and the submission of constructive proposals which are calculated to realize the objects of this Division. The necessary preparations for the establishment of this Division have already reached an advanced stage, and I am pleased to be able to inform the House that every possible step is being taken to open the Division’s various offices in the large centres of the Union as soon as possible. In the past the Asiatics were justified in feeling that they were being regarded as a foreign group that did not belong here. The blame for that view cannot be placed entirely at the door of the present Government. That was the view of all Governments. As a matter of fact the repatriation scheme, which had received attention since 1914, was maintained throughout by all governments as a voluntary scheme under which Indians who wished to leave the country could do so with the assistance of funds made available by the Government for that purpose. But gradually people came to realize and it became clearer—and to-day we say so unequivocally—that the Indians in this country were our permanent responsibility. They are here and the vast majority of them are going to remain here, and although the repatriation scheme is used on a very small scale we must realize that the vast majority of them are South African citizens and as such they are also entitled to the necessary attention and the necessary assistance. The control over this Division has been entrusted to an experienced official. Let me just say that this is not something new; it is implicit in the whole of the group areas concept. The Group Areas Act makes provision for group areas for Indians, where Indians are given the right of occupation and the right to acquire and to purchase land; and surely one is going to give that right only to the permanent section of the population and not to temporary residents who are going to leave this country again. Mr. J. H. van der Merwe, the Under-Secretary of the Interior, a person who has been connected with the Department of the Interior for more than 30 years, has been placed in charge of this Division. He spent the greater part of his career in the office of the Commissioner for Immigration and Asiatic Affairs in Pretoria and he was also Chief Immigration Officer in Cape Town. I want to make an appeal here. At a certain stage, if one is in earnest, one must start making use of a rubber and rub out what has been done in the past. One gains nothing by continually trying to play politics. I can tell the Committee that as far as the Indian community is concerned it is going to be a difficult struggle to get them to co-operate. It is a difficult race and one must first win their confidence. There are various religious views and all sorts of other problems which make it difficult even to spot the leaders, because there are separate leaders for each little group. But we are tackling this whole matter courageously in the belief that we are going to get these people’s co-operation, and once we have obtained their co-operation, we hope to assist them in the sphere in which they should receive assistance first. We are holding out to them the prospect that we have also held out to the Coloureds, that if there is co-operation they will be able to develop along the same lines.

The hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) (Mr. H. Lewis) dealt with the position of stateless Indians, and the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) talked about the Chinese. The principle on which the whole of the Population Register is based is the principle of acceptance. People are not classified into different nationalities, and it has been proved that, where a person has claimed that he is White and he has not been classified as White (just to mention an example), that person has the right to appeal to various bodies, and even to the highest court in the land, if he is not satisfied with his classification. As far as the application of this classification is concerned, there certainly was cause for serious complaint in the past. There were certain problems. My predecessor recognized these problems, and I want to say to-day that I am grateful for the fact that we have not had any criticism from any side of the House that the matter is not being dealt with in a human way, and that human feelings are not taken into consideration. We want to hurt people as little as possible and, as far as the Population Register is concerned, we are making progress, and all the cases that we have had to deal with will probably be disposed of in the near future.

The hon. member for South Coast also mentioned the case of a mixed marriage that may exist and the children born of that marriage, and the possibility that there may then be a re-classification. We must realize that in this complex society of ours we will often come across exceptional cases, but I want to repeat what I said a moment ago: People are not classified on the basis that they belong to a certain race; they are classified on this principle: Which group of the community accepts them? If they are accepted as Whites, then it naturally follows that they will be classified as Whites. It is for that reason that the small number of Japanese we have here are classified as Whites, because the Whites accept them. And the reply to the question as to what will become of the Chinese is that it all depends on whether the White group is going to accept them as a White community.

*Mr. MILLER:

They have been doing so for years.

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

That is not true. There is a section that is accepted as White, and there is an arrangement with that racial group that in those cases where they are accepted as Whites, travelling facilities, hotel accommodation, etc., will be given to them as though they are Whites. But the whole of the Chinese group has not been accepted as White. If it should appear later on that the acceptance of the Japanese or any other group is not subscribed to by the Whites, they will not be accepted as such. I think that that is the right principle. What difference is it going to make to us as Whites if we accept these people?

*Mr. DURRANT:

I put a question to you in connection with the policy with regard to the Chinese in respect of the Group Areas Act.

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Surely the hon. member knows that there are various groups. I shall deal with that in a moment. The position of the stateless Indians has also been raised, and I just want to point out what the consequences are going to be when we start dealing with stateless persons. We also have in this country many British-protected Bantu who are stateless. We are seeking the co-operation of the Indians to-day, but we are certainly not going to come to the stateless persons who have been stateless all these years, and who are really disappearing as a group, because the children who are born here become citizens of South Africa. As far as the stateless Indians are concerned, everything depends on the degree of support and the co-operation, the actual wholehearted cooperation, that we get from this group. The position is certainly not that we can start tackling the problem there. My own feeling is that one does not like people to remain stateless, particularly when they have spent a great part of their lives here, but we must realize the consequences, and we would also be saddled then with many of those people.

Now I come to the Zanzibaris. The hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior attended all the discussions that were held at the time with the Zanzibaris. And while I am referring to him, I want, with your permission, to express my gratitude and appreciation towards the hon. the Deputy Minister, who is really of great assistance to me in a very difficult Department. As far as the Zanzibaris are concerned, I want to point out that I think the hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) made one mistake in his argument, and that is that no promise was made that these people would be classified as Coloureds. It was simply intimated that this group of Indians—that is the information I have—would be classified under the group areas arrangements with one class or another.

*Mr. DURRANT:

That is not correct.

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

That is my information, and thereafter they were classified in a different group. I want to reply now to the question of the hon. member for Turffontein. As far as the Coloureds are concerned, there are the following groups: Cape Malays, Griquas, Cape Coloured, Indians, and then also the other Coloureds and the other Asiatics. There are six groups. The Zanzibar group, who were then classified as Coloureds, have not been accepted by the Coloureds. There we have the whole principle. I have said that acceptance is the principle, and if the Coloureds wish to object they have the same right to object as the Whites, because we adopt the principle that every race, whether they be Coloured, Asiatic or White or Bantu, has the right to say: “ How can you group those people with us? They are not our people; they are descendants of Arabian tribes.” They were then classified in the sub-group “ Other Asiatics ”. They have now been classified, and they know where they stand. They are not in a position of uncertainty. They know precisely where they stand, and there is not the slightest cause for further concern in that regard. It would have been very wrong for us to insist that they should remain classified as Coloureds if the Coloureds were not prepared to accept them. The only way to classify them, therefore, is as I have indicated.

The hon. member for Parow talked about the electoral officers. I just want to say that if an electoral officer finds it very difficult to do his work, he can, of course, make the necessary representations for more assistance. But I agree with the hon. member that the remuneration of electoral officers is disproportionately low and that, under present conditions, with their many obligations, as well as the many responsibilities which rest on them, it is not adequate remuneration. I promise the hon. member that I shall go into this matter, and I hope I shall be able to persuade the Treasury to do something about it.

To the hon. member for Pretoria (Rissik) (Mr. de Kock), I want to say at once that the note I have been handed says that I must tell him that nothing can be done in regard to the question of holiday savings bonuses that he raised. But for my part I say to the hon. member that I am not going to take any notice of this note. I agree with the hon. member. I do not think it is right, where a married public servant becomes a widower and he still has children whom he has to support, that he should receive the same holiday savings bonus as an unmarried official. I just want to say here that I understand that there is some difficulty with the Treasury, but I shall do my best. I did not know that that was the position. I think an injustice is being done there.

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr.E. G. Malan) talked about the censors. He referred to censorship difficulties and the tremendous increase in the number of books and magazines banned under this Government. The hon. member is fairly faithful in attending the debates, but in all probability he is so hostile towards the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) that he did not take any notice of a question that the hon. member put some time ago. She asked specifically how many books had been banned in the period 1938-48 (ten years of United Party rule) and in the period 1950-60 (ten years of National Party rule) respectively and my reply to her was that from 1938 to 1948 7,721 publications had been banned and that 6,718 publications had been banned from 1950 to 1960—1,000 fewer therefore.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Magazines also?

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Books and magazines. I went on to say in the reply that these figures included magazines, but that it was impossible to furnish separate figures in respect of books. I just want to point out to the hon. member that this is another of these “ sweeping statements ” made by him without his having acquainted himself with the facts, and that if he had seen the reply he would not have made such a mistake. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has also asked what we propose to do in view of the fact that the hon. the Leader of the House has announced that a Bill is going to be laid on the Table, which is then going to be read a first time only, after which an opportunity will be given to everybody to express their opinion about it, without first referring it to a Select Committee. The Bill will be laid on the Table before Parliament is prorogued for the information of all members. This is not the time to discuss the details, but generally speaking I may say that the whole intention of this legislation is to eliminate all the criticism that there has been in regard to the banning of magazines and books. Instead of having an appeal board, as recommended in the Cronjé Report, an opportunity will be given to appeal to the highest courts. In other words, all the constructive criticism that we have had, together with what Judge Marais, to whom the hon. member referred, said with regard to this matter, will be taken into consideration in re-drafting the Bill which will be introduced for the information of members generally, and we hope that attention will be given to it because there is no doubt that something should be done, because what we are having to-day is no longer the exercise of freedom but untrammelled licentiousness.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he agrees with the proposals made by the hon. member for Vander-bijlpark (Dr. de Wet) in connection with Press censorship and, amongst other things, the appointment of a Press commissioner and two deputies for Press censoring?

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I have already stated in reply to a question by you, Mr. Chairman, that the question of Press censorship does not fall under my Department. I am concerned with the ordinary Censorship Board, which was not appointed by this Government initially but which has been functioning since 1931 and which has been doing this work in connection with films, etc. and ordinary reading matter. As far as the censorship of news and the Press is concerned, my Department has nothing to do with it under this Vote. The hon. member will simply have to wait for that question to be answered at the appropriate time.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Will the hon. the Minister also reply to the question that I put to him in connection with the municipal franchise for Asiatics?

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

As far as the municipal franchise is concerned, I want to say to the hon. member that I have not gone into the matter and that I am not in a position to give an answer this evening. I have my own opinion in that regard, but at this stage I would prefer not to reply to that question. It is a local affair. As far as the Vote is concerned, the hon. member knows that our attitude is that at this stage we do not want to give the Indians or the Coloureds the vote on a Common Voters’ Roll, but as far as the municipal franchise is concerned, that is a local matter and I do not want to go into it at this stage. As far as deportations are concerned, deportations take place in terms of Section 22 (3) of Act No. 22 of 1913. That is the section under which persons are deported, and it is only done in cases where the Minister considers it to be in the public interest to deport people. That has always been the position. We act on the basis of information, but in the nature of the things the source of such information cannot be divulged. The hon. member made the same blunder as the hon. member for Orange Grove by saying that the numbers of deportations were increasing under this Government. The figures do not prove that that is so. However, the hon. member may rest assured that we act with the greatest degree of circumspection and caution. But where a person is deported, hon. members must bear in mind that it is done in the interests of public safety in South Africa. The margin of safety is sometimes a little narrow; at other times it can be stretched a little; at times more latitude can be allowed; at other times perhaps less; but the hon. member knows that it is a very great responsibility to deport a person, and we must make sure of the circumstances. One’s conscience dictates that that should be done, and I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we act with the greatest degree of circumspection and caution.

Mr. MITCHELL:

I regret that the hon. the Minister dealt with this question of the municipal franchise in the rather off-hand and brief manner which he adopted. I want to say that as far back as my experience goes the Minister of the Interior has been the official connecting link between the Provincial Administrations and the Government of the day. That has been the case for very many years, 25 years or more. This is a matter affecting the right of the Provincial Council to legislate in matters of this kind. It is a matter of particular importance to know the view of the hon. the Minister of the Interior. I want to put this position, once again, quite plainly, and I hope the hon. the Minister of the Interior will be frank with us. Suggestions have been made, not that there shall be legislation in the Provincial Council dealing with Provincial franchise rights or Parliamentary franchise rights—rights which have been dealt with by Governments in other legislation. One does not refer to that now. I refer purely to the municipal franchise rights. That is a matter which can be legislated upon by the Provincial Council concerned, the right of the municipal franchise is not legislated upon by this House but by Provincial Councils. But before they embark upon all the necessary preliminaries and investigations which may proceed such legislation, and before they proceed upon the passage of such an ordinance through the Provincial Council concerned, they must know what the Government’s policy is. The final determination must rest upon the official advice given by the Minister of the Interior, through the Executive, through the Governor-General-in-Council or the President—as to whether the ordinance shall be signed

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Should we not leave it to the Provincial Councils to get in touch with the Minister and ask him about it? Why discuss it here?

Mr. MITCHELL:

No, I am sorry. That is the whole point. If that is the Minister’s point then we are concerned that the Minister should declare his policy here.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I have not been asked by the Provincial Councils to do so.

Mr. MITCHELL:

No, Mr. Chairman, we are stopped in this House from raising matters which are of interest to Provincial Councils. We are dealing here with the Minister’s policy in regard to this group of people. This is a case where legislation can be invalidated, if it is passed, or validated, according to the desires of the Minister. The Minister is the man who has the last word. Assuming that he is acting in accordance with the rest of the Executive— which he undoubtedly would do, he has the last word. As an individual it is the Minister who says that his policy follows this line or that line. That is for him to say. It is not for us to wait until a Provincial Council has gone through all the motions of passing legislation and then, for whatever the reason may be, you can have this position: The Governor-General may simply withhold consent and nobody is any the wiser. It is not necessary that the Governor-General refuses his assent, he can merely withhold it, and after 12 months that ordinance becomes null and void. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he has an official opinion in this matter; he has an official policy and we want to know what that is. We know the official policy of the Government in regard to the franchise for the Provincial Councils and Parliament.

Mr. J. D. DE VILLIERS:

May I ask the hon. member a question? Can the hon. member please tell us how it came to pass that the Coloured people lost the municipal franchise in Natal?

Mr. MITCHELL:

The question of the Coloured franchise in Natal has nothing whatever to do with this point. And there are Coloured people with the franchise in Natal— what is the hon. member talking about? He does not know what he is talking about. And when some did lose the franchise it was because of Government policy and Government legislation. I am asking the Minister about the Asiatic Municipal franchise. Will he tell us what his policy is and if they have any policy at all? If they have not will they please tell us?

The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:

What is your policy in Natal?

Mr. MITCHELL:

Will the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education deal with his little Bantu children. [Interjections.] What an idiotic interjection by an hon. Minister. Why does he not attend to his own portfolio? We will deal with him on his portfolio in due course. I am dealing with the Minister of the Interior at the moment, and I am seeking his policy. And I hope we are going to get a frank reply from the hon. the Minister.

*Mr. F. S. STEYN:

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) has now treated us to an excellent piece of play-acting. To think that an experienced politician such as he should pretend not to know what milk looks like, even when it is in a saucer. To think that he has tried to lead the hon. the Minister of the Interior into the trap of announcing in advance what the Cabinet’s attitude will be towards provincial legislation! If the hon. member can rise and give me one example— he has restricted himself to 25 years, and in that regard I can at least meet him on equal terms—where an announcement has been made in advance in the Union Parliament at the request of the Opposition as to what the Cabinet’s attitude will be as regards provincial legislation, then I shall congratulate him most sincerely. But I know he cannot do so. What the hon. member is now trying to do is this: Natal is considering certain steps in connection with the municipal franchise of the Indians, and he has now taken the Government to be so naive that he has tried to set this trap. If the Minister were to say: “ We shall approve of the legislation.” then they will have a piece of propaganda with which they will go to the country and say: “ The Government approves of the municipal franchise for Indians and we in Natal have refused to approve of such a principle!” Or, alternatively, if the Government says: “ We shall not approve of it ”, then they will have a new propaganda story, in which his party’s friends on the Progressive benches will be able to share, namely, that they will say how oppressive the Government is.

Mr. MITCHELL:

May I ask the hon. member a question? Does the Transvaal Provincial Council have a policy regarding the municipal franchise of the Asiatics?

*Mr. F. S. STEYN:

Mr. Chairman, at the moment I am discussing the policy of this Government as regards provincial ordinances. I now just want to demonstrate the stupidity of the hon. clever member by pointing out that the decision of a Cabinet in respect of a provincial ordinance obviously depends on the terms of that ordinance. Let us say, for example, that Natal were to be so ingenious and sensible that their legislation was to provide that the Indians would have the right to vote in the Indian group areas in respect of a local authority which is established in such group areas, then I can quite foresee this Cabinet giving favourable consideration to such a proposal. But I find it almost impossible to foresee such a proposal coming from Natal because if this stupidity is characteristic of the attitude of the Natal leader, what will the deputy leaders of Natal do in respect of such a problem? Mr. Chairman, is it not foolishness to say to this Government: Prophesy now what you are going to do in respect of an ordinance, the terms of which are not yet known. Would it not be the utmost foolishness on the part of the Government if it were to do such a thing? Let us please drop this matter. Let Natal submit its ordinance, as has been the custom over the past 25 or 50 years, and let the Government consider the actual legislation, and then, alas, no longer the Governor-General but the President will decide in future whether it pleases him to promulgate that legislation or not. There is no precedent for this request. There is no inherent substance in the request, but it is a very simple trap which does not befit the status of that hon. member.

Mr. MITCHELL:

It is no good the hon. member, who was an M.E.C. in the Transvaal Provincial Council, trying to draw red herrings across the trail like this. He ought to know what the position is. He could not answer my question, which was a straightforward question. We on this side of the House are not the Government; they sit over there. And the hon. the Minister has got to determine this issue. I am not trying to trap the hon. the Minister, but let me take this point a little further. The basis for the municipal franchise in Natal is the right to vote in a parliamentary election. That is a matter for this Parliament, it is not a matter for the provincial council. It is not for the provincial council to legislate, it has not the power to do so in regard to provincial or parliamentary franchise.

The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:

That was a provincial ordinance.

Mr. MITCHELL:

For Heaven’s sake, will you shut up!

The CHAIRMAN:

Order, order! I must ask the hon. the Minister not to interject so constantly. And the hon. member must withdraw the words “ Shut up ”.

Mr. MITCHELL:

I withdraw those words. May I suggest to the hon. the Minister that if he will listen a little he will learn something. The position then is this, that this is a matter which hinges upon parliamentary legislation in the first place. If the hon. the Minister is unable or unwilling to state the policy of the Government—and I can quite understand that he is probably very unwilling to give it at this time in our history—if that is so then the hon. the Minister has simply to say so. So long as that legislation rests, as it does to-day, on a parliamentary franchise right then, quite obviously, the Asiatics in the municipalities cannot obtain a municipal franchise. That is understood. But I put it to the hon. the Minister that he cannot hide behind an attitude of “ I am not going to deal with this question, either to say yea or nay ”. Either the Government has a policy or it does not have a policy. If the Minister is not prepared to say yea or nay in this matter then we have to assume that either the Government has a policy of which it is ashamed, or it has no policy at all, and it is still waiting to make up its mind.

In regard to the policy of the repatriation of Indians, to-day, after 14 years, the hon. the Minister came forward and said the Indians are now a part of the population of the country. That is the first time we have had that policy of the Government stated. Now let us have this policy in regard to the municipal franchise determined for us by the Minister with the moral courage that is necessary to come forward with it, to make the necessary statement, whatever it may be.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

I am sorry to interrupt this debate, but I want to get back to the question of Group Areas. If I understood the hon. the Minister correctly he said that it was intended to create a separate Groups Areas Department. May I say that the elevation of the Group Areas Administration to a Department will not be welcomed in South Africa. On the contrary, it will be viewed with dismay because, to most people, it means increased attention to the removal of people from areas where they at present live quite legally. Insofar as it means that increased attention is to be given to housing, then clearly we commend it. But it seems that the emphasis is to be placed on the Group Areas aspect, the removals aspect; the restriction of living in areas where, otherwise, people might live. And to that extent it will not be welcome. If there is to be a department then surely it should be a Housing Department. Let Group Areas be placed under that, if there has to be a Group Areas, if there has to be this system of removal of people from areas where they live. At any rate let it be subordinate to the main purpose of new housing. But to bring in a Group Areas Department and to make housing merely a subordinate part of that seems to be placing the emphasis completely incorrectly.

I want to support the plea made by the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Butcher) to the Minister to suspend the proclamation of new Group Areas. The Group Areas Act is. doing incalculable harm to relations between the Government and the Coloured and Indian people—I might almost say between the Whites and the Coloureds and Indians. Even the hon. the Minister’s own Union Council for Coloured Affairs has referred to the Group Areas legislation as a major grievance. In a resolution which was passed unanimously in April this year, it was stated—

It is the opinion of the Council that the Coloured people have legitimate grievances, aggravated by discriminatory legislation such as the Group Areas Act and the Group Areas Development Act.

It is quite clear that those people who are not supporters of Government policies regard Group Areas as a burning grievance, and so it is with the Indians as well.

This evening the hon. the Minister has again given the impression that this applies equally to all racial groups. During the debate on the Group Areas Amendment Bill I put the figures of people to be removed in terms of the Cape Town proclamation to the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior in order to show that a completely disproportionate burden was being thrown on the shoulders of the non-White people. And the hon. the Deputy Minister gave an explanation for it. I want to deal with that because I regard it as completely unacceptable as an explanation of why so many more non-Whites are removed than White persons. In terms of the proclamation in the Cape some 79,000 Coloured people have to be moved as against some 7,000 Whites and 3,600 Indians. These figures are based on the 1951 census. In tems of percentages it means that 2.6 per cent of the White people in the metropolitan area of Cape Town are to be moved as against 51 per cent of the Indians and 26 per cent of the Coloureds. So in terms of percentages too a disproportionate burden is placed on the shoulders of the non-White people. Nor are these final figures, because no sooner had the proclamation been proclaimed than notice was given of further areas to be investigated such as, for instance, the Black River area of Rondebosch which is an old established Coloured area with good Coloured homes. That area is now to be investigated with a view to declaring it a White area.

The hon. the Deputy Minister said that it was true that the figures of Coloureds and Indians to be moved are much larger than White, but the reason was, firstly, that slums had to be cleared, and most slums were inhabitated by Coloured people and, secondly, it was much cheaper to move the Coloureds.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I never said that.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

He said the capital expenditure required was much less.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

No, you must give it correctly, the way I gave it.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

May I read the hon. the Deputy Minister’s explanation. He said—

In the first place the Coloureds generally occupy houses which are inferior to those of the Whites, not as a result of the Group Areas Act but as a result of conditions which have evolved throughout the years. And from the point of view of capital expenditure and better housing one would necessarily choose that group where one can in the first place effect improvements and at the same time clear up slum conditions and where one’s capital expenditure is not so great.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

That is exactly what I am referring to.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

But surely that is the point? If the hon. the Deputy Minister would give an explanation of that I would be so glad. To me it seems that the Minister is saying that more Coloured people are moved because it is cheaper to move the Coloured people.

Now as regards the clearing up of the slums, I approve of the clearing of slums In so far as the Group Areas Act is used to clear up slums and create housing for those people, one must commend it. But I say it should not be done in terms of the Group Areas, but in terms of the Slums Act. Nevertheless we approve of the clearing up of slums.

As far as the other argument is concerned, that less capital expenditure is involved, I cannot accept that as a reason why a greater number of Coloured people are to be removed. The hon. the Minister cannot have it both ways. If he says that he does not discriminate against Coloured people he cannot say that he only moves more Coloured and Indian people because there is less capital expenditure involved. The two things cannot be reconciled. As far as the Coloured person is concerned he certainly does not see it that way; his home is just the same to him as is the home of a White man to that White man. I therefore repeat my plea in support of the hon. member for Berea that the Minister should suspend any further proclamations until the effect of existing proclamations can be seen. For instance, the inquiry into the Black River area of Rondebosch should not be proceeded with until the effect of other proclamations has been seen.

I now want to deal briefly with another point, also in connection with the group areas. And I want to thank the hon. the Minister for something which he did, namely, for giving the Indian golfer, Papwa Sewgolum, permission to play in the Open Championship in East London. There was some doubt as to whether a permit in terms of the group areas was necessary and application was not made until very late. The hon. the Minister dealt with it speedily and granted permission, and I want to thank him for doing that. We believe that permission should never be necessary in terms of the Group Areas Act but, nevertheless, so far as it was necessary I want to thank the Minister for his action. It did a great deal of good for relations between Whites and non-Whites not only in East London but everywhere else. Non-European sportsmen are very keen on their sport, and they took the greatest interest in what was happening in East London and followed the progress of the Indian golfer, Papwa Sewgolum, keenly. I believe the White people in East London and elsewhere were also glad that he was given the opportunity to play. It did a good deal towards creating goodwill between White and, Black. I hope the hon. the Minister will not regard this as an exception, as he indicated at the time. When some other association comes with a similar application I hope he will consider it favourably. After all, this kind of decision should lie in the hands of the sporting body concerned and if they wish to allow a person of another race to compete in some national championship or competion I hope the Minister will not stand in their way.

There is another aspect I hope the hon. the Minister will consider. If South African teams are to participate in international competitions then, clearly, the fact that they exclude non-Whites completely means that our participation may be debarred. For instance, the Olympic Association has the principle that no member shall be debarred on grounds of race. The South African Olympic Association has given an undertaking that non-White athletes will be considered on their merits, and if they should choose a non-White South African to go to the next Olympic Games I hope the Minister will not refuse that person’s passport. We are pleased that the hon. the Minister granted this permit for Papwe Sewgolum to play in the national championship; we think it did a great deal of good and we hope that the hon. the Minister will favourably consider similar applications by other sporting bodies if they should arise.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I have risen to reply to quotations which the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) has made regarding the contention which I have supposedly made to the effect that it is cheaper to move the Coloureds. By so doing the hon. member has created a completely wrong impression because if he had gone on reading my speech he would have seen what else I said.

*Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

I read it out.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Then he read it very poorly. When I made the point relating to capital expenditure, I meant, and I said so as well when I used the example, that it was in the interests of the Coloureds. I said that if we were to allocate a part of the Constantia valley to the Coloureds for example, then we would actually be doing them an injustice because the Coloureds do not have sufficient capital to be able to afford that land nor to afford the type of house which should be built there. I therefore said that we had to regard the matter from the point of view of capital expenditure, because eventually it was the White group, or the Coloured group, or the Indian group which would be placed in such an area, which would have to carry the burden. If such a person acquires land and a house in such an area he must eventually pay for it, whether by means of a loan or not. For that reason we must follow such a course that when one is dealing with a weaker economic group, one does not place a burden on such a person which he cannot carry. That was my whole approach, not that indicated by the impression which the hon. member has tried to create.

The hon. member then advanced a second argument, and he has supported the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Butcher) in saying that the proclamation of group areas should now be stopped. Allow me just to give the hon. member one example of what the Government has been doing in the meantime. In the Cape Peninsula alone—not the Cape municipal area —I am referring to the Cape Peninsula which includes various municipalities—a programme is being undertaken which entails the construction of 8,000 houses which have already been approved and a major proportion of which are already under construction. If we should start pegging the group areas and if we were to halt this process of removal as the houses become available, it would mean that this Government would be investing large amounts of capital in housing schemes and that it would in the meantime have to abandon its group areas development programme. The hon. member can argue as he likes, but that is what his proposal amounts to.

In the third place I said that it was the poor housing conditions under which the Coloureds particularly lived, which had to be improved and that was why it was essential. We have now advertised District Six for example for investigation as regards Coloured occupancy. There the Whites will have to move. In other words, the distorted picture which the hon. member depicted here, is not correct.

The hon. member has also referred to the announcement by the hon. the Minister, and he then asked why he had not placed emphasis on housing. He did not listen to what the hon. the Minister said. The Minister said clearly that this proposed department would have three sections. In the first place there would be an administrative section which would have to deal with the administrative work. To a large extent legislation making this possible has already been adopted. In addition there is the Group Areas Board as a deliberative body. Then there is the Development Board which is concerned particularly with the conditions affecting advertised property. Then the Minister added that the Housing Commission in its present form and with its present administrative set-up would merely be attached to this department in the same relationship as exists to-day in the case of the Department of Health.

*Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

It is interesting that it is to be called the Group Areas Department.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

But the Minister has not announced a name. Now the hon. member is once again incorrect. The Minister has not announced any name. All the Minister said was that a re-organization was being undertaken, and that he was now able to announce that this scheme would be carried out on that basis. The emphasis is in fact placed on development. I think the Minister in fact used the word development.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Three times.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Now I cannot see what the hon. member for East London (North’s) object was in creating the impression which he tried to creately, namely that this was merely a further attempt to deprive people of their rights. Because that is also what he has in fact said. He has said that it will not be welcomed because it is merely an aggravated method of pushing people around arbitrarily and on a larger scale. He has said this while he knows that the intention is precisely to achieve improved planning, i.e., to co-ordinate the housing schemes with this development and to develop these areas along such lines that there will not only be residential areas, but that they will have their own identity, as the hon. the Prime Minister has already said in a public statement. The hon. member is quite off the mark, and to think that he is sending out this type of story at this time in which we live! Because it will only create greater unrest.

Mr. BARNETT:

The hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister can never see the question of Group Areas in the same light as we see it, because the Government sees it in the light of a plan and a policy whereas we see it from the humanitarian point of view. I wish to say that we who represent the Coloureds in this House will deal with matters affecting the Coloured people under the Vote of Coloured Affairs, and probably we will deal more fully with the question of Group Areas then. However, I must say that the statement made by the hon. the Minister to-night in regard to Group Areas and the Department that is proposed is a startling statement. The Coloured people will stand aghast at the fact that far from there being a lessening in the implementation of the Group Areas, despite all appeals to the Government, despite the protests which we read about even in to-night’s newspaper from Pietersburg, from Oudtshoorn and other places-—despite all the appeals made to the Government by every section of the Coloured community there appears to be no lessening in the determination of the Government in regard to this Act. I say that the Coloured people will regard this as further evidence if needed at all—of the refusal of the Government to recognize the plight of the Coloureds.

I agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister when he says we are living in times when the relations between the Coloureds and the Europeans need careful consideration. I will not go any further into that aspect but I do want to draw attention to the question of race classification. For some considerable time now, I agree, it has been much easier for people to obtain classifications, and I think that everybody is very thankful for the new policy in that regard. I have had many occasions to deal with the Department in Cape Town, and I want to pay tribute to the gentleman who is at the head of affairs of that Department in Cape Town for his very sincere approach to the many and varied problems I have brought to his notice. I am sure that other people appreciate it equally. However I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question which I hope he will answer. What exactly does an identity card mean to the person who holds it? What benefit is it to him? The hon. the Minister looks surprised but I am going to quote to him certain cases—which I do deliberately in public in order to draw attention to this position. And upon the Minister’s reply will depend how people will react. Let me give the Minister a few instances and he will have the purport of my question. I want to quote one case particularly, and I know of several, where people who have had their identity cards for years have again been asked to prove what race they belong to. Now that is a very serious matter. What does it mean when a man is issued with a White identity card? Does it mean security, and is that the final classification? Let met give the Minister just one case. Some years ago a farmer whom I have known for 30 years received a notification from the Group Areas Board that certain properties of his in an area outside Cape Town were declared to be affected properties in terms of the Act. He was most surprised to find that his properties were so affected and he made inquiries, and he was told that his properties were situated in an European area and that he was a Coloured. He then had to prove to the Group Areas Board that far from being Coloured, he was a European farmer and had been accepted as such and had served on farmers’ committees, and then they withdrew these properties because they were satisfied that the man was a European. Thereafter he made application for his identity card and was issued with a card saying that he was European. But four years later, only about four months ago, he again received notification from the Population Registrar in Pretoria which said that there appeared to be some doubt as to his race and he had better prove it again. This is a very serious matter, because it does not only affect this one man but several whom I know. I am not blaming the Minister, nor the Deputy Minister. I do not want to blame officials who are not here to defend themselves. I do not think the Minister knows about these cases. I would never had brought it up in the House if there were only one case, but there are several, and I know of several attorneys who have had the same experience. I therefore want to ask the Minister whether this card, when once issued, is final, or are people to live in fear and trepidation that at some future date some official will again scratch into the files and find out something, and the man has to go through the whole procedure again of proving that he is White? I wish to ask the Minister to allay the fears of the people who have their cards, and particularly those who have in the past found that in their birth certificate their father was declared to be of mixed blood but who have been classified as Europeans. It is a serious matter. The Minister laughs, but I know whom to blame. It is some official who is not in Cape Town, but some officious official in Pretoria, who apparently scratches around in the covers of these people …

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Can’t you be a little more definite?

Mr. BARNETT:

As to who it is?

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

No, about the whole issue.

Mr. BARNETT:

I will tell the Minister what I will do. I will bring him these cases personally but by that time, of course, the debate will be over and the Minister will not have a chance of telling me and the public that they need not fear that once they have their cards it is their passport to their race classification, and that is the point I wanted to make. I realize that there may have been some mistake, but there have been very many of them. I do not want to embarrass the Minister, but I feel that many people—the hon. member for Salt River is not present, but he will be able to bear me out because I know he has had some cases, too —have been distressed, and I think it will allay the fears of these people when they are told that once they have the card it will be final. I think the Minister should give instructions that once a man has been issued with his identity card, no further steps should be taken in regard to it. [Time limit.]

*Mr. C. V. DE VILLIERS:

Hon. members are making themselves guilty of gross misrepresentations as far as the proclamation of group areas is concerned, and particularly in so far as it affects the Coloureds. Recently a letter from a certain Coloured leader appeared in one of our newspapers which referred, inter alia, to the suffering of 60,000 Coloureds who would be expelled from their homes as a result of the proclamation of group areas. To-night we have heard again of the suffering which the proclamation of group areas is causing amongst the Coloureds. In the first place I want to say that when reference is made to 60,000 Coloureds, as in this letter, it is not mentioned that the majority of these Coloureds are people who do not own their homes but are people who are living under deplorable conditions, in many cases in shanties in the slums of our cities. They are often being exploited by unscrupulous landlords. It is an irrefutable fact that the majority of the Coloureds are being provided with better housing than they previously had as a result of the Group Areas Act.

*Mr. HOLLAND:

When?

*Mr. C. V. DE VILLIERS:

The hon. member asks: When? Recently the tempo at which houses are being provided has been greatly accelerated. Plans have been drawn up for thousands of houses. The hon. the Deputy Minister has just said how many houses are being built. There are cases of hardship; I admit that, and this applies particularly to the better-off Coloureds who live in White residential areas. They are suffering hardship, just as Whites are suffering hardship. Hon. members will say that the number of Whites affected is far smaller, but it must also be remembered that the percentage of Whites who in fact own their homes is far higher than the percentage of Coloureds who are home owners. I say that the great majority of the Coloureds who are affected by the Group Areas Act will be provided with better housing. Hon. members should go and examine the housing conditions which still prevail as a result of the laxity of the local authorities, the shanty towns which still exist and which the Group Areas Act will remove. Apparently they are unaware of that position. I say that it is necessary that a little more attention should be given to this aspect of the matter.

*Mr. HOLLAND:

After 13 years.

*Mr. C. V. DE VILLIERS:

It is not only the houses which have to be provided. The Minister has pointed out and I want to emphasize that together with the development of the group areas, there are also the other services, facilities and opportunities which are being made available to the Coloureds in their own areas. I probably cannot enlarge unduly on this point, but there are the opportunities for the establishment of their own local authorities and of holding posts in their own areas, etc. It is not only we who say that the Coloureds will be in a better position as a result of the group areas and if hon. members doubt my word, I want to call in another witness, namely, Ds. J. A. J. Steenkamp, the secretary of the Peninsula Mission Council of the D.R. Church. In the Burger of 8 February 1961 he stated the following—

The proclamation of group areas on the platteland of the Western Cape has already caused considerable bitterness amongst the more prosperous and established Coloureds

And, as I have already said, they only represent a small percentage—

… but the result has also been that the less prosperous Coloureds who do not have any fixed residential areas will now live in better homes and under better conditions. This was Ds. Steenkamp’s finding … while collecting data for his doctor’s thesis on the Coloured in the economic structure of the Western Cape.

This is data which he collected for a thesis and he is convinced that most platteland town councils have improved their plans for Coloured accommodation as a result of the Group Areas Act. I call him in as a witness to testify to the accuracy of what I have just submitted, namely that misrepresentations are being sent out into the world. A small group who are suffering hardship are being taken as the yardstick, but the great mass of Coloureds who are benefiting are not mentioned.

Mr. OLDFIELD:

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat spoke about the advantages to the Coloured people in regard to group areas. We on this side agree in regard to slum clearance when an improvement in housing is being undertaken. However, I would like to mention the fact to show that in a number of instances the effects of being moved are detrimental to the Coloured people. In the constituency which I represent there are a number of Coloured people and they are being moved from this area to another area, and this one particular instance which I would like to mention is that of a Coloured ex-serviceman who did business as a chimneysweep, and it was essential for him to be on the telephone and to live close to an industrial area. He was living in a decent dwelling, in a flat, and he was quite happy and making a living because he was close to an industrial area and hotels. However, when this person was moved he was moved to an area some five miles out of town and there were no telephones available, and immediately this small one-man business started to decline. The position to-day is that this Coloured person who made every possible attempt to get telephone services laid on to that area was told by the Government Department that it would be another two years before a cable could be laid there. Consequently this man finds himself in a position to-day where his loss of business has put him into grave financial distress, where his life is being regimented and he has had to move to an area and of course in terms of Government policy his children will never qualify for the vote although he still remains on the voters’ roll. When one makes these laws one seems to forget the effect it will have on the lives of a number of people. This unfortunate aspect was stressed by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) this afternoon, and I would like to bring to the notice of the Committee certain severe hardships and anxiety experienced by persons when they receive notification that they are to be classified as Coloureds. Every representative in this House perhaps found during the recess last year that he had to deal with a large number of cases of this kind. In such a colour-conscious country we find that the shock and anxiety created cause great unhappiness in the lives of these people. I would like to quote an instance where a father of a family was notified that he was classified as a Coloured, whereas three of his adult children were classified as White. This had a great effect on this family of seven children, who had always been accepted as White, when they were suddenly confronted with the position of having to return the cards of their children and having to prove that they were accepted as White persons. The return of the card in so far as one son was concerned had a serious effect on him, because shortly after he returned the card he was unemployed and was unable to draw his unemployment benefits due to the fact that he could not present his identity card. All these things have a detrimental effect and bring about unhappiness in the minds of these people. I appeal to the Minister to give this Committee some assurance that he will see that these persons are not so classified without a thorough investigation, because on receiving such a notice the shock and anxiety are such that some families, such as the case I have just mentioned, have decided rather to emigrate to the United Kingdom, a family which is required to develop South Africa, a young country which needs immigrants. I know I cannot discuss immigration under this vote but one of the most serious problems facing our country is the emigration of young people, the future mothers and fathers of the country, who must develop the country. I do not wish to pursue that matter any further now, but I would like to ask one other concession of the Minister and that is that in connection with the issue of identity cards we find that people sometimes have to submit sets of photographs on three occasions to obtain an identity card, and the cost of submitting these photographs falls on the applicant. In a number of cases where aged persons are concerned, they need every penny to eke out an existence, and when they have to submit three sets of photographs it is a burden on them.

The other matter I wish to raise with the Minister is in connection with certain dissatisfaction that exists in regard to persons holding posts as immigration officers. An inquiry was held in regard to these posts and in terms of the report, Public Service Inspection Report No. 21, whereby an inspection into the structure of the general division of the Public Service was held into the post of immigration officers. It comes as a great shock to these people to find that as from 1 March they now hold non-prescribed posts; in other words, the position of an immigration officer Grade II has now been regraded to become a non-prescribed post. These immigration officers have to play an important part in the future plan of immigration because the first contact these people will have with anybody on arriving in the country is with the immigration officer and they should therefore be greeted by persons who are fully qualified for the job. However, we find that the inquiry which was held has proved to be detrimental to the post of immigration officer and that the ceiling in regard to their salary scale is to be reduced. Previously it was £1,260 per annum and it will now be £1,200. The hours to be worked by new persons joining the service in that capacity are 48 hours a week instead of 44. There will be further dissatisfaction where persons working more than 44 hours will receive overtime, whilst others will only qualify for overtime after working 48 hours. [Time limit.]

Mr. RAW:

I wish to come back to the issue from which the hon. the Minister is trying to escape, but before doing so I want to ask him two questions. The first is whether he gave authority as the Minister in charge of the Civil Service for Government offices to close or to allow staff off in order to welcome the Prime Minister when he returned from his defeat in Britain. [Interjections.] Yes, hon. members may squeal, but I want to tell the Minister that the staff of almost every Government office in Johannesburg and Pretoria was almost denuded and there was only a skeleton staff left in almost every Government office so that members of the staff could go to Jan Smuts Airport to welcome the Prime Minister when he came back from a diplomatic defeat at the hands of the non-White states of the Commonwealth in March. I want to know whether the Minister gave permission for civil servants to take time off and to be paid by the taxpayer in order to attend a National Party Stryddag at Jan Smuts Airport when the Prime Minister returned to South Africa.

I want to deal also with the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. C. V. de Villiers), who said that the Group Areas Act was producing better housing for the non-Whites. I want to place it on record that that hon. member is more interested in the advantages which the Act may be bringing to a small group of people and closing his eyes to the hardships caused to the mass of people, including the White people of South Africa. I want to quote one particular case where one of my own family is to-day desperate—and I saw the Deputy Minister about it and he promised me the world; he promised to go into it …

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I said I would go into it, but your facts were all wrong.

Mr. RAW:

My facts were not wrong. The position is this. There is a White man with young school-going children and he is being forced to live amongst Coloureds because this Government is not prepared to buy the house of a White man but is forcing him to live amongst Coloureds. They are forcing his teenage daughters, White children, who walk to school because there is no bus service, in an area which is being sold to Coloureds and which is proclaimed as a Coloured area, and a White man’s children are being forced to walk to and from school through an area populated by Coloureds, because the Group Areas Development Board is not prepared to buy that White man’s house. [Interjections.] I have all the correspondence here and I can prove every word I say. This man’s teenage daughters, one of 11 and one of 13, are being forced to walk to school through a Coloured area because the Government is not prepared to buy a White man’s house. I leave it at that, but I wanted to deal with the effect of the Group Areas Act on the people of South Africa who have been placed in areas proclaimed by the Government.

Now I want to come back to the matter from which the Minister is trying to escape, and I want to quote to him what his own newspaper says about the question of the rights of Asiatics in South Africa. I quote from the Burger of 15 March this year, which said the following—

Die Indiërs is nie alleen ’n permanente deel van die Suid-Afrikaanse bevolking nie, maar ’n pad is vir hulle uitgestippel, inbeginsel soortgelyk aan dié van die bruinmense. Soos ek dit nou verstaan, gaan hulle politiek en administratief kry wat die bruinmense kry, al is dit in ’n ander tempo. Hiermee kom daar ’n element van realism in die nasionale denke oor die Indiers wat vir baie bitter kan wees.

The Minister’s own newspaper recognizes that the Government has now established a policy for the Asiatics, and it says that that policy is equivalent to the policy for the Coloureds politically and administratively. Politically the Coloureds are represented in this House by four members. They are entitled to vote on the municipal voters’ roll in the Cape, but I want to know whether the Minister will now repudiate the Burger, or whether he will give a clear answer to the hon. member for South Coast who asked for the policy of the Government in regard to the Indian franchise. It is not for us to make the decision, but for the Government. I challenge the Minister to stand up and to repudiate his newspaper which says “ dat die Indiérs dieselfde sal kry as die bruinmense ”.

Dr. JONKER:

Are you in favour of it?

Mr. RAW:

What I am in favour of makes no difference. I stand for a policy of harmonious co-existence in South Africa. According to this statement, the Minister is also in favour of a policy of harmonious coexistence. I want to know whether he will repudiate his own party, which issued a pamphlet with a map of Natal scratched out and written over Natal are the words: “ India in the year 2,000 ”, a pamphlet not issued a long time ago but in the 1954 Provincial elections. I would like to see the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education denying it. It says this is the problem and it states the problem, and then it goes on after two pages to give the solution as repatriation—

In order to promote the repatriation of Indians, the National Party has offered increased bonuses, etc., etc.

Here is a National Party pamphlet which says the solution is repatriation, and the Burger says—

A1 staan in sy program van beginsels nog dat hy die Indiérvraagstuk deur repatriasie will aanpak, het ons nou finaal kennis gekry dat ons dit maar kan vergeet as selfs ’n gedeeltelike oplossing van betekenis.

The Burger says that not only have we now got a final repudiation of repatriation, but we can forget it even as a partial solution of the Asiatic problem. Now I would like to hear what the Minister of Bantu Education, the hon. member for Vryheid, and various other members have got to say, members who stood on platform after platform and said: “ Die kaffer in sy plek en die Koelie uit die land”. That was their policy. I want to know what these members say now that they are repudiated by their own Minister here to-night and by their own newspaper, which says that not only is it not realistic to repatriate the Indians but it is not even a partial solution.

If I may conclude on this note, this hon. Minister is responsible for the compartmentalization and separation of South Africa into racial classifications, and I want to quote to him another of his own newspapers, which on 17 March this year said the following. It is the Nataller, and it says the following—

Dit is nou tyd om opnuut te dink oor apartheidsmaatreëls wat wesenlik nie lewens-belangrik is nie. Ons moet leer om te onderskei tussen dinge wat bitter nodig is om die veilige voortbestaan van die blanke in Suid-Afrika te verseker en dinge wat miskien net die gevolg is van ’n effens fiemiesrige houding oor kleur.

That is the answer to this Government’s policy. [Time limit.]

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

When the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) takes part in a debate, the level of the debate is immediately dragged ten degrees lower. At the very outset the hon. member made the most irresponsible allegation that the public service offices in Johannesburg and Pretoria were empty because the officials had gone to welcome the Prime Minister at the Jan Smuts Airport. [Interjections.] I say that I issue a challenge. The hon. member for Sea Point was not even near there. I challenge the hon. member to tell me which offices were empty and where there was only a “skeleton staff”. Furthermore I challenge him to tell me in which offices in Johannesburg and Pretoria this was the position. In any case I want to tell him that no responsible Minister issued permission and that the Public Service Commission did not do so, and if officials were absent from their offices without leave, they were absent wrongly and I shall be very glad if the hon. member can give me the name of just one official who was absent without leave because these cheap soap box allegations which the hon. member has used and by which the hon. member thinks he will make an impression, do not make any impression at all. The hon. member is well known as someone who merely talks and shouts. No one takes any notice of him and he causes his own supporters to hang their heads in shame, with the exception of the hon. member for Sea Point because they are like two peas in a pod. [Interjections.]

I want to discuss one or two important matters. The first relates to the challenge of the hon. member for South Coast which I am supposed to be evading. The hon. member for Kempton Park who was a member of the Executive Committee, just as I was, gave the correct reply to the hon. member for South Coast. Sir, it is unheard of that the Government can prescribe to a Provincial Council, and then moreover the Provincial Council of Natal of all Provincial Councils, the Council which is the most jealous of its rights and privileges, what it should do as regards the question of the municipal franchise in the case of Asiatics. That has never been done. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) who has been the Administrator of Natal would have been the first to get on his high horse if such an instruction had been issued to the Provincial Council or the Executive Committee. The normal procedure which is followed is to pass an ordinance in the Provincial Council; the ordinance is sent to the Minister of the Interior who must obtain approval in the ordinary way by submitting it to the Governor-General for his approval before it acquires the force of law. I now want to tell the hon. member this. The Government has laid down its policy through the hon. the Prime Minister.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

What is that policy?

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The policy is as follows. The Government has laid down its policy in respect of the granting of rights which these Indians will eventually be able to exercise. We have said that when the Coloured areas are developed and when the necessary townships have been established, they will have to accept the responsibility for their own local bodies and affairs as soon as they are able to do so and as far as they are able to do so; that while the position in the cities to-day is that the voters are on a common municipal voters list, as in Cape Town for example, that position will gradually fall away and the Coloureds will elect their own municipal councils in their own areas. We are proceeding with the development of this policy and to discuss the municipal franchise of Indians and our policy in that regard is nonsensical. If the Natal Provincial Council cannot pull its own chestnuts out of the fire, I should like to see what they are going to do. They are in difficulties. [Interjections.] We are not in difficulties, Sir. Let hon. members tell their supporters: “Act in accordance with your convictions ”, and let them submit their resolution to us and we shall show them whether we agree with that policy or not.

The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) considers that this is the occasion to make political capital out of the case of the golfer, Papwa. I want to refer the hon. member to the statement I made at that time regarding Papwa to the effect that this case would be regarded as a most exceptional case. This is a person who has gained world renown. This is a person whom we have not allowed to participate in a mixed golf tournament but who was merely allowed to make use of the facilities provided on the course. That is all. This was really the golf club’s own responsibility which they wanted to shift on to the Government. But that is not as important to me as the policy of the Government. I do not want the hon. member to be in the slightest doubt as to the policy of the Government in connection with apartheid in sport. I should like to refer to what one of my predecessors, the hon. Dr. Donges, laid down in June 1956, as being the policy of the Government—

The policy of separate development expressed the South African custom that Whites and non-Whites should organize their sporting activities separately. That there should be no inter-racial competitions within our borders. That mixing of races in teams should be avoided and that sportmen from other lands should respect our customs just as we respect theirs. Within that framework non-Whites are not debarred from competing outside South Africa, nor are non-European sportmen from outside prevented from entering South Africa to compete with non-Whites here.

On my policy motion this year in the Other Place I stated the following—

Nowadays complaints are received from all sides that we do not give all our inhabitants every opportunity in the sphere of sport. In this respect the traditional policy of the Union is also maintained in the issuing of passports and visas—the traditional policy of the country is maintained, namely, that within the borders of the Union no competition between European and non-European sportsmen may take place. In principle there is no objection to non-European sportsmen coming from overseas to compete against our non-Europeans, or to our non-Europeans participating in sports meetings overseas, but the composition of mixed teams is not permitted.

I hope that is quite clear to the hon. member for East London (North). That is the unequivocal policy of this Government. Talking will only do harm. We shall not deviate from this policy.

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) has discussed the question of identity cards. He has asked what the value of an identity card is if it can be changed later—if the classification can be changed. The hon. member wants to know what the position of the person concerned is if an identity card is issued and it is later changed. There are two sides to this matter and I am glad the hon. member has mentioned the cases. He has said that he has many such cases; if there was only one case he would have approached the Minister personally. I shall in any case be glad if he will bring these cases to our notice so that we can determine where there is any question of mala fides. On the other hand I want to say that we cannot do so because the principle on which we work is the principle of acceptance. If a person is classified as a White and after two years mixes with Coloureds and lives amongst them, if he associates with them and if the White community rejects him, and the Coloureds accept him as one of them, then his classification can be changed. That must be the position and that position must remain. But under normal circumstances the original classification will stand. If the picture is as the hon. member painted it and that represents one side of the picture, then I agree with him that there is reason for complaint. However, if the hon. member can give us proof, then we shall be very pleased to establish whether we have only seen one side of the picture and whether he has concealed the other side from us. That is what we must know in the first instance.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. H. Lewis) has discussed the “ hardships ” which these people are suffering. We should like to help him in that regard. As far as the immigration officers are concerned, these persons are now being classified as passport control officers and I am unaware of the fact that these persons will now be classified on a lower scale. Apparently the hon. member has more information than I or my Department. I am informed that my Department knows nothing about it at this stage and I shall go into the matter immediately because I consider that it would be quite wrong in principle if someone has received a certain salary, to reduce his salary on reclassification.

I do not think there is anything else to which I need reply.

*Mr. RAW:

What about the Whites in the Coloured areas?

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

The hon. Minister now asks us to vote R8,000 for his salary. Then he says he has no policy; he will not tell us what his policy is. He asks what our policy is. Until the hon. the Minister rises and tells us what his policy is, I do not think he is entitled to receive any salary. Because what does he want? He wants us to give him a salary but he is not prepared to give us a policy. [Interjections.] Yes, that is exactly the position with which South Africa is faced to-day. As a result of the pressure exercised by the Broederbond, his supporters are prepared to pay him any salary without his rendering any service for that salary. Before he spoke, 22 of his supporters were here. The Minister then went to the Whips and said: “ Look, the Broederbond says they must come; the United Party is making things hot for me.” What has he done? The Minister must give us replies to the questions put by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell). He must answer those questions. He will not get away by making the type of jokes he has made here. The taxpayers of South Africa are expected to vote an amount over …

*Mr. MARTINS:

May I ask a question?

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

No, the hon. member does not know what we are talking about. If the people of South Africa are asked to vote an amount of R3,578,000 for this hon. Minister and his Department, they are entitled to know where the hon. the Minister is leading us. He will not get away with this type of excuse, namely by asking what our policy is. In the near future when we sit on that side of the House he will be told what our policy is. [Interjections.] It will not help hon. members to laugh.

*The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

Order! I appeal to hon. members to give the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) an opportunity to make his speech.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

We are entitled to know from the hon. the Minister what his policy is. Why does he think we pay him a salary?

*An HON. MEMBER:

Who pays his salary?

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

This House. It is not the Nationalist Party or the Broederbond who pay his salary.

*An HON. MEMBER:

It is our supporters.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

The Nationalist Party after all only consists of party political organizers.

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

The United Party fired you as a political party organizer and I helped them to do so.

*The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Vote.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

We want to know what the Minister’s policy is as regards the municipal franchise. There is something else I want to ask the hon. the Minister. What is the policy of the hon. the Minister regarding the type of publication which is published by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee)? These are scandalous publications which he is trying to sell; I don’t know whether he is able to do so. These are publications in respect of which the hon. the Minister has appointed a commission which has stated by implication that this type of publication is not good for the people of South Africa.

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

Now you are lying.

*The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member cannot use that type of language. He must withdraw.

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

But, Mr. Chairman, he is talking such nonsense.

*The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member must withdraw.

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

I withdraw, Sir.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

I say, Mr. Chairman, that you will remember the commission which the hon. Minister’s predecessor appointed at the time and which referred to the publications of the hon. member for Vereeniging. I want to know what the policy of this Minister is. What is he going to do in future if the hon. member for Vereeniging continues to issue this type of publication? [Interjections.] Sir, you will remember that the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) instituted a libel action against the hon. member for Vereeniging when the hon. member for Vereeniging published articles such as the “Trade Routes of Shame”. That resulted in a court case, and I understand that the hon. member for Vereeniging paid a large sum. I do not know what the amount was.

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

You are now lying more than usual.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

I should like to ask the Minister what exactly is his policy. Because he is asking that we should give him £4,000 because he provides us with certain services. What are those services? What is his policy? The Minister is shaking his head so vigorously that I can hear it over here. In all fairness and in all honesty I do not think that the hon. the Minister got his job on merit; he does not have a reputation as a hard worker …

*The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member must now come back to the Vote.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

What I am discussing is this R8,000 which the taxpayers must pay. That is the amount we must pay to the Minister for the services which he provides to South Africa and the service he must provide is in fact to carry out his policy and he refuses to tell us what his policy is.

*The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member is now repeating; he has already said that several times.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

But the Minister refuses to reply. I shall now resume my seat and give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to tell us what his policy is.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I cannot reply to the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) and still retain my self-respect. Nor do I intend replying to him. I just want to say one thing, that the Minister gave a very explicit reply to the question of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell). The Prime Minister has already repeatedly stated in public that for the non-Whites for whom separate residential areas have to be established, as the development takes place there and as they develop the capacity to undertake it, a form of local government will be instituted. That has already been laid down in principle in Section 25 of the Group Areas Act.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

For local government?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Yes. That applies to every person who lives in his own residential area and has property rights there, and that is what the Minister said. He added that the hon. member for South Coast should not offload on the Minister’s threshold the problems the Natal Provincial Council is experiencing without they themselves saying definitely what they want to do. The Prime Minister gave a very clear lead on that point, and that is contained in the principle laid down in the Group Areas Act.

I rise to correct something just for the sake of the record. I hope the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) will give me his attention. The hon. member made an accusation here after I had received him very courteously in my office. I deplore the fact that after he received this courtesy from me, he made himself guilty in this House of behaviour which I did not expect of him.

*Mr. RAW:

That solves no problems.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The hon. member made an appointment with me and I now want to give the facts, to expose the absolute falseness of the allegation.

*Mr. RAW:

Give the facts.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The hon. member came to me and told me that in a certain area in Durban, Duikerfontein, which had been declared a Coloured area, the Whites had the problem that the Coloureds could not afford to buy that type of house, with the result that those Whites now had to remain living there. I told him that I would investigate the matter and that I would inform him as soon as possible as to what we could do about it. But the hon. member did not mention a specific case to me.

*Mr. RAW:

I did.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

No. The hon. member did not give me a single name.

*Mr. RAW:

I gave the address.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The hon. member did not give me a single name. I had witnesses. The hon. member will not get away with this. I had witnesses, because I do not meet the type of member the hon. member is without witnesses. I immediately had investigations made and I wrote him a nice little letter in which I informed him that the office in Durban reported that the Coloureds were anxious to buy property in Duikerfontein and that there were enough Coloureds who wanted to buy there. What did the hon. member do then?

*Mr. RAW:

That is not so.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I wrote the hon. member a courteous letter. What was now the decent thing for the hon. member to do if he was not satisfied? He sees me every day. In the past he knew that my office was open to him. He could have come to me with this particular case and said: In this case the facts are not in line with what is contained in the letter. But he did not do that. He got up here tonight, after I had treated him decently, and created the impression that I had made a lot of promises to him—which I did not do—and did not keep those promises. I say I deprecate that, but one can expect it of him, and that is why he has the status in this House which he has.

Mr. RAW:

I want to deal with the statement by the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I want to deal with it immediately. The hon. the Deputy Minister, as he quite correctly stated, received me courteously. [Interjection.] I am not worried about the gaggle of giggles going on there, I am worried about matters …

Mr. B. COETZEE:

Come to the point.

Mr. RAW:

I am coming to it.

*The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:

Order! I must appeal to hon. members to assist me to maintain order. If I have to call on hon. members again I shall have to take drastic action.

Mr. RAW:

Sir, as the hon. member stated, he received me courteously in regard to a problem which I posed to him in connection with White persons who owned homes of a value which placed them beyond the reach of the average Coloured buyer. The hon. the Deputy Minister, as he correctly stated, offered and agreed to go into the matter. The hon. the Deputy Minister told me, and if he kept minutes—which he apparently does when he has an interview with anybody—then those minutes would show that he told me that it was the policy of his Department that where a person was unable to sell his property the Group Areas Development Board would purchase that property. He asked me for the area and I gave him the street, which was Allanby Street, and I mentioned that it was a relative of mine and I gave him the number which was 68. I said it was a relative of mine who lived at 68 Allanby Street and the letter which I have in my office upstairs refers specifically to Allanby Street. Now if I did not mention that, Sir, how could the Minister, in his reply to me, have stated that Allanby Street and the surrounding area was an area where out of 40 transactions five persons had bought houses over the value of £3,000. That was the Deputy Minister’s letter to me and he mentioned the street. Yet five minutes ago he said that I did not give him the street, that I did not give him the name. He said that I did not give him the particulars. I gave him the particulars, I gave him the street and the number of the House. But that is not the issue Sir. If every individual in South Africa who is in difficulty has to come through his Member of Parliament and as an individual seek a favour from this Deputy Minister, then what is happening to government in this country? I stated a principle to the Deputy Minister. I specifically did not mention the name because I was concerned with the principle. I gave an address. If this country is going to be governed by favours to the individual, then God help South Africa. I came with a principle to the Deputy Minister of an injustice done to a White man in South Africa. The Deputy Minister said I was wrong and that the Group Areas Development Board bought houses Group Areas Development Board bought houses where a person could not sell. I have copies of the correspondence where the Group Areas Development Board has refused to buy this house on the pretext that the purchase price is too high. When they were approached and asked “ what will you pay; I am prepared to accept any reasonbale price for this house ” they said “ we are not interested in buying it”. I say again, Sir, that if South Africa is to be governed by favour then we have got away from the basic principles of democratic government. That is the fundamental point that I am making. The principle of democratic government is that every citizen, high or low, shall get fairness and justice from the Government which controls him. I am not prepared to come with an individual case and ask a favour for a single person. I came with a principle. I stated the area, I stated the street and I stated the house number, and I said “ that is an example of the hardship that is being occasioned ”. The Minister and this Government are creating hardships, bitter hardships. It is breaking up the morale, it is breaking the faith of people, it is breaking their spirit. I have seen with my own eyes people whose spirit has been broken, broken by this sort of legislation. I know of a case in Durban where a man has invested his life savings, where he has to retire in two years’ time, and the home that he has built over 40 years is now worthless to him, because the area has been proclaimed a non-White area. I have given the House a specific personal example and the Deputy Minister attacks me. He accuses me of falsity, he accuses me of falsification, he accuses me of abusing the courtesy which he has shown to me. But Mr. Chairman I do not want courtesy from this Government. I want justice and decency. I want the decency which is due not to me as a Member of Parliament, but the decency which is due to the people whom this Government governs. They are the people with whom we in the Opposition are concerned. We as Members of Parliament can look after ourselves. We do not want courtesy and nice words, a pleasant reception and a cup of coffee—which the Deputy Minister gave me, I admit that-—we want justice towards the man and the woman in South Africa who is governed under laws which this Government passes. I want to ask now whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will deny that his Board has refused to purchase White properties in an area that was proclaimed a Coloured area and that it has forced White people with White children to live amongst the Coloureds because it has refused to make any offer for properties owned by White people in an area that has been proclaimed a Coloured area. It says to them “You wait, until the valuation rolls have been prepared or until you get an offer from somebody, and then we reserve to ourselves the right to accept or reject that offer ”. They are forcing people to break the law; they are forcing people to fake offers for their houses. I know of a case where a man went to his friend and said “Offer me £1,000 less than the value of this House and I will force the Group Areas Development Board to make me a bid for it ”.

So you are getting completely false and unreal offers made for properties and they are accepted at a sacrifice, because this Government is forcing White people and Black people and Coloured people and Indian people to live in areas that have been proclaimed for a specific race. I say that the hardship is not confined to one or other race. I quoted an example to-night from which this Deputy Minister cannot escape, an example of a specific, cold, hard fact. The answer I get is that the Deputy Minister was courteous to me; he was friendly to me; he was nice to me and so I must fold my arms and say: “ Dankie mnr. die Minister ” you were nice and pleasant to me, therefore what does it matter what happens to the people whose case I am trying to plead; what does it matter what happens to the rights of the people of South Africa.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

All the hon. member needs is a pair of wings.

*An HON. MEMBER:

You mean a tail.

*The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

Order!

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The hon. member complains and what does he complain about? He complains and says that at Duikerfontein a certain area has been declared a Coloured area and now the Government is forcing White people to live in an area that has been proclaimed a Coloured area. That is his complaint. He is the hon. member who has been fulminating against the Group Areas Act morning, noon and night, an Act whose very object is to put an end to that position. That is the hon. member who belongs to a party who for years have allowed Whites, Indians, Bantu and Coloureds to live together. Then he sprouts a pair of artificial wings and plays the role of an angel. And what an angel, Sir! In the first place the fact is that after I had instituted inquiries in the case of Duikerfontein—and I have no reason to doubt the correctness of the information which the Development Boards furnished to me—I was informed that there were Coloureds who were able and anxious to purchase houses in that area. In other words, it is merely a matter of time and Duikerfontein will be occupied by Coloureds who are in a position to purchase there. On the other hand the Government is being accused of throwing people out of their homes onto the street in an injudicious manner but when we try to convert an area slowly into a group area, as we are doing in the case of Duikerfontein, we are also attacked for doing so. What does the hon. member want? To return to the more personal matter: If the hon. member had acted in the spirit in which I acted towards him he would have come to me and said: I have received your letter; thank you for the information, but I am not satisfied with this particular case and I should like you to investigate this specific case. I would have done that. But he sits here and waits. After the courteous way in which I have treated him, he sits and waits for an opportunity to blow off a lot of steam and to behave in the way in which he behaved himself this evening in this House.

Mr. MILLER:

The hon. the Deputy Minister has tried to reply to the hon. member for Sea Point.

At 10.25 p.m. the Deputy-Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave asked to sit again.

The House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

WEDNESDAY, 17 MAY 1961 Mr. SPEAKER took the Chair at 2.20 p.m. COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (TEMPORARY PROVISION) BILL

Bill read a first time.

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY AMENDMENT BILL

Bill read a first time.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

First Order read: House to resume in Committee of Supply.

House in Committee:

[Progress reported on 16 May, when Votes Nos. 2 to 27, 34, 36 to 46 and the Estimates of Expenditure from Bantu Education Account had been agreed to; precedence had been given to Votes Nos. 28 to 33 and Vote No. 20.— “ Interior ”, R3,578,000, was under consideration.]

*Mr. BOOTHA:

Ever since the discussion of this Vote has started I have been trying to make some sense out of the speeches and I have come to the conclusion that it would be impossible to describe the speeches of hon. members opposite in the language which they deserve; you would have to spell out the words because they cannot be described in civilized language. When you start with the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) and you think of the fact that the Group Areas Act has been on the Statute Book for a good many years and that that Act has been applied for about 50 per cent and you hear the opposition of that side to the Group Areas Act and the powers which the Minister requires in order to carry out the provisions of that Act properly, you cannot help thinking of the old saying that the wise man is the man who advances facts and the man who supports his case with facts. The man who is unable to advance facts to support his case is a man without wisdom and without facts. The conclusion to which I have come after I have listened to many of the speeches from that side of the House is that there is no wisdom and that nothing has been suggested that will assist the Minister. We have only had destructive criticism and pettiness. Take the hon. member for Boland for example. He opposes this Vote under which the group areas fall and he raises a matter such as the one which he has raised, the case of a single person who was classified as Coloured the one day and as White the other day. That is the sort of argument that he uses to prove that the entire Group Areas Act as well as the Government are inefficient and not worthy of existence.

Mr. BARNETT:

I said nothing of the sort.

*Mr. BOOTHA:

I know I am hurting the hon. member and I do not care. That is the sort of argument that the hon. member uses in an attempt to belittle the Minister in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of this House and in an attempt to belittle the Government. He mentions the case of a person who received a card on which he was described as “ White ” and who was subsequently described as “ Coloured ” and who was ultimately classified as “ White ”. That is the strong case that he advances! The old saying has once again proved true: If you give an inch he will take all. Yesterday when the hon. member had to talk on the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill he raised the question of the vote for Coloured women. That shows that he had no arguments against the Bill and in his effort to get something against the Bill he came forward with the vote for Coloured women in order to make his “ good speech ” as he called it. I am merely mentioning this in order to show what a petty argument the hon. member has advanced in the interests of the Coloured people. It is nothing more than an attempt to get something against the Minister. There are a few hon. members that we have to take to task. We have the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) who made his wonderful speech last night! He became so serious that he waved his arms from left to right and if anybody had been near enough he would probably have hit him. However, the arguments of the hon. member were so puerile and limited and petty that he eventually had to drag in a secret organization in the country to support his arguments. He tried to prove that as a result of a secret organization in the country the Government has become so rotten that it has passed all these bad measures. I must reply to that. This is an Afrikaans-speaking person, Sir, and there are three secret organizations in the country that we know of. The first is a well-known international (or un-national) organization, the Free Mason. We have nothing against them. The other is a well-known English-speaking organization, the Sons of England. Neither have we anything against them. [Laughter.] Yes, that is an English-speaking organization. And now an Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaner comes along and he attacks the Broderbond. The only two hon. members whom I have heard refer to the Broderbond were Afrikaans-speaking, namely, the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). Had the hon. member launched his attack against the three secret organizations in the country, it would have been understandable, Sir.

I do not know what happens to those organizations but I do not think the hon. member for Sea Point belongs to them because he is not strong enough to be accepted within their ranks.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

May I ask a question?

*Mr. BOOTHA:

No, I have not the time. The hon. member refused to answer questions yesterday. We have the spectacle, Sir, that Afrikaans-speaking members opposite select the only Afrikaans-speaking secret organization as their target. I want to ask the world what the souls of those Afrikaners must look like. As far as I know no Afrikaans-speaking member on this side has said anything against the English-speaking organizations in our country. We have the Sons of England, an organization consisting of the sons of another country, but when you have an organization consisting of the sons of your own country, it gets dragged in in order to belittle the legislation of the Minister and that organization is pulled through the mud. Words fail me to describe the pettiness of such actions. Afrikaans is a beautiful language and I shall have to sink to a low level to find the correct description and the Chairman will call me to order. Neither do I want to spell it out because in that case somebody else will read it, that is why I can only say that it is so petty that you cannot take any notice of those two hon. members. Then I come to the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). He is really the person with whom I like to quarrel. I like a man who stirs up my fighting spirits, but then there should at least be ground for it, his allegations must be well founded. He has tried to pull the hon. the Deputy Minister through the mud and I think hon. members opposite will agree with me when I say that the only person who became mud-bespattered in the process was the hon. member who made the accusations. Just imagine: The Minister introduces a Bill into this House and one of the leaders on the opposite side raises the question of a single house in a group area which neither the Coloureds nor the Government want to buy and because of that he condemns the legislation of the Minister. We had to listen for ten minutes to that type of frivolous argument. [Time limit.]

Mr. R. A. F. SWART:

The hon. member who has just sat down does not appear to take the Group Areas Act and what flows from it very seriously. That, of course, is rather indicative of the attitude which has been evident throughout this debate. I want to make some general comments in regard to some of the discussions which have taken place during the debate yesterday, but before doing so, there is one specific point which I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister and that is in connection with some of the Indian community in the city of Pietermaritzburg. Sir, these are people who have applied for permits for an extension of time before which they are to vacate their premises, people who occupy or own premises which have been proclaimed under the Group Areas Act, and these people have applied for an extension of time. The hon. the Minister, or his predecessor, gave notice to these people that they would be treated as leniently as possible, that the Government and the Group Areas Board would handle them in the best possible manner. The position simply is this that they were told that they would be given time to find suitable alternative accommodation. The people in this category then applied for permits for an extension of time to remain on their premises. Now the position is that the particular Group Areas Board in the city of Pietermaritzburg is now asking these people when they apply to produce evidence that they have endeavoured to dispose of their properties without success. Each time an application is made, the applicant is written to by the board asking him what proof he has got that he has endeavoured to dispose of his property. Quite obviously nobody is going to attempt to dispose of his property unless he is assured of alternative accommodation, and the position, which is substantiated by the City Council of Pietermaritzburg, is that at present there is no alternative accommodation available to these people. Sir, this attitude on the part of the authorities in Pietermaritzburg has caused tremendous unrest and disquiet amongst the community concerned, because it seems in the light of this action that the assurance which the Government gave these people earlier that their circumstances would be sympathetically seen and that they would be allowed to find alternative accommodation, is not going to be realized, because one of the prerequisites apparently that is being set by the Group Areas Development Board is that they must first of all produce evidence that they have endeavoured to dispose of their property. I would like the hon. the Minister or his deputy to deal with this matter.

Then I want to come to some more general comments in regard to the debate which has taken place so far. I think that the debate thus far in regard to this most important Vote, has been a very sad chapter in our history. We had the hon. the Minister yesterday dealing with the whole question of the Indian population in the vaguest possible terms, dealing with the whole question of the group areas legislation also in vague terms, we had the hon. the Minister making an announcement last night which I suppose should be considered a major announcement, but the hon. the Minister came and rather casually announced to this House that the Government had decided to create a special sub-department to deal with group areas development and development in regard to housing. Now, Sir, that is a major pronouncement, and I think the hon. the Minister owes it to this House and to the country to tell us a little more about that matter. Sir, against the background of the history of the group areas legislation, I doubt very much whether the announcement that the hon. Minister made last night will in any way allay the fears of people in South Africa. I believe that it will simply mean that people will be under the impression that the Government intends to perpetuate the iniquities under the Group Areas Act. I think the hon. the Minister owes it to this House to give us far greater details in regard to that announcement.

Then he came to deal with the question of the Indian population itself. And he said that the Government had decided that the Indian population will be a permanent part of the population of South Africa. Well of course, relatively that is a great advance on the part of the Nationalist Government, because only last year when my hon. Leader made a statement in this House that the Indian community were South Africans in the same way as any other section of the population of South Africa, I can remember hon. members opposite expressing their disgust that such a statement should be made, particularity the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn), who expressed great disgust that it should even be suggested that the Indian community in South Africa could possibly be South Africans as good as any other community.

The hon. the Minister announced last night that so far as the Asian community in South Africa is concerned, they are going to be treated in the same way as the Coloured people. They are going to be allowed to develop in terms of Government policy on the same lines as the ordinary Coloured people. Mr. Chairman, again the old question should be asked: Does the Government believe that the Asian population or the Coloured population wants this sort of treatment at the hands of the Government? That is a question that should be asked far more frequently in this House. All the evidence shows that the Asian population and the Coloured people do not want to be treated in this way, and again we come to the position that there is no government by consent in regard to these population groups. The Minister simply stands up here and the last people who are consulted are the Asian people and the Coloured people. He simply stands up here and says that in the view of the Government these population groups should be treated in this way. It is quite clear that neither the Asian group nor the Coloured group is interested in being treated in a matter of this kind separate from the way in which other racial groups are treated. What is the hon. the Minister offering to the Asian community in South Africa? He is suggesting that they might be able to reside in some separate group areas. But does he say to them that they will have the right to move about South Africa, the country of their birth? Is he saying to the Asian people that they will have the right to find employment wherever they like, that job reservation is to be done away with in regard to that particular group, that they will be able to earn in terms of their earning capacity? Is he saying to them that they will be able to acquire land in other parts of the country? What is the hon. Minister at this time of crisis in South Africa offering a very important part of South Africa’s population? Sir, I believe that it is high time that all the people in South Africa, the Government and other political parties, should be realistic in regard to the Indian community. It is no good coming at this stage and talking in vague terms of accepting these people as a permanent part of the population of South Africa. We had the duel here yesterday between the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) as to municipal franchise for the Indian community in the province of Natal. The hon. the Minister said that that was a matter for the province to decide. We know that the Natal Provincial Administration has so far failed to come to a decision in that regard, and when requests have come from local authorities and the Natal Municipal Association, the Natal Provincial Administration has simply dodged the issue and has passed the buck to the Central Government. I want to say that in so far as the interests of South Africa are concerned that sort of attitude will not do. We have got to decide, and those in charge and in control have got to decide for themselves what they believe the solution of this problem should be. I believe that in regard to Natal there is a very definite move that the Indian population in Natal should be given municipal franchise, and if the Government is going to refuse to give a lead in this matter, then I believe it is the duty of the Natal Provincial Administration to do so, and I hope that that will be the case. Quite obviously the attitude of the Government is to be deplored and so is the attitude of other authorities who fail to come to a decision in regard to this matter. The attitude of mind of municipal authorities in Natal is that municipal franchise for other racial groups should be considered, and I believe that if the Government is not going to take a lead, the duty must fairly and squarely fall on the shoulders of the Provincial Administration to take a lead and then throw the gauntlet down to the Government to see what the Government does about it. These are matters which I regard of the utmost importance to South Africa at this juncture. This is the time when we should have clarity in regard to the future of this racial group in South Africa. They are South Africans, most of them are third and “fourth generation South Africans, and they are entitled to know what their place is going to be in the South African community. [Time limit.]

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I think I should reply to one or two points raised by the hon. member. As far as the position of the Indians in Pietermaritzburg is concerned, I can just inform the hon. member that the Member of Parliament concerned, who is present here, has already made proper representations in that connection and he has been informed as to the procedure to be followed to obtain permits and he has also been informed that every case will be dealt with sympathetically and on its merits. But there is nothing wrong in making the necessary inquiries. If the Indians there are willing to cooperate and to furnish us with information, we on our part will treat them with the utmost sympathy. But this Parliament has passed an Act and that Act must be carried out. I can assure him that the Member of Parliament concerned has already raised this matter with us on behalf of the City Council and we are dealing with it and if we get the necessary cooperation from them a solution will be found that will satisfy everybody.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Are you suggesting that this is a private matter?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

No, but I give the hon. member the assurance that the matter is in good hands and I do not think it is necessary for the hon. member for Zululand to take it out of the hands of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg. That is all. The law prescribes a certain procedure to be followed and if a permit is refused there is a right of appeal. In the second place I think the hon. member for Zululand is the last person to reproach the Minister for having said that that was the attitude of the Government. He reproaches the Government for adopting that attitude because a section of the non-Whites do not agree with it. What right has the hon. member to base his attitude on that argument? The attitude of the hon. member is not supported by the voters who put him here, neither do the non-Whites on whose behalf he pleads accept his policy. On whose behalf is he arguing? The Government was at least put into power on a constitutional basis to govern the country and it is the duty of the Government, as long as it is in power, to carry out its policy in respect of this matter. The hon. member now raises the question of local authorities but he knows that the hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that the question of local authorities, in so far as the Government is concerned, can only be solved satisfactorily in their own residential areas. The policy of the Government is very clear and if the hon. member wants to fight with the hon. member for South Coast about the attitude of the Provincial Administration of Natal, that is their quarrel, they must not expect the Government to decide between them.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 29.—“ Public Service Commission ”. R1,191,000

Mr. PLEWMAN:

I wish to raise an item with the hon. the Minister under this Vote. It is a difficult matter to raise, but I believe it must be raised. It is also a matter which I think it is the duty of this House to have regard to and to question the hon. the Minister about. I am referring to the disturbing rate at which defalcations and other irregularities by public servants in connection with public moneys and public stores have been increasing over the years. I raise the matter for two reasons. Firstly, because I retain an interest in the Public Service; and, secondly, and this is more important, because I know how essential it is that there should be probity in the Public Service in connection with public money and public stores. Let me quote some figures given by the Controller and Auditor-General in respect of the number of officials involved in the misappropriation of public funds and public stores. In 1951-2 the number of such cases was 103; four years later, in 1955-6, the number had grown to 191; four years later again, in 1959-60, the number recorded was even still higher, 256. In order not to burden the House with a lot of figures, I will merely quote the number of such cases for alternate years: In 1951-2, the number was 103; 1953-4, 136; 1955-6, 191; 1957-8, 208 and 1959-60, 256. That is the latest information we have from the Controller and Auditor-General. I think the figures I have quoted confirm that the state of affairs is a disturbing one, even an alarming one. From 1951-2 to 1959-60 the number of officials concerned in such misappropriations and other irregularities totalled 1,627. The amounts involved each year were also substantial. The total amount involved in 1959-60, e.g., was nearly £30,000 that is nearly R60,000. But it is the number of cases involved which is the serious aspect of the matter in my view rather than the total amount which is involved. As I have indicated, the position is serious and the information disclosed can only be described as showing an alarming rate of dishonesty and a disturbing decline in probity in the Public Service. I naturally accept that the number of staff employed has also been increasing over the years, but I hope no one will suggest that on a percentage basis therefore, the rate of increase may not be very high. I certainly do not accept that honesty can be assessed on a percentage basis, and I am quite sure that the public and also the heads of Departments will agree with that view. As I say the disturbing feature is that the position is getting worse and worse year by year. Moreover, the facts indicate that in general we are not concerned with cases of a sudden lapse on the part of one or other official in one or other Department, nor are we concerned with officials who are simply yielding to sudden temptation. Indeed the indications are that these irregularities are widespread and that they cover a large number of Departments. I started by saying that it was a difficult matter to raise, but I believe it is necessary to raise it, because it is disturbing that dishonesty in the Public Service or the want of probity is on the increase. I raise the matter under this Vote, because the Public Service Commission is the body established to maintain optimum standards of probity, discipline and efficiency in the Public Service. And I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what active steps have been taken over the years by the Public Service Commission, either alone or in collaboration with the Treasury, to bring about a remedy to this situation. We all know that correct administrative behaviour must be inspired from above, and therefore it is so essential that the Public Service Commission itself and the Treasury should be very active in regard to a matter such as this. What is happening here is, of course, casting a stigma on the Public Service as a whole, which is a sad thing to have to point out. But that makes it all the more essential for proper and adequate safeguards to be taken to remove what I can only describe as a festering sore in the Public Service. Whilst I have indicated that the Public Service Commission is a body established to maintain optimum standards of probity, discipline and efficiency in the service, it is nonetheless a duty which falls entirely on the Minister’s shoulders in regard to responsibility for this state of affairs. Sir, it is the hon. the Minister to whom we in this House must look to tell us what steps he in particular has taken in regard to the matter over the years. I realize that he was not in office over the full period I have mentioned, but I ask what steps he has taken in the time in which he has been in office to ensure that some remedy is introduced? I hope, therefore, that the hon. the Minister will give us information this afternoon in regard to the matter, because I consider it a very serious matter.

*Dr. OTTO:

I do not want to follow on what the previous speaker has said. The hon. the Minister will no doubt reply to him. I merely wish to bring a matter concerning the civil servants to the notice of the hon. the Minister, a matter which I hope will receive his friendly and sympathetic consideration. It concerns sub-head B of the Vote concerned— “ Subsistence and Travelling Allowance ”. I wish to point out that these subsistence and travelling allowances are based on the position as it was five years ago and that they have not been changed since then. Those officials who have to work away from their head office find it difficult to cover their expenses from their subsistence allowance. In the meantime, hotel and other accommodation costs have gone up and unfortunately the subsistence allowance has not kept pace with that; the allowance has not been adapted to the increased hotel costs. I, therefore, want to ask the hon. the Minister to investigate and to improve the position.

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

In reply to the speech of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) I merely wish to say that it is very difficult to combat dishonesty, as the hon. member himself has admitted. As a matter of fact, in all professions, also in the high-ranking professions, you find black sheep, particularly where money is concerned. I am just as sorry as the hon. member that there has been an increase in the number of thefts, and I too wish to express my disappointment in the fact that in such a high-ranking service as the Civil Service, for which we all have a high regard, there are also black sheep. I want to say, however, that the measures that are taken against offenders are being applied more strictly. The Civil Service Commission and the Minister are doing everything in their power to combat this evil. It is no good appealing to a rogue or anybody who intends doing something wrong; it has no affect on him. Even threats are of no avail. I hope—and I am not casting a reflection on any civil servant—that the quality of the integrity of officials in general will improve and that we shall get a better type of person as a result and that we shall be able to get rid of the black sheep. I can assure the hon. member that this matter is receiving my attention and wherever it is possible to apply sterner measures it will be done and those measures will be applied in order to limit this evil to the minimum.

As far as the matter raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) is concerned I want to inform him that that is receiving the attention of the Civil Service Commission and that they are contemplating increasing the allowances. Recently the Civil Service Commission again gave their attention to the question of improving the allowances. The matter is under consideration and I trust there will be an increase. I admit that it is difficult in many cases to come out on the subsistence allowance, particularly in cases where officials are sent to do duty somewhere else and have to pay for their accommodation. I can assure him that this matter is continually receiving our attention.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 30.—“ Printing and Stationery”, R4,670,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 31.—“Coloured Affairs”. R3,036,000.

Mr. BLOOMBERG:

Mr. Chairman, may I please claim the privilege of the half hour? I want to avail myself of this opportunity of discussing the Government’s policy in regard to the Coloured people in South Africa. In this connection, I suggest that the time could not be more opportune for doing that. We are standing on the threshhold of a new era in the history of South Africa, because we know that on the 31st of this month, the historical entity known as the “ Union of South Africa ” will pass into history and that a new concept the “ Republic of South Africa ” will take its place. I suggest, therefore, that there could not be a more appropriate time than the present for us to talk to the Government with regard to its policies in so far as the Coloured people of South Africa are concerned. This is the time when the Government should make it clear in unmistakeable terms what its intentions are, and what its policies are going to be with regard to the Coloured people, and what role the Government expects the Coloured people to play in this new republic. Despite the fact that the Coloured people were denied any say whatsoever in the establishment of the republic, many responsible Coloured leaders feel that no good purpose can be served by continuing recriminations. They feel, Sir, that the Coloured people must accept the fact that the constitution of their country, of their own country, has been changed into that of a republic. They feel that the Coloured people, who have no other home, must of necessity continue to live in the republic as part of its citizens, and they feel that they are in duty bound to—as they have done in the past— obey the laws of their country. In the circumstances, they are very anxious to know what the Government’s intentions are with regard to their future. I repeat, Sir, that never before in the history of South Africa has it become more necessary for us than to-day to discuss our internal affairs and, particularly, our policies in regard to the Coloured people, and to do so free from bitterness and free from any political recriminations. It is in this spirit that I want to discuss this matter with the hon. Minister this afternoon.

I have said, Sir, that the matter was one of extreme urgency. We have no time to lose in our approach to this matter. I suggest that by showing a change of heart even at this late stage, and by showing a measure of goodwill, the Government can still prevent the Coloured people from allying themselves in a united militant front against the White people of South Africa. The responsibility in that regard, is the responsibility of the Government. I urge the Government, therefore, to realize that we cannot afford to waste any time in this matter; it is a matter that must receive our attention as priority number one. We are living to-day in South Africa in a state of absolute tension and no one can foretell what is going to happen before the birth of the republic, or what is likely to happen even after the republic has been established. The fact is that there exists in South Africa to-day a state of absolute tension. We have had declarations made by the Government alerting the police; we have had bannings of meetings throughout the country; we have had country wide raids; we have had threats of strikes, etc. I say all this has been brought about unfortunately by the terrible deterioration in our race relations in South Africa. We find—to my regret and to the regret of my colleagues—that more and more Coloured people are allying themselves as a result of calls which are being made to them by certain of their so-called leaders, with the Africans for the establishment of a common front against the Government and, unfortunately, against the White people of South Africa. I have previously warned the Government, Sir, of the gravity of the situation, and I have urged the Government, as I do again to-day, not to treat this development lightly. Information which has come to my knowledge, as well as to the knowledge of my colleagues, indicates beyond any doubt that there is a growing attempt on the part of certain Coloured leaders to urge the Coloured people to join forces with the Africans in a common front against the Government and, indeed, against the White people of South Africa. Endeavours are being made daily to persuade Coloured people to join in nationwide attempts to stay away from work round about the period of the republican celebrations. The situation is a serious one. It is alarming also in the sense that industrialists in this area of the Western Province particularly, do not know what is going to happen round about that period. I repeat: We cannot afford to treat the matter lightly at all. We feel that something must immediately be done by the Government—because the remedy lies in the hands of the Government—before the situation is allowed to develop any further, and before it deteriorates any further. Speedy action— and I mean real action—is more vital to-day than it has even been before. Arresting some of the leaders, and denying them the privilege of getting bail for 12 days, is not going to subdue the masses. We feel that the Government must initiate, without any delay, some means whereby consultations can take place with responsible representatives of the Coloured people with the object of preventing the Coloured people from taking the irrevocable step which will do their cause a great deal of harm. I frankly admit that it will do then-cause a great deal of harm, but at the same time it is also likely to place the White people in jeopardy. Sir, this is not the time for adopting the suggestion made by the hon. Prime Minister for tactful silence. I agree entirely with the attitude of the Burger whose appeal to action on the part of the Government has, up to now, elicited no favourable response. In a recent editorial appearing in that newspaper the plea was made for some organized action on the part of the Government to ameliorate the tension which exists m the country. That editorial further states—

We hear sometimes that the public and the time are not ripe for certain matters of policy, no matter how desirable these may be. We appeal now for practical action to determine to what extent both are right.

It continues to state that there is a growing feeling that the Coloured people should be drawn closer to the Whites, both in understanding and co-operation, and continues as follows—

Increasing numbers of Nationalists feel that the period of alienation is passed. This opens up an entirely new field. Our suggestions are, therefore, directed at a better organized start. This must not be confused with our suggestions that urgent attention be given to points of friction which can be removed immediately.

I want to repeat these last words, Sir.

Capt. STRYDOM:

When was that written?

Mr. BLOOMBERG:

It appeared in Die Burger a few days ago.

Mr. G. F. H. BEKKER:

Die Burger is useful now!

Mr. BLOOMBERG:

Please do not interrupt me. This is a very serious situation and I would like this Committee to treat it seriously. I say, Sir, that I concur absolutely with the opinions expressed in this editorial especially where it asks for practical action on the part of the Government. I want to say that strong-arm action, such as that envisaged under Bills which have in the last few days been passed by this House, will not bring peace to our country. We want permanent peace and not the temporary forced peace which these measures may bring about.

With this object in mind, Sir, I made a few days ago what I considered to be a practical suggestion, one which I still think will be well received by the Coloured people and one which will prevent them from taking any hasty action in linking up with the Africans as a militant force against us. I made the suggestion a few days ago—and I repeat it now for the benefit of discussion by this Committee—that the Government should take immediate steps to appoint an independent commission presided over by a senior Judge of the Supreme Court and unfettered by party political adherence, to investigate the position of the Coloured people from the political and from the socio-economic points of view. I am fully convinced that the establishment of such an independent commission at this stage would avoid a further deterioration in the relationship of the Coloured people to the Government and the White people of South Africa. I also suggested that at the same time of establishing such an independent commission, unfettered by party political affiliations, the Government should give immediate consideration to dispose of some of the justifiable grievances which the Coloured people have and which Die Burger also suggested should be removed. The Government should decide, here and now, that some of these grievances should be removed. This, to my mind, is of paramount importance. I suggest, therefore, that simultaneous with the appointment of this commission, the Government should announce that it will suspend, with immediate effect, the harsh implications of the Group Areas Act. That should be the first step. Secondly, it should announce that job reservation decrees—some of them ridiculous, Sir— should be suspended immediately. Thirdly, it should be announced that all those discriminatory laws which have been ruthlessly inflicted upon the Coloured people and which are responsible for this unfortunate situation, will be suspended until such time as the commission has investigated the position and reported on its findings to the country and the Government. [Interjections.]

Mr. WILLIAMS:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member is making a most important and serious speech and I suggest that if members do not wish to listen, you should discipline them because there are others who do want to listen to the speech.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order!

Mr. BLOOMBERG:

I suggest, Sir, that a temporary suspension of these laws which have brought about the friction between the Coloured people and the Government and the White people, would bring the Coloured people into a frame of mind where they would be willing and able to participate in a consultative capacity with the commission which I have proposed. I envisage, Mr. Chairman, that the first function of that commission would be to decide, in consultation with responsible Coloured leaders, what steps should be taken immediately to put right some of these grievances which the Coloured people have. I have no time to go into details in regard to these grievances now, but I have already mentioned in broad outlines what they are. The point that I wish to emphasize, however, is that the Government should set up, without delay, this commission because that will be an indication that the Government is prepared to set up some machinery for consultation with our Coloured friends. I say the matter is one of urgency because day by day, we are losing more and more of those Coloured friends. If the Government is prepared to follow the suggestion I have made to set up this machinery, it would still have the opportunity of conferring with leading Coloured opinion. An independent commission, such as the one I have suggested, would provide the machinery for this urgent consultation. The commission will, obviously, in due course make whatever recommendations it may deem advisable to restore the goodwill and to win back the co-operation of the Coloured people of South Africa. The main point for the establishment of this commission, however, is that it will be an indication to the Coloured people that the Government is, at long last, prepared to take a friendly step to prove its bona fide intention of bringing into being practical results for the Coloured people. What is needed, more than ever, at the present time, is that the Coloured people should be shown that the White people and the Government particularly are willing to extend to them every measure of goodwill. They should experience that goodwill, Sir, and the earnest desire on the part of the Government and of the White population that we are willing to deal forthwith with their main grievances.

Dr. VAN NIEROP:

They should show it too!

Mr. BLOOMBERG:

They will show it. You give them the opportunity and they will show it. Surely it must be obvious to all of us that we cannot allow this drift in our race relations to continue. We must, surely, all agree that the only remedy for this unfortunate position in which we find ourselves to-day in South Africa, is that there must be consultation in every possible way between the Government and the leaders of the Coloured people. I was struck very forcibly by a report which appeared in the Cape Times of this morning of an excellent speech made at Paarl yesterday by the Rev. Dr. C. J. Kriel, of the theological seminary of the Dutch Reformed Church at Wellington. He was speaking to the Paarl Rotary Club yesterday afternoon on race relations. He said this—and I ask hon. members to bear this in mind:

The Coloured population was 1,500,000 or about half that of the White population, but the number of Coloureds would exceed that of the Whites within the next 50 years at the present rate of increase. It was possible that they would exceed in number considerably the rest of the population within the next century.

I want to pause here, Mr. Chairman, to say that this fact alone indicates beyoud any doubt the absolute necessity of drawing the Coloured people closer to the White people of South Africa if we wish to see the survival of South Africa as a White man’s country. We cannot afford to alienate our friends. Dr. Kriel went on to say—

A political awakening had come to the Coloured; they spoke English and Afrikaans and were linked with the White group. They stood nearer to the White man than any other non-White people in the world. They were integrated in the South African community and they could not be placed in separate reserves. If they were taken out of the Western Province, what was left of the Western Province?

I want to pause here to make the observation that this statement by Dr. Kriel makes more commonsense than the statement made by the hon. Prime Minister when he talked about his intention of creating a state within a state for the Coloured people. Dr. Kriel went on to say—

The solution of “ the Coloured problem ” was not a one-man task, but had to be solved by the nation. It would never be solved in * party politics—it needed the best brains and the best fellow-feelings from all political parties and all racial groups.

I agree entirely with what Dr. Kriel said here. Party politics will never solve this problem but the best independent brains are required to make an independent survey of the entire position of the Coloured people in South Africa; it needs an independent commission, such as I have suggested, to fulfill what I regard as a Herculean task. Let me say about this commission, that I do not for a moment say that the appointment of that commission would be the final solution of the problem confronting South Africa to-day in regard to its relationship with the Coloured people but I am convinced that an independent commission, on the lines I have indicated, and unfettered by party politics, will indicate to the Coloured people, and, what is more important, will indicate to the outside world that, at long last, we are making a genuine effort to deal justly with this unfortunate section of our community. It will, in my view, also relieve the tension existing to-day, and will give us breathing space to examine this whole situation de novo without party political fights. Moreover, it will undoubtedly cut the ground from beneath the feet of the agitators who are urging the Coloured people to throw in their lot with the African people of this country. I wonder, Sir, if hon. members of this Committee are aware of the tremendous pressure which is being brought to bear on our Coloured people by some of these agitators, and I wonder if this House knows how the Coloured people are being urged by threats and by intimidation to abstain from work during the period of the republic celebrations. Many loyal Coloured people have brought to me, and to my colleagues, manifestos issued blatantly by these people and signed by them—they have reached the stage where they have no longer any fears to come out into the open—urging them to adopt a defiant and threatening attitude towards their employers. In many instances this propaganda was accompanied by threats and by intimidation. Up to now I am sure that the vast majority of the Coloured people have shown the greatest restraint and moderation. They have not, up to now, fallen to these threats and intimidation and that is to their everlasting credit. Many of them have not yet yielded to this great pressure which is being brought to bear on them and for that they deserve the highest praise.

I do not want to involve myself at this stage in the various grievances, some of which I consider to be justifiable and which should be removed, but I have dealt with them in general terms. To go into more detail in that regard at the moment would only lead to further recliminations and only serve to widen the existing gulf. I am sure that every one of us realizes that we cannot allow a continuation of these unjust discriminatory laws being inflicted upon these people. They have suffered enough during the past 10 years, and I think that if the Government were to say now that it was prepared immediately to suspend these laws and to establish the commission I have asked for, much would be done to relieve the unfortunate tension which exists. I am sure that every one has been struck by the fact that in the Cape Province alone, there are over 46,000 Coloured income tax payers making their individual contributions towards our national revenue. Need we have any greater proof than that for the contention that the Coloured people have reached the standard of the White people of this country. I know that there are many Coloured families—and I know many of the Cape members on the Government side will agree with me—whose cultural and living standards are on a level with the best standards prevailing amongst our White people. How long does the Government think it can continue to deny these people the fundamental political rights which in justice should be available to all our taxpayers? How long does the Government think that it can impose upon these people job reservation decrees precluding them from taking jobs for which they are admirably suited? In this regard it is not inappropriate for me to deal with a situation that has arisen as a result of the present Minister of the Interior in another capacity issuing one of these job reservation decrees the other day. I wonder whether the hon. Minister realizes how shocked the city of Cape Town was a few days ago when he issued the decree which precludes Coloured candidates from obtaining the job of looking after parking meters in Cape Town. There were outstanding Coloured candidates for these jobs, but, by a ministerial decree issued by a responsible Minister of this Government, these men are being denied the opportunity of obtaining these jobs. But one of the most disconcerting aspects of that unfortunate decree is that I have every reason to believe that the Department of Coloured Affairs was not consulted about it, and that this was a decision taken by another Department. If the hon. Minister will give me the assurance that that Department was consulted in the matter. I will accept his assurance, but then the position is aggravated because I can hardly think that the Coloured Affairs Department would have been a party to the issuing of a decree which denies to Coloured people the right to apply for these jobs which were specially created for them. I mention this as an example of the grievances which the Coloured people have and of the injustices which are being, perhaps unwittingly, inflicted upon them. I am certain that this situation cannot be tolerated. I am certain that if we want to bring about a rapprochement with our Coloured people, actions such as that on job reservation which I have just mentioned, must stop. I say, in the words of the editor of the Burger, that urgent attention must be given to the need to remove points of friction immediately. If the Government wishes to make a genuine attempt towards a rapprochement with the Coloured people, the remedy lies in the hands of the Government alone. There is nothing that we, on this side of the House, can do to bring about that situation. It is a remedy which lies entirely in the hands of the Government. I am satisfied and my colleagues are satisfied that if the Government were to announce its willingness to appoint this independent commission, unfettered by party political affiliations, and, at the same time, indicate that it would suspend temporarily all these discriminatory laws which have been inflicted so harshly on the Coloured people, then we can bring about a greater degree of goodwill in the national interest than that which exists at present in so far as the Coloured people are concerned. We are convinced that even at this eleventh hour …

Mr. G. F. H. BEKKER:

What is this eleventh hour?

Mr. BLOOMBERG:

By the time you wake up, my friend, it may be too late. Sir, I hope the hon. member will stop interrupting me. I say it is necessary for the Government, even at this eleventh hour, to take some action which will indicate its willingness to the Coloured people to deal fairly with them and to meet their justifiable complaints, and which will indicate to the outside world our willingness to examine de novo our attitude towards our Coloured people. Above all, it will to my mind undermine the work of the agitators who are busy trying to foment the difficulties I referred to amongst the Coloureds. If, on the other hand, the Government is not willing to take this positive action, then it must accept full responsibility, and I say this advisedly, for the disaster which will almost certainly overtake our country because of this granite-wall apartheid policy. Unfortunately if that situation arises none of us will escape. I urge the Government with all the emphasis at my command to treat this matter as one of great seriousness and in the spirit in which I have presented it here this afternoon, and to indicate to the Coloured people its willingness to examine their position from every angle on the lines indicated by me. I think that an independent commission coupled with an undertaking to suspend temporarily these discriminatory laws will do much to restore the friendliness and goodwill between the Coloureds and the Whites.

*Mr. VAN EEDEN:

It is a great privilege for me to get up in this House for the first time. Secondly I regard it as a privilege to be able to say something in connection with the Coloureds of the Western Cape, especially those on our farms. I want to thank the Government for what it has done during the past few years for the Coloureds. I want to mention the names of two people and thank them for the part they have played. The one is the Deputy Minister P. W. Botha and the other is Dr. I. D. du Plessis. It was a forward step in the right direction when the Coloured Affairs Board which consists of 27 members was appointed. That board has already made its contribution and will in future make its contribution towards the welfare of the Coloureds. The Coloureds have representation in the Other Place, representation that cooperates with this Government. They have four representatives in this House. I do not know them but it is within their power to make a great contribution and they can facilitate the task of the Government in solving the difficult problems, our race problems, of which the Coloureds form a part. If the four of them stand together and co-operate with the Government then it does not mean to say that they must agree with everything the Government does, but they can facilitate the task of the Government as far as the Coloureds are concerned. My experience in the Other Place during the five years that I was there is this, however: When I got there there were Natives’ representatives and on more than one occasion I noticed Bantu in the bay opposite me when speeches of a destructive nature were made, speeches that incited the Black man against the White man. That hurt me. Sir. I am not saying that these four representatives are doing it. I do not believe that of them. I think they will serve the purpose for which they are here in the interests of the Coloureds in the Western Cape.

Mr. Chairman, I think the time has arrived that the Department of Coloured Affairs became a sovereign Department with a full-time Minister. That will be more popular amongst the Coloureds. The Coloureds of the Western Cape have made a great contribution towards our development. No pen can describe their contribution. I am not the oldest person in this House but I am far from being the youngest. I know the Coloureds. I played with them as a child and I grew up with them and I have been working with them up to the present. As I know the Coloureds I have grown to love them, because there is such a great deal that we can learn from them. In the first place they are generous. They are always happy and cheerful. I wish I could be like that. It is probably because they have so little else in life that we can learn from them as far as that is concerned. When you travel from Mossel Bay over Sir Lowry’s Pass and you see the thousands of morgen of land of the Swartland, you know that that land is ploughed by Coloureds under the supervision of the White man, firstly with their mules and now with tractors. All the millions of fruit trees that have been planted in the Western Province and the hills and valleys that are covered with vineyards, represent the work of the Coloureds under the supervision of the White man. That is why I am pleased that the Government has done for the Coloureds what it has done. There has never been a Government that has done more for the Coloureds than this Government. From the very beginning the Coloureds have been a tool and they have been ground to powder between two millstones, between the two big political parties. It was my privilege to vote that they should be placed on a separate roll. I did that because I thought that that was the right thing to do as far as the Coloureds were concerned and I still think so. During my election at Swellendam recently I addressed a meeting one evening. There were approximately 80 White persons and 100 Coloureds and I did not beat around the bush in what I said. I told them what this Government had done for them and why it had done it. When I left the building numbers of Coloureds came up to me and shook my hand and said “ Master, never before has a White man spoken to us in such a straightforward manner as Master did this evening. Now we understand the whole position as far as the White man and the Coloured man are concerned, and that the Government means it well with us. Mr. Chairman, that gave me pleasure. Where I come from the farmers have erected farm schools all over the place for the Coloureds. They have done so because they know the Coloured parents move to the towns so that their children can go to school. It gives me pleasure when I get to a farm and I see the children walking in rank to the school, and the little ones are neatly clothed. They are under the influence of the teachers and that even has a wholesome effect on the Coloured women, and I am pleased about that. We have housing schemes in our towns and cities which is a good thing but I think the time has arrived to extend those schemes to the platteland. You find many cases on the platteland where the Coloured houses are no credit to the farmer. You cannot be a decent person if you grow up in a shack. People often say the Coloureds are bad. They are not bad. Had we grown up in the circumstances in which many of the Coloureds of the Western Cape have grown up, I wonder where we would have been. Fifty per cent of us would probably have been in gaol. I am surprised that they are what they are, considering the circumstances in which they have grown up. I wonder whether we should not establish gymnasiums at various places in the Western Cape where the Coloured people can be trained so that their standard of living can rise. If the young Coloured persons can be trained to work properly and to work with tractors and do repairs, the farmers will be able to pay them higher wages and that will raise their standard of living. I am in favour of that but Rome was not built in one day. I am merely mentioning this as something that can perhaps be done in future. But there is one thing that hurts me and that is the infiltration of Bantu into the Western Cape Province. I know we need thousands of them to work in industry but I think we should get rid of one out of every three Bantu in the Western Cape because a third of them are loafers and vagrants. The sooner the Government gets rid of them the better will it be for everyone concerned, for the Bantu, the Coloured and the White man. [Time limit.]

Mr. HOLLAND:

It is a pleasure to me to congratulate the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. van Eeden) on his first speech in this House. No doubt he has had some training in another place. In his first speech he indicated to the House what I believe to be a genuine understanding and a traditional attitude towards the Coloured people with whom he has lived and grown up. I can only assure him that in the near future, if he really applies his mind to testing the circumstances under which they live to-day, and reconciles their way of life with what they have had in so far as the political deal is concerned over the last ten years, if not publicly as a Member of Parliament on the Government side, but privately in his own mind, he will be shocked.

I want to touch on a matter of the utmost gravity, in my opinion and in the opinion of people who know a great deal more than I do and who are doing a great deal more than I in the way of finding out what the true facts are in regard to our race relations. Right in the beginning I want to quote from a speech made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior on 28 March before the Union Coloured Affairs Council. He said—

Die verwarring waarin die wereld verkeer, met sy oordosis van propaganda, sy bedreiging deur oorlog, dreig om alles wat mooi en verheffend is te versmoor en te vernietig. Maar dis ook ’n tyd waarin diegene met geloof en ’n toekomsblik geleent-heid kry om te bewys dat hulle ankers besit waaraan vasgehou kan word.

I have no doubt that the hon. the Deputy Minister meant these euphonious phrases very well. I can assure the House that the only anchor that the Coloured people have to-day to which they still cling with some degree of faith and hope is the Christian religion which their forefathers brought to this country from Europe. Sir, if you go into this matter and talk to these people, and if you investigate and get an idea of the deprivations they are suffering in various ways, and the discrimination under which they are labouring, I can assure this House that the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) was perfectly correct when he warned the House a few minutes ago of the gravity of the situation we are facing in South Africa to-day. These people have no hope for the future any more. They have no faith in the White man or in what the White man might be able to do for them. [Interjections.] Why? You can go back 300 years, but especially for the last 13 years and you will find all the reasons accentuated, and God help South Africa if this situation has to be faced with the sort of interjection you get from that hon. member. We have no time to play about any more. The situation is grave. The Coloured people we have known in South Africa, who owe their existence to the fact that the White man came to this country and who have stood by the White man through the centuries and fought their wars internally and externally with them, are not there any more. The times have changed. The fact that there are 10,000,000 Black people in South Africa and 180,000,000 Black people over our borders in Africa, and that the East as well as the West are backing the cause of the under-priviliged Black man, is making a deep impression on the minds of the Coloured people and they regard it as foolish, as the Prime Minister of any country overseas, when he has to choose between the friendship of 180,000,000 Black people in Africa or that of 3,000,000 White people in South Africa, regards it as foolish to stand by the 3,000,000 White people who abuse and humiliate them at every opportunity, and the Coloureds would rather seek their salvation with the 10,000,000 Blacks who are going to win according to the signs of the times. We hear shouts of ridicule from the other side and if you talk a little more you will get election results quoted. They will tell you about the great reception given to the Prime Minister when he returned from his mission of failure overseas, at Jan Smuts and D. F. Malan Airports. I do not want to go into political wrangles regarding that. All I wish to point out is that quoting election results and mass rallies is no solution to the problem. Mass hysteria has never saved a country and it cannot indicate a policy to this Government in regard to people who have no say in their own destiny, people on whose behalf we come to this House and in patronizing phrases tell them where their destiny lies and what the Government intends doing for them. Sir, it is no use hammering only on the fact that the Government is providing economic advancement for these people. Esau was a fool to exchange his birthright in his father’s home for bowl of soup. He was entitled to that bowl of soup, and so are the Coloured people entitled to the economic advancement and uplift in their country of birth. But at the same time their political rights are their birthright and you cannot divorce the two. [Interjections.] Bleating sheep will not save the situation.

Mr. G. F. H. BEKKER:

If they kick you out, it will be better.

Mr. HOLLAND:

That might be true. The solution of that hon. member apparently is to kick out everyone who does not agree with him. I suppose he learnt that when culling his sheep. I feel that I must tell the Government and the Minister in charge of this portfolio that there is only one way of approaching the situation with which we are faced, and that is to investigate the problem, even if they accept what was proposed by the hon. member for Peninsula. But I feel that to show the goodwill which is the only basis on which consultation will work the time has arrived when unequivocally the Government should declare its willingness to restore to the Coloured people the political rights which have been taken away from them, to give them full franchise rights in regard to the Union Parliament, that symbol of citizenship, and to extend political rights to the Northern Provinces, because it was on that issue that they were bluffed into the Boer War and then they got nothing out of it. The basis on which they will exercise it can be thrashed out, but it can only be done by consultation. After 13 years of this Government, the time has arrived when it is no use trying to condone certain measures which have been placed on the Statute Book. Abolish job reservation immediately and give the Coloureds a chance. It can be left to private enterprise to create the avenues or to leave the avenues open for them to be absorbed in commerce and industry. Halt the implementation of the Group Areas Act in regard to the Coloureds immediately until such time as proof has been rendered that this Act is really as advantageous to them as we heard in the sanctimonious speech of the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. C. V. de Villiers) yesterday. Two years ago I warned the Minister of the Interior that his granite-like attitude in applying the Group Areas Act to the religious concepts of the Moslems in South Africa will be disastrous. Now we find that for the first time a week ago 4,000 Moslems gathered in Cape Town, and the same sort of thing is happening in Port Elizabeth. They will forego the goodwill of a few thousand people in South Africa, backed by 700,000,000 Moslems in the rest of the world. The simplest thing in the world would have been to say that the Group Areas Act will not apply to them, in regard to mosques. No, it must be done under exemption. The Moslems do not accept an exemption because they recognize no authority higher than that of Allah and they regard that ground as holy. Through a simple thing like that these people have been antagonized. They are only a small part of the Coloured population. If you go into the country and see what deprivations these people suffer and what humiliations they suffer, it is shocking. I want to quote one example. We know how South Africans felt when we heard that hotels in India had notice-boards saying “No dogs or South Africans allowed”. In the constituency of the Minister of Lands in the town of Humansdorp, there is a park in which there is a war memorial with the names of the men who fell in the two World Wars for South Africa, Coloured men. On the one gatepost there is a notice, “Geen honde toegelaat nie” and on the other pillar there is a notice, “Slegs Blankes”. This is not in India, but in the country of their birth. Not once a year are those people allowed in there to lay a wreath in commemoration of their own uncles and fathers and brothers who died for South Africa in two wars. That is the sort of thing a Coloured man in South Africa has to undergo. One experiences the antagonism built up by these things. Children ask their fathers and mothers: Why can’t we go in there? What does that board mean? It makes one wonder what the future holds for us if you consider the frustration and hatred as a result of unnecessary laws, but when one comes here one finds a granite-like attitude in regard to these matters. I appeal to the Government to do something before it is too late. Open your eyes. South Africa is going to blazes if you do not open your eyes. It is going to hell and this Government is responsible.

*Capt. STRYDOM:

It was not my intention to speak on this Vote but I have listened to the last few speeches, more particularly those of the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) and the hon. member who has just sat down. I am not going to reply to him because I think his speech was nothing else but an inflammatory one; he said nothing in particular. The hon. member for Peninsula has made certain suggestions but we know that never before has a Government done so much for the Coloureds as this Government. Previously the Coloured people were nothing else than voting cattle. We established a Coloured Affairs Department that is doing wonderful work. The hon. member for Peninsula said that he would prefer to have a commission. We do not want one. They can get satisfaction by going to the Department for Coloured Affairs and any grievance that they may have is attended to. We do what we can for them. What has the Municipality of Cape Town done for them all these years? Nothing except to place obstructions in our way. The Government recognizes the fact to-day that the Coloureds are part of South Africa as the White people are. We treat them with right and justice, but what I find so peculiar is that hon. members opposite say nothing about the White people; They only talk about the Coloureds and the Natives. I think the four Coloured Representatives can do wonderful work for the Coloureds if they want to and if they use the powers that they have in this House correctly. They have already done a great deal in a certain respect. When we had the disturbances last year the hon. member for Peninsula told the Coloureds to remain calm; he can still do that but the way they talk in this House is tantamount to telling them in an indirect way: Carry on. That is the impression that the man in the street and we on this side get. The mentality of the Coloured person is different from that of the White man and they absorb every word we say. The Coloured Affairs Department is the salvation of the Coloured people to-day. Look at the universities, the schools and hospitals that have been erected for them. Hon. members opposite have done nothing for them; they have only misused their vote. All the years that I have been in this House I can think of only one occasion when the hon. member for Pinelands said something on behalf of the Coloureds. Nobody opposite has said a single word on their behalf. Now they are suddenly very anxious to do something and to cause trouble and to harm the Government. Hon. members opposite can do what they like. This Government will continue to treat every inhabitant of this country with justice. The world outside will not frighten us and we are not scared of the lies that are disseminated. Everything that is said in this House is used against South Africa. What did the American President, Mr. Kennedy, say? He said that he did not want to suppress the Press but that the time would arrive when he would be compelled to do so; he said that if they did not serve the interests of their father land, he would be obliged to interfere. I have never as yet said anything against the Press, but they abuse their freedom in a ghastly way overseas and I wonder how many hon. members opposite have a guilty conscience and I wonder how many say to themselves: If only I had remained quiet during the past year and did not stab my own country in the back. How many of them did not stab their own country in the back? They can say what they like but they did stab their own country in the back by saying things that were not true and things that have harmed South Africa. We should not lose our heads at a time such as the present. We should stand together. The time is fast approaching when all the White men who love South Africa will have to stand together. We have to close our ranks. If we do not do that they will suffer as we who say “South Africa first” will suffer. I remember the days when we first started to talk about “South Africa first” and when we fought to pass all the legislation which is welcomed to-day and which will never be repealed.

*The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member must return to the Vote.

*Capt. STRYDOM:

I am sorry, Sir. I am returning to the Vote. I want to ask hon. members opposite to be careful what they say; they should behave themselves; they can do a lot of good for the Coloureds but they must be careful and not use irresponsible language in this House.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

I am surprised that an old politician like the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. Strydom) can really believe that the Government’s policy and its application is one of justice and fairness and Christianity towards the Coloureds. Is it fair that group areas in Cape Town should be demarcated in such a way that 20,000 to 30,000 Coloureds are evicted from their houses and residential areas, as compared with only 5,000 Whites, and that the Coloureds have to move to the desert areas of Cape Town and that the Whites should retain the best areas for themselves?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Your facts are distorted.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

If I were a Coloured—and when I judge of something like this I try to put myself in the place of the other man—I would have sent a message to the Government to come and fetch me out of my house, and I would have let the Prime Minister know that he can come and move my furniture for me. I would have refused to move. The day will arrive when the Government and the Government Party will bow their heads in shame for what they have done to the Coloureds of South Africa.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The Coloureds are sensible people; they will not listen to you.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

I want to say a few words about the Union Coloured Council and the development the Government envisages for that council. It is very difficult to arrive at a sound judgment in regard to the Government’s administration of Coloured affairs unless one knows clearly in which direction the Government proposes to move in regard to the Coloureds in the political sphere. Although I oppose and strongly oppose the Government …

*An HON. MEMBER:

Strongly oppose!

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

… I have always set out from the standpoint that when the Government comes along with a development which is sound …

*Dr. VAN NIEROP:

You came here to support the Government.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

I shall certainly not support the Government as it is now.

*Mr. GREYLING:

Who elected you?

*The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) knows the rules of the House.

*Mr. HOLLAND:

He must be careful of his heart.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

I want to divorce myself from the present Government as far as possible. I have always set out from the standpoint nevertheless that if the Government comes along with a development plan which is sound and which is of a positive nature and which is intended to assist people to develop, the Opposition should then as far as possible support it. But then the Government must realize that one cannot support something if one is not convinced that the policy behind it is practicable, and if the Government is not able to say clearly how far it wants to go in that direction and what it is bound to lead to.

In a speech made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior before the Union Coloured Council on 28 March 1961, he explained that it was the intention of the Government to re-organize this Council, to extend its membership and to give it greater powers, and the question arises whether one can encourage and support the Government in this direction, or whether the Government is busy here with something which is futile and which must fail and which therefore is just a waste of time and money and of energy which will not take us any further. Because unless the Government can convince one that what it wants to do will have lasting results and form part of a final plan which is practicable, and which eventually will also be accepted by the majority of the Coloureds, we are in fact busy here evading instead of solving a problem, and at colossal cost to the State. At the moment the Government creates the impression that it is most confused and cannot give any proper explanation of what it envisages in respect of the political future of the Coloureds. During the past two months a whole series of conflicting statements have been published. On 17 March the Prime Minister, e.g., made a statement in London affecting the political rights of the Coloureds. He said—

We do not only seek and fight for a solution which will mean our survival (that of the White man), but seek one which will grant survival and full development, politically and economically, to each of the other racial groups as well.

Shortly thereafter, on 28 March, the Deputy Minister of the Interior in the speech he made before the Coloured Council, said that the development of the Whites and of the Coloureds should take place “within the framework of the same constitutional connection”. A little later, on 10 April, the Prime Minister took the matter further in this House and then he told us (Hansard, Col. 4277, Afrikaans)—

The problem of giving political rights to the Coloureds … then still remains. In this case I accept the rejection of the old proposition that one cannot have a state within a state.

On this basis of a state within a state—that is what he intimated—the Coloureds can be given a full say in the political sphere (Col. 4278, Afrikaans). The next day he took the matter further and said—

What I did say was that I believed that the Coloureds should develop towards self-government, even on the basis of the unorthodox principle of a state within a state…. This means after all that if the separate development of the Coloureds should advance beyond the stage of the Coloured Council and should take place in the form of a state within a state, in the direction of a Parliament of their own, it might be that they will not be represented here because we would then have two Parliaments next to one another (in South Africa) and they would have the fullest representation in their own Parliament. (11 April, Col. 4313 and 4314.)

In other words, the Deputy Minister spoke about the same constitutional connection, and the hon. the Prime Minister shortly thereafter spoke about a state within a state and two Parliaments, each with the fullest powers. Two weeks later the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs held a meeting at Montagu at the time of the by-election in Swellendam. I have here the report in the Burger. Under the heading: “Reservation about state within a state”, the Burger of 29 April said the following—

Minister Diederichs said that Dr. Verwoerd had said that he was thinking that the Coloureds would not have equal representation in Parliament with the Whites, but that they would be given the opportunity to develop in all spheres in their own way, and that they would be given a form of self-government and an economy almost on the lines of a state within a state. The Prime Minister did not say it would be done that way; he said that he was considering it.

Then, according to the Burger, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs added the following—

Dr. Diederichs said that the Coloureds would not be given full political rights, like a state which has full independence.

I cannot remember when last we had so much confusion and lack of direction in regard to the future position of the Coloureds as we have on the part of the Government at present, and this Committee is entitled to learn from the Minister who deals with Coloured affairs what his explanation of all this is. We expect him to give clarity to the country about what he envisages and how he wants to implement it. I want to ask the hon. the Minister pertinently: Are we to accept that the concept of a state within a state is now the official policy of the Government? In the second place, it would be interesting to know whether the hon. the Prime Minister submitted this to his caucus and whether the caucus approved of it. I want to ask him further is it the intention of the Government to develop the Coloured Council into a fully-fledged Parliament with a Coloured Cabinet and a Coloured Prime Minister, or does the Government simply say “full political rights”, without actually meaning full political rights? Further I want to ask him pertinently: Will the Coloureds be given full power over their own group areas, to such an extent that they can sell their properties to Whites and allow White factories there where job reservation need not be applied and their own wage structure can be applied? You see, you either have full political rights or you do not have them, and the Government either is honest or it is not.

*Maj. VAN DER BYL:

You can have two guesses.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

The Coloured Council either receives full powers or it does not receive full powers; only one of the two can be correct, and I think that this Committee is entitled to know whether the Coloured Council will receive actual powers or whether it is intended to be a puppet Parliament. I think the Committee is entitled to have frank replies to these questions if the Government is at all clear as to its policy. Personally, I believe that within a few years there will be nothing left of all these plans and political games of the Government. [Time limit.]

*Mr. C. V. DE VILLIERS:

The hon. member for Namib (Mr. I. D. du P. Basson) made himself guilty of gross exaggeration and misrepresentation in connection with group areas in particular. If he would be present here more often when these matters are discussed he would be better informed and his facts would not be so absolutely incorrect as those he gave this afternoon. Not only did the hon. member give wrong facts in connection with the numbers concerned in the group areas, but it seems to me that he is also completely in the dark about the housing conditions of the different racial groups. Unfortunately, we cannot go into detail on these matters now, but I just want to say that this story that the Coloureds are being harmed tremendously by group areas is a gross exaggeration and a misrepresentation. The hon. the Deputy Minister has time and again pointed out what is being done; how many decent homes are being built for people who, in many cases, are to-day living in hovels.

*Mr. HOLLAND:

Where?

*Mr. C. V. DE VILLIERS:

The hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) always comes along with his parrot cry of “Where?” If only he would keep in touch with the Department and co-operate with them then he would know more about what is going on and he would talk less nonsense here.

The hon. member for Namib also said that if he were a Coloured he would not move, but would ask Dr. Verwoerd to come and throw him out, or something like that. I regret that an hon. member should say this sort of thing in this House, especially in these times of tension.

*Maj. VAN DER BYL:

Who caused the tension?

*Mr. C. V. DE VILLIERS:

What example is being set for the Coloureds through behaviour of this nature? He does not say that if he were a White man who was affected by the group areas he would wait for them to come and throw him out. No, he says that if he were a Coloured he would wait until they threw him out. I say that this behaviour of the hon. member is scandalous and objectionable.

Hon. members opposite had much to say about job reservation. We would like to reply to it, but this is not the Vote for a discussion on that matter. This hon. Minister has nothing to do with job reservation. It falls under the hon. the Minister of Labour, and we will go into the matter on the Labour Vote.

*Maj. VAN DER BYL:

A Cabinet within a Cabinet.

*Mr. C. V. DE VILLIERS:

I agree with the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) that it is a good thing to review the policies in connection with the Coloureds to-day. It is only a pity that so little time will be devoted to this important matter as a result of the attitude of the Opposition, which has control over the time allocated to the different Votes. If this is the interest they have in this important matter, then I say that all this talk by the Opposition about their wanting to promote the interests of the Coloureds is just so much talk. Lately the Opposition is waging a new campaign about the political rights of the Coloureds which can only be detrimental to the Coloured population. What is it all about? It does not only concern the matter of a few Coloureds here in Parliament, as some of them allege; neither does it only concern the subject of placing the Coloureds back on the common roll. No, it concerns the fundamental difference in the whole approach to the racial question in South Africa; i.e. it concerns two irreconcilable policy directions—the policy of separate development, together with the opportunities it offers to the Coloured population on the one hand, and the policy of integration and eventual equality on the other. The principle of separate communities, each with its own identity and its own character, where each can develop to their full self-realization, as opposed to an integrated community, a homogeneous community. Where will these policies lead to? Integration will lead to the breaking down of all division, to no differentiation as is being advocated by many people to-day. It will result in the Coloureds having to compete with the Whites on an equal basis, and special attention will not be devoted to them. Some people are to-day advocating that the Department of Coloured Affairs should be abolished. Such a policy would result in there not being any differentiation; that the Coloureds will have to compete with the Whites on the same level, and then the larger majority of the Coloured population will suffer because 80 per cent of the Coloured population are to-day still backward and cannot compete with the Whites on an equal footing. This group of developed and educated Coloureds—and I emphasize the word “group”—which seek escape through assimilation with the Whites is opposed to the principle of separate communities. They are apparently not concerned about the 80 per cent of their own people who cannot compete with the Whites in a homogeneous community. They see their own way clear to reach the top of the ladder in a homogeneous community. It is said that to win the support and the goodwill of the Coloureds certain concessions should be made; that there should also be a few Coloured members in this House. But the Coloureds did not ask for it, and it will not satisfy them either; and that is my main argument. These people who are continually making these demands, the vocal group, will not be satisfied with these concessions which the hon. members refer to.

*Mr. HOLLAND:

Who asked for it?

*Mr. C. V. DE VILLIERS:

In this, connection I want to quote what one of the Coloured leaders, who is often quoted and referred to here, said. I refer to Dr. van der Ross. He said—

Of course, Dr. Verwoerd is right. The Coloured people would never accept direct representation by four or six people and stop at that.
Mr. HOLLAND:

Quite right

*Mr. C. V. DE VILLIERS:

He continues—

They would want and strive the harder for the abolition of legislation in regard to mixed marriages, immorality, job reservation, separation in the restaurants, hotels, swimming baths, universities and so on.

In other words, the breaking down completely of the colour bar, as I said—

Let it be reiterated for those who, unlike the Prime Minister, did not grasp this point before that the Coloured people do not want direct representation on a separate roll. We want direct representation on the common roll. We want votes for our women; we want votes for the north; we want votes for all South Africans.

And so he continues. These so-called concessions about which the hon. members speak will not satisfy this group to which I have referred. But we continually hear that discrimination should be abolished. If discrimination, as far as it concerns the Coloureds, should be abolished then the Coloured population may not be protected; then the Whites may not be discriminated against by prohibiting them from monopolizing trade and the economic activities in the Coloured areas—towns and cities which are being created; then the Whites may not be discriminated against by prohibiting them from taking over the professions and all the other posts in those areas. But, further, the Bantu may then not be discriminated against in order to protect the Coloured. I say that the abolition of discrimination will also detrimentally affect the Coloured population. In the first stage of this process of integration the Coloured people will be the sufferers but in the long run both the Coloureds and the Whites will be the sufferers because they will be overwhelmed by the Bantu who outnumber them. In the economic and the political spheres there is no advantage to the Coloureds in integration and these Coloureds who are to-day threatening to co-operate with the Bantu are playing with fire in so far as their own future and welfare are concerned. Through their threats of siding with the Bantu they may cause great harm to the goodwill which has been established between the Whites and the Coloureds during the past years. [Time limit.]

*Mr. G. S. P. LE ROUX:

The hon. member for Vasco (Mr. C. V. de Villiers) knows the Coloureds and their problems far better than he admits. I am particularly sorry that he is giving publicity to one so-called leader of the Coloureds who is to-day brought so prominently to the attention of the public, namely Dr. van der Ross. The hon. member quoted what Dr. van der Ross envisaged and tha the would not be content with concessions. The hon. member for Vasco knows as well as I do that he is a self-appointed leader and that his influence is very little. But what must be admitted—and the hon. member for Vasco will agree with me—is that to-day the Coloureds are awakening; there is a difference of opinion. There are tremendously many factors affecting them in various directions and it is with a view to investigating the matter outside of politics that the hon. Leader of my group advanced the suggestion that a commission should be appointed to investigate the whole matter. I agree with him wholeheartedly. I think we should go into the matter to see if we cannot obtain the necessary guidance from such a commission on a non-political basis so that we can once and for all place the disposition of the Whites towards the Coloureds, and vice versa, on a sound footing We cannot play politics with this matter. It gets us no further. The matter can be approached from different political angles but no progress will be made. I am in the unfortunate position that the greater part of my constituency consists of Coloured reserves. I therefore think that it is my duty to get away from politics and to come closer to the realities of the problem. I wish to speak in particular about the reserves and the position of the Coloureds in the reserves. The other members who are so very interested in the Coloureds represent the urbanized Coloureds. Allow me to confine myself to my group. When I talk about those people then I refer in particular to the rural Coloureds.

Before I go any further I feel it my duty to express a word of sympathy at the loss which the Department of Coloured Affairs suffered with the death of our agricultural expert, Mr. Smit. In the few years that he served as agricultural expert in the reserves Mr. Smit did very excellent and hard work and I regret that we will have to start virtually anew now that he has passed away. It sets our agriculture back tremendously. It will take the new man some time to take over from where Mr. Smit left off. Mr. Chairman, when I think of agriculture there I cannot help but wonder whether the time has not come to review the old Act of 1909 on which the whole system is based and which is now being extended still further. It is an Act which was passed about 50 years ago. It is an Act which may have been very good for those times and those conditions but South Africa has advanced 50 years and everyone has developed in the interim. The only things that have not really developed are the reserves. When I say that they have developed very little it should not be construed as meaning that the present Department under the guidance of the hon. the Deputy Minister was not doing their best. I can almost say that they have performed miracles in the few years that they have been in existence. But I feel that the whole Act should be reviewed and adjusted to present-day conditions. I just want to mention one example. As a result of that Act there are in all the reserves—whether it be reserves where the main branch of agriculture is cattle farming or whether it be reserves where crop cultivation is practised—large numbers of people who are really, I will not say lazy; they do not like one to tell them they are lazy. In the reserves where the main industry is cattle farming there are large numbers—I may almost say hundreds—of people who will tell you that they are stock farmers. If you ask them why they do not try to obtain work somewhere they say: “No, Sir, we must look after our stock,” and then you find that the man has 25 sheep, but he uses those 25 sheep as an excuse for staying at home. He must look after 25 sheep all the year. Some of them have got more. There are a few Coloureds who have 700 and 800 cattle but because there is communal grazing everyone keeps 25 or 30 or 100 sheep. He cannot make a living from that but it is a reason for him to stay at home, because he is a stock farmer. I would rather have a few people there who could make a decent living from stock farming and make the others realize that they will have to find some other livelihood. I merely mention this to show that these are some of the results of the old Act. The old Act is responsible for that state of affairs. At the mouth of the Olifants River all the Coloureds have two morgen of land to cultivate. It is good soil under irrigation. But who can make a living on two morgen of land under present-day conditions? But the Coloured stays there and he tills his lands. He is entitled to keep a few head of cattle. He cannot leave there; if he does then he loses his rights. The result is that he stays there and tries to make a living from the soil. If the person had six morgen he would have progressed and become a “gentleman”, I would rather have a few “gentlemen” there than have a large number of Coloureds none of whom can make a decent living. If they cannot make a living the authorities should say to them: “This is the position; something else will have to be done; we cannot permit you to continue like this any longer.” We are to-day trying to keep the people there but they are undoubtedly a burden. You just cannot get them going but there are, however, a few who show what can be done and therefore I ask that the whole matter be reviewed.

Then there is another small matter, but which is not quite so trivial to the Coloured. The old Act determines that no spirituous liquor may be brought into a reserve. I am very sorry to say it but whenever I go there I encounter intoxicated people. No liquor may be brought into the reserve, so how is that possible? I know how it happens. In other places where liquor is prohibited it is smuggled in. There are people who make a living out of smuggling liquor. Has the time not perhaps come for that section of the Act also to be amended? I merely mention this to draw attention to it because I feel that the time has come for the whole Act to be reviewed. The Department has now had a whole year’s experience in the practical application of the Act and they should be able to tell at a glance where amendments should be made.

I now want to come to the people themselves. There are for instance the crop farmers. There are many of the reserves where they can sow a bag or a half-bag of wheat but then they have to have a few donkeys to pull the plough. I remember that when I farmed with mules my land produced half of what it produces now that I am farming with a tractor and can plough the soil thoroughly. In the reserves they only scratch the soil and with the first drought everything is lost. I admit that the Department is now buying a tractor to help a few of them for experimental purposes, but I feel we must ensure that the people obtain the necessary implements so that they can till the soil properly.

I now come to the question of livestock. The flocks of sheep cannot be built up without a decent ram. Now I ask you, Mr. Chairman, which of the Coloureds will go and buy a decent ram? They just will not do it. But we are there, the Department is there, and I think consideration should be given to supplying those people with decent sheep in order to help them along in this way also. [Time limit.]

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) has a thorough knowledge of the people living in his constituency, but I think the hon. member is wrong on one point. In regard to the existing Act, we do have the difficulty that this Act does not give us enough power to act. As the Act was amended in 1959 we have practically unlimited possibilities for the development of those areas. It is just a matter of getting those people to follow the right channels in a sensible way in order to get this assistance. The hon. member knows, for example, that our one great problem in the whole area was the question of water conservation, and I think he will agree that we have made tremendous progress in that respect. In the second place, the land lay open there and was not fenced in, and through the years the soil was simply trodden out. The other problem we had there was that there were too many donkeys. When I visited them I told the people there to kill the donkeys. The point is that these people are still applying the wrong farming methods, and in that respect our agricultural officers, inter alia Mr. Smit, who unfortunately died last week, which we all regret, did valuable work in giving these people the necessary guidance. The hon. member knows that we are in continual contact with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and that their assistance is available to us. I do not think there is anything wrong with the Act. It is just a question of our guiding these people in making use of the correct methods. The boards of management must come to the fore much more to tackle development themselves. In regard to his reference to tractors, we are dealing with that. We cannot give every man a tractor, but we can make available tractors and machinery for communal use. In regard to the Liquor Act, I do not want to anticipate that because it falls under another Department and another Minister.

The hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) and I have been personal friends for many years already, and even in spite of political differences which have arisen between us from time to time we have remained friends. I do not know what his feelings are but I would not like to see our personal friendship destroyed. But what the hon. member did here this afternoon comes so close to deviate behaviour that I could almost not believe that this was the man I had known all these years. Just imagine, he got up in this House and said that if he were a Coloured he would inform the Prime Minister: “Come and evict me from my house if you can,” and then the hon. member goes further and says that 30,000 Coloureds were deprived of their houses. Surely the hon. member ought to know that that is false and that it is a complete untruth which is published to the world if somebody says that! Now I declare here that anybody who now or in future is guilty of making such a statement is telling a public untruth.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

How many had to be removed?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The point is that we gave one assurance after the other that not a single Coloured would be removed unless alternative housing was provided for him.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

That is not the point. May I put a question?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The hon. member should now keep quiet. The point is that those 30,000 Coloureds who are affected mostly do not own their own houses. They live in hovels and in slums and in shanty-towns and we want to take them out of their hovels of hessian and tin and put them in decent houses. At the moment we are busy building 8,000 houses for them in the Peninsula, with the assistance of the local authorities.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

Do they all live in hovels?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I say the majority of them do, and the hon. member also knows that a man who owns a property receives proper compensation. Sworn valuators, independent people who are not in the service of the State, value the properties, and the hon. member knows that a person has the right to object to the valuation. I say the hon. member for Namib ought to be ashamed of himself. After he had entered Parliament on the principles of the Group Areas Act, inter alia he now adopts this attitude. I helped him to hold meetings. This Nationalist Government gave him the platform to come here, and now he reviles the Government in a shameful manner!

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

The Government promised that the Act would be applied justly.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I regret that somebody with as many possibilities as the hon. member for Namib is so irresponsible and lends himself to such despicable actions in so far as giving guidance to the Coloureds is concerned.

The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) began by saying: “At this late stage I want to plead for a change of heart.” In the first place, what late stage is the hon. member referring to?

*Mr. BLOOMBERG:

Are you still fast asleep?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Does the hon. member mean that because there are threats and attempts to sabotage South Africa becoming a republic, a responsible Government must run away from its policy and from the principles on which the electorate put it into power? Does the hon. member expect that? And when he talks about a change of heart, does he mean that a Government which was elected on firm principles should become opportunistic and run away at the first threat and the first bit of gossip spread about in the streets of Cape Town in regard to imminent strikes? What kind of attitude is that? There have been repeated references to its being five to 12. According to the stories told by the hon. member over there, it has been five to 12 in South Africa for 300 years already. But it was not the people who spoke about its being five to 12 who brought South Africa where it is to-day, but people who have always seen light and had hope for better days. The hon. member now asked that at five to 12 a commission of inquiry should be appointed, a judical commission to investigate the position of the Coloureds. But in 1937 we had a commission of inquiry in connection with the Coloured population under the chairmanship of Dr. Wilcocks, in 1943 we had a commission of inquiry in connection with the Cape Flats under the chairmanship of Mr. Britton, and in 1940 we had an inquiry into the abuse of liquor by the Coloureds. In 1947 we had a commission of inquiry in connection with the Coloureds in the rural areas, which resulted in a thick and interesting report on which we are still acting; in 1955-6 we had the Professor M. C. Botha Commission in connection with the Coloureds and the future of their education. What more does the hon. member want investigated by this judicial commission? All these matters have been investigated and there are Blue Books and reports and we are still continually busy, on the basis of those reports, making preparations as far as is practicable for the development of our policy in connection with these people. We have all the expert advice at our disposal. We have a department with some of the most efficient officials who know the Coloureds better than the hon. member does. Now the hon. member says we must appoint a judicial commission. I take it that this judicial commission should concentrate on one thing only, because in connection with the other matters it surely cannot get more evidence than we already had in the long series of reports of commissions. It can only tell us what it thinks their political rights should be. But a Government which has been placed there to rule the country and which is unable to determine the political rights of a racial group in its care and has to run to a judicial commission for it does not deserve to be in power. This Government is certainly not prepared to rid itself of its responsibilities so easily. It will deal with this matter according to the circumstances and bring forward solutions as they become necessary. Let me tell the United Party and the Progressive Party that if we were to ask them to-day: “What is the end of the road you foresee in respect of political rights for the Coloured voters?” not one of them would be able to say what the end of that road is. The United Party is not even clear yet as to whether they want a common voters’ roll for the Coloureds just in the Cape Province, or for the whole of the Union. Nor has it clarity as to whether Coloureds should be able to represent White constituencies. In other words, they have not yet weighed the full consequences of the vague ideas. Why is the Government party now expected to say for generations ahead what the end of the road should be? That is absurd! The point is that there is a great difference in approach in regard to this problem, viz. what is the starting point? The great fault we find with the Opposition is that their starting-point is political rights, more political rights for the Coloureds, and then they will have reached heaven.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

And you want a state within a state.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

If the hon. member would just allow me to state my case, he would probably understand it. Surely the hon. member knows what our aim was in the days when he was still employed by the “Kruithoring”. Then he knew; now he does not know any longer because in the meantime he has joined the United Party. The point is: What is the starting-point? And the starting-point of the Opposition is political rights, and then they will have gained the heavens. The Government says: No, we must approach the position of the Coloureds in South Africa differently; and now I think I can make a few statements with which everybody will agree. The first is that we recognize that the Coloured has certain bonds binding him to the Whites. There are, e.g., the cultural bond, the language bond, and in so far as they practise religion, it is to a large extent the religion of the White man. In other words, the Coloured can be a potential force in South Africa to support Western civilization. If one can uplift him socio-economically, if one can relieve him of his frustrations, if one can give him human dignity, he can be an asset to Western cilization in future, and that should be our starting-point, to make him an asset. In other words, in its approach the Government is friendly towards the Coloureds. And not only do we say it, but we prove it by these amounts which appear on this Vote and other Votes in the form of services we will provide for them. But has a single hon. member got up to-day except for the hon. member for Karoo, really to discuss this Vote? Has a single hon. member analysed the various items appearing on the Estimates, just the amounts being provided under the Department of Coloured Affairs alone, apart from what the other Departments do for the Coloureds? The Department of Coloured Affairs alone is asking for more than R3,000,000, but to the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) that is just a bowl of lentil-soup.

*Mr. HOLLAND:

They are entitled to it.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

No, the stand-point held by those hon. members is that one should simply give him a potful of political rights and then his stomach can remain empty. Give him a guitar and he will be merry. The Government proves its goodwill towards the Coloureds by means of the services provided, and no less a person than a responsible Coloured man like Mr. Golding recently stated in Port Elizabeth that no Government has done more for the education of the Coloureds than this Nationalist Government. Coming from Mr. Golding, I do not think the hon. member for Peninsula will deny it. In other words, our starting-point is that we want to strengthen them as a Western group. But in the second place, the Coloured is also different from the White man. He is different for historical reasons, even though it is just a difference in degree, and in the third place he is different even though it is just because of the fact that the majority of them are backward. The real problem to-day is that 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the Coloured population is poor and backward. Is it the fault of this Government that that is so?

*Mr. BARNETT:

It is the White man’s fault.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Or is it the fault of this history of integration?

*HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I now want to pose the question which I repeatedly ask at Coloured congresses, of Coloured leaders, and I want to put this question to-day to those people who talk about its being five to 12: What has been done for the Coloureds under the system of political integration since 1854? What can be shown to prove that the system of integration uplifted the Coloured out of his backwardness? Just mention a single thing. The Coloureds showed achievements in only two spheres. He achieved something in the sphere of education. He became a teacher. That was on the basis of parallel development. The Coloured became a parson. That was on the basis of parallel development. But for the rest, the Coloureds in the rural areas remained a section of the population which economically and in regard to their productivity deteriorated. In his own rural areas, which the hon. member for Karoo spoke about, the Coloured made no progress but deteriorated because there was no machinery of State to cater for his particular requirements. In the third place, in the cities and towns the Coloureds became slum-dwellers and lived in hovels. But a small group of individuals rose up, and they did so as the result of education on a parallel basis, and another small group rose up because they had the intelligence. And what do they do to-day? They try to escape from the backwardness of their own people and “they try for White”, they try to escape from the conditions in which their own people live, and they try to get away from their own people and to seek their salvation in the company of the Whites. These are facts which cannot be denied. Therefore we in South Africa cannot even think of consoling ourselves with the idea that we preach integration but we allow the Coloureds to continue to live in these conditions, because what will happen? Then the Coloured will become a bridge between the weaker section of the White population and the front lines of the Bantu, and he will drag down the White population, as history has proved—if you have two racial groups next to each other and the one is left in its backwardness, it drags down the higher one, and it will drag the White man along on the road to the Bantu, and not only is that the end of the White man, but it is also the beginning of the end of the Coloured in South Africa. Because if the Black man has to take over and a Black state comes into being, it will not only be the White man who disappears, but the Coloured will also disappear, because he is even weaker than the White man and he will also become the victim. Therefore I cannot understand that there can be a single responsible Coloured leader who has any following at all who will lend himself to a so-called unity movement. But there are Coloured leaders to-day who realize that. Perhaps they do not get much publicity. They do not get the publicity they should get from an unpatriotic Press. But there are Coloured leaders who warn, like Golding and Tom Swarts, like Coverdale and Fortuin, and there are others who openly issue warnings and say that the Coloured will not find his salvation in a “Unity Movement”, in a united front with the irresponsible Bantu in our country. But they do not get any publicity, because it does not suit the book of the enemies of Nationalism and of the Nationalist Government in South Africa. Now the Government says that not only do we want to preach this goodwill and not only do we want to give the Coloureds opportunities for development and uplift, but we want to do it on a different basis than the attempts which have been made for 100 years and which have failed. Therefore we commenced with an impressive development of the rural areas, not because we believed that we could house the Coloured population in those areas—far from it—but because we believed that in those rural areas we could satisfy some of the land hunger of the Coloureds. Therefore we are making a success of a settlement like the Eksteen-Snel Islands and are still developing it, and for that reason we are also tackling the development works, of which the hon. member for Karoo knows, to satisfy that natural land hunger of the Coloureds. I admit that they will be a small minority of the total Coloured population, but there we are doing what we can.

In the second place, we say that there is another facet of the life of the Coloured population, and that is the Coloured one finds in the rural areas who is employed on the farms, and I think that we should be ashamed to say that the Coloured population in the platteland, on the farms, compared with 30 years ago, has deteriorated. Practical farmers will admit that. There are various reasons for it. Their productivity has deteriorated. Their drinking habits contribute to that, and as the hon. member for Swellendam rightly pleaded here, we shall have to do something to give the Coloured on the farms, particularly in the Western Province, a higher productivity. That is why the Government is busily engaged on its idea of agricultural gymnasiums. We have progressed far in our negotiations with the agricultural unions. Our plans have been completed, and we have already obtained one bit of land at Kromme Rhee near Stellenbosch, with buildings on it, where we hope to start short courses early next year. But this planning is expensive. It costs tens of thousands of pounds. Another thing one can do in regard to this community, and as a Department we try to do it as far as possible, is to get minimum standards laid down for the housing of the Coloureds in the rural areas. If one houses a man properly, also on the farms, it must necessarily have a good effect on him.

Then there is the third group, the Coloureds in the towns and cities, the great majority of Coloureds. The hon. the Minister announced last night that the Government had to tackle the question of group areas, which is a difficult problem and where we had to evolve ways and means, in a different way. We had no examples to follow in other countries, but had to evolve our own methods, and the Government has now decided on machinery and an organization whereby we hope to achieve two things. Firstly we hope not only to speed up the establishment of group areas, but also to implement it more speedily and more effectively, because the group areas should not be regarded merely as an attempt to provide housing, but when those group areas are established towns must be provided for these people which have their own character.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

The state within the state.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

That hon. member is obsessed with a state within a state, but he has even more things on his mind and that is why he is where he is. I am propounding policy, and if the hon. member is not interested he should go and have a cup of coffee or something else. The point is that we say that the group areas not only has a housing aspect, but that the object should also be the establishment of their own towns with their own character, and we say that with that object in view we want to improve the existing machinery. Just to mention one example—I do not want to weary the House by giving a long list of figures—but I already pointed out in reply to the hon. member for Namib that in the Cape Peninsula we are now busy with approved plans for the building of 8,000 houses. I have before me the housing figures in regard to Durban and Johannesburg and all the big cities, showing what the Government has done and still intends doing. This Government does not do what a former Minister in a former Government, Harry the Housebuilder, did, who only built castles in the air. This Government has appointed an Inter-departmental Committee which must ascertain precisely what the shortage of housing is for the Coloureds. We have received that report and we are acting on it. The schemes which are in operation now form part of it.

Now the Prime Minister in his statement on 7 December said that further things had to be done. The first is that when we establish their own towns for them the Coloureds should have the right to manage them. But one cannot allow the Coloureds to begin where the White man stops in connection with his own self-government. One cannot simply tell him: Now you have a municipality. The White man did not get his municipality in that way. The White man started with a small committee in his own little town—a health committee—and his local government developed until he had a fully-fledged municipality. The Prime Minister explained that in his statement on 7 December. He said that we were on the threshold of the establishment of local governments, gradually of course, which would develop to maturity in those areas. And what we are doing in the towns and cities we are already doing in the rural areas. The hon. member for Karoo knows that there we have a system of self-government where by way of regulation power is given to these people to manage their own affairs to an ever-increasing extent.

The Prime Minister went further. He said that with the guidance of the Department of Coloured Affairs there should be negotiations with prominent leaders of the Coloured population in regard to the future of their education, to evolve a plan whereby they could have a greater share in and more authority over their own education. Because what is happening to-day? To-day we have a system for the Coloureds which amounts to this. They have their separate schools and the Coloureds can appoint their own teachers there. But under the present set-up—and that was also the position under the previous Government—the Coloured could not become a school inspector; he could not occupy a professional or administrative or a clerical position in that Department. That was also the position when the party opposite was in power. Now the Prime Minister has said that there should be negotiations with the Coloured leaders. We must try to persuade them that much of their feeling of frustration will disappear if they co-operate with us to evolve a system by which Coloured education will be placed in the hands of the Department of Coloured Affairs, and then we will undertake to give them their own inspectorate, even though we begin only in the primary schools; we shall make available professional, administrative and clerical posts in that Department to Coloureds and create new channels of employment for them. On that basis, because the provinces cannot do it, we will consider improving their salaries. All this was explained in the Prime Minister’s statement on 7 December. Hon. member did not know that. That makes no difference to them because that is the bowl of lentil-soup referred to by the hon. member for Outeniqua with his guitar.

Mr. Chairman, for the rest we are rendering a service to the Coloureds in the institutions we already have in the Department, in our industrial schools and reformatories, in our institutions at Kraaifontein, in Port Elizabeth, Kimberley and elsewhere which they never had before. Look at the items under this Vote. These are not promises. These are things which are in progress. Look at the university college of the Western Cape which, in spite of the Jeremiads we had from members opposite, is a splendid success. Now the Prime Minister further said in his statement which he made in this House that when once these local government bodies have been provided for the Coloureds, it can be extended further by making use of the Union Council, that Council which is ridiculed by some hon. members. Hon. members quoted this afternoon from a speech I made before the Union Coloured Council. But they very carefully omitted to quote what I told that Council in regard to what the Council had achieved for the Coloured population in one year’s time. No, they did not quote that. Nor will they do so, because it does not suit their book. This Union Council took a whole series of steps during the past year which achieved more for the Coloureds than the hon. member for Peninsula or the hon. member for Outeniqua will ever achieve. The Prime Minister said that this Council should be reorganized so as to have more elected representatives on it, also as far as the Northern Provinces are concerned. And in terms of the existing legislation it is possible to give more powers to this Council and to make it an umbrella body which can take more powers over the rural and urban and town areas, and also the education of the Coloured, and whereby the Coloured leader will then be enabled to play a practical and active rôle in the government and upliftment of his own people. What did the Prime Minister say further in this House? He said that that is as far as we see the road now. But, he said, of course nothing is static and political rights will have to be considered further on the basis of parallel development. He also said that here. Just as little as hon. members opposite are able to say what will happen to-morrow or the day after, just as little is a Government able to describe the final end of the road. We say that within the limits of their capabilities there as enough work for every responsible Coloured leader who comes to the fore and wishes to uplift his people, who wants to assist us to make his people a worthy group and who wants to contribute towards uplifting the backward masses.

Now the hon. member for Peninsula says that the Burger wrote an article saying that the Government should do this, that or the other. I want to put a question to this hon. member. They are so fond of quoting the Burger. Has the Burger ever accepted the integration standpoint? Has the Burger ever pleaded that the policy of parallel development supported by this Government should be deviated from? The Burger has never as a newspaper adopted the standpoint of integration in the political or any other sphere. The Burger stands openly for parallel development. It will not avail the hon. member to try to sow dissension in the Nationalist ranks. Let me at the same time deal with a further point also. We often hear reference here to “the Cape view and the Northern view”. Let me now tell the hon. member that the “Cape view” may exist in the imagination, because the Coloured policy as it is formulated to-day was formulated with the full co-operation and with the greatest enthusiasm by the Nationalists in the south, together with Nationalists in the north. So leave that kind of story alone.

I want to conclude with this. I want to say that the Coloureds will make the biggest mistake of their lives the day they try to lend themselves to irresponsible actions before 31 May. They will lose the sympathy of the Whites, and it will take them generations to regain it. Responsible Coloureds know this. In the second place, I want to say that there is nothing to prevent decent Coloured leaders negotiating with the Government when they want to do so. That invitation is always open to them and I repeat it. I have done more than anybody opposite to get into touch with the Coloured leaders. I have attended their congresses. I sat on their platforms and I stayed there for hours whilst they were discussing other matters. I have sacrificed Saturday after Saturday to consult with Coloureds who wanted to see me, and I shall continue to do so.

But then the Coloureds must understand one thing, and that is that they will not get this Government and the National Party to abandon the policy on which it was elected to govern this country, by threats. We cannot do that. With all the goodwill and cooperation, all doors stand open to them. There are enough sensible Coloureds who are continually in touch with us.

Finally, just this. A terrible fuss has been made here about the Prime Minister’s reference to a state within a state. Sir, what did the Prime Minister say? In the first place, he rejected the policy of political integration, and I reject it here to-day just as the National Party has rejected it. If a party is no longer accepted by the people because it stands by that principle, then that party has only one alternative, namely to go under on its own principles. If the people want to adopt the standpoint of integration, it is their right to put another Government in power. A party cannot simply get rid of its principles because there is opposition to its principles. Secondly, the Prime Minister not only rejected integration, but asked: Why must we necessarily seek a solution for the further political rights of the Coloureds along the old well-known roads? And then he made this remark: Why cannot we do it, e.g., in the form of a state within a state?

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Please explain what it means.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The Prime Minister did not thereby say that the Nationalist Party and the Nationalist Government had now decided that this should be so. Of course he did not do that. He then added to it: We still have to do a lot of thinking about this matter, just as you still have to think a lot about your policy. [Interjections.] The Prime Minister also said that great sacrifices would accompany such a standpoint, but I say this afternoon that if we have to make sacrifices for it as an alternative to the pernicious system of integration, then we must do so.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the representatives of the Coloureds will be more responsible in their actions. I hope the hon. member for Peninsula, who has a rôle to play, will get up here and issue a serious warning to the Coloured people. Because it is not the great mass of the Coloureds who participate in these things. It is the irresponsible element, the misled element, particularly in the Cape Peninsula. I hope the hon. member will still take the opportunity to-day to get up here and to say: I want to warn the Coloureds that any co-operation directed towards the White man will make them lose our sympathy, and they will be the sufferers. I hope he will appeal to them to follow the sensible people amongst them, because there are sensible people, people who are able to carve out a better future for them in cooperation with the White Government of the country.

Mr. MOORE:

I was very interested in the speech of the hon. Deputy Minister giving us some indication of the policy in conducting the Department of Coloured Affairs. I gather that that policy is, generally, Government of the Coloured people, by the Coloured people for the Coloured people, and that the Government is anxious to encourage Coloured people to govern their own department. I wish he had had a private talk with the hon. Minister of Bantu Education—I assume they follow the same policy—because when I asked him what he was doing about the senior 100 posts in the Bantu Department he said none was occupied by Bantu. I therefore would like to ask this hon. Deputy Minister what progress is being made in his Department in this respect. He spoke approvingly of the appointment in future of Coloured people as inspectors of schools. Last year there was one but this year provision is being made, on page 150 of the Estimates, for two. I should like to know whether both of them are going to be Coloured inspectors. On the same page I notice that provision is being made for principals of schools and Coloured principals of schools. Now, what is the difference between a Coloured principal of a Coloured school and a principal of a Coloured school? Have we then reserved jobs in the Department of Coloured Affairs? Or are we having the rate for the job? Do you pay a Coloured principal less for doing the same work as a White principal in the Department of Coloured Affairs? I am asking for this information and this is the hon. Deputy Minister’s golden opportunity to furnish that information. I want now to turn to page 156 of the Estimates. He asked us to get down to the details of these Estimates and that is what I am trying to do. As higher posts on the establishment I see that provision is being made for 12 administrative posts. I would like to know how many of these posts are occupied by a Coloured civil servant, because as the hon. Deputy Minister has told us, there are many learned, brilliant and cultured people amongst our Coloured population, men who have occupied high posts in education. One I understand is a professor or a senior lecturer in the University College of the Western Province. Under professional higher posts I notice that provision is being made for 14 of them. How many of these are occupied by Coloureds? In the second column provision is made for 19 other administrative posts and in the fourth column provision is being made for one professional post. How many of these are being filled by Coloureds? Of the 46 posts taken together, how many are occupied by Coloured people, who are well qualified to occupy them and if they occupy them, do they get the same rate of pay in their own Department as a White person in their Department? These are matters which interest me, particularly because a good deal is being done here for Coloured education. I shall be very grateful if the hon. Deputy Minister could, in his next reply, give me the information I have asked for.

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

I do not think I can allow this opportunity to pass without expressing our appreciation, on behalf of this Committee, to the hon. the Deputy Minister for what he and his Department of Coloured Affairs are doing for the upliftment and the welfare of the Coloureds. His speech to-day which we listened to with great interest, is evidence of the spirit and the energy with which he devotes himself to this huge task.

Most of the hon. members opposite emphasized the point that political rights for the Coloureds is the only salvation for that section of our population. The hon. the Deputy Minister has dealt with those matters thoroughly to-day. There are other things which are of much more value to the Coloured than political rights at this moment. That does not mean that they should have no political rights at all, but there are other things which are more important to the Coloureds at this stage and I would like to deal with those matters.

I want to say that Nationalists, with very few exceptions, are unanimous that energetic and constructive steps should be taken to up-lift the Coloured population as a whole socially and economically, and that certain things in that connection should be done without delay and should receive priority. In this regard the comprehensive socio-economic development programme announced by the Government is universally acclaimed, accepted and enthusiastically supported. In order to ensure its success there are a few matters which should receive urgent attention. I want to mention a few of them. There is the taking over of Coloured education by the Government. There is the combating of the abuse of liquor by the Coloureds. There is the dynamic development of their separate residential areas, and there is the protection of the Coloureds against the Bantu in the social and economic spheres.

In regard to Coloured education, we all agree that having sound relations between the Whites and the Coloureds is of the greatest importance. In Coloured education we have a mighty weapon for creating goodwill and a good spirit. But then certain things have to be altered. One of these is the salaries of Coloured teachers. We must make satisfied people of these Coloured teachers who every day have thousands of young, growing Coloureds under their influence and who have to act as the leaven in every Coloured community. The Cape Province alone cannot carry the burden which is caused by Coloured education without discriminating between White and Coloured education. The longer Coloured education stays under the provinces the greater the reaction of the Coloured will be, and also particularly of the White man in the Cape Province who correctly believes that this is not his responsibility alone.

In regard to the abuse of alcohol, it is a great pity that the excessive use of liquor is playing havoc with the Coloured community. That is one of the basic reasons why the large mass of Coloureds who for all these years have lived in such close contact with White civilization are still so backward. That is the reason why all types of serious crime have doubled since the war amongst the Coloureds, and that serious crime amongst young Coloureds of under 20 years has trebled since the war. That is the reason for the high degree of unproductivity, irresponsibility and unreliability on the part of so many of them. That is the reason why wasting diseases and immorality are rife amongst them. Just think of the 23,500 Coloured children born illegally in the Union every year, which is 36y per cent of the birth figure of the Coloureds! The unbalanced attitude adopted by numbers of Coloured individuals has its origin in the inferiority complex given to them by those conditions. Unless we intervene drastically, these matters will not only endanger the Coloureds’ own future but also the future of their children, and as the result of their increasing numbers, also the future of the White people.

In regard to residential areas, I want to mention two matters. Whilst to an increasing extent we are still giving the Coloureds educational facilities, we still have the problem of finding sufficient opportunities for employment for educated Coloureds. That has been so for all these years, and that is partly why there is such a shortage of Coloureds in the higher professions. Over a period of 15 years, between 1936 and 1951, for which we have the figures, the number of Coloured doctors, engineers, attorneys and architects increased by only 10, from 11 to 21. Within two years the Western Provincie University College will put its first products on to the labour market. When opening that college the hon. the Minister of Education said—

The community and the authorities must ensure that they (the students) find employment suitable to their efficiency and education.

Those avenues of employment will have to be created. But the Coloureds are also very backward in the economic and commercial spheres. What is significant in that respect is that before the proclamation of group areas, in the biggest Coloured community in South Africa, in Athlone, only four out of 121 businesses were in the hands of Coloureds. If we really want to see a change in the relations between Coloureds and Whites, the Coloureds must have the prospect that in the economic and commercial spheres they will gradually have more independence and prosperity. The solution to these problems in my opinion lies in speeding up the tempo at which separate Coloured residential areas are developed. As the result of that, avenues of employment will be created for Coloureds at all levels of society, and others can consciously be created. And inside their own community Coloureds will be able to get a larger share in business and in the economic sphere with the assistance, inter alia, of the Coloured Development and Investment Corporation.

In regard to protection against the Bantu, I want to point out that because of the fact that the Coloured finds himself in the Western Cape, this area has a great attraction for the Bantu because he benefits from the higher salaries and wages paid here for non-White labour; because the Bantu have been living amongst the Coloureds here for all these years, and still live here to-day, and therefore enjoy greater freedom of movement than in many other places; because the Bantu coming from the reserves without his wife finds the Coloured woman here; and because the Bantu has easier access here to the White man’s liquor, with the assistance of the Coloured. When we therefore plead for protection against the Bantu, we think not only of the employment of the Coloured but also of his way of life, his social pattern which is being influenced and disrupted by the Bantu. Measures of protection should once again start by placing the Coloured as soon as possible in his own separate residential areas, away from the Bantu; by job reservation which unfortunately is misrepresented to the Coloured by malicious people as being his enemy; by giving more Coloureds technical training so that they can find employment more easily and which will put them in a position where they can compete with the Bantu better; and of course by the systematic and deliberate decrease of the numbers of Bantu in the Western Province. In regard to the last-mentioned aspect, I would like to quote a paragraph from the speech made by Dr. Eiselen before Sabra in 1955. It reads as follows—

As the guardians of the Coloureds we should bear in mind that the influx and lengthy stay of Natives in the Western Province can very easily lead to the moral deterioration and the economic impoverishment of the Coloureds. To the Coloured community this integration with Natives in the economic and social spheres constitutes a serious danger. Much less attention is devoted to their rehabilitation and to making them good and reliable workers than they should have and would have enjoyed if there were not such a large source of Native labour from which the necessary labour can conveniently be obtained.

Nowadays much is being said about the Coloured and his relation to the Whites. I think the background for this discussion is a deep-rooted fear that in this wave of rising Black Nationalism in Africa the White man in South Africa will not succeed in retaining the friendship, the partnership and the support of the Coloured. That fear is increased by the fact that Bantu agitators to-day more than ever before are active amongst the Coloureds and that at the moment they are subtly using the Coloured, particularly in the Peninsula, to spread panic amongst the Whites and thereby to create tension with a view to 31 May. Unfortunately there is also a small group of leaders without any real insight amongst the Coloureds, who do not realize what a disservice they are doing to their own people, and who for opportunistic reasons allow themselves to be used by the Bantu to do things which they themselves would never do on their own. [Time limit.]

*Prof. FOURIE:

I listened to the hon. the Deputy Minister with particular interest and I must say that I am proud of him. He displays qualities which convince me that he can still go very far …

*An HON. MEMBER:

But …

*Prof. FOURIE:

Yes, unfortunately there is a “but”. Unfortunately I have to add a “but” because I made ticks (strepies) here which indicate a clear course to me. I made no less than 33 ticks …

*An HON. MEMBER:

I thought you only had one streak (streep).

*Prof. FOURIE:

The hon. the Minister said: “We have done this, that and the other for the Coloureds and we want to do this, that and the other for them.” I am not one of those who talk frivolously about what has been done for the Coloureds. I appreciate it. I will even go so far as to say that no other Government in the history of the country has done more for the Coloureds than this Government has done, and particularly during the past few years. That is saying much, but it will not be the end of the matter. Seven years ago, following on certain events, I said here that I knew the Government would now go ahead and do things for the Coloureds. I said that the Government could provide houses, hospitals and universities for them but no matter what the Government and the Whites did for the Coloureds it could never compensate them for what had been done to them. I want to give the hon. the Minister, who was a good student, a look into history. No nation has ever been satisfied with what their aristocrats or their ruling classes did for them. Instead they insisted that they should also have a say in what was to be done for them. They insisted that their human dignity should be recognized at all times. No matter what the Whites did for the Coloureds, it will never satisfy them until they are placed in a position where they can do things themselves which will bring their human dignity to fulfilment. We want to do much more for them, but can we not face the facts? The fact is that the Coloured is to-day more opposed to the White man than ever before in history. Do not let us entertain any illusions about this. Whether one goes to Newlands or anywhere else, one sees occurrences never witnessed before. The Whites and the Coloureds in this country have gone a long way together and they have meant much to each other. The position of the White man would have been far more distressing had it not been for the Coloureds, and likewise the position of the Coloureds would have been very miserable had it not been for the Whites. Their futures were still interdependent as in the past and I want to say this to my Coloured friends: Do not allow yourselves to be misled; the White man is still your best friend, and I believe that the Coloured is still the White man’s best friend in Africa. I would not like to see the Coloureds driven in a direction where they do not know where their future lies and that they should afterwards discover that they have jumped from the frying pan into the fire. We are driving them from the frying pan into the fire. Let us do something for these people and let us stop talking about what we have done for them and still want to do. They want to be recognized. The Whites have many sins to answer for but they should not think that it was they who built South Africa, or even the Western Province. Who built the beautiful old buildings which are to-day monuments? Did the White man build all the houses in the Western Province, all the flats and all the streets, of which we can all be proud, and all the vineyards and orchards? Those are the fruits of integration about which the hon. the Minister is making such a fuss, the fruits of co-operation between the White man and the Coloured, the product of 300 years of integration. We must continue along that road of co-operation if we hope still to build up something in the Western Province. But co-operation will not be achieved along the road of so-called apartheid. I refer to it as so-called apartheid because it is not really apartheid, and the hon. the Minister should know it. I would advise him to think more about integration. I can even give him a few lessons on it. [Interjections.] We can continue along this road but the Coloureds will reject us because we do too many things which hurt them deeply, irrespective of what one does for them. Let us realize that. [Interjections.] The Western Province is the product of the White man’s brain and the Coloured’s brawn but the stage has now been reached where the Coloured is no longer content to give his brawn to the White man. He has developed his own brain because he is a product of the White man’s civilization. They have brought each other to where they are to-day but he wants to enter the next phase where he wants to use his own brain and his other capabilities and the tragedy is that the White man is scared of the product of his own civilization. Because the Coloured wants to use his own brain he necessarily comes into competition with the Whites and the hon. the Minister is trying to deny him that privilege. [Time limit.]

*Mr. VAN STADEN:

I think the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie) spoke very sensibly, except for the fact that he is not prepared to admit that this Government enjoys a great measure of co-operation from the Coloureds in so far as its activities are concerned. We have been told over the past 12 years that the Government will not get the co-operation of the Coloureds for its policy. Two years ago when the Coloured Affairs Board was constituted that side of the House said that the Government would never get decent Coloured people to make themselves available for election to that board. But the board was constituted and the Coloureds cooperated. Neither did they boycott the election. As I see the position and what I have experienced the majority of Coloureds do not harbour any grievances. On the contrary they are grateful to the White man for what he has done for them. I am not talking about the few skollies and agitators who are under the influence of the liberal-minded Europeans. I am talking about the broad masses of the Coloureds. The hon. member says the Coloureds do not want what we are doing for them, he wants to be placed in a position where he can do things for himself. In that case the hon. member ought to support the Government will all the power at his command, because that is the very thing the Government is aiming at, namely to place the Coloured man in a position to do things for himself. Let me tell the hon. member that the Coloured man is very grateful and he has reason to be grateful, he has more reason than the Afrikaans-speaking person to be thankful for the education that he has received. Thirty years ago the Afrikaans-speaking child did not have the privileges which the Coloured child enjoys to-day. We on this side of the House say: We have now established a Coloured Affairs Department and we want to take Coloured education away from the Provincial Administration and place it under that Department so that there will no longer be divided control and so that the Coloureds will have the opportunity for which the hon. member pleads. What opportunities are we creating for him by placing his education under the Coloured Affairs Department? We want to give him equal opportunities for employment. Then you will have parallel development. In that case you will remove the frustration from which the Coloured man suffers and you will give his children the opportunity to study up to matriculation and beyond. You have to create opportunities for them. He will never have the opportunity if he has to compete with the White man. The hon. member himself has abandoned his integration plan, the plan to which he was father. He has realized that his integration plan is worthless. Let us get away from education. The Coloured man is grateful for the health services which they receive. When the Coloured man has the opportunity to develop his own local authorities he has to start from the bottom. You have to start with small local authorities—that is how the local authority system of the White people started—that will develop into a town management at a later stage and eventually into a municipality. If the Coloured man goes along this road, and he has to travel along it to gain experience, he gets the employment facilities for which hon. members opposite plead. When you have municipalities you create positions for town clerks, typists and clerks.

*An HON. MEMBER:

When?

*Mr. VAN STADEN:

It took the White men in this country 300 years to develop to that stage and in very small places they still have to start at the bottom to-day. All of us have to start at the bottom. We are all born as babies and not as adults. Why do hon. members want to hand everything to the Coloured man on a platter? He has to earn it. People do not appreciate things that they have not earned. When you get to the stage where they have local authorities, and once those have developed into municipalities—as far as White municipalities are concerned you have the position to-day that they erect housing for the Coloureds by means of Government loans—they themselves will be in a position to obtain loans from the Government to do things for their own people, which is what the hon. member wants, but he can only get that along our practical road and not along his philosophical road.

*Prof. FOURIE:

May I put a practical question? The hon. member says the Coloureds must start with small town boards, as the White people did. Will he tell the White man that because he started in a small town he will have no political rights in this Parliament?

*Mr. VAN STADEN:

That question brings me to my next point. There are grievances but they are imaginary. Those are not the grievances of the Coloureds but of the United Party. Those grievances have been created not by the Coloureds but by the United Party, such as the grievances in connection with the separate Coloured voters’ roll. It is the United Party, not the Coloureds who started that fight and the Coloureds are not the people who are carrying on with this fight. I think the Coloureds are more satisfied with the present arrangement than with that of the past, particularly with the way in which the hon. member for Karoo is representing them in this House. It is the United Party that is keeping this grievance alive because they would like to call in the Coloureds as their allies against the National Party. That is the only way which the United Party sees to come into power. Some hon. members opposite acclaimed the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) when he said it was five to 12. I am sorry that I have to say this but if they think it is five to 12 it seems to me that they delight in the fact that it is five to 12 for the White man in South Africa. The United Party are pleased about the position because they believe something will happen and that is why they rely on the Burger in season and out of season. They think they see an ally in the Burger to bring the Government to a fall … [Time limit.]

Mr. EGLIN:

I do not intend to deal with the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down, save to say that when one listens to such speeches one would assume that the Coloureds have never had any political or civic rights. But I think we should realize that the Coloureds in the Cape have never had any disqualification in regard to civic rights. They are not suddenly getting political and civic rights from this Government like manna from Heaven. They have played an integral part in the civic structure of the Cape ever since the province came into existence.

I want to return to the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister and to say that this was the hon. member to whom we became accustomed in the early days. This was the political in-fighter we used to know, who on the one hand was mercilessly flaying his political opponents and on the other hand was trying to reconcile the differences which there are between members on his side in connection with the representation of the Coloured people; here was the man who was going to explain to us what is a state within a state, but because this thing just cannot be explained he just sat down without explaining it. We listened to a skilful bit of political in-fighting which took us no further at all along the road of satisfying the reasonable aspirations and ambitions of the Coloured people. The failure of the Government and of the Deputy Minister was evidenced by his failure to answer one question which he asked himself. He said: What more do we want? We have all the information; we have had commissions of inquiry, and what more does the Government want? I want to say that what the Government needs is not facts or figures, nor theory or policy, but a little bit of human kindness, a touch of common humanity, and the realization that people with brown faces are still South Africans and human beings. I hear so much from hon. members opposite about agitators. As soon as a South African with a brown face asks for the very things which we with White faces would ask for, he is an agitator. Why is the White man who wants equality of opportunity any more or any less of an agitator than a Coloured man with the same feelings? I think we should realize that you cannot win the hearts of people by putting money on the Estimates. You cannot buy the goodwill of a group of people by building hospitals and schools for them. Under this Deputy Minister it is possible that more has been done and more money has been spent than under his predessors, but nevertheless the fact is that giving them hospitals and schools and the right to separate development still does not give them ordinary human dignity. Until the Deputy Minister realizes that what the Coloured people want is not hand-outs or what they can pick up as the result of the goodwill of the Minister, but the dignity of being full citizens in their own country, for so long will he be able to realize why he cannot gain the goodwill of the Coloured people. The Deputy Minister blamed the backwardness of large numbers of Coloureds on what he said was the process of economic integration.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I spoke about the policy of integration. I did not speak about economic integration.

Mr. EGLIN:

What else is that but economic integration? The Minister knows there is no policy of social integration, so it must mean economic integration. What nonsense he is speaking. The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) said this afternoon that nearly 50,000 Coloureds pay income tax. That shows the co-operation in the economic field between the Coloureds and the White man. He asks in what other fields have they made any great impression. What about the artisans in the Cape? Are not nearly all the artisans in the building industry Coloureds as the result of economic integration? What about the motor-assembly plants and the factories, and what about the integration in the cultural sphere? I can remember how the Deputy Minister was pleased to listen to “La Traviata” performed by a Coloured group. Is that not an example of integration in the cultural field? I think we must realize that integration, where it is applied in the economic field, is the one means of raising the status of the Coloured people.

I was impressed by the two opening speeches in this debate this afternoon, the one by the hon. member for Peninsula and the one of a very different nature by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. van Eeden). Both of these speeches were sincere speeches which carried different messages which flowed from the background against which the speakers knew the Coloureds. The hon. member for Swellendam was steeped in the rural atmosphere; his message was that Rome was not built in a day. I think the more important speech was the one by the hon. member for Peninsula which had in it a sense of urgency. I think we should realize that, although Rome was not built in a day, Pompeii was destroyed in a day. And we are sitting on the edge of a racial volcano. I think one of the tragedies of the administration of the present Government has been that, despite the goodwill and the hard work of certain officials and despite the good intentions of certain hon. members opposite, the Coloured man to-day is further away from the White man than he has ever been before. In addition, the Coloured people did not in the past think in terms of co-ordinated political action. They have been tolerant and cheerful. I want to tell hon. members that that is not the spirit which prevails amongst them to-day in the Peninsula. This has arisen because of a series of pin-pricks and humiliations and restrictions and the unfair application of laws in respect of the Coloured people. The Deputy Minister took one of the hon. members to task for referring to the inequalities in the operation of the Group Areas Act. The figures he gave me earlier in the Session revealed the fact that over 90,000 Coloureds were affected by group area proclamations in Cape Town, their traditional home, whereas only some 7,000 Europeans were affected. By no stretch of the imagination can it be contended that this reflects a reasonable and fair application of the Act in respect of Coloureds.

I want to come back to my theme and to tell the hon. the Minister that if a state within a state means anything worth while, it must offer to the Coloured people to-day the opportunity of realizing that they can become full citizens in their own country. I differ from the system the Minister wishes to impose, but if he is sincere in wishing to get the goodwill of the Coloureds, even a system of separate development and separate representation must allow the Coloured man to feel that he is a full citizen and a man of dignity in his own country; and until the Minister can explain how this state within a state and how the system of separate development within our integrated state can allow full expression for the Coloureds, so long am I afraid he will continue to build hospitals and extend education, and the Coloured people will thank him not for what he has given to them. Rather will they become increasingly aware of what he has denied to them.

Mr. HOLLAND:

An indication here this afternoon of what the Government puts across in regard to what it is supposed to be doing for the Coloured people, was given here by the fact that certain members took part in the discussion. Sir, I do not want to go into detail or to analyse what they said here, but when I see the hon. members for Parow (Mr S. F. Kotzé), Vasco (Mr. C. V. de Villiers), Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) and last night the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Badenhorst) on group areas, taking part in this debeate, then I begin to wonder. Here you have gentlemen who, for seven or eight years, stumped the country as political organizers and tried to make the White people believe that the Coloured people are just about political vermin and that they should lose their political rights. These are the same people who get up to-day and tell you what wonderful things this Government is doing for the Coloured people. I am very sorry that the hon. the Deputy Minister, with his unlimited time, did not only state the facts that he wanted to state but that he was inclined to descend to the level of the mere politician and to justify himself by attacking me or other members here.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Do not become so serious; we have become accustomed to your being silly usually.

Mr. HOLLAND:

That is all very well. The Deputy Minister had unlimited time and, when he stopped, he still had not told us a single thing. I am held up to ridicule when I compare the economic benefits held out to the Coloured people to a bowl of lentil soup. But are those people not entitled to political rights? The hon. member for Malmesbury gets up here and says that it is only agitators and members of the Opposition parties who are inciting the Coloured people to ask for political rights. And then the Deputy Minister talks about being serious! I repeat what I have said here previously, that the time has never been as appropriate as now for the Government to show some tangible sign of willingness to understand that here they are dealing with 1,500,000 people in this country who are not merely satisfied with economic benefits or whatever advantages they might get; they also want a share in the government of South Africa, the country of their birth. Sir, you cannot say that here you have a White Parliament elected solely by White people and then adopt the attitude: “We know what is best for you.” When you legitimately ask for your rights, you are told that you are being instigated by agitators. The names were mentioned here this afternoon of people who are so-called agitators. Sir, hon. members on that side who spoke and who mentioned the names of certain Coloured people, will never, as long as they live, attain the educational standards and the standard of development attained by those people whom they criticize here and refer to as nincompoops. To-day the position is that a Coloured man holding a university degree is able to hire the City Hall of Cape Town and to attract thousands of people to listen to him, and yet that sort of man is held up to ridicule and told that he has nothing behind him. But it is quite a different matter when a stooge is discovered who talks in favour of the Government or in favour of Government policies, a man who would not dare to appear in public because he would be virtually stoned by his own people. I have seen it with my own eyes. When such a person is mentioned he is the epitome of what is sensible; he is described as a man who knows the Coloured people and who knows what they want. Sir, the Deputy Minister asked here: “What is the eleventh hour, what is this late stage?” The “late stage”, as far as the Coloured people are concerned, is that the time has come when they have lost confidence and faith in the White people. We are going to lost them, and we are going to find that they are going to seek assistance and their salvation elsewhere. The eleventh hour, the late stage in South Africa in regard to our African people, is that their leaders, with whom we will have to discuss their own future, as well as ours, are put in gaol or banished, and the extremists are taking over.

The hon. the Deputy Minister made reference here to the Blue Books and the reports of commissions which have sat from time to time, and he said that they had all these documents in their possession, and that they were acting on the recommendations contained in these documents. May I ask the Deputy Minister whether those Blue Books and reports recommended the Group Areas Act? To-day, when there is a shortage of 20,000 houses, he tells us that 8,000 are being built; everything has come to a standstill in the meantime. Did those reports recommend job reservation? Did they recommend the Senate Act? Did they recommend all the apartheid measures which have been introduced over the years? Sir, I would be failing in my duty if I did not repeat that the time has arrived when we have to respect other people’s feelings and recognize the fact that they also have the right to have a share in the government of the country. With all the sincerity at my command, I call upon the Coloured people, as I have done outside this House, not to take part in demonstrations and strikes on 31 May. It will serve no good purpose. We must put their case before Parliament, as we endeavour to do when time permits. On the other hand, faced with the situation that we have to-day, I also want to call upon the employers of people who may stay away from work to consider the fact that these people live in places where you cannot urge them to leave their wives and children behind and go to work that day, not knowing what might happen to them.

I want to conclude with these few words—and this is the consensus of opinion and the feeling of Coloured people who know what they are talking about, and who have a following among the masses of the Coloured people. I want to remind hon. members opposite, in spite of all the mass hysteria that they may work up with election results or big ovations when the Prime Minister appears anywhere, that when Mussolini was hanging upside down on the square of Milan, the tens of thousands who shouted “Avanti, viva il Duce” were not there to help him. The same thing will happen in this country. Sir, in 1652 a Hollander came to this country with his soldiers, his sailors and his workmen. Less than a year after that, the first Coloured people made their appearance in this country. The attitude of the Coloured people is that they will not sit down quietly and allow another Hollander, after 300 years, to wrest away from them what is their birth-right.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I just rise to reply to the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore). As the hon. member will see from the Estimates, of the 573 posts 266 are occupied by Coloureds. The highest post which is at present being occupied by a Coloured in the Department is that of Senior Clerk, but there is nothing to prevent their rising from the bottom to the highest post, as is the practice in the Public Service. In other words, in the Department of Coloured Affairs they can, if they have the ability, progress according to the ordinary Public Service rules. But it would be unsound, just because he is a Coloured, to put him in a position of superiority over Whites who probably know much more about the work than he does, and therefore these things must be done along the ordinary channels of evolution in that Department. In so far as the inspectors are concerned, I can just say that there are two inspectors. My information is that there are no Coloureds available who comply with his particular requirements. They have not yet had this type of training.

*Mr. MILLER:

What about principals of schools?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Then the hon. member also referred to the professional posts, of which there are 15. I am informed by the Department that they advertised but that no Coloured applied. But in that regard I just want to say that we have made an arrangement with the University College of the Western Province, as the result of representations made by the Department of Coloured Affairs, to train professional men in respect of welfare services, and a start has now been made with that. The Department of Coloured Affairs is gradually also taking over the welfare services, and as soon as these people have been trained and are available posts will be available which they can fill. The reply to the hon. member therefore is that there is nothing to prevent the Coloured getting his due rights in this Department, provided he is prepared to start at the bottom and work his way up.

Mr. BARNETT:

I merely wish to have it on record that time does not permit me to take part in this debate and to deal with the very many subjects which have been dealt with. I wish to have it on record that I hope that the time will come when I will have an opportunity to deal with these subjects dealt with by the Deputy Minister which affect the Coloured people and their future so vitally.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 32.—“Immigration”, R1,137,000,

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Chairman, when the Estimates of expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue Account during the year ending on 31 March 1962 were drawn up, an independent Department of Immigration did not yet exist, and there was as yet no clarity about the future policy. The details appearing under Vote 32 in the Budget are therefore by no means a clear reflection of what the Government aims to do in order to stimulate immigration to South Africa. On 17 February of this year I announced in broad outline in the Senate what the functions of the new Department would be, but no detailed information was provided. The Department of Immigration began functioning on 1 April last.

In the short period of 1y months it was, of course, impossible to plan a procedure which would cover the whole policy of the Government in regard to immigration. Yet it is possible for me to-day already to announce important aspects of the policy which will be followed in future to guidance and recruiting of immigrants and the spending of funds to make their migration to South Africa attractive and easier.

Mr. Chairman, I am, therefore, at this stage going to announce the Government’s decision in this connection. Not only will it facilitate later discussion of this Vote, but also make it unnecessary for hon. member to ask questions because they are not properly informed.

To carry out the Government’s plans, the following amounts which were not previously budgeted for, will be added to the Supplementary Estimates:

(1)

Contribution to passage costs

R900,000

(2)

Contribution to administrative expenses of the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration

R20,000

(3)

Support for immigrants from certain African territories

R60,000

(4)

Interest free loans to immigrants

R660,000

Total

R1,64344,000

The Government’s decisions embrace the following:

(a) three private organizations have for a considerable time already been recruiting immigrants for South Africa, namely, the 1820 Memorial Settlers’ Association Transa (Pty.), Ltd., and the South African Immigration Organization (Pty.), Ltd., (also known as SAMORGAN).

On 1 November 1960, a scheme came into operation whereby the Government lends financial aid to TRANSA and SAMORGAN to enable them to step up their attempts to bring more immigrants to South Africa.

The first-mentioned organization mainly recruits immigrants from Germany, while the latter applies itself particularly to the United Kingdom.

A subsidy is payable to these organizations on the basis of R30 per immigrant above the age of 12 years and R15 for children of 12 years and younger. This has been paid since 1 November 1960.

The claims submitted by these organizations must be accompanied by vouchers to the effect that the immigrants brought into the country:

  1. (i) are informed about South Africa;
  2. (ii) were recruited for immigration purposes;
  3. (iii) have housing in South Africa; and
  4. (iv) that the breadwinner has received employment.

The existing agreement remains in operation until 30 June 1961. Thereafter it will be prolonged for a further period.

The Government has, however, decided that the payment of the subsidy will be made only in respect of immigrants from particular countries. In the case of TRANSA the territory is West Germany, Austria and Switzerland, and in the case of SAMORGAN the United Kingdom.

The 1820 Memorial Settlers Association is similarly recognized as a recruiting organization in the United Kingdom.

The Department of Immigration will also undertake guidance and recruiting of immigrants in the afore-mentioned countries, as well as in any other country, should circumstances demand it.

At this stage I am not prepared to recognize any other organization or recruiting body abroad.

The existing position first has to be consolidated and the Department of Immigration properly established before new applications can be considered. At the same time the necessity for the continued recognition of TRANSA and SAMORGAN as recruiting organizations has also to be investigated.

(b) I have already introduced legislation to expand the Immigrants’ Selection Board in such a way that the selection of immigrants, if necessary, can also be carried out abroad. (Bill to amend the Aliens Act, 1937.)

(c) The State will contribute the following to passage expenses in respect of

  1. (i) immigrants transported by the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration (in Afrikaans: Tussen-regeringse Komitee vir Europese Verhuising):
    R44 per immigrant of 12 years and older;
    R22 per immigrant under the the age of 12 years.
  2. (ii) All other immigrants from overseas countries who are not transported by the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration:
    R60 per immigrant.
    This contribution is the same for children and adults.
    Mr. Chairman, I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that this contribution will also be paid to immigrants recruited by the already mentioned private organizations, as well as to employers who transport immigrants to South Africa at their own expense.
  3. (iii) Should the contribution be insufficient, a further R60 per person will be allowed as an interest free loan to approved immigrants.
    The breadwinner of the family will be expected to refund the loan within two years of employment.
    Again I want to point out that the loan of R60 will be the same for children and adults.
    It must be noted, however, that immigrants transported by the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration will not be entitled to this loan. The reason for this is that their contribution towards their migration to South Africa is very small.
    Apart from the portion which South Africa pays as the receiving country, the passage costs of these immigrants are covered by contributions by the countries of origin, the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration itself, as well as a subsidy from the United States of America.
  4. (iv) The contribution and loan already mentioned applies to immigrants from overseas countries. The policy concerning African countries is slightly different.
    Prospective immigrants from nearby neighbouring countries, namely the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Mozambique and Angola, who want to emigrate to South Africa will, with the exception of the Angola farmers, not be entitled to the contribution of R60 and the loan of R60.
    Approved immigrants from the rest of Africa will, however, receive an assistance allowance of R60 per head after their arrival, as well as an interest free loan of R60 per member of the family. The loan must be refunded by the breadwinner within two years of employment.
  5. (v) To make control easier and to save work, the payment of contributions and loans to immigrants will preferably be made after their arrival in South Africa. Should prospective immigrants need the money before their arrival, however, arrangements will be made to make funds available in the countries of origin. Every case will be treated on its merits.
  6. (vi) Approved immigrants who leave their countries of origin for South Africa as from 1 June 1961 will be entitled to the financial aid mentioned.
    Because it will be impossible to organize the accounts section of the Department of Immigration in such a way that it will be able to function properly within the next month, no payment will, however, be made before 1 July 1961.

(d) In general attempts are being made to bring about the necessary amendments where regulations hamper the smooth running of the organization or are irritating to the immigrant. Thus, for example, arrangements are being made to delete the regulation which stipulates that every alien must pay R2 in respect of a permit before entering the country.

(e) As I have already announced in the Senate, full use will be made of the facilities provided by the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration (ICEM), of which South Africa is a member. It offers us services in certain countries without which we would be forced to expand our own facilities considerably, which could not take place immediately and which is perhaps also unnecessary. The services embrace among other things guidance, including the dissemination of advertisement material, preliminary selection, medical examinations, security and passports.

South Africa will have to compensate the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration for these services, and provision is being made for this in the supplementary Budget.

(f) Under subhead B of Vote 32 an amount is provided for expenses involved in the transport of immigrants from the port of entry to their respective places of employment. Should an immigrant not yet have obtained employment, however, he will first be transported at State expense to his temporary residence and after that, when he has received employment, to his place of employment.

This arrangement will come into force on 1 June 1961.

The provision does not apply to immigrants recruited by the two private organizations, TRANSA and SAMORGAN.

(g) The question of temporary housing for immigrants, for which provision is made under subhead G of Vote 32, is still being investigated, and it is expected that proper arrangements will not be possible before 1 July of this year.

It is, however, already clear that receiving centres will have to be provided near Johannesburg and Cape Town.

The Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie (M.E.I.), an organization which endeavours to assist immigrants to settle as quickly as possible in their new environment, has for a considerable time already been attempting to have such a receiving centre set up at Brakpan. Good progress has already been made. Until such time as the envisaged receiving centres are available the plan is to allow immigrants who need housing to reside in hotels, boarding houses or other suitable institutions.

(h) It may also be mentioned that any immigrant will be entitled only once to the special concessions now envisaged.

(i) In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat a previous appeal to all who can contribute to making South Africa’s immigration attempts a success, to do so fully.

My Department of Immigration will endeavour to obtain close co-operation with organizations such as the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie, the 1820 Memorial Settlers’ Association, the South African Immigration Trust, organized Agriculture, Commerce, Industry and Mining, or any other institution which is or can be of assistance to immigration in the interests of the country.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

We appreciate the Minister’s long memorandum on his immigration policy, but I hope the Minister will forgive us if we do not debate it; there is simply not the time. There is a limited time on these Votes. We have already exceeded the time available and we still have another three Votes to deal with. My only comment is that this scheme is some 13 years late. I hope the Minister will accept our explanation. It is no reflection on the Minister’s scheme which merits further discussion. I feel quite sure that he will agree that in the future some other arrangement will have to be made in regard to the time allocated for Votes, because it is quite clear that with the increased number of portfolios and the increased number of Departments, there is insufficient time for a proper discussion of matters as serious as these.

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

And not a week on the Prime Minister’s Vote!

Mr. HOPEWELL:

Mr. Chairman, you know that the Prime Minister’s Vote is not under discussion. We gave the Prime Minister’s Vote the importance to which it was entitled.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! Will the hon. member come back to the Vote?

Mr. HOPEWELL:

Sir, I have given my explanation as to why we are not debating this statement and I hope the Minister will accept it.

Vote put and agreed to.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

On Vote No. 33.—“Labour”, R6,344,000.

Mr. EATON:

Mr. Chairman, may I claim the privilege of the half-hour.

Last time we had the opportunity of discussing the Minister’s Vote, last year, we had no idea at that stage that a republic would be proclaimed this year or that South Africa would be outside the Commonwealth. It is necessary, I think, to bear these two points in mind when we discuss the Minister’s Vote this year. The responsibility that rests upon this Minister as the Minister of Labour in relation to the welfare of the workers of South Africa is extremely heavy, and in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, the Wage Act, the Shops and Offices Act, War Measure 43 of 1942, and the Native Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act, together with the Central Native Labour Board the interest of every worker in the so-called European areas does in the final analysis become the responsibility of the Minister of Labour. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think it is as well that the Committee should appreciate that factor, because there are those that believe that the welfare of the Bantu is the sole responsibility of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. That is not the case as far as the economic welfare of the Bantu people is concerned. The problems facing the hon. the Minister are perhaps better known to him than they are to members of the Opposition. I will first deal with the question that has arisen as a result of our intended withdrawal from the Commonwealth and the pressures that are being exerted upon us from outside interests as well as internal pressures which may result (I hope not) in large-scale unemployment. To get that picture in its true perspective, it is necessary to quote the last available figures that we have in respect of unemployment as obtainable in the Monthly Bulletin of Statistics for March 1961, and the latest monthly figures which are available are those in respect of November 1960 where the total of White, Asiatic and Coloured unemployed is given as 25,257 as against 28,722 in July 1959. In other words these figures show a gradual improvement since 1959. As far as Bantu male adults and juveniles are concerned, the figure of unemployed dropped from 47,000 in July 1959 to 32,719 in October 1960. Those are the figures available to us as an Opposition, but I would ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give us the latest figures he has when he replies to this debate. I think it is as well that we should know because information which we have been given, some of it from most reliable sources, is to the effect that there has been a rapid deterioration in the unemployment position in recent weeks. I do not know whether that is correct, but that is the information given to us. I would ask the hon. the Minister therefore firstly if he will give us the latest figures which are available, and secondly, if in the light of those figures, he is taking into account any plans, is he considering any plans in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act and other Acts to combat unemployment should unemployment occur as a result of our isolation and as a result of other influences arising out of the policies of the present Government? I think it is as well that we should get this picture quite clearly before us, because it is no use being wise after the event. Those of us who remember what happened in 1932-3 when we had those depression years, will remember the recriminations that were made as to how the Government should have taken steps earlier to obviate the extreme hardships experienced as a result of that depression. Now I am the last one and this party is the last party that wishes to see anything of that sort happening. But in the interest of the workers of this country, we must bear in mind that if anything of that sort happens the first people to suffer are going to be the workers, and particularly the Bantu workers. That is why I say to the hon. the Minister at this stage that with the information which he has he should be able to say to us whether the position is serious or not serious as far as unemployment in the country is concerned, and that as far as he is concerned, he does not consider it necessary at this stage to take any steps to combat any unemployment which may be with us or likely to occur in the near future. The figure that I have been given of an increase in unemployment of some 6,000 during the last two or three weeks, if correct, indicates a very serious downward trend. I make the point that outside action against South Africa may have serious consequences. I am not suggesting that this outside action may develop because the Bantu workers in our country are worse off than in other states of Africa. The figures that are available indicate that the Bantu in South Africa are generally speaking in a more favourable economic position than in other states in Africa. But I make the point because the policies being followed by this Government in portfolios other than that of the Minister of Labour are giving ammunition to our enemies overseas and can very well bring about pressures in South Africa which this Minister of Labour, because he is responsible for the wellbeing of the workers, will have to bear the full brunt. It is a tremendous responsibility that the hon. the Minister has to bear and I am making the point now, because I think without exception it is not so much the policy being followed by the Minister of Labour as a result of which outside pressures have been built up against South Africa as policies in other Departments, but the Minister of Labour will have to bear the brunt of it. There is one exception and the exception is in respect of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. The hon. the Minister will know that this is the largest confederation of trade unions that we have in the world that is opposed to Communism, very much opposed to Communism, and it is doing what it can to further the interests of the trade union movement throughout the world, and this organization has asked the United Nations to apply economic sanctions against South Africa, mainly because we exclude Africans from engaging directly in collective bargaining. That is their main point of complaint. Now last year we asked the hon. the Minister to make greater use of the Industrial Conciliation Act in respect of Bantu workers. We were severely attacked by the Deputy Minister of Labour and other Government members for making this suggestion. Now I want to indicate how good that advice was and I bring as witness the Deputy Minister himself in this regard. I want to quote from Hansard where the Deputy Minister said this—

A fourth step is being taken outside the framework of the Wage Board, that is to say wage increases which the Wage Board lays down are being applied to other branches of industry. With that object in mind we are ensuring that the Industrial Council agreements—these are agreements which as hon. members know are the result of collective bargaining between the trade unions and employers’ organizations—are extended to Native employees in the industries concerned. That is to say, that by this extension of the Industrial Council agreements to include Native workers as well, a total of 240,000 Native workers have, for example, been brought under Industrial Council agreements since 1958, which means that increased wages have been granted to these 240,000 workers.

That is a totally different story to what the hon. Deputy Minister had to say when we discussed this matter last year. But I am drawing attention to this fact because the same Deputy Minister accused this side of the House of not being realistic in its approach to the labour problems of this country and accused us of not making suggestions which helped in any way to solve the problems facing the country. I mention now that we did put forward this suggestion of the greater use of Industrial Council agreements in so far as Bantu workers are concerned and it did not find favour at first blush with members on the other side. But I am glad to say that they saw the wisdom of it and have now accepted it, and I think we can safely say that the policy of the Government now can be said quite clearly to be the greater utilization of the existing machinery of the Industrial Conciliation Act to bring about improvements in the wages of the Bantu. This means, in other words, that a considerable number of African workers are obtaining the benefits of collective bargaining without being directly represented at the negotiations. I mention that because it is a fact which we should publicize more than we are doing. The fact that the Bantu are not directly concerned with those negotiations as far as being able to assist in the negotiations, does not alter the fact that they are getting considerable benefits from those negotiations.

The hon. Deputy Minister also indicated in this same speech that he is keenly interested in giving Africans a direct say in their working conditions by way of encouraging the formation of works committees in terms of the Native Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act. In that regard the Deputy Minister had this to say—

I personally gave instructions last year that these works committees should be further extended. At the moment we only have a limited number of these committees in the country, but it is felt that works committees should be established on a far larger scale. Divisional inspectors are instructed to contact employers and to persuade them to establish more such works committees.

We have no complaint about this at all. I think it is a step in the right direction. Now I want to put a direct question to the hon. Minister: Will this policy of encouraging the formation of works committees not make it possible for the Bantu workers employed in industries (I want to emphasize those words “employed in these industries”) to take a more active part in collective bargaining at some time in the future in respect of Wage Board determinations? I want to make the point quite clear. It is not suggested that we should have Native trade unions. Before we can have Native trade unions, I think the preliminary step is to get the Native workers well organized in terms of these works committees, forming the necessary personnel that will give us the confidence to entrust that personnel with the responsibilities of taking a more active part directly in their own well-being. In that regard I think the hon. the Minister should look very carefully at the Native Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act, and see whether it would not be advisable to introduce an amendment which will protect those workers that do take part in the formation of works committees against victimization by employers. The hon. the Minister will know that such a clause is included in the Industrial Conciliation Act that any workers, shop stewards, etc., who take an active part in the affairs of trade unions, are protected in terms of the Act against victimization by employers. But there is no similar protection in the Native Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act in respect of Bantu workers who take part in the building up of these works committees, and I think it is something that the Minister should consider very carefully. I want to quote the Deputy Minister again to indicate the importance of the Wage Act as far as the Bantu workers are concerned and to give an idea of what is being done in this regard. The Deputy Minister said this—

The most recent report of the Central Native Labour Board …

This is a report which is not available to Members of Parliament. So I have got to quote from the Minister’s speech to give the information—

The most recent report of the Central Native Labour Board to the Minister tabulates the wage increases which have been granted since 1956. I am not going to give the figures for every year, but am giving the figures for the last two years: In 1959, wage increases were granted which varied from 3s. 3d. to £9 9s. 7d. per month in respect of 183,000 workers. In 1960, wage increases which varied from 5s. 1d. to £6 6s. 9d. were obtained for 135,000 Native workers.

One can see the work that is being done by the Wage Board in this regard and the fact that the Wage Board has been strengthened and that the determinations take place more rapidly, in other words that there is a a quicker adjustment of wages in that regard, makes the point that I have made in respect of works committees and their recognition at some date in the future, when sufficient works committees are established, still more important—dovetailing of their activities into the first stages of negotiations, that is at the Wage Board level. That would be a step in the right direction and would give us the type of individual among the the Bantu that would enable us to build up from that to whatever may be the development in the future. I think the hon. the Minister will appreciate that until we can get a responsible element among the Bantu workers from amongst those who are actually working in the industries, that is not possible. We do not wish to have university graduates taking part in the activities at this stage. We want the actual workers themselves in the industries to play their responsible part in the formation of policy and in the development of the assistance that is necessary to build up a fine Native labour force. I have dealt with this matter at length because I feel that we have got to consider this whole question of the Bantu worker because of what is happening around us to-day. Those that believe, as some do, on the Government benches, that job reservation is going to make the position of the White workers secure and that we do not have to bother about what happens to the Black workers or the non-European workers, for those there is a considerable shock in store when they realize to what extent the White workers are dependent on the non-White workers for their very occupation and their very jobs in industry and commerce. We have got to accept that we require more than mere job reservation to protect the interests of the White workers.

While on this question of job reservation, there was a report in the Cape Times on the 26th of last month, dealing with this question of job reservation, and it said this—

The Trade Union Council votes to scrap job reservation. Ninety-five delegates attending the annual conference of the S.A. Trade Union Council here yesterday unanimously voted in favour of scrapping job reservation and decided to make the strongest representations possible to the Government to do so. The T.U.C. represents 148,000 workers in 35 trade unions.

It goes on to say—

The introduction of job reservation has proved disastrous in Germiston where there are now only 600 clothing workers as against 2,000 in 1953. The number of garment workers in the Union has dropped by 6,000 since 1953.

I ask the hon. the Minister: What is the position now in so far as the Germiston garment workers are concerned? It is necessary to cover a little ground here so that the Committee will appreciate what has happened as a result of the interference in the economic laws in the industrial field, this establishment of border industries where such industries fall outside the machinery of the Industrial Conciliation Act and thus affect the livelihood of hundreds of garment workers, particularly in the Germiston area. The hon. the Minister will remember that representations were made to him a long time ago in this connection. In April 1959 the hon. the Minister gave notice to the clothing factories in uncontrolled areas that they must put their house in order within a year because existing industrial agreements in the clothing industry would be extended to adjoining areas. That was in 1959. In February 1960 the hon. Minister of Labour promised Rand garment workers that he would extend the Transvaal Wage Agreement to the uncontrolled areas within six weeks. I now read from a statement I have received—

The Minister’s decision has been taken to end the revolt of Nationalist garment workers in Germiston over the Government’s policy of allowing the uncontrolled factories to undercut those on the Rand.

Then again in March 1960—

A searching inquiry into the whole question of wages paid to workers in factories bordering the Native reserves is to be held soon, the Minister of Labour, Senator de Klerk, announced in the Senate yesterday.

In February 1961, a year later—

Representatives of 600 White garment workers in Germiston yesterday sent the Minister of Labour, Senator de Klerk, an ultimatum to meet them on the East Rand within the next 15 days,—and if he failed to do so, the workers’ Nationalist Controlled Executive Committee intends to take drastic action to prevent the spreading of unemployment in their industry.

The secretary of that union said—

Something has to be done with speed to prevent factories in the border areas continuing to employ Black labour in direct competition with White workers elsewhere.

In March 1961—

The Minister of Labour, Senator Jan de Klerk, has challenged Mr. J. du Pisanie, M.P. for Germiston, and the 600-member Nationalist-controlled Germiston Klerewerkers Unie to report him to Dr. Verwoerd if they believe him to be guilty of misdemeanour.

It is unfortunate, I know, that the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. du Pisanie) is not able to be here to-night and to take part in these debates. I understand the reasons and I sympathize with him, but I do feel that the garment workers in the Germiston area have been put to a tremendous amount of difficulty through the stubbornness of this Minister in not recognizing the economic factors which have resulted in their unemployment in large numbers in the Germiston area. In this letter which is alleged to have been sent to 30 senior Nationalist M.P.s, the Minister said this—

He accuses Mr. du Pisanie of attacking Government policy at a caucas meeting on February 28.
Mr. VAN DER WALT:

Where do you get that?

Mr. EATON:

I was not at the caucus meeting, and cannot say whether that is true, but this is information supplied which I am putting on record because of the interest of the garment workers in the Germiston area. I want this Minister to tell us to-night what he is doing to try and help those garment workers. The letter rebukes the garment workers for their

… outrageous ultimatum, calling on him to account for his broken promises, rejects an invitation from the clothing workers to meet him in Germiston on Tuesday, reproaches them for ingratitude and for the false accusation that he has betrayed their welfare, and demands an unqualified apology from Mr. du Pisanie for alleging in a caucus committee that he ignored a plea from the workers, when Mr. du Pisanie knew that he had not ignored it. Senator de Klerk has sent copies to all Cabinet Ministers, the Nationalist Parliamentary labour group, the Chief Whip, the Transvaal Whip and the Germiston Clothing Workers Union.

This may or may not be true, but what is indisputable is the fact that the garment workers in the Germiston area are unemployed and that they have had a most difficult time for a number of years, and I ask the Minister what is he doing. I know that the Wage Board has given a further determination which will increase the wages presently being paid to the Bantu workers on the border of the reserves, which has so adversely affected the Germiston garment workers. But I want to know what is going to happen to South Africa if this first experiment in the establishment of factories on the borders of reserves has resulted in this sort of catastrophe amongst long-established garment workers in Germiston. What is going to be the position if similar industries are established in other parts of the country with the same non-attention to the economic laws that govern in the manufacture of articles which are in competition with established factories in the European areas? The United Party has said that the rate for the job is the answer to this type of problem. The Government has rejected that and the Germiston garment workers are paying the price for that rejection of the sensible policy which has been applied throughout the years in South Africa. That is why I say that this Minister, in carrying the responsibility he does towards the workers in South Africa, cannot afford to go ahead with this type of policy in respect of border industries which is going to result in tremendous hardship upon established factory workers in the European areas. [Time limit.]

*Mr. VAN DER WALT:

At the very outset, allow me to tell the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) what has already been said so often, namely that we on this side of the House do not stand back for anyone as regards furthering the interests of the White workers, and I am also quite convinced that I am correct in saying that the National Party Government is prepared to do its duty in furthering the interests of all workers, both White and non-White, in South Africa. The hon. member now wants to play on the fact that we are going to leave the Commonwealth as a republic and he has said that this will have a detrimental effect on the workers of South Africa. I want to admit at once that capital is leaving the country, but fortunately we can also say that the world tendency to-day seems to be that the position of the Western world is improving. This will also have a beneficial effect on South Africa. Within the past week a Minister in the United States has indicated that the recession in the United States is over. In other words, we can expect this to have a favourable effect on the world position and also on South Africa. I want to make an appeal to hon. members opposite. I believe that they are as eager as we are to see the economy of South Africa kept on a sound basis. I therefore ask that instead of trying to make political capital at the present time out of the possible outflow of capital and the consequences of that outflow on South Africa, they should assist the National Party Government in restoring confidence in South Africa. The economy is basically sound, as important financiers have said again during past weeks. In other words, Mr. Chairman, instead of our acting as scaremongers in order to chase money out of our country, we should rather take action aimed at restoring confidence in South Africa. The hon. member has made a few points regarding Bantu wages and the machinery of the State for dealing with Bantu wages. He has urged the increased utilization of works committees. That is the policy of the Minister and of the Deputy Minister. I assume the hon. the Minister will reply conclusively to that point. I can just say that as far as I know, the main difficulty facing us is the same as that facing us in the case of Bantu trade unions, namely that there are not sufficient leaders whom we can use in establishing committees on a large scale in factories.

I also want to point out that big improvements have taken place in recent years in the wage position of the non-Whites. These improvements have come about, not only as a result of collective bargaining on the industrial conciliation boards, or as a result of the work—for which we are very grateful—of the Wage Board, as reorganized under the new legislation, but to a very large extent as a result of the work of the Central Bantu Labour Board. The work of the Central Bantu Labour Board has been so effective that in recent years we have enjoyed an unprecedented measure of industrial peace amongst the Bantu in South Africa. Allow me to tell the House that the activities of the Central Bantu Labour Board have been so successful that during the past six years which it has been functioning there has been only one dispute amongst Bantu workers which has been referred to the Wage Board. It was only in the case of the dairy industry in Pretoria and Johannesburg that it has been necessary to refer a dispute to the Wage Board for investigation. For the rest the Central Bantu Labour Board has been able to settle all these disputes itself. Earlier this year I indicated how great a degree of industrial peace we enjoy in industry by showing that last year, 1960, there were only 33 work stoppages which could be regarded as strikes. There were more work stoppages, but there were only 33 which could actually be regarded as strikes. Only 2,199 Bantu were involved in these 33 work stoppages. In other words, when one thinks of the vast number of Bantu workers in industry, then the 2,199 who were actually involved in strikes which were the result of work stoppages represent a very small number which we can regard as minimal.

I now want to give certain facts to show what the Government has done and what success we have achieved in respect of Bantu wages. I want to start with certain industries. I am thinking for example of the footwear industry—an industry which is organized on the basis of a national industrial council. In 1948 the minimum Bantu wage including the cost of living was £2 12s. 6d. per week. By 1961 this had been increased to £3 17s. 2d. per week, which represented an increase of 47 per cent. Take the related industry, namely the leather industry. In 1948 the basic wage plus cost-of-living allowance was £2 12s. 6d. per week and by 1961 it had risen to £4 6s. 6d. per week, an increase of 63 per cent. Another industry is the tobacco industry. Prior to 1952 the basic wage was £2 18s. 6d. per week. Since 1955 it has been £3 6s. 9d. and a further increase is being considered at the moment. In the motor industry in Johannesburg there has been an increase from £2 14s. 3d. to £3 4s. 1d. per week.

Allow me to give the House the figures for the particular years. In 1956, that is to say after the Central Bantu Labour Board started to function, wage increases which varied from 5s. to £2 13s. 4d. per week were granted. 151,904 workers benefited from those increases. In 1957 wage increases varying from 5s. 5d. to £4 6s. 8d. were granted to 42,459 workers. In 1958 wage increases which varied from 10s. l0d. to £3 12s. 6d. per month were granted to 29,252 workers. The hon. member has himself given the figures for 1959 and 1960. Let us take the total. The total shows that 524,000 Bantu workers have been granted wage increases since 1956. The 182,528 to whom the hon. member has referred and who were granted wage increases in 1959. received a total additional wage of £2,802,298 per annum from their employers. The 131,181 workers to whom he has referred—and the figures should really be a little higher because those are the figures for the period 1 January to September 1960—have benefited to the extent of £3,604,459. In other words, during this period of one year and nine months, that is to say 1959 and the first nine months of 1960, 314,790 Bantu workers have received wage increases totalling more than £6,500,000.

I think we should also examine individual industries to show what these increases have cost such industries. In 1960 the iron and steel industry granted wage increases to its 104,000 Bantu workers which cost the industry an additional amount of £3,000,000 per annum, and this, moreover, while the same industry had granted increases costing £3,500,000 18 months before. In other words, within a period of two years, increases costing an additional £6,500,000 per annum were granted to the Bantu workers in the steel and engineering industry. To take this point still further, I want to refer to a report which has appeared in the newspapers—

General labourers will receive a minimum monthly remuneration, including cost-of-living allowances, of £15 6s. 8d. in urban areas …

I stress this amount of £15 6s. 8d. That figure represents the wage recommended by the so-called Bantu Wages and Productivity Association. This report goes on to say—

… which is an increase in the minimum rate of some 25 per cent. Pro rata increases will apply to other non-European grades. This will place a large number of employees on a minimum remuneration of £18 per month. The highest grade will receive a minimum of £20 8s. 6d. per month.

Take the building industry. In 1960 this industry granted 75,000 Bantu workers wage increases which cost the industry £1,500,000. [Time limit.]

Mr. WILLIAMS:

May I claim the privilege of the half-hour? I want, if possible, tonight, to deal with certain general lines of policy in the labour field in as objective a manner as possible. Replying to the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt), we are discussing now one of the most important spheres of activity in the country, and it is not a sphere which at this juncture of our history one would wish to make political capital out of. But in regard to his remarks about Bantu wages, which was an important part of his speech, I will come to that later in the course of my remarks.

First of all I would like to say that when one reads this Annual Report of the Department of Labour, although brevity is the soul of wit, I think one can hardly say that it does justice to the scope of activity and the valuable work put in by the Department of Labour. I think, it could well be extended in length to give a greater picture of this great scope. In South Africa we have built up magnificent machinery and a magnificent relationship in certain spheres of labour. And by that relationship I mean between worker and capital and the Labour Department. Because it is not simply the work of the officers of the Labour Department that are concerned in this, but also the work of those who conduct the self-government of industry, those who work together on conciliation boards and so forth. And if in certain aspects of the Government’s policy I differ extremely from the hon. the Minister, this is an honest difference of opinion, and it does not belittle the fact that good work is done by our Labour Department. And it is because I do not wish to see certain aspects of that work spoilt that I criticize as I do criticize.

I want to deal with certain of the basic problems that we face, not merely from the point of view of the workers but from the point of view of the economy as a whole and, therefore, ipso facto from the point of view of the workers since they are part of the economy. What are the major problems that we face at the present time—and I think the hon. the Minister will concede that we face a number of quite serious problems. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) has indicated that whatever may be the consequences of the loss of Commonwealth membership—and I hope those consequences will be as slight as possible—they are going to throw a certain burden on the economy of the country, and this will be transmitted down to those who have to handle the labour position. The fact that the hon. the Minister of Finance has had to put certain financial checks on, and that the Minister of Economic Affairs has had to impose certain more severe economic checks, must have a certain effect on the economy. As I say, I hope those effects will not be too severe, but, obviously, they are not going to act as a boom factor for the time being. I hope that the unemployment position which, up to this time—and the hon. the Minister may give us later information—has been within the figure of what is regarded as full employment, that is, within 3 per cent, has not deteriorated badly. And I hope it will not deteriorate still further, although it is reasonable to suppose that we may have to face a period of difficulty at any rate in the next six months. Because, notwithstanding what the hon. member for Pretoria (West) says about the United States turning the corner, it is also agreed that in the United States, notwithstanding that the nadir of the recession has passed, it will be a long time before they cure their unemployment problems. And, because it is a slow problem to cure, I hope we will not get very much deeper into that situation.

I want now to deal with what I consider to be one major problem that the hon. the Minister has to face, assuming that this is a temporary situation and we can weather certain of these minor storms. I think the first serious aspect of the South African labour situation is the shortage of skilled labour, or, shall I say, the shortage of skilled labour in certain spheres. The hon. the Deputy Minister himself is quoted in the Natal Witness of October last year as follows—

The Deputy Minister of Labour, Mr. Viljoen, expressed his concern over the future supply of skilled manpower to the building industry and the relatively small number of youths coming forward to be trained in the industry, when he addressed the Congress of the National Federation of Building Workers of South Africa, in Johannesburg this afternoon.

The Secretary for Education—and this is in a still higher echelon—when addressing a meeting spoke of the acute shortage of technologists. He was perhaps speaking above the level at which we would normally discuss a labour matter, the level of the very specialized technologist.

Lack of skilled labour coupled with the meagre purchasing power of domestic consumers was still a strong shackle on South Africa’s future economy.

That was a statement at the Association of Chambers of Commerce. Then here is another—

Drawing attention to the shortage of skilled workers in South Africa Mr. F. P. Howden, Managing Director of General Motors, gave a warning in Port Elizabeth that an adequate supply of designers, toolmakers and artisans would be essential to an expanding manufacturing programme in the Union.

The implication of those remarks was the shortage of men in those particular spheres. I have a number of other Press cuttings that I could quote, but I think the House will concede that this is one of our problems. At any rate, there is an imbalance to be considered, that where, perhaps, there may be a temporary superfluity of men of skill in a particular field, there is a shortage in others, and overall it is the shortage that we are affected by.

In another connection the hon. the Minister himself has announced one plan that, I presure, is designed to try and assist this particular difficulty. But I think we have to accept, for the moment, the question of making the best of such resources that we have in that field, and that will bring me to one of the points I am going to make in my remarks tonight, which are based ultimately upon the remarks given in an interview by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs—I think it was to the Transvaler—to the effect that we should make better use of our labour resources.

When you read this report of the Department of Labour, you realize that a great deal is done in the matter of vacational guidance and rehabilitation, and in the matter of sheltered employment. It is a very good thing that those things are done. But these things which are done, and excellently done, are only at the very edge of the problem, so to speak; they do not cope with the problem as a whole. What I want to suggest to this hon. Committee to-night is this, that one of the great things we lack in the labour field in South Africa is an actual knowledge of our labour resources, in whichever particular labour group you are considering skilled or unskilled, or whether you are considering it racially, the workers as they fall into different racial groups. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that some work in that field by the Department of Labour should be undertaken. It has a great deal of statistics and it does a great deal of work, but what I want to suggest is that in the sphere in which it works it already has sufficient work to do, and what we want is either a special department within the Department of Labour, or a special body which will make it its duty to consider the whole question of our manpower potential, the availability and the possible availability in various spheres; and the various spheres in the various areas of the Union in which it has to operate. It should also have some picture of the problem that was touched upon by the hon. member for Pretoria (West), the question of minimum wages in certain fields, and the coordination of wages in different fields. Normally I myself am not a planner in the sense that I believe in the operation of private enterprise, self-government and initiative, as far as possible. But I think we have reached a pitch in the South African situation where we could very well do with greater knowledge with regards to the subjects with which we deal in this Vote.

When I speak of the availability of manpower, there has been a traditional belief in South Africa that we have unlimited resources of labour, viewed as a whole. But it is not by viewing it as a whole—apart from any selective view that you take of the situation—that you get the correct picture. What I would like to have is a picture of the extent where we draw labour resources from abroad; the extent to which we can draw upon a given volume of labour, we will say, for the development of the reserves that the Government talks about; the extent of the volume of labour that is required for agriculture; all of these as a comprehensive picture so that you can plan something. And, finally, a picture of the sort of demands that our industries are likely to make.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana referred to a conflict between the various Ministers. I think in that regard, in terms of what he was saying, this hon. Minister does make his own contribution to the problem that the hon. member was raising, in the sphere of job reservation and in certain of the clauses of the Industrial Conciliation Act. And I am speaking from the angle from which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana was speaking, and I am sharing his views. But what I want to draw attention to is not a conflict between this hon. Minister and that, but to a fundamental schism in the whole approach of the Government itself. We have on the one hand Dr. van Eck overseas saying it is the object of the South African Government to double the total product of South Africa and double the real wages of all its workers in the next so many years—an object with which everybody in this House will agree. Then we have the hon. the Minister for Economic Affairs saying that we must make better use of our labour resources. And we have the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development putting every kind of artificial obstacle in the way of the mobility of labour. We have conventional colour bars putting obstacles in the way of the mobility in another field. And we have the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development thinking in terms of quotas of Bantu labour for particular areas. There is an article here which I will not quote in detail—an article from the Burger in which the Minister is reported to have said that in the towns the size of the industry and its development will be determined by the quota of Bantu labour allocated in those towns. But on the borders of the reserves it can proceed unhindered. That is a policy, but so is Dr. van Eek’s a policy. And Dr. van Eck overseas is talking sense. The hon. the Minister may not in my opinion be talking sense, but he is outlining a policy. But if you put those two together you make nonsense, and that is my point. If on the one hand you are going to double the output of South Africa in terms of total product and in terms of the wages of the workers, and you are going to determine your location of industry on the basis of allocating quotas of labour rather than other economic considerations—and I am not saying we should not do it, I am just saying the two things are mutually incompatible.

Mr. F. S. STEYN:

Why?

Mr. WILLIAMS:

I will deal with that. Let me deal for a moment with this concept of border industries in relation to the labour force. If that is purely a decentralization move, then this is another place where we need more statistics with regard to our labour forces, particularly in relation to wages (and I say this in passing), because wages are paid partly by the employer in South Africa and partly by the State. When you have a Native Services Levy Act you are, in effect, subsidizing wages, either by subsidizing transport or housing services. And when you have sub-economic housing schemes you are also subsidizing wages, so you must take that into the total cost of your wage bill. The case for decentralization—the case that has now been put by the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn), purely as a decentralization move, not as an ideological move, is that the cost of subsidizing your labour in the big towns, situated far from the centre of work, becomes so great that it would be better, taking into account that the big towns otherwise have an advantage, it may be better to site it away from the big towns because of the lesser costs in subsidy for transport and so forth. That is purely an economic argument.

Mr. F. S. STEYN:

And other cost factors also.

Mr. WILLIAMS:

There are other cost factors. I will go further than the cost factor. Another advantage is that it does dispense to some extent with some of the worst evils of the migratory labour system. But it does not diminish to any degree integration, the combination of White and Black labour in partnership in industry. It merely moves it from a powerful nexus in the towns to a scattered nexus on the borders of the reserves. But I am not so much concerned with that as the fact of the cost of the labour force, and the economic effect of this, if you cannot work in a way where your decentralized industry is purely complementary to your other industry. I want to suggest to the hon. member of Kempton Park that if it is done on that basis the percentage of your industry you can move without artificially interfering is small—and by that I mean giving great economic incentive to go there and therefore diminishing the total national income, because wherever you site an industry artificially, you reduce the total national product. That is the point I was trying to make earlier when the hon. member interjected. When you interfere artificially with the play of economic forces you must, to some extent, pay a price. So your border industry scheme I do not see as a real solution to the basic problems, which I will shortly come to.

I am glad of this interjection because I did wish to make that point, that the other thing on which we do not have clear statistics is the actual real cost of the labour force, when you combine the actual wages payed by the employer with the other costs, some of which are borne by the State and some of which are borne jointly by State and employer. In that regard I am not speaking of a thing like the Unemployment Insurance Fund where there is joint cost. That is quite a different problem. What I am speaking of is the cost that comes from the decision that your labour force shall live distant from its place of work for some reason. I am not going into the merits of that, but the cost of that must be added to the cost of wages, just as the cost of subsidized housing must also be added to wages.

Here I would like to say a word or two about the concept of cheap and expensive labour. In South Africa we have grown up in a tradition, owing to the gold mines being the basis of our economy, and still being the basis of our economy—it is one of the things that makes it strong and a thing that induces a weakness. It maintains, through the fact that secondary industry is dependent on this primary gold mining to a large extent, it maintains the old mercantilist idea that the best way—to put it in plain terms—to make a profit is to keep your labour costs as low as possible. Whereas all modern thinking in terms of a national society is against that viewpoint. The aim is to make wages as high as possible, not merely because of the benefits to the workers—although everyone will support that—but because your worker is the purchasing power and the basis of your internal national market.

Maj. VAN DER BYL:

Will you be able to keep your mines open if you make the wages higher?

Mr. WILLIAMS:

I am glad the hon. member has asked me that question, because this is one of the great difficulties that we face here. In any problem of raising wages you have to raise primary industry with secondary industry so far as possible, and in the gold mining industry you have to do it against a fixed world price. That I accept.

Maj. VAN DER BYL:

Forty-eight per cent would have to close if you raised the wages.

Mr. WILLIAMS:

I am going to come to the question of mining and mine wages in connection with this question of cheap and expensive labour.

Now there is a popular supposition which I have heard raised very often in this House, that nearly all Bantu labour is, of its nature, inefficient. This, of course, is not true. There are circumstances such as rapid turnover and the evils of the migratory labour system, and certain historical tendencies in the Bantu people—the lack of adaptation to an industrialized society—that make it a half-truth. But South Africa happens to hold the world’s record in shaft-sinking. Now shaft-sinking is not children’s work and it is work demanding the highest quality of teamwork. White direction and Basuto labour, working together, have shown the Russians something that can be done in that field. So the assumption that you cannot make efficient labour is a fallacy. It can be pressed too hard. My submission is that with proper teamwork and greater incentive and greater opportunity for the bottom levels of our labour force, we could make a teamwork that would really begin to outsell our competitors within sight, at any rate, in an interim period of an adjustment of wages upwards.

That brings me to this question touched on by the hon. member for Pretoria (West), the question of the basic minimum wage. Now this is a difficult concept. The Government line of country is that the problem of a national minimum wage is too difficult. To some extent I am inclined to agree. But I think the question of a regional minimum wage, co-ordinated nationally, could well be considered. The figures given by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) show that we are moving towards a money wage of a minimum of, say, £15 a month. If you consider municipality and Government employment and so on I think it is a little lower still, it might be £13 or £14 a month. I am not saying that this is not very creditable. I pay tribute to the committee referred to by the hon. member, the Wages and Productivity Committee as it is known. And I pay tribute to any encouragement the Government has given, and any action taken by the Central Native Labour Wage Board in that regard. But the question that presents itself to my mind is this: Whenever this question is raised the point is put “We cannot raise that bottom wage unless there is greatly increased productivity”. Over the last 25 years of South African history there has been a tremendous increase in productivity.

The MINISTER OF LABOUR:

What do you suggest the minimum wage should be?

Mr. WILLIAMS:

I have not suggested a figure, but what I would like to suggest is immediately to have a target in immediate view of £4 a week, and then a sort of five-year plan—I do not mean on a planned basis—working upwards from there. When I speak of a minimum wage I mean something that covers, to some extent, not secondary industry alone, allowing for payments in kind related to that wage; some kind of minimum wage in agriculture and in other spheres as well. You have to have some relation between the figures that will keep a certain labour force in the reserves, a certain labour force in the agricultural areas and a certain labour force in your secondary industries. However, I do not have time at the moment to develop that theme; it is just the general case for a minimum wage that I am arguing.

The point I want to make is this, that over the last 25 years there has been a tremendous increase in productivity. That has been due, not merely to the labour force itself, but to the harnessing to that labour force, of power, and capital, as has taken place all over the world. Over that period—and this applies not merely to this Government, because I am not here to-night to say that simply the fault is all on one side—during that period, did the bottom level of the workers receive an adequate share of that increase of the national income that came from the harnessing of power to their elbows, so to speak? I think if this is examined it will be found that you cannot make a strong case there. The cardinal point in this is not whether money wages are raised—although that is a good thing—the real problem, which is the second of South Africa’s great problems, is the great disparity between unskilled and skilled wages, and the question of whether the real wages of the unskilled are rising relative to the real wages, not the money wages of the skilled. I think that that is another place where we need statistics, because the actual cost of living figure that we use is an average cost of living and I am quite confident that the rise in the cost of living of the lowest income group has been higher than that.

Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

Has been less.

Mr. WILLIAMS:

No, I think it has been higher. I can give the hon. gentleman the figure. It is in this book which I recommend to him. The author used to be an adviser to the Government. He states that the rise in certain staple articles of Bantu diet, which form a principle portion of expenditure of a person at that level, is computed at 182 over a specific 15 year period against the average figure of 152. I do not say he is right, but what I do say that there is room for inquiry in that field to see whether this is so, because it is most important if we are to build a stable and happy society here, both for the sake of the White worker and for the others, that that gap between the wages of the unskilled and the skilled workers should somehow be gradually closed. Because ultimately the only defence of the White worker is not to have to fall that great drop when he has to enter a competitive labour market. In most countries of the world your unskilled wages are something like 40 or 50 or 60 per cent of those of the skilled workers. Here the proportion of skilled to unskilled wages is six or seven to one. This is the thing to which we must have regard.

Taking into account that a new problem faces the hon. the Minister, and that is still more planned use of manpower, because defence, if I mistake it not, is going to make very great demands in the immediate future, or in the next few years, on the existing manpower position, my suggestion is that he should create something like a manpower commission consisting, possibly, of members of the Department of Labour but, I would suggest, associated with them should be men with particular experience. Men might be selected who have experience on the employing side of business and men who have had experience on the working side of business. Apart from conducting a survey and collecting information, working through whatever channels they can, through research done by the universities, etc., a composite picture of our potential labour resources may be obtained. They can also go into the question of the actual cost of living of the least fortunate members of our labour force, taking into account any subsidies they get in the way of transport and housing. Because the only figures we have had have been sample surveys done by the universities which do not cover a sufficient field from which to draw conclusions, but they are sufficient to suggest that between the subsistence cost of living of the lowest-paid worker and file wages he actually gets there is still a gap.

One last thing I would like to say is that ultimately we have got to face the fact of better means of negotiation between the employers, the Government, and the major portion of the labour force of the country, the Bantu workers. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) suggested one way, but that would be the extension, under the Natives Labour (Settlements of Disputes) Act, of the works committees. I doubt myself whether this will work as fast as the situation demands, although I think it might well be tried if the’ Government will try no other way. But I do want to say this. The Government has always argued when we have pleaded for the recognition of trade unions that this is a dangerous thing, that if you create Native trade unions particularly amongst those who are not sophisticated in this regard, you will create something which will be used as a political weapon against us, and therefore let us have nothing to do with such an organization. The Government is about to face a situation in which, without trade unions, political organizations of a similar kind are going to be used on the basis of the withdrawal of labour. I want to suggest that had there been in existence responsible trade unions you might have had a better basis of negotiation and you might have got those who did not agree to act politically in such a general move. What I do submit is that at least there would be no greater danger in beginning to recognize and negotiate with the major labour force of the country on the basis on which all countries negotiate when you find yourselves in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, under a similar threat without such organization being permitted. Because ultimately in this labour field, if we do not get the bulk of our labour force to identify themselves with the common effort which makes the South African product—if you cannot get them to realize that in smashing that machine they smash themselves, then you are much more likely to get irresponsible … [Time limit.]

The MINISTER OF LABOUR:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) for the calm and considered way in which he has opened the debate on this Vote. He has made several good points. It is just a pity that he did not leave the last point relating to the difficulties in Germiston to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Miller). It is more in his line to deal with such a matter. We always think of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana as a well-balanced person but he also went off the rails to-night, and that is a pity.

I want to commence by discussing the question of unemployment which the hon. member has mentioned, namely that as a result of the fact that we are leaving the Commonwealth, he considers that there is the danger of increasing unemployment. I do not know what the two things have to do with one another and what the logic of his argument is, i.e. that there will now be increased unemployment because we are leaving the Commonwealth, and why the employment opportunities will not remain exactly the same. I think that as far as that point is concerned, I should leave it at that. That is no argument. The hon. member has tried to bring in some scaremongering arguments and he has referred to the world organization, the International Confederation of Trade Unions, which is certainly not well-disposed towards us. But there are other elements which are not well-disposed towards us, and with goodwill on all sides, including the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, we shall overcome all these difficulties. Where there are circumstances beyond our control, we shall meet them as good South Africans. I personally do not see any danger in this regard. With a view to South Africa’s economic development, the employment opportunities, the growth of this young country and our export possibilities, and in view of the success of which we have heard in all spheres, I cannot see why we need be afraid and hide our heads in the sand.

The hon. member has asked me whether the unemployment position has not been detrimentally affected. He has quoted the figures for November 1960 but the latest figures I have are those for March 1961 and they increased in March 1961. The total unemployment figure for March was 28,372, as compared with the figure of 25,000 and some hundreds quoted by the hon. member. But it is very interesting to analyse these figures. I have here the figures for Whites for March 1959 March 1960 and March 1961 in respect of White males and females and also Coloured and Asiatic males and females. These figures are worth mentioning. In the case of males—these figures all relate to March—the figure was 7,670 in March 1959, 6,223 in 1960 and 6,848 in 1961. They are constant. In the case of male Coloureds the figures are 9,236, 8,392 and 9,730—they are constant too. But we now turn to the women. In the case of White females the figure for March 1959 was 5,192 and 6,557 and 8,068 in the later years. As compared with March 1959 there were 3,000 more women unemployed. The figures for the non-White females are constant, namely 3,400, 3,880 and 3,726. I have instituted an investigation to establish why this position has arisen, namely that the figure for unemployed White females has risen by 3,000. It appears that a considerable percentage, i.e. approximately 80 per cent of the unemployed women, are married women. In a certain sense this is significant, and also in the sense that somewhere something is wrong with the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is becoming ever more apparent that the Act has so many loopholes—the Deputy Minister recently introduced amendments and at the same time we also indicated that all the loopholes could not be plugged. But when people qualify for increased benefits, married women particularly are the main offenders as regards abuses. We have that in black and white and at the moment my Department is drawing up draft amendments which we hope will be introduced next year. They represent a complete revision of the Act. That is one reason.

There may be other economic reasons of which we do not know, but the type of married women, and particularly those who register and try to find employment, are mainly older women. I shall give the facts and figures presently when I discuss the garment workers, when I shall indicate what has actually happened there and what has caused this cheap talk. The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) together with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has advocated the principle that the non-White, particularly the Bantu, should have a greater say in the determination of his own conditions of service and wages. The hon. member for Musgrave has gone a little further than the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. I want to congratulate him. He has adopted quite a different tone to that of last year. Last year he was much closer to advocating Bantu trade unions than he is this year. This year he has started to believe in the same solution as that which we suggested last year, namely the works committees. He has evaded the issue to a certain extent, but the hon. member for Musgrave believes that the trade unions are the final solution. We have already stated repeatedly in this House throughout the period that I have been Minister why we cannot allow the non-White at the moment to participate through these highly organized organizations in the determination of his own conditions of service but what we have said is not believed. I have here a few extracts from the report of the International Labour Organization which was drawn up for use at the regional conference in Africa which was held last year in Lagos. May I read one or two extracts, which substantiate the policy of the National Party—

Indeed, one of the most serious obstacles to effective collective bargaining in Africa lies in the limitations which are often discernable among trade union leaders. As already indicated, this arises partly from the inability of many unions to employ persons of the highest calibre. Other factors are deficiencies in general education and lack of understanding of economic principles and practice, as well as inexperience in the art of collective bargaining. The result is that as managements often claim, a large number of union officials tend to be unrealistic in their demands and this makes collective bargaining unduly trying and precipitates arrogant language and unhelpful attitudes on both sides. Political activities seem in many African countries to have affected the rôle of the trade unions in collective bargaining. In view of the prevailing low standards of working and living conditions, political action to improve these conditions by means of legislation will no doubt for a long time have an important place in trade union programmes. In some countries, however, trade union political activity has often gone beyond these simple objectives and has become involved with the Nationalist political movement.

These facts which I have read briefly to this House—and there are many more—are not statements made by the National Party, but statements by experts on labour matters who have made a study of the position. This cheap cry that we should do so has now become a new slogan of the United Party. I say once again that I am glad the hon. member for Umhlatazana has dropped the slogan they used last year, but last year it was noticeable and we warned them that they were moving in the wrong direction because the United Party has always agreed with the National Party that the Bantu do not have the necessary background and training and that they cannot be entrusted with this responsibility. Now the hon. members for Umhlatuzana and Musgrave have said that additional works committees should be established and these committees should gradually be granted greater responsibilities. I want to congratulate him on doing so. That is the policy of the National Party. They have taken over this policy holus bolus and I am very grateful, because that is what we have said year after year. I said last year that I envisaged a conference of regional committees. That conference was held in Cape Town on 9 and 10 November last year. At this conference all the Bantu were present, with the exception of one who was ill, and a report appeared in the Press on the good work which was done. One of the Bantu representatives himself asked for an extension of the works committees, and because they asked for it themselves, I immediately issued an instruction that works committees should be established more rapidly and on a larger scale. I can now inform the House that there were only six and at the moment there are 16, while quite a few others are in the process of being established.

I want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) that we are not using steam roller tactics; there is a certain fixed policy which lays down how this is to be done. The Bantu are not simply told: Here is a committee for you. The employer and the employee must co-operate and when the employer can find responsible persons to serve on such committees, we are very pleased to establish them. These committees have proved themselves to be an outstanding success. As a result of requests made at that conference, we have also gone so far as to put notices in the various languages in the factories showing how they can obtain such a committee. We are encouraging this process in every possible way so that these committees will form a link between the employer and the employee, and I now forecast that this is the way in which we can grant recognition, but the condition remains that such works committees must be able to accept the responsibility and the obligations entailed so that they can fulfil them to the benefit of the workers, and so that they will not become sources of agitation. For that reason I am pleased. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana and we are now agreed and let us remain together and retain these sound labour relationships. One cannot introduce much politics into labour relations. It is a most unsound position when that is done, and it is a scandal to do so. Let us continue along this road; then I can assure the hon. member that everything will come right.

We now turn to the part at which the hon. member is not so adept and which is always left to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) to discuss, namely the mixing up of all sorts of ingredients and then making a great fuss about labour matters. He has accepted the slogan that the border industries are the cause of the terrible hardships being suffered in the clothing industry in the interior. Such a good and gentle hon. member, such a good student of labour matters, has not even taken the trouble to study the latest report of the Wage Board. It does not help to mention it, but I want to tell the hon. member what is stated in the report. Then he would never have alleged that the border industries are the cause and that they are competing with the White industries on the Rand and in Germiston particularly. Let me state at the very outset that the hon. member together with the Sunday Times and all those concerned will not succeed in driving the slightest wedge into the friendship between myself and the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. du Pisanie). If hon. members think that he and I are quarrelling, they are making a very big mistake. We have been close friends for years, and I just want to tell the hon. member that there are no bad feelings between us. [Interjection.] I pay no attention to that because he that toucheth pitch shall be defiled therewith. But I want to give the hon. member a few facts. I have had a summary made of the position and I want to say this in advance. In his statement on the encouraging of factories to go to the border areas, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs used a very definite sentence to the effect that we were not going to give any rebates or encouragement to clothing factories in the border areas. In other words, for the Government’s part nothing whatsoever is being done to encourage clothing factories to go to the border areas, and this is for one reason only, namely that there is already “over-trading” in the clothing industry as a whole. But if someone wants to go there and open a factory, he is welcome to do so. He can do what he likes. It is his capital and he can do so. But what is the position? I have had the following summary made from the report. The first point is the following—

In its 1958 Report the Wage Board came to the conclusion that the competition experienced by the controlled areas at the hands of the uncontrolled areas was grossly exaggerated. The recent investigation, instead of bringing anything to light which might upset this conclusion, rather strengthened it.

That is the first point. The second point which appears from this report is the following—

The employment figures for the clothing industry reveal that the number of employees in 1960 engaged in the uncontrolled areas of Natal during the fourth quarter of 1958 constituted 4.2 per cent of the grand total. After two years their numbers stand now at 1,783, or merely 3.5 per cent of the grand total. Between the fourth quarter of 1958 and the fourth quarter of 1960 the increase in the number of employees in all the controlled areas was 11 times higher than in the uncontrolled areas, and during the period August 1955 to March 1958 the increase in all the controlled areas was five times higher than in the uncontrolled areas.

A very interesting fact is that during the past year the number of garment workers in the Transvaal increased by 1,040, while there was a decrease of 177 in the Natal uncontrolled areas. I now ask: If there was increased competition from the uncontrolled areas, then the Transvaal figure would have fallen and the figures for the border areas would have risen, but precisely the reverse is true. There is therefore a declining measure of competition and the hon. member for Umhlatuzana should have seen that when he read that report. He cannot only mention a report here, without giving the facts contained in the report.

Mr. EATON:

I thought it was due to the increased efficiency of the workers.

*The MINISTER OF LABOUR:

Oh no. There are still more points contained in the report. The hon. member is now even more firmly in the trap—

During its present investigation the Board further found the following, firstly that the clothing industry in the uncontrolled areas at present account for 6.8 per cent of the total number of garment workers in the Union. Secondly, that the clothing industry on the Rand, and especially Germiston, finds itself in a peculiar position. The present investigation reveals that Transvaal’s competition emanated from the controlled coastal areas, especially Natal and the Western Province, and to a much lesser degree from the uncontrolled areas; thirdly, that should the factories in the uncontrolled areas be closed completely, the Transvaal will probably derive no benefit at all; fourthly, that exceptional progress was made within the controlled areas of the Western Province and Natal during the last two years; fifthly, that the entire increase in employment in the uncontrolled areas took place outside Natal, and indeed in the Free State; sixthly, that approximately 80 per cent of the clothing made in the Natal uncontrolled areas is mainly intended for the non-White market …

Mr. EATON:

Intended?

*The MINISTER OF LABOUR:

Intended and sold—

Seventhly, that the complaint in connection with the competition between the clothing factories in the uncontrolled areas and those in the controlled areas is very much exaggerated if not entirely unfounded.

Mr. Chairman, it is not I who says this. If the hon. member is cleverer than the Wage Board after it has investigated the position and if all hon. members opposite want to pretend to be clever, then I wish them all success. In any case, I am not going to make myself guilty of such arrogance which can only result in disaster.

I want to refer briefly to Germiston. Before doing so, I should like to dispose of this one matter, namely the question of minimum wages which the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) has raised. The hon. member for Musgrave with his national minimum wage has however spoken in the air again as usual. I just want to mention what Mr. Harry Goldberg, the chairman of the Bantu Wage and Productivity Association has said, according to a report in the Star of 21 July 1960—

I appreciate the need for gradual wage increases rather than a sudden and a big jump. A too sudden increase could have a very damaging impact on the workers themselves. It is better for them to have work and be paid too little than for them to have no work at all.

That is my first point. I asked the chairman of the Wage Board to investigate what such an increase would entail, and what the consequences would be if there was to be a sudden increase in wages. He reported to me as follows—

Organizations are urging that wages should be raised to correspond with the poverty datum line. In the case of Johannesburg it was estimated in 1954 to be £23 10s. per family of five, and at present it is estimated to be £27 10s. per month. Assuming that the wage increases will be confined to the secondary and tertiary industries, it is estimated that there are between 1,000,000 and 1,500,000 non-White workers and the wages of all would have to rise proportionately. If the average wages at present are £13 10s. per month, this will mean an increase of £10 per month to £23 10s. per month, or a total of between £120,000,000 and £180,000,000 per annum. If wages were to be increased to £27 10s. per month for a family of five, it would mean an increase of between £68,000,000 and £252,000,000 per annum. This is plus minus 4 to 6 per cent of the national income, and far more than the annual increase in the national income. These increases would only benefit a section of the workers, because we have approximately 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 Bantu workers. What effect will this have on savings, capital formation and exports?

I am merely mentioning this so that we can remain realistic. We cannot merely make wild statements and put forward irresponsible demands. The economy of the country is not based on such factors. It is very easy to get on to a soapbox and to say that the Bantu are living under terrible conditions and that they should immediately be given higher wages. That is why I asked the hon. member how much more they should be given. While the Government through the medium of its machinery, the Wage Board, is trying to do so in a scientific way and to grant these increases as and when industry can pay for them without these people eventually becoming unemployed, hon. members merely make airy statements.

But I have said that I want to discuss the garment workers. The hon. member has read out a letter or extracts from it, which I have supposedly written. I do not know whether he had the correct letter, but the hon. member has read extracts from what I have supposedly said. There is only one crucial point, namely what I have supposedly done to the poor garment workers on the Rand. If the hon. member will take the trouble to read the whole letter, he will see to the last detail what has been done for them and how we have gone out of our way to help these garment workers. But what difficulties are there? I have here a report by the divisional inspector in Johannesburg. He has investigated the matter and he says—

During the investigations no employer adopted any antagonistic attitude to the provisions of the determination. On the contrary, they invariably expressed their desire to co-operate as far as possible but stated that difficulty was being experienced in obtaining suitable Whites to either improve or maintain their present positions. This is born out to a large extent by the figures of unemployed clothing workers submitted to the employment section, which shows the total number of White females as 87, of which 38 were over 50 years of age. That is persons of poor productivity considered against the high wage which under the unique provisions of the clothing agreement employers are bound to pay them by reason of their high former earnings with previous employers.

Here we have the crux of the matter. The second point which I just want to mention briefly is this. The Germiston executive of the clothing industry always has its own unemployment figures. Allow me just to say that the official figure for the number of persons who are registered as unemployed in the clothing industry in Johannesburg is the lowest it has ever been, and the same applied when the difficulties were at their height. I do not know what the executive’s motive is in providing these incorrect figures. I do not hold Mr. du Pisanie responsible for that. These are people who form their own branch executive. There were 58 persons unemployed, but they still maintain there are 104 unemployed. What I have done is to instruct my inspectors to write a letter to each of the unemployed workers and those who did not reply to those letters were visited personally. I am mentioning this in order to expose these gross untruths. Here I have the report by the inspectors. I am not going to mention names, but the name of every woman appears in this report. For the sake of these women I am not going to read out the names. I shall read a few sentences from the findings of the inspectors. Here is one—

Looking for work but does not want to work in clothing factory. Did not come in, but her experience only relates to dolls’ clothes. Has already been working for a long time for M. Louw in Johannesburg.

This is an unemployed person! Here is another one—

Has already been working for a considerable time.

Another one—

Has never been unemployed. Is still working at Acme.

That is a factory. Here I have another one—

Last worked more than ten years ago. Not a garment worker.

Here is another one—

Has never worked before.

Here is another one—

Widow of 45. Has never worked.

Another one—

Sixty-five years old. Receives old-age pension. Has not worked since 1950.

Here is another one—

Has never worked. She is 16 years old and has returned to school.

Another one—

Has been working for a long time at the New York factory.

Another one stated that she will never be available for employment again—she was living happily with her grandchildren. I could continue giving similar examples, but I want to say to-night that so much has been done for the garment workers of Germiston that this branch of the Garment Workers’ Union has become spoiled. I have done altogether too much for them over the past six or seven years. They have now simply launched a campaign. These facts which I have mentioned were sent to the branch secretary through the office of my Department at Germiston together with the names of the persons concerned. The 27 April is the latest date in the case of these facts. I just want to state unequivocally that all the stories which are being spread will not make the slightest difference to myself and the hon. member for Germiston, whether politically, as friends or in any other respect. The attempts by the newspapers and the attempts by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana are a hopeless failure. What I regret and what I deplore is that a responsible branch of the Garment Workers’ Union has put out these false reports which it is continually spreading. I can only refer the hon. member to that letter of mine which appeared in the Sunday Times. Who is responsible for that, I do not know—I assume this same branch of the Garment Workers’ Union, because how else would they have obtained it? It was only distributed here in Cape Town. I just want to point out that what I wrote was written particularly for their information. It is a summary of everything which has been done for them. I expected hon. members opposite to criticize me to-night and to say that I had done too much for the garment workers of Germiston. I have gone out of my way to help them. When the Unemployment Insurance Act was amended to provide that persons whose benefits were exhausted, would enjoy additional benefits notwithstanding the fact that they had enjoyed further benefits, hon. members opposite opposed that provision and the only group of workers which have received these benefits on a state of emergency being declared under Section 39 have been the garment workers of Germiston. My conscience is clear. I have done much too much. I want to state to-night that as far as I am concerned I shall never again make this exception, because the world repays one with ingratitude. They will have to be satisfied with the same treatment as all the other White workers whom I shall look after equally well, and I shall make no further exceptions. The hon. member should get off the horse which he has mounted with a view to political gain, because he will not make any headway on it.

Mr. MILLER:

What the hon. the Minister has forgotten to tell us this evening is that through the principle of job reservation and the failure to deal with proper determinations for wages in the uncontrolled area, he has been responsible for driving the White workers out of the clothing industry. In fact, he is responsible for destroying the whole structure of the White worker in the Germiston area, which is the one area in which the White worker has played an important part in the clothing industry. Before job reservation the peak figure for White workers in this industry in Germiston was 1,500. The position to-day is that it has been reduced to just over 600 workers. It is the only area where the White worker has been able to play an important part in this industry.

The hon. the Minister has also forgotten to tell us that behind this effort, has been a determination to destroy the Garment Workers’ Union. Not only his discussion to-night but a great deal of what is said in the Wage Board’s Report as to the evidence advanced, is directed towards this particular end. If the hon. the Minister feels that he has done so much for the clothing industry, why does he not explain to us the reason for having in this particular industry 11 different wage determinations and proposed determinations? There are already four determinations in the controlled areas and in these recommendations of the Wage Board’s Report there are seven recommendations in respect of uncontrolled areas for differential rates of wages. If you talk to industrialists in this particular industry you are told immediately that there seems to be no sound reason for this differentiation. In fact over the last few years those who are employed in the industry in the uncontrolled areas have achieved a standard of efficiency, particularly the C.M.T. section, whereby they are producing garments almost equal in quality to those that are produced in the controlled areas at just a little over half the cost. For example, Sir, the C.M.T. cost per pair of trousers at Charleston is 7s. as compared with 14s. 9d. or 15s. in the towns. It is now a well-known fact in the industry that in these uncontrolled areas this form of labour, which some of them still call slave labour, produces 40 pairs of trousers per day of good standard as against eight in the controlled areas by Europeans of the same quality. The competition has become so severe that a leading indistrialist in Johannesburg told me the other day that they would be forced either to close down their business or a considerable part of it, or in order to keep the business going, to transfer a section of the business to one of the uncontrolled areas. A simple example of the method in which this whole matter is being administered is the fact that do-day the areas where the hon. the Minister wishes to establish these particular industries are so near to the big towns that even the question of transport and the question of repairs and spare parts has become an unimportant matter. In the Transvaal, which is a completely controlled area, it is proposed to establish industries at Hammanskraal and a clothing manufacturer told me that at Hammanskraal, only 50 miles from Johannesburg, it would pay him, in view of the low rate of wages there and in view of the almost equal standard of production, to transfer a fair portion of his industry to Hammanskraal in order to take advantage of the low cost of labour there and so be able to produce a much cheaper article and thus enter the so-called competitive market. The tragedy is that this will be at the expense of the established industries in the towns. It is a known fact—and the hon. the Minister will know this if he has spoken to industrialists about the matter—that this form of decentralization will be at the expense of established industry. Established industry also produces 90 per cent of the garments required in the country. The other 10 per cent is met by means of imports. It is impossible to increase that market. This suggestion that the uncontrolled industries are producing for a virgin market, namely the Bantu market, is a fallacy. The industry is already geared up to produce 90 per cent of the country’s requirements and the establishment of further industries in the uncontrolled areas along the borders will only be at the expense of existing industries.

It will become more evident than it is already that the success of the hon. the Minister’s scheme will only mean the destruction of what has already been established and the creation of greater chaos in the industry. There is no other industry in the country—unless the Minister cares to refute this; which I doubt he will—that has such an enormous number of varying grades of wages in respect of its employees than the clothing industry. In fact, both employers and employees are most concerned to-day at this latest report of the Wage Board that has been published. As a matter of fact the appeal to the Minister is not to accept this report and to try to restore the principle of the rate for the job and to bring about greater uniformity in the rate of wages that is paid.

The hon. the Minister talks of the fact that the number of workers in the uncontrolled areas constitutes 6.8 per cent of the total number of persons in the industry. It is now becoming more evident that the increase in figures from 3.9 per cent in 1955 to 6.8 per cent in December 1960 is not a true reflection of the production in the uncontrolled areas which, as industrialists will tell the Minister, is in excess of what the increase from 3.9 per cent to 6.8 per cent would indicate, because what has to be taken into account is the comparative quality of the product.

The blazer trade is taken to task by the Wage Board in this report. Although blazers from the uncontrolled areas are being sold at competitive prices it is a well-known fact that the quality of the material is suffering as a result of the cheaper costs. The best quality material cannot be used to provide a blazer at the cost at which it is sold to-day. This question of the blazers is also one of the determining factors which has been used to indicate the value of the uncontrolled areas. The parents of the children, particularly the mothers who buy these blazers, are very concerned about the poor quality of these blazers and they are really costing them very much more in the long run. [Time limit.]

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF LABOUR:

Hon. members have once again referred this afternoon to the detrimental effect which job reservation will have on the Coloureds. Because it was not the right time this afternoon to reply, but because the debate on the Labour Vote is the appropriate time, I should now like to answer certain of those allegations. We hear from time to time, as happened again this afternoon, of all the hardships which job reservation is causing in the case of the Coloureds. At the time we were told that 35,000 non-Whites would be thrown on the streets—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) said that. They said that the introduction of job reservation would have that result. We have been told to-day how job reservation discriminates against the Coloureds and that it is unfair to them. I think the time has come for us to discuss briefly the effect of job reservation on the Coloureds and particularly on the Coloureds here in the Western Cape. I want to show the House in the first place that job reservation has not harmed the Coloureds here in the Western Cape but that on the contrary it is protecting them. Yes, protecting them, as I shall now prove to the House with facts and figures. In the second place I want to show the House that here in the Western Cape—the traditional home of the Coloureds—the employment position of the Coloureds is better than ever before. As a result of the continuous attacks which are being made, particularly as a result of the job reservation which has been applied in the case of traffic constables here in the Cape, I want to submit at the outset that three types of work have in fact been reserved for Whites here in the Cape. They are traffic constables, ambulance assistants and firemen. What is very significant is the fact that these groups—they are municipal workers—only represent 4 per cent of the officials in the municipal service. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, it is a good thing to remember that this Cape Town City Council itself applies job reservation unofficially when it comes to unskilled work because Coloureds are used mainly for that type of work. We have no objection to that but nevertheless it is a type of job reservation in an unofficial form. As a result of the continuous stories that job reservation is affecting the Coloureds, I have asked our divisional inspector to investigate to what extent job reservation in the clothing industry has caused unemployment amongst Coloureds here in the Cape. Here I have this report. This is a recent report on this matter and he says the following—

No unemployment has been caused amongst the Coloureds as a result of job reservation.

Then he gives statistics for the period prior to job reservation and thereafter—

Prior to 30 April 1960 there were the following unemployed persons: 83 Coloured men, 530 Coloured women.

On 31 January 1961, after the introduction of job reservation in the clothing industry, the following numbers were unemployed: 79 Coloured men and 483 Coloured women. In other words, there were then less unemployed persons. I also asked him what effect the job reservation determination had had upon the engineering industry and the Committee will be interested to hear his report in that regard. It reads as follows—

As far as is known, the measures which are applicable have not caused any disruption whatsoever in any of the industries concerned.

I shall give the House presently an overall picture of the unemployment position in the Cape. He continues—

As against this …

As against the fact that no unemployment has been caused by these determinations, the inspector says—

… it is a well-known fact that the Coloureds in the Cape are slowly but surely taking over certain industries completely.

Does this look like “hardship?” He says—

This is particularly the case in the building and furniture industries.

He goes on to say—

The number of clerical workers in offices in Cape Town is now estimated to be several thousand.

Is this discrimination against the Coloureds? Mr. Chairman, you read yesterday that a Coloured has been appointed as matron of a hospital here in the Cape. It is the first time that that has happened. On the other hand we think of the many Coloureds who are holding public service posts, something which never happened before. What is more, when we say that this Government is protecting the Coloureds to-day as has never happened before, I think of the effect which influx control is having as a protective measure for the Coloureds. The fact of the matter is that in the Cape Town municipal area there were 48,000 Bantu in 1950 and as a result of our influx control this figure has been reduced to 37,000 in 1960. By these influx control measures we are protecting the Coloureds. To my dismay, Sir, I have learned from the report drawn up by our labour inspectors dealing with the question of why employers in Cape Town prefer Natives to Coloureds, that the employers in this area prefer Natives because they are supposedly more reliable, more hard-working and stronger. Despite that, this Government through these influx control measures is ensuring that the Coloureds are protected in this traditional area of theirs. If it had not been for these influx control measures, there would have been thousands more Coloureds unemployed to-day. And then this is regarded as tyranny! Let us examine the overall picture still further. As I have said, the Coloureds are doing better today than ever before. I want to give the House certain figures to substantiate this submission. Take for example the group of factories which the industrial tribunal, investigated. They found that as compared with 1,700 White operators in a group of industries here in Cape Town, there were 22,000 Coloureds employed as operators. Allow me to quote the example of the footwear and clothing industries. To-day 77 per cent of the labour force in these industries here in the Western Cape are Coloureds; that is 3 per cent more than in 1951. But that is not only the position in those industries; take the furniture industry. In the furniture industry 69 per cent of the workers were Coloureds in 1953 and this rose to 77 per cent in 1958. Is that what hon. members call discrimination against the Coloureds? Is that what they call “hardship”? Take the question of artisans in the building industry. In 1939 70 per cent of the artisans in this industry were non-Whites—these are the figures for bricklayers. By 1958 it had risen to 85 per cent. Do hon. members call that “hardship”? Do they call that discrimination?

*Mr. HOLLAND:

What are you trying to prove?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF LABOUR:

I am proving that the Coloureds have progressed here in the Cape as far as clerical, operator and artisan positions are concerned, and that they are not being discriminated against. On the contrary they enjoy unprecedented employment opportunities to-day. This is a point which hon. members opposite could safely appreciate as well.

Allow me to outline the unemployment position further to hon. members. Allow me to give the position relating to Coloured men, in order to give the overall picture: In April 1959 the number of Coloured males unplaced, excluding those registered and placed in employment, numbered 3,500 in the case of the Cape inspectorate. This figure fell to 2,200 in April 1960 and fell further to 1,600 in April 1961, which I think serves as further proof of the diligence with which this Department and this Government is placing Coloureds in employment and it shows further that employment opportunities are being afforded them. In recent years we have placed an average of between 6,000 and 8,000 Coloured men per annum in employment in the Cape inspectorate. This number rose to 11,000 by 1960. I now ask: Is this an indication of discrimination or “hardship”? Is this an indication that we do not want to give these people an opportunity to earn a living? No, Mr. Chairman … [Time limit.]

Dr. RADFORD:

I want to speak on something other than wages and job reservation. Those matters will be dealt with by people more capable than myself. I want particularly to refer to the question of industrial health because in this country we are faced with a unique problem at the moment and that is an industry in which cancer is developing. It is the first time probably in history as far as we know that a cancer with a mortality rate of 100 per cent has developed in an industry. I refer, Sir, to the effect of asbestos on the human lung. This really falls under three separate Ministries but I want to discuss it under Labour because I think it is in the Labour Department that these cases will be overlooked. The miners will be looked after by the Pneumoconiosis Bureau and the Department of Health must do what it can for the civil population. But the working man is receiving extremely little care at the moment from the Department. The Department is not faced with the question of reducing the amount of asbestos dust which is absorbed by the working man, the Department is faced with the problem of finding some means that will prevent absorption by the working man’s lungs. It is important for us to realize the extent to which asbestos is used in this country. In the year 1930 there were four firms in the Union manufacturing asbestos products. They used 900 tons of asbestos. In 1952 17,000 tons of fibre were used in this country. There were seven firms in Cape Town and 44 firms in Johannesburg. There are also some in Durban but I do not know how many. Sir, there can be no doubt about it that this particular form of cancer which is developing in asbestos workers has increased enormously in this country although it probably existed previously but was overlooked. In Kimberley 41 cases of cancer of the lung of this particular type have been picked up in the last three years. When I tell you that in the Henry Ford Hospital in America in 350,000 consecutive post mortems only found one case, you will realize, Sir, that 41 confirmed cases, as have been discovered in Kimberley, is really cause for alarm. These facts are well known to the hon. the Minister. You may ask me how we know that this form of cancer is associated with asbestos. It is so because the asbestos bodies are easily picked up by the pathologists and they are found in association with this particular growth. It is not necessary that there should be much exposure and that is why I say the hon. the Minister must find a means of preventing the access of the fibre to the lungs. I know of the case of one man who developed the disease whose job was that of lining locomotive boilers for the railways. There was another man who worked for one year loading asbestos into trucks. There is another man who has developed this cancer whose job it was to undo—he worked for a firm of demolishes—the padding around steam pipes. You will see, Sir, that the exposure is very short. It need not be long as in the case of silicosis in the mines. The hon. the Minister knows well that he has had a report from the Pneumoconiosis Bureau that the average length of time for pneumoconiosis to develop in asbestos workers is eight years. Eight years is the working life of a man in an asbestos factory! Probably shorter. A certain percentage of the workers in an asbestos factory is going to develop a cancer which so far has shown a 100 per cent mortality rate. Up till the present the attempt has been to reduce dust. No real effort has been made to prevent the dust reaching the man’s lungs. It has not been found practicable to do so. But here we are faced with a danger that is so great that it is not enough to reduce the dust, it has to be prevented. A spray painter must wear a mask and the oxy-acetylene welder must protect his eyes, and this Ministry will have to find something similar in the case of asbestos workers otherwise all asbestos factories will have to close down because they will not get workers. No one knows how many people have died in the Sekhukhuniland reserves from this disease. Nobody knows. That is the area from which these mines draw their labour. I am not concerned with mines but I want to say this in conclusion The contamination can be so slight that it is known that children who played on the dumps have later developed this particular form of cancer which is always associated with asbestos. It is a problem which this hon. Minister must tackle immediately. I know he will say that he has put fibrosis of the lung on his industrial health list, after a great deal of insistence from this side, but that is not enough. He cannot deal with cancer by merely paying compensation. He has to find some means of preventing the dust from reaching the human lung.

At 10.25 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave asked to sit again.

The House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

THURSDAY, 18 MAY 1961 Mr. SPEAKER took the Chair at 2.20 p.m. DIAMOND EXPORT DUTY AMENDMENT BILL

Bill read a first time.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

First Order read: House to resume in Committee of Supply.

House in Committee:

[Progress reported on 17 May, when Votes Nos. 2 to 32, 34, 36 to 46 and the Estimates of Expenditure out of Bantu Education Account had been agreed to and Vote No. 33.—“Labour”, R6,344,000, was under consideration.]

The MINISTER OF LABOUR:

Immediately before the adjournment of the House last night the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford), in a very constructive speech to which I listened very attentively, referred to the incidence of asbestosis in the occupational sphere and urged me to take suitable preventive steps. In reply to him I can say that it is my earnest desire to reduce the occurrence of this and all the other industrial diseases as much as it is possible to do so. To this end I recently appointed a departmental committee to investigate the occurrence of the more prevalent occupational diseases in factories and to determine their causes. This committee has to report to me and make recommendations in regard to the curative and preventive measure to be taken. The investigation, the first of its kind ever to be undertaken in South Africa, was originally carried out on the Witwatersrand and was confined to pneumoconiosis, lead poisoning and dermatitis. The investigation was of considerable magnitude and the correlation of the extensive data obtained is proving a time-consuming task. I am awaiting the committee’s report and recommendations with very great interest. As the hon. member stated very clearly, asbestosis is an occupational or industrial disease of comparatively recent manifestation. My Department informs me that its incidence has so far been relatively insignificant. The hon. member apparently possesses information about the disease which the Department could usefully employ. It would be of great help to my Department to get as much data about this disease as it can in order that suitable counter-measures can be worked out, and any information which the hon. member is able to supply to the Department would therefore be greatly appreciated.

Vote put and agreed to.

The MINISTER OF LANDS:

I move—

That the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave asked to sit again.

COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (TEMPORARY PROVISION) BILL

Second Order read: Second reading,—Commonwealth Relations (Temporary Provision) Bill.

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

First of all I want to express my appreciation to the hon. Leader and Whips of the Opposition that at short notice they have consented to this matter being dealt with to-day. The short notice is due to the fact that all Government Departments had to be consulted as to whether there was any legislation in South Africa which might affect Commonwealth countries as a result of South Africa’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth. To secure this information took some time, and the last of it was received only two or three days ago. In view of the urgency of this matter, I asked whether the Opposition would be agreeable to an intrusion being made into the Agenda, and this matter being considered to-day.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill before the House is intended to deal with the situation which will arise after 31 May, when South Africa will no longer be a member of the Commonwealth. South Africa’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth does not mean, as has been suggested in certain newspapers, and by certain persons, the immediate automatic discontinuation of all relations with the United Kingdom and other members of the Commonwealth. On the contrary, as far as the South African Government is concerned, it is our desire to continue and further to improve existing relations between South Africa and the United Kingdom and other members of the Commonwealth and to promote co-operation in regard to matters of common concern with those Commonwealth countries that are desirous of continued cooperation with South Africa in such matters. This could be by means of arrangements between the countries concerned, or, if necessary, it can be done by means of bilateral agreements. South Africa’s relations with the United Kingdom particularly, and also with some of the other Commonwealth countries, date back to the establishment of the Union in 1910. With a view to maintaining such co-operation in regard to matters of common concern, means must now be found, some basis must be devised, which will take account of the new situation arising from the fact that South Africa will no longer be a member of the Commonwealth. The desirability of having such arrangements was recognized by the South African and the British representatives at the recent Commonwealth Conference. It was then understood between them that the United Kingdom Government would introduce legislation which would ensure continuance of the existing laws that govern certain relations between the United Kingdom and the Union of South Africa, such a law to be operative for a period not exceeding 12 months. It has generally been referred to as the “Standstill” arrangement. That measure was passed by the House of Commons, and last week it was approved by the House of Lords—where it was well received. There were, I am glad to say, friendly and sympathetic references to South Africa in the speeches made in the House of Lords. In passing, may I mention that trade arrangements do not fall within the scope of either the British or of this Bill, because they are governed by bilateral agreements. I discussed the matter with Mr. Maudling, the President of the Board of Trade, before we left London and it was fully agreed that trade agreements would not be affected in any way, and would continue as heretofore, in spite of South Africa’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth.

In accordance with the understanding arrived at between our Prime Minister and Mr. Duncan Sandys, it was arranged that the British Government would introduce legislation, and that similar legislation would be introduced in the Union Parliament. That arrangement is embodied in the Bill now before the House.

Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the United Kingdom Act and the measure now before the House, differ in certain respects, because of certain different circumstances. The main difference is that the United Kingdom continues to be a member of the Commonwealth, and the British Act of Parliament therefore makes provision only for the effect on the United Kingdom of South Africa’s withdrawal out of the Commonwealth. South Africa, on the other hand, must adopt legislative measures which will permit the Union to maintain, even though it be temporary, the maintenance of relations, provided for in our laws, also with regard to other Commonwealth countries if, naturally, such is desired by them. The position, therefore, is, to put it more plainly, that while the laws of other Commonwealth countries may not apply to South Africa after withdrawal, South African laws which may affect the relations between South Africa and other Commonwealth countries will continue to be in force until repealed, because of the fact that the other countries have retained their membership of the Commonwealth.

The British Standstill legislation provides for the maintenance of the status quo for a period of 12 months. There is a proviso that the period can be shortened if it should appear with regard to any particular measure, that it is no longer necessary to maintain it. As I pointed out, in the case of South Africa the Bill does not deal only with our laws which may affect the United Kingdom, but also those which may affect other members of the Commonwealth.

The position is that unlike the position in Britain, where Parliament is in session practically throughout the year, in South Africa our Parliament is in session only for a period of roughly six months and in the remaining part of the year it is not possible to introduce legislation. Therefore, as hon. members will see, there is the possibility that one or more of the other Commonwealth countries may prefer not to maintain their existing laws governing relations with South Africa, and for that reason the Bill provides that the Governor-General—it will be the State President after 31 May, but the Governor-General has still to be mentioned now—is empowered by proclamation to suspend the provisions of this Act in so far as they relate to a particular Commonwealth member, or Commonwealth members.

After a careful survey and inquiry by all our Government Departments, there do not appear to be any laws which would automatically lapse when South Africa becomes a republic. In fact, our law advisers are of opinion that his measure is not really necessary because of the entirely different circumstances prevailing in South Africa. But in view of the arrangement which was made by our Prime Minister and Mr. Sandys, and also in order to make assurance doubly sure, because it may later appear that there is some law or other which may have to be provided for, it has been decided to introduce this Bill. But apart from that aspect as to whether this measure is really necessary, its introduction to-day is an earnest, or a proof, of South Africa’s desire to maintain friendly relations and co-operation in matters of common concern with both the United Kingdom and with such other Commonwealth countries as are desirous of co-operating with South Africa in such matters.

Mr. WATERSON:

As the hon. Minister has pointed out this Bill was only introduced yesterday and it was only made available to members this morning, and whilst we on this side of the House have agreed to have it dealt with to-day, I must say that I have not been satisfied by anything the hon. the Minister has said that it was so essential to push on with this measure to-day, because in spite of what the hon. the Minister has said, this is not a small thing we are being asked to do and both the purpose of the Bill and the content of the Bill are very far-reaching indeed if one has a chance to examine it and analyse it. On this side of the House we concede that legislation is necessary, or probably necessary in spite of what the law advisers say, and it is at any rate desirable, and we accept the hon. Minister’s expressed views that he is anxious and his Government is anxious to continue friendly relations and co-operation with other members of the Commonwealth, and that this Bill is to be taken as an earnest of that desire. I accept that the hon. the Minister and his Government are very anxious to save as much from the wreck of what they have made of things as they can. This Bill, Sir, is really incidental, it is incidental to the state of affairs in which we find ourselves at the present time. It is a state of affairs which makes this legislation necessary, simply another step, another stage in preparing for the miserable isolation with which we are faced in the very near future.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

A miserable speech!

Mr. WATERSON:

I don’t blame any hon. member for feeling miserable under the present circumstances. Sir, I think the title of this Bill is somewhat misleading—

To provide for the continued operation of certain laws affecting Commonwealth countries.

That is perfectly true as far as it goes, but the Bill goes much further than that, because it makes provision for very drastic—how drastic we can’t say—alterations in those very laws without further reference to Parliament at all, and whilst we concede that legislation is necessary, we cannot agree to the form in which the hon. the Minister has presented it to this House. The hon. Minister has pointed out that the British Parliament has recently passed a Bill and that our Bill differs slightly from it. I agree with him. But he did not, I think, point out all the ways in which our Bill differs from the British one. In the first place the British Act is confined to a period of 12 months, which means that if by the end of 12 months all this tangle has not been sorted out, the British Government will have to go back to its Parliament and account for what has happened in the 12 months and ask for leave to prolong the Bill for a further period, for whatever reasons they may put forward. The hon. Minister has not included any such provision in this Bill. The other difference, I think, is that prima facie this Bill does not go as far as the British Bill because it only enables the Government to act if other countries act first, as the hon. Minister explained. In other words, there is nothing constructive about this Bill, it is a purely defensive device to cope with action which may be taken by other governments. And lastly, of course, the method of action proposed in this Bill is quite different from that contained in the British Act. Apart from the object, the machinery which this Bill proposes to deal with a situation which may arise is simply that those situations will be dealt with by proclamation on the basis of the Minister’s opinion about that situation. Of course the Governor-General is the Governor-General-in-Council, and in effect of course is the Minister. Now the title of this Bill is misleading because it does not only propose to create a standstill agreement. It clearly envisages that during the 12 months a good many of these problems may well be dealt with. In fact I think in the English House of Commons it was made quite clear that they did not intend to wait 12 months before tackling these problems and such of them as could be dealt with during the 12 months would be dealt with. That means that possibilities in this Bill for action which may have to be taken in the next 12 months are very great indeed. Having regard to the magnitude of the changes which may have to take place in these 12 months, I cannot see how Parliament can be asked to abdicate its authority in matters of such wide-spread importance, to abdicate in favour of action based simply on a Minister’s opinion. After all, without any reflection on any Minister, the Bill says that the action which may be taken is to be taken “if in the opinion of the Minister” it is felt necessary. In view of the importance of the things that may have to be done, it seems to us that it is not right that such actions should be based on the opinion of any Minister, or of any Committee of Ministers. At the very least, I suggest, provision should be made for a specific approval and ratification by Parliament as early as possible of any action taken by the Minister. After all we are assuming that we are going to deal with people with whom, whilst we are being divorced, we are still going to remain on friendly terms. We are assuming, and I take the Minister at his word, that we are hoping that a close measure of co-operation and consultation will continue with our erstwhile fellow-members of the Commonwealth. Therefore surely we have not got to assume that during these next 12 months there is going to be sudden vindictive or unnecessarily harsh action taken by our ex-fellow-members of the Commonwealth with whom we have relations which are protected by laws in this country. After all, even with ordinary trade agreements, Mr. Speaker, the practice now is and has been that whilst they may be concluded and signed, they do not become law until they are ratified by resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and if that is the practice in regard to trade agreements, surely in matters far more important than trade agreements, the least we could expect is that a similar practice would be followed. Now, even when Parliament is sitting—and I say we are entitled to assume that during the recess any action which is taken by other members of the Commonwealth who are legislating or acting will not be taken precipitously or vindictively, and it is most unlikely that any sudden action will become necessary—but in this Bill even while Parliament is sitting decisions having the widest effect on the various phases of our economy may be taken and proclaimed by the Minister without Parliament knowing anything about it or without any reference to Parliament at all. I therefore wish to move the following amendment—

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House, while recognizing the necessity of granting the Executive powers in connection with legislation affecting Commonwealth countries, declines to pass the second reading of the Commonwealth Relations (Temporary Provision) Bill unless adequate safeguards are provided against the abuse of such powers by the Government”.

By “abuse” I do not mean to imply wilful abuse at all. Abuse is a very wide term and it is so easy in the heat of the moment for actions to be taken which in the light of subsequent events prove to have been quite wrong. There is so much more involved than mere trade agreements to which I referred just now as having to come to this House for ratification and to indicate the vast range of matters which may fall within the scope of this Bill to be dealt with by proclamation during the coming months, based on the Minister’s opinion, I want to ask the hon. Minister some specific questions. I want to ask them for two reasons, first of all to try and show hon. members who perhaps have not had the opportunity of studying this Bill, the scope which is covered by the powers asked for in this Bill and secondly to try and get some inkling of what the Government has in mind in dealing with these problems. After some two months this House and the country are utterly and completely in the dark as to the Government’s plans and intentions to cope with the changing circumstances with which we are faced. I am going to ask the hon. the Minister: (1) Are other Commonwealth countries taking similar action and passing standstill legislation, and if so has he been in contact with them, has there been any consultation, has he any idea just what they are doing? The Minister has pointed out that trade agreements are not affected by this Bill, but has the hon. the Minister any idea as to what the other members of the Commonwealth are thinking on the subject? He has discussed the matter with the United Kingdom Government, but does he really think that other members of the Commonwealth who are competitors of ours in the British market on terms of preference will be satisfied to allow us now that we are no longer a member of the Commonwealth, to enjoy similar privileges? The hon. the Minister will agree with me that the whole position has changed.

Mr. M. C. VAN NIEKERK:

Why?

Mr. WATERSON:

Because after 31 May we are going to be a foreign country in the eyes of the United Kingdom and all the members of the Commonwealth. That is why. It is no good the hon. member shaking his head. This is the stone-cold fact, and as the hon. the Minister will agree, in future when we are negotiating these agreements, it is not going to be a matter of family discussions and goodwill, it is going to be a matter of horsetrading, to use the hon. Minister’s favourite phrase, horsetrading and bargaining. Can the hon. the Minister give us any information as to the attitude of the other Commonwealth countries vis-à-vis the preferences which we enjoy and which they enjoy at the same time? One very important question of course is the Commonwealth sugar agreement. That is a matter of the most immediate concern, both to the sugar industry and to secondary industry as well, because whilst we have the British preference, which is one thing, under the Commonwealth sugar agreement, which is specifically a Commonwealth sugar agreement, we have a substantial quota, and if we were to lose that quota, not only would it be a disastrous thing to the sugar industry in Natal, but it would be equally disastrous for the whole canning industry in South Africa which depends on the sugar at the price at which they are getting it to-day, to be able to compete in the overseas markets. We have no expression of opinion from the Government at all in that matter, and the sugar industry are vastly worried about it. There is the question of our defences. Our whole system of defence is based on membership of the Commonwealth and close interrelations particularly with the United Kingdom. We have had a system whereby our officers were sent abroad, and not only officers, and trained at staff colleges and kept up to date in the most modern techniques. That will go. There has been exchange of military information on a very high level. That will go. We have obtained arms and equipment on a very high priority. That presumably will go as well. There is the Simonstown Agreement; we are told that that will continue. Whether it will continue in its present form, of course I do not know. But it means this that the whole system on which our defence arrangements have been based is going by the board, and we want to know what is the Government thinking about for the future. Are they considering a bilateral defence treaty to try and fill the gap which is there for anybody to see? Are we going to wake up one morning to read in the Government Gazette that a treaty of this magnitude has been completed and has become effective without Parliament knowing anything about it?

There is the Airways Agreement. Will that continue or will it have to be altered? There are the very important questions indeed about our relationship with the Protectorates. What is the Government’s plan in this respect? Is it proposed to negotiate a fresh treaty with the United Kingdom to govern our relations with the Protectorates, and with the people living in them, or do we have to sit in the dark and wait for the hon. Minister to publish a new arrangement? What is going to be the position in regard to Commonwealth citizenship with all the various complications arising therefrom? Are we going to wake up one morning to find a notice in the Gazette that, as far as the rest of the Commonwealth is concerned, we are utter and complete aliens and will be treated as such when we visit those countries? [Interjections.] Hon. members do not like one referring to these things because they are unpleasant but they are, none the less, facts, and unless this House has the opportunity of examining the problems with which we are faced and everyone making the contribution he can to solve them, to make the best of a bad job, then the prospects of solving them are far less. What is the hon. Minister going to do in regard to his consular and diplomatic relations abroad? This is a very important question apart from the political aspects. It is very important for our trade and shipping people. Consular services are being rendered to South Africa all over the world by the British consular service at the present moment. What is going to take its place? Something must take its place, otherwise our trade and shipping will be placed in an impossible position. What is going to be the position in regard to the many Commonwealth scholarships and bursaries at present enjoyed by students of this country? They go, of course. But, surely, it is important that that channel, that opportunity, for our younger people to get training in the various professions during visits overseas, should be kept open. What is the Government going to do about it? Is it going to replace these Commonwealth bursaries and scholarships with Government grants? This is a question, Sir, on which the Government should take an early decision because students have to draw up their plans a year or two in advance. Many of them will, at any rate, lose the opportunities they would otherwise have had. There is also the question of the Merchant Shipping Act which requires very careful examination to determine in what way it has to be altered. There is also the question—which I have already raised in this House before—of our Government stock in the London money market. Will this be considered as trustee stock, or not? Will it still be open for trustees in England to invest in South African Government stock? Lastly, Sir, of the many points which I might raise, is the question of the European common market. It is perfectly clear that the European common market is having a great success. It is also very clear that Great Britain is approaching the point where it will join the European common market. It is also clear that what is holding that decision up is the necessity for her to make proper provision for members of the Commonwealth with whom she has such close relations, so that when she does join the European common market, they can come in too. And, of course, we shall not be included in that any more. What will the position then be? Are we going to be left out in the cold completely by this strong economic unit which is growing up in Europe? This is a matter of tremendous importance for the near future, and I challenge the hon. Minister this afternoon to show me one of the subjects I have mentioned which will be changed thereby bringing any gain or benefit whatever either to the country as a whole or to any individual in the country.

Mr. G. F. H. BEKKER:

Tell us something now.

Mr. WATERSON:

It is of no use asking the hon. member for Cradock to understand or realize anything and I am therefore not addressing myself to him. I wish he would keep quiet, because it is difficult to develop a serious argument under this type of interjection.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order!

Mr. WATERSON:

Every member of this House should realize two things. The first of these is, that whilst this Bill is only a short one, it nevertheless deals with a revolutionary change in our status, our economy, and our defence. The second is that changes which are far-reaching and fundamental—one cannot say more than that because it is impossible to form an estimate or to define them—can be made, and may be made, without any reference to Parliament, or without acquiring parliamentary approval, or without any real opportunity even for Parliament to consider them. I know that these proclamations, to be issued under this Bill, have to be laid upon the Table, but we all know what that means—it does not provide any opportunity really for us to discuss them. Under the action taken by any Minister in terms of this Bill, a bad position may very easily become much worse, instead of being improved.

I just want to repeat: I think it is a sad and inglorious day that it should be necessary at all to bring in this Bill, and it is equally sad to think that in this critical time, Parliament, which should be on its toes thinking of nothing else but of ways and means of getting out of the difficulties and troubles we are facing and getting into, should be requested to surrender tamely its responsibilities. [Interjections.] I am talking now to the responsible Members of Parliament and not to the irresponsible ones …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order!

Mr. WATERSON:

I say it is sad to think that Parliament should, under those circumstances, surrender its responsibilities and rights as the guardian of the people’s interests against the demands of an authoritarian executive. So, whilst we agree that legislation is necessary, the terms of this legislation, the way in which the Bill is framed, and the powers which it is proposed to give to the Minister can only be described as coming from people imbued with authoritarian ideas which should be repugnant to a House constituted as this one is.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

I second.

*Mr. HAAK:

The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) referred to this Commonwealth Relations (Temporary Provision) Bill and he objected to its form. The hon. the Minister of External Affairs pointed out that a similar Bill had been passed by the British House of Commons. In passing, I notice that the British Bill has the same title, viz. Republic of South Africa (Temporary Provisions) Bill. Its whole object is to provide that certain legislation will remain in force. The hon. member for Constantia did not touch on the crux of the matter, namely that this British legislation affecting South Africa automatically comes to an end on 31 May. The position is not that it can remain in existence. As the result of the change in our status it automatically comes to an end, and legislation is necessary in order to allow it to continue. Therefore his whole starting-point was wrong. We must do it in order that certain arrangements may be made. In the debate in the House of Commons, Mr. Sandys, Secretary of Commonwealth Relations, referred to the legislation affected by it. He referred, e.g., to the Shipping Act of 1894, in the days when part of South Africa was still a British colony, and this is still in force. We are no longer a colony, and as a result of our changed status that Act falls away, and therefore this legislation is mutually necessary. He also referred to the Colonial Probates Act, to prove letters of administration; and also to the Maintenance Orders Act and to the Medical and Dental Act by which recognition is granted to medical men and dentists in regard to their qualification. He also referred to the Act dealing with attorneys. These are some of the Acts he mentioned and which must remain in existence until alternative arrangements can be made.

Now the hon. member for Constantia is dissatisfied that an end can be put to this by proclamation. But, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that it will come to an end automatically unless other arrangements are made. It is not the intention that it should continue for a year. That is only the maximum period. Mr. Sandys also said in the House of Commons that these arrangements need not stand for a year; that they can be terminated sooner. Then this Parliament is not in session and the Minister has no alternative but to adopt the method provided for in this Bill.

The hon. member also referred to other matters which really have nothing to do with this Bill. He referred to our trade relations with them and to preferences. Sir, that has nothing to do with this matter. That was not laid down by legislation. In that connection Mr. Sandys himself said in the House of Commons—

Similarly, South Africa’s constitutional change has no legal effect on bilateral agreements between us, for example, our agreements on trade and defence.

The hon. member also referred to defence. Here Mr. Sandys gives the reply that this does not affect our defence agreements with them. The hon. member therefore dragged in matters which have nothing at all to do with this Bill.

In regard to trade, I want to point out that they are also desirous of continuing trade relations with South Africa. I have pointed out that Mr. Sandys said that this legislation has nothing to do with that. But when Mr. Marquard, on behalf of the Opposition, said that they would like certain of these arrangements to be concluded as soon as possible, Mr. Smith got up and asked whether he wanted their trade with South Africa to be harmed. He asked—

Firstly, would you desire trade between this country and South Africa to increase or decrease?

Then the Labour member said this—

We want advantageous trade increased, all trade which results in an improvement in our balance of payments.

Therefore they would like to retain their trade with South Africa. That was said by the Labour member, who said on behalf of the Opposition that this period was too long and that it should be made shorter.

But, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia did not doubt but that our Government would do certain things which would unnecessarily weaken our relations with Britain and that the matter would be handled badly. At the time when the withdrawal of our application for continued membership of the Commonwealth was announced, our Prime Minister had already announced that South Africa would remain a member of the sterling bloc. He also said that our relations with them would be as friendly as possible. This legislation was adopted by the British House of Commons in that same spirit when Mr. Sandys said the following—

At the same time we have had an intimate and many-sided association with South Africa for more than a century. Our affairs have become closely interwoven in numerous ways. We have developed between one another valuable connections in trade and other spheres. The relationship between Britain and South Africa will, of course, not be the same as before, but I should like to emphasize that we have no desire needlessly to destroy links of mutual benefit to both our peoples.

This, Mr. Speaker, has already been announced by our Prime Minister, that it is also South Africa’s intention to preserve those friendly relations in all spheres as far as possible.

Mr. PLEWMAN:

The hon. member for Bellville (Mr. Haak), who has just sat down. has succeeded in showing that Mr. Sandys of the Commonwealth Relations Office introduced his Bill in the House of Commons in a very businesslike way. He, certainly, gave that House a considerable amount of information and dealt with a large number of the legislative measures and other matters which were affected, whereas we in this House have been given practically no information. The hon. member also missed a point when he referred to the fact that the British Act is limited to one year. The essential factor about that is that if it has to continue for longer than one year, if this complicated tangle can, in other words, not be disentangled in one year, Parliament will again have to dealt with the matter. This is a very essential aspect when considering what the difference is between the British Act and the Bill which we have before us now. What the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) has indicated very clearly is that this is the first bit of evidence of the unfortunate backwash which South Africa is going to suffer from because, firstly, it has withdrawn from the Commonwealth; and secondly, because it is about to change its constitutional status from a constitutional monarchy to a Republican system of government. The fact that legislation of this nature is necessary has been known to this Government since that fateful day, 15 March this year—since that fateful Ides of March. The Government has known of the necessity for legislation to provide—I quote from the long title—“for continued operation of certain laws affecting Commonwealth countries, and for matters incidental thereto”. I ask, therefore, why timeous action could not have been taken to present a Bill, which is not a lengthy one, to this House? Why this sudden urgency in presenting a Bill for us to deal with to-day and which we have scarcely had time to read? Why this unnecessary and unseemly haste in Parliament? In the United Kingdom, the Government there was able to present a Bill to the House of Commons on 29 March 1961—that is within 14 days of South Africa’s withdrawal—while we in this House have had to wait for two months before we are presented with a Bill.

There are very significant differences between the British Bill and the Bill which we are dealing with here to-day. In the British Bill no need was found for the delegation of any legislative powers. That Bill itself makes it perfectly clear what is being dealt with. It says that legislation shall continue to be in operation “unless provision to the contrary is made by an authority having powers to alter that law”. In other words, the normal legislative authority is being maintained, and there is, in consequence, going to be a proper exercise of legislation. The prerogatives of Parliament are in no way being interfered with or fettered. On the contrary, they are fully respected and preserved. No extraordinary powers are therefore to be found in that legislation. In the legislation before this House, however, we find that extraordinary powers are to be vested in the hands of the Executive to deal with matters which no one knows what they will be.

Dr. DE WET:

What powers are you referring to?

Mr. PLEWMAN:

Read the Bill and you will find that powers are being conferred upon the Executive to suspend and to amend legislation the nature of which we do not know. It is quite obvious that we are concerned with very complicated matters in which rights, privileges and obligations are involved. Again I want to refer to the British Act to point out that that Act makes it perfectly clear what is involved. It says “in this section, existing law means any Act of Parliament, or other enactment or instrument whatsoever, and any rule of law which is in force on 31 May, or having been passed before that day, comes into force on that day”. This is something clear and percise. As a matter of fact, Mr. Sandys gave a considerable amount of detail of what was involved when he introduced his Bill into the House of Commons.

The hon. member for Constantia has indicated that a very large range of subject matters are in fact concerned. The measure we have before us creates the impression, therefore, that what we are really dealing with to-day is a sort of panic legislation. Extraordinary powers are being vested in the hands of the Executive, including the right to suspend, or to amend, existing legislation. I think, with respect, that the hon. Minister seemed rather to indicate that these powers were to suspend or to amend the provisions of this particular Bill. That, however, is not so. The power to suspend, or amend, relates to any law in force in the Union or in South West Africa immediately prior to 31 May 1961, in which reference is made to Commonwealth countries or to any particular Commonwealth country.

Mr. F. S. STEYN:

Which would have lapsed barring this Bill.

Mr. PLEWMAN:

Why should they lapse?

Mr. MILLER:

The hon. Minister said they would not lapse.

Mr. PLEWMAN:

When would they have lapsed? Would they have lapsed on 31 May, and is that then the reason for this haste? The hon. Minister told us the law advisers said that it was not even necessary to have the Bill! I think the hon. member for Kempton Park should study his brief more carefully before interjecting! If those provisions have lapsed, then what is the object of this Bill? What would then be its purpose? I merely want to indicate that the hon. Minister was wrong when he seemed to indicate that those powers to suspend, or amend, were only in respect of this Bill. That power, however, is in respect of a considerable number of legislative measures the nature of which we have no information about at the present moment. This is a very serious matter, namely to vest legislative powers in the Executive without adequate safeguards being provided. The unfortunate fact is, furthermore, that this is not an isolated case, because during this very Session of Parliament we already have had to deal with a similar matter. It is now the second occasion during this Session, therefore, that Parliament is being asked to legislate blindly. This House is entitled to know what legislation is about to be altered and it would have been perfectly easy for a list to be drawn up of legislation likely to be affected by this Bill. Then the House would have known what it was doing when it conferred these arbitrary powers on the Executive. The Governor-General would not have been able to go outside the list specified in the schedule. But now we are asked to deal with the matter by granting arbitrary powers to the Executive for the amendment of laws by no greater formality than by the issue of a proclamation. There are inherent dangers in any arrangement of that nature—dangers which cannot be overlooked in the public interest, and for which proper safeguards must be provided. The normal form of delegated legislation is that it empowers the Executive to do an act, usually to frame certain regulations or other subordinate legislation. That action can then be examined and if the Executive has exceeded its powers, the Courts can then rectify the matter. But what we are doing here is the direct opposite: The Executive is being empowered here not to do something, but to undo something—to negative what is already in existence. When that is done, there are no means whereby it can be rectified should it have been done wrongly. There is no safeguard of going to a Court, because nothing which has been done wrongly can be put right. The only body which would be able to put right what was done wrongly would be Parliament itself. These powers are, therefore, inherently dangerous to vest in any authority. In all these matters, the guiding principle is that Parliament should be jealous of its prerogative and should surrender no more powers by delegation than what it can itself control. Here, however, a delegation of powers is proposed where Parliament will have no control at all. The Executive becomes the master of the situation and whatever it does is not subject to scrutiny by Parliament. This suspension or amendment of existing legislation is going to take place if in the opinion of the Governor-General certain circumstances exist. Now, what if he is wrong? What if his opinion is wrong? Surely, this is the very type of matter which should come before Parliament so that it can be examined, so that various opinions can be expressed and so that the legislation can be passed with full consideration of all the circumstances involved and not merely by the consideration of a single mind. This is undoubtedly an instance where safeguards are needed and they are needed to ensure that the prerogatives of Parliament are not simply ignored.’ The Bill does make provision for the tabling of proclamations, but tabling of documents of that nature has by now become a meaningless formality, and nobody knows that better than Minister’s offices. For this House to do its job correctly, it should ensure that all these matters come before it by the normal processes, so that they can be reviewed and examined. I say that there is something inherently dangerous in conferring arbitrary powers of this nature. In that regard I want to quote a very imminent authority on the subject, Sir Cecil Carr, who said this—

Whenever delegated powers contain the germ of arbitrary action, then safeguards must be provided.

I cannot think of a better case in which safeguards must be devised, because here the Bill is asking us to confer powers with no adequate safeguards against abuse by this Government; and when I talk of abuse I use it in the same sense as the hon. member for Constantia. It is the power to do something without supervision and without adequate control, without criticism and without any assurance that all the circumstances have been taken into account. I say, therefore, that the amendment moved by my hon. friend is fully justified.

*Dr. DE WET:

I want to say in the first instance that it is wrong to create the impression that South Africa’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth is an unfriendly act. South Africa has not withdrawn from the Commonwealth because she is bad friends with any other country. Secondly, I want to say at once that South Africa is very grateful to the Prime Minister and the Minister of External Affairs for having taken immediate steps while they were still in London to make certain arrangements of which this is a result. As a responsible Prime Minister and Minister of External Affairs they immediately made a statement in the interests of South Africa to the effect that we would remain within the sterling bloc and they had discussions with various concerns in Britain which resulted in the statement by the British Government that they were prepared to pass the legislation which they did pass. This legislation before us is simply a result of the friendly agreement or undertaking that was given at the time. The complaint is now raised that it should have been introduced at an earlier stage. But this too is a friendly and courteous gesture towards the British Government; we wanted to give them the opportunity to pass it through their Parliament first because it was of real importance in Britain that such legislation should be passed. I am not so sure that it is really necessary for us to have this legislation on our Statute Book. The hon. the Minister said quite clearly that it was only to make assurance doubly sure. It is not the intention of the Government at all to use this legislation to make any changes unless it is necessary to do so. As a matter of fact the whole Preamble of this Bill is of a positive nature; it says—

To provide for the continued operation of certain laws affecting Commonwealth countries and for matters incidental thereto.

That is the positive side of it.

*Mr. PLEWMAN:

Go on.

*Dr. DE WET:

There are two aspects to it. The first is the positive aspect, which says the following. This is Clause 1—

The operation of any provision of any law in force in the Union or the Territory of South West Africa immediately prior to the thirty-first day of May, 1961, in which reference is made to Commonwealth countries or any particular Commonwealth country, shall not be affected by reason of the establishment of the Republic of South Africa or of the fact that the republic is not a member of the Commonwealth;

That is the positive side of it and now I come to the second portion. The second portion is not unconditional. This is a clause which places the power in the hands of the Minister to effect changes from our side. There is a specific proviso and what does it say—

Provided that the Governor-General may by proclamation in the Government Gazette suspend or from time to time amend … if in his opinion any corresponding law which was in force in that Commonwealth country on the date mentioned has been amended or repealed …

It is only in pursuance of what may happen in other Commonwealth countries and not something that South Africa will do on her part.

*Mr. PLEWMAN:

“If in his opinion.”

*Dr. DE WET:

Yes, of course. It is only in those cases that the Minister can do anything. I cannot think of any law that will be affected by this. It is only to make assurance doubly sure. It is not the intention of South Africa to make any changes in any relationships. It is only when another Commonwealth country makes a change that it may be necessary for South Africa to make a corresponding change.

I think the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) has done an injustice to the contributions which he usually makes in this House, because he dragged in a number of irrelevant issues. He knows as well as I do that the sugar agreement is not an agreement between England and this Government; it has nothing to do with legislation whatsoever. That is an agreement with the sugar industry. He was actually out of order, but it seems to me that the Opposition is simply availing itself of this opportunity of trying to create uncertainty and concern in South Africa, particularly in the economic field. They want to create the impression that the Government will use this legislation to the detriment of South Africa or, as the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) said “to undo what exists to-day”. We definitely do not want to change anything that exists to-day and the proviso says quite clearly that if any amendments are made in another country which make it necessary for us to make corresponding amendments, we can make those amendments. But the Government went even further. The positive object is stated in the first section of the clause in that it says that nothing will be affected by reason of the establishment of the republic or by reason of our withdrawal from the Commonwealth.

Another impression has been created, namely that friendship can only exist within the Commonwealth. Let us understand this very clearly—and other Commonwealth countries have said the same thing—friendship and co-operation and matters of common interests can be promoted equally well, if not better, outside the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is not the alpha and the omega of friendship. I am not at all trying to belittle Commonwealth membership, but there is one thing which the country should understand very well and it is this that it is equally possible and equally easy to enjoy the greatest measure of friendship and co-operation in the economic field and other fields, outside the Commonwealth. But as usual the hon. member for Constantia came with a tale of woe which has no bearing on this situation. For example he spoke about “the magnitude of the dangers to take place in the next 12 months”. If dangers are to take place in the 12 months, what has that to do with this legislation? What dangers are threatening South Africa as a result of our withdrawal from the Commonwealth, and what dangers are wrapped up in this legislation, legislation which is specifically aimed at maintaining the status quo? The hon. member for Constantia tried to underline the fact that this Government did not wish to be on friendly terms with Commonwealth countries. He is trying to exploit the present position to make things difficult for South Africa in the economic and other fields. South Africa has received more friendship in this matter from the British Government and from the British House of Commons and the House of Lords than she has received from the Opposition. Out of friendship the British Government has introduced legislation which was passed by both Houses without a division. The British Parliament has passed legislation which deals directly with South Africa after her withdrawal from the Commonwealth, and it was passed without one dissentient vote or a division, but here we are faced with an Opposition who, when we want to follow up that friendly gesture, move an amendment and call a division. It is tragic to think that where we are merely reacting to a friendly gesture on the part of Britain and other Commonwealth countries, we are faced with an Opposition who calls for a division on the matter.

I want to refer to another point. The hon. member for Constantia dragged in something else, namely, defence. He has had one assurance after the other in respect of Simonstown, etc., but he wants to bring the country under the wrong impression. He says “Our whole defence system is based on the concept of membership of the Commonwealth”. He knows that is not true. He says “The whole defence system will go by the board”. I challenge him and any other member opposite to mention one defence agreement which is based on the condition that we are a member of the Commonwealth. Of course, there are agreements and there is co-operation between us and Britain and other Commonwealth countries, but I challenge them to prove that they are based on the condition that we are a member of the Commonwealth. Mr. Speaker, I am not in order in talking about these things because they have nothing to do with this legislation and so I shall leave it at that, but it is quite clear to me that this is a friendly gesture towards Britain and other Commonwealth countries, on the part of this Government, a gesture which flows from friendly discussions which were of the utmost importance to South Africa. It is clear that we are getting less friendship from the Opposition than we got from the British Parliament, because we have to divide on the issue, whereas they passed it unanimously. I think South Africa should take note of that, particularly the business people. Their whole defence is based on false premises, because we have the very distinct proviso that South Africa will not make any amendments from her side, but that she will only do so if another Commonwealth country amends any of her laws.

I want to deal with something else. The hon. member for Constantia came with the hair-raising story that we would wake up one morning to find ourselves strangers in the Commonwealth. At the end of this year even we will be less of a stranger in the Commonwealth than he has been a stranger in South Africa all his life.

*Mr. DURRANT:

With whom are you fighting?

*Dr. DE WET:

I am not fighting with anybody. All I am doing is to ask the Opposition not to oppose this important matter. They are availing themselves of this opportunity of sowing unrest in South Africa in the economic spheres. [Interjections.] Their attitude this afternoon has once again made it clear to me that certain members of the Opposition would have been only too pleased if our withdrawal from the Commonwealth had meant their coming into power. But that did not happen and they are now acting the way they are in order to create economic retrogression in South Africa, because they think that may possibly be in their favour. This is an act which must surely prove to the whole world and to the Commonwealth countries that our withdrawal from the Commonwealth was not an unfriendly gesture. As always, we are prepared to co-operate with them wholeheartedly and that is clear from this legislation, and we are grateful to the British Government for the friendly spirit in which her Parliament has accepted the legislation which has been piloted through her House of Commons.

*Dr. DE BEER:

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) devoted much of his speech to replying to the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) who according to him has tried to show that our leaving the Commonwealth is a hostile act. I must say that I have listened fairly attentively to the hon. member for Constantia and he devoted far less of his speech to the question of friendship than the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. The objection of the hon. member for Constantia to this legislation has nothing to do with friendship or hostility; it relates mainly to the delegated powers about which I too wish to say a few words. But furthermore the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has drawn a comparison by saying that the British legislation has been adopted without opposition and he asked why that is not the position here. The answer is simple. Neither House of the British Parliament is being asked to give approval to delegated powers similar to those embodied in this legislation. If they had been asked to do so, there would have been strong doubt as to whether the legislation would have passed so easily. In the third place, the hon. member has asked what danger accepting legislation such as this can entail for us. I maintain that it is dangerous for any parliament in any democratic country to adopt legislation which delegates the powers of Parliament in this way.

To refer to friendship again, there is probably no group of South African citizens who are more in earnest as regards retaining and strengthening our bonds of friendship, not only with Britain but with all the Commonwealth countries, than we on these benches, and in so far as this legislation merely embodies a standstill agreement which will result in the continuation of those mutually beneficial arrangements which exist to-day between us and that country, we shall obviously support it. As regards the argument which the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) has put forward by way of an interjection, namely, that this Bill is necessary in order to provide for the continuation of legislative provisions which would otherwise fall away, there is doubt as to whether that argument has any substance in the light of what the Minister has said, but in so far as that argument has any substance I have now given our reply. We are in favour of the continuation of such beneficial provisions. But as other hon. members on this side have said, and as I have also pointed out, this legislation embodies a provision of the type we cannot support. I am referring to the delegation of powers to the Government and the Minister to suspend or amend legislation as they see fit without consulting Parliament. The hon. the Minister has referred to the fact that the law advisers are of the opinion that this legislation is quite probably unnecessary. If that is so, and if it had not been introduced, this power which the Government is now asking, namely, the power to suspend existing legislation, would not have existed. The Government is now giving itself a power which it would not have had if this legislation had not been introduced. And hon. members confirm that and say that it is probably unnecessary legislation, but I then say that these provisions which are delegating these powers to the Minister are certainly unnecessary.

The hon. member for Bellville (Mr. Haak) has tried to justify the delegation by pointing out that it might happen that the British Government or the Government of any other Commonwealth country might change one or other provision while our Parliament was not sitting and that it might be necessary to act quickly, and for that reason this delegation was necessary. I would still have reservations in that respect in so far as it relates only to the time when our Parliament is not sitting, but the Bill goes further. This legislation also provides that when Parliament is sitting, the Government does not need to approach Parliament for approval. Then the Governor-General can act and all that is necessary is that a proclamation should be issued and laid upon the Table within 14 days. In other words this provision does not only provide for when it might be inconvenient or impossible to summon Parliament, but this provision delegates these powers even if Parliament is sitting. It gives the Minister the power to act on behalf of Parliament while Parliament is sitting, and this is the type of provision which no Parliament should accept. To me as a layman in this field, it is not quite clear what matters will be affected by this Bill. The hon. member for Constantia has rightly said that it would have been better if the Government could have given us a clearer indication of all that was envisaged. I accept that it is not intended primarily or at all to affect trade agreements, because there is already a procedure which can be followed in that regard. Quite probably the matters at issue are matters such as citizenship and diplomatic relations between the various countries. These are important matters and these are pre-eminently matters in respect of which action by the Executive alone might have consequences which might make it impossible even for Parliament to undo the damage which could be caused; all the more because such important matters might be affected, one dare not entrust the powers of Parliament to the hands of the Minister or the Executive. That and no considerations of good or bad friendship, constitute the reason why we cannot accept this Bill. I know that hon. members opposite—and this is apparent from their interjections and speeches—are always inclined to think that the Opposition are unreasonable when they put forward certain objections. As the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has said, the Bill provides that these powers can only be used if the Minister considers that another Commonwealth country has acted in such a way that the existing position is changed, and he went on to ask whether we expect the Minister to be unreasonable; he would only act when it was necessary and he would only do what was best for the country. But where does this type of argument take us? It comes perhaps naturally from hon. members opposite who simply cannot believe that one of their Ministers can make a mistake, but if one can always rely on Ministers to do the best thing for South Africa, why then do we have a Parliament? Why do we not simply elect a Cabinet and let the Cabinet rule the country? No, we come together because it is necessary that Parliament should retain its authority over important matters to the greatest possible extent that can be reconciled with the demands of modern government, and foreign relations are certainly important. For that reason, because we cannot under any circumstances approve of the delegation of powers which this Bill embodies, we are pleased to support the amendment of the hon. member for Constantia.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

I want to say at once that there is no question of this Bill delegating powers in the true sense of the word. Before dealing with this aspect I just want to say a few words with reference to what the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) has said. He has already become known as a Jeremiah and I am surprised that he does not always sit in sackcloth and ashes in this House. His speech has once again been typical of the present-day Opposition. I have here an article which appeared in La Vie Française of 14 April and which says the following—

The English language Press which is completely in the hands of the Opposition, the United Party, is continuously performing a death dance against the party in power (the Nationalist Party) and points out strongly every one and all mishaps happening to the country.
*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! What does that have to do with the Bill?

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

I shall show presently that the speeches we have heard this afternoon were nothing but another “death dance” because of what is supposed to be going to happen in South Africa. That is why I want to quote this—

Often this peevishness is merely ridiculous; quite honourable sporting failures or the most common accidents are all presented as real catastrophes for which the Government is responsible.
*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

I am coming to that.

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

On a point of order, I should like to point out that practically the whole speech of the hon. member for Constantia had nothing to do with the Bill.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

My submission is that the hon. member for Constantia has once again performed a “death dance” over a trivial Bill in order to show South Africa and the outside world how unfair this Government and particularly the Minister are. But this Bill has nothing to do with our foreign relations’ at all. It is merely and solely an interpretation Bill. Mr. Sandys also said the same thing in dealing with the British Act—

This House will see that these provisions do not include some of the more important aspects of our relations with South Africa. The reason is that either these are not based upon legislation or that the legislation upon which they are based was not worded in such a way …

And I want to emphasize the words “are not worded in such a way”—

… that it will be automatically affected by South Africa’s constitutional change.

Then he says why their legislation in Britain was necessary, and for the same reasons this legislation is necessary in this country. He said—

The need for this Bill arises from the fact that unless we take legislative action, a considerable number of existing United Kingdom and colonial laws would cease to have effect in relation to South Africa after 31 May. The reason is that these laws are worded in such a way that they apply only to countries which form part of Her Majesty’s dominions or in other cases to members of the Commonwealth. These laws are concerned with a whole lot of miscellaneous matters.

This Bill which we are discussing to-day, only deals with the wording of our laws and it is purely and solely an interpretation Bill which provides that any reference to the Common-wealth or a Commonwealth country shall not be affected by the mere fact that we are now a republic and no longer a member of the Commonwealth. This is merely an interpretation Bill to which our laws will be subject in future.

I then turn to the argument relating to delegated powers. There is no question of any delegated power whatsoever. The members who have referred to that aspect are like Don Quixote. They are fighting windmills and non-existent shadows. The Minister is not being given any delegated powers. All the Bill provides is that if there is an Act which governed our mutual relations and which referred to South Africa as a Commonwealth country and we have a similar Act in South Africa, and the legislation of such other country no longer regards us as one of those countries, it will simply be announced by way of a proclamation that the Act concerned which governed these relations no longer applies. There is no question of any powers being delegated. It is a question of interpretation so that the courts can interpret our laws correctly in future. It is pointless expatiating at length on delegated powers this afternoon because delegated powers as such are not under discussion to-day. It is only when a provision in an Act becomes superfluous because one of the Commonwealth countries has acted in a certain way in respect of their laws that the Minister must announce by way of proclamation that the Act concerned will no longer apply in South Africa either. That is all it means. He does not require a special delegated power for that purpose. Nor is he going to act on his own; he can only act after another country has taken action. [Interjection.] Why is the hon. member then arguing about delegated powers? If it is all so simple and if the hon. member understands the position, then I cannot understand how he can be so stupid as to discuss delegated powers. The position is just as simple as I have set it out, and the hon. member always tries, when the Government takes action, to perform a “death dance”. He always tries to create the impression that this is an evil totalitarian Government. That is the basis of his opposition in this House. The hon. member and the entire Opposition are so devoid of any policy that they cannot do anything else but try to frighten the public time and time again. There is no question whatsoever of the amendment of laws. No law whatsoever is being amended. It will only be announced by means of a proclamation that an Act which is no longer applicable, is no longer applicable. [Interjection.] All the hon. members on this side are not such morons as hon. members opposite think. That is all I have to say.

Mr. DURRANT:

One might well say of hon. members such as the hon. member who has just resumed his seat and the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) that there are none so blind as those who will not see. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) gives a new interpretation of the Bill. He is not satisfied with the Minister’s explanation. He says this is nothing more nor less than an interpretation Bill. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark says that this is a Bill to show our goodwill as an ex-member of the Commonwealth to the United Kingdom. You see, Sir, you get these conflicting views and I have an impression from the way in which hon. members protested so loudly that they are not 100 per cent satisfied with the powers that the Minister seeks to give to the Executive in the measure before us. But before I proceed I hope you will permit me, Sir, to answer an allegation made by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark when he commenced his speech. The hon. gentleman alleged that we on this side had alleged from time to time that the Union left the Commonwealth because of our unfriendly relationships with other members of the Commonwealth. Let me say straight away that at no time has such an allegation been made by any member on this side of the House. The reason why we left the Commonwealth is the inability of the other members of the Commonwealth to accept the race policy of this Government. Do not let us overlook that fact. Then the hon. member went on to say that issues raised by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), upon which we seek information from the Minister when he replies to the debate—issues about how our trade agreements are going to be affected, our defence arrangements and the acquisition of arms and ammunition on the same basis as in the past, the question of scholarships and bursaries—are side issues which have nothing whatsoever to do with the Bill. Those two hon. members have both quoted at length from the speech made by the Minister of Commonwealth Relations in the United Kingdom Government. Why do they not quote what the Minister of State in the United Kingdom Government had to say in respect of these matters? Because he said quite clearly in his speech—and I quote his words—“All these arrangements will naturally have to be reviewed”. But the point is that they are not going to be reviewed in the light of our country being a member of the Commonwealth; they are going to be reviewed in the light of the fact that our country is a foreign country as far as the United Kingdom Government is concerned. If we are to continue to enjoy any of the fruits of our many associations with the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries, it may be necessary for the United Kingdom Government to pass legislation to give effect to our continued enjoyment of those privileges. If they pass legislation to that effect then it is quite clear that similar legislation may well be required in this House in order to afford South African citizens the opportunity of enjoying benefits under a United Kingdom law if they should visit the United Kingdom. The hon. gentleman seems to have missed the point. If hon. members on the Government benches think that we are going to continue enjoying all these fruits, as we did in the past as a member of the Commonwealth, then I would suggest to them that they take heed of the words of the Minister of State of the United Kingdom Government and I quote his words. He said “that all these arrangements will naturally have to be reviewed”. Let me say that it is the sincere hope and desire of members on the Opposite benches—I do not know to what extent this applies to members on the Government benches—that we will continue in the future to enjoy the many privileges that our citizens and our country have enjoyed as the result of our close association in the past with the Commonwealth.

Dr. DE WET:

What has that got to do with the Bill?

Mr. DURRANT:

It has everything to do with the Bill. If anything this Bill brings into stark relief the full consequence of the Government in withdrawing our application for continued membership of the Commonwealth.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! That is not under discussion now.

Mr. DURRANT:

I was replying to arguments advanced by hon. members on the other side.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member has had an opportunity of doing so now and he must come back to the Bill.

Mr. DURRANT:

Sir, there is another aspect that I would like to take up with the hon. the Minister. The Minister was at pains to point out, in introducing the Bill, that this measure is not only a reciprocal measure as far as the standstill legislation of the United Kingdom Government is concerned, but that one of the main differences between the legislation passed in the House of Commons and this measure is that we embrace a wider field; that we embrace the field of future relationships or possible agreements with all the members of the Commonwealth. Let me make it clear that it does not only stop at members of the Commonwealth, because when the standstill Bill was introduced into the House of Commons, the Minister of State was at great pains to point out that the standstill Bill and future legislation that might be passed during the standstill period of one year, would not only be dependent upon the views of the United Kingdom Government alone, but would also embrace the views of the colonial governments of the United Kingdom colonial empire. That is an important aspect as far as we are concerned, because we have extensive dealings and arrangements with quite a number of British colonies, so we are also going to be faced with the position as far as this Bill is concerned that the gap between the views of the United Kingdom Government and the independent views of the British colonies do not appear to be covered in this Bill. I would, therefore, ask the hon. the Minister in his reply to elucidate the position in respect of any arrangements or trade agreements or legislative measures that may exist where we have reciprocal arrangements with any of the British colonies. Will he tell us whether this measure will cover the possible gap that may exist in respect of any one of these particular territories? Because I emphasize that the Minister of State of the United Kingdom Government, Mr. Sandys, says quite clearly that the British Government intended to consult with the colonial governments, and there are quite a number of them with whom we have quite fair and extensive dealings ourselves as a country.

Mr. GREYLING:

Are you against this Bill?

Mr. DURRANT:

I should like to ask the Minister kindly to deal with that aspect when he replies.

Then we come to another point that was raised by the hon. member for Constantia which I should like to take further. The hon. member for Constantia asked the Minister whether he had any information as to whether or not any of the other Commonwealth countries intended passing legislation of this nature. Since the scope of this Bill has been widened to cover all Commonwealth countries, I take it that the Minister hopes that this will be accepted as a gesture of goodwill by other Commonwealth countries, and that they will show a similar spirit of co-operation, as that shown by the United Kingdom Government. I want to ask the Minister this specific question: Has he had any talks with the leaders of any of the other Commonwealth countries and has any indications been given to this Government that other Commonwealth countries are prepared to reciprocate in the spirit in which we are evidently doing so in this legislation before us?

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Mr. DURRANT:

I am dealing with it, Sir.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member is discussing matters falling outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. DURRANT:

Sir, may I draw your attention to the fact that Clause 1 refers to “Commonwealth countries or any particular Commonwealth country”, so the Bill does not cover one Commonwealth country, it covers all Commonwealth countries. I submit that I am perfectly justified in asking the Minister, since he has stated that this is looked upon as a gesture of goodwill towards other Commonwealth countries, whether he has had any indication whatsoever that there will be reciprocity from countries like Canada, New Zealand, Australia or any other Commonwealth country?

Then I want to take this point: An impression has been created in this debate—and I think the Minister helped to create that impression—that while it is necessary to pass this legislation, no far-reaching changes are really going to be effected. But what are the changes that have been effected and will be effected? What legislative measures will be affected as far as this Bill is concerned? Let me refer to the wide range of legislative measures that this Bill hopes to cover and which the Minister seeks to amend by proclamation if the United Kingdom Government make any changes in their legislation. This was dealt with at length by Mr. Sandys. The hon. member for Bellville (Mr. Haak) has already referred to some of these pieces of legislation. There is the Maritime Shipping Act under which South African ships are treated as British ships and enjoy all the facilities that go with it; there is the Colonial Probate Act, there is the Maintenance of Orders Act, and that is where I think the hon. member for Bellville stopped. But what about the host of others, such as the Medical Act, the Dentist Act, the Solicitors Act, the Commissions Act, the Colonial Marriages Act, the Naval Prize Act, the Companies Act, and even the Finance Act, and a host of others? Every one of these Acts affects some aspect or other of the life of South African citizens in one way or another.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

In Britain.

Mr. DURRANT:

If these Acts are amended and we are dealt with as a foreign country, then we can expect that the Union Government will take similar action in respect of any counter-measures, or legislation that may be needed for the acceptance of privileges that may be given to South Africans under any amendment to British Acts. What the Minister is seeking here is this: If, in his opinion, any corresponding law which was in force in a particular Commonwealth country on the date mentioned had been amended or repealed or had ceased to operate in so far as the South African Republic is concerned, then the Government will be able to legislate merely by proclamation to meet any one of the phases of that particular legislation. I would ask hon. members whether they are prepared to see on the Statute Book of South Africa amendments made to laws passed by this House when such amendments are enacted merely by proclamation by the Governor-General, without any elected representatives of the people of our country having been afforded an opportunity of expressing any views on these matters. Because that is what is being asked for.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

Nonsense!

Mr. DURRANT:

It is no use the hon. member for Heilbron saying that this is nonsense. I have mentioned some of the United Kingdom legislation which affects the lives of South African citizens in one way or another. I have only named a few and the hon. member for Bellville only named a few of these legislative enactments, and it is possible that when this standstill agreement comes to an end after a period of one year, when legislation is introduced into the British House of Commons dealing with South Africa as a foreign country, not as a member of the Commonwealth and as a country entitled to all the privileges that go with Commonwealth membership, it will be necessary—and it seems to me that it will be necessary—that legislative enactments will have to be passed in our own country to meet any possible situation that may arise as a result of amendments made to British Acts.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

Give a concrete instance.

Mr. DURRANT:

I cannot give a concrete instance by reading the minds of the 600 members of the House of Commons, or the minds of members of the British Government. I cannot say what they intend for the future or which of these laws they are going to amend. But can hon. members on the Government benches afford to surrender their rights as elected representatives of the people and allow the Government to govern in all these spheres merely by decree, because that is what the Minister is asking for in this Bill. Sir, I support entirely the amendment that has been moved from this side of the House, and I want to quote the words of Mr. Sandys to hon. members opposite again. They seem to be under the delusion that we are going to continue to enjoy all the privileges that we have had in the past. Let me quote to them the words of Mr. Sandys. He said—

We must be careful not to destroy the value of Commonwealth membership by giving to those who are not members of the Commonwealth all the privileges of those who are members of the Commonwealth.

If hon. members delude themselves into believing that this situation of the past is going to continue, then let me tell them that they are living in a fool’s paradise.

Mr. RUSSELL:

It falls to my lot to wind up the debate for this side of the House. It is indeed very difficult when the subject has been covered so adequately, so effectively by such able debaters. It is my task to try to fill in the gaps that may have been left, and there are few. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) dealt with the “scope” of the Bill, the wide powers it gives to the Minister and the possible serious consequences that might arise from the actions he takes. Rightly, he chided the Minister for his reticence in not taking us more fully into his confidence and telling us more—giving us more detailed reasons why he seeks wide and seemingly unnecessary powers in this Bill. The Minister must have known for some time that his Government would have to adjust itself to a position outside the Commonwealth. He must have known this for well over a year. If I am not mistaken, when he was present at the previous Prime Ministers’ Conference in London, he was informed that, if South Africa became a republic, our retention in the Commonwealth would not be a “mere formality”, would not be “automatic” as we were told during the referendum …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member is going outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. RUSSELL:

My relevant point is that the Minister has had all this time to calculate what the possible constitutional consequences would be of our leaving the Commonwealth and should be in a position to give us more facts about the type of extraneous legislation he expects to affect South Africa and in what way it would affect us. He has had over a year to think over this: but he has told us little or nothing. He has told us that exclusion from the Commonwealth will not affect trade agreements because they are bilateral arrangements and that it will not affect defence arrangements. He could not, however, tell us exactly what relationships it actually does affect. Does the Minister know why he is asking these powers? He has told us that this Bill may not really be necessary at all. Yet he uses it to take vast powers that may have grievous effects and set dangerous precedents. We arrived here early to-day and, with our morning coffee, a Bill is thrown before us that we had never seen before and we are asked to consider and to debate it a few hours later on the same day. We should have been given an opportunity of examining, with minute attention, legislation like this. This Bill may have very far-reaching consequences. Its repercussions may be such that even the Minister cannot properly comprehend. I say that as Members of Parliament we have been very cavalierly treated by this Government: as legislators we have been afforded all too little chance of giving sustained or constructive thought to the probable far-reaching consequences of this Bill.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) has dealt with the vital differences between this legislation and the Act passed by the British House of Commons. Their Act contains no clause delegating to any Minister wide powers to act outside and beyond the authority of Parliament. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark said that “friendship with Britain” was the object of this Bill. I am glad to know it. Friendship with Britain and the Commonwealth has always been the aim of this side of the House. But it is only very recently that retention of Commonwealth membership and friendship with Britain has become the ardent wish of hon. gentlemen over there. It is only latterly that it has ceased to be a vital clause enshrined in their party constitution to have “a republic outside the Commonwealth”.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Mr. RUSSELL:

Sir, I am replying to an allegation that friendship is the object of this Bill: and to an allegation that this side of the House is committing an unfriendly act to Britain in opposing it …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! Is the profession of friendship an allegation?

Mr. RUSSELL:

Yes, Sir, in Queen’s English a “profession” of friendship is not necessarily genuine and if insincere can be correctly called an “allegation” or mere assertion of friendship …

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Mr. RUSSELL:

This Bill could never pass through the British House of Commons. They would never agree to give unfettered delegated power to any Minister to legislate …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! This House is not concerned with what happens in the House of Commons. We are busy with the legislation before this House.

Mr. RUSSELL:

Sir, if that is so, then the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) must have been out of order when he referred to House of Commons debates. Much of his speech was based on quotations from the Commons Hansard. He took us through what was said in the House of Commons. Each member who has spoken on that side of the House has referred to and quoted from the Hansards of the House of Commons and concerned himself with what happened there. Now, at this late juncture, I am told that this House is “not interested in what happens in the House of Commons”. This attitude really places us at an immense disadvantage …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! All those points have been adequately replied to.

Mr. RUSSELL:

That is another point. Sir, I wish they had quoted certain passages from the House of Commons debates, which they were careful not to refer to, namely, the remarks made in that House by the Prime Minister and also in the House of Lords by the Conservative Leader, Lord Hailsham, when they said that the Commonwealth was parting with South Africa sadly because of the kinship and friendship that they had, not for this Government or their followers, but for the other peoples of our country who had helped them in peace and war—all of them of all colours. They made it quite clear that any advantages we may retain by way of any trade or other agreements; any friendship that may survive the alteration of our status; any advantageous arrangement the Minister may make, will come to South Africa solely because of the friendship the Commonwealth holds and has held traditionally for all opponents of the Nationalist Government.

Mr. B. COETZEE:

[Inaudible.]

Mr. RUSSELL:

The hon. member for Vereeniging is again making himself a public inconvenience.

Mr. B. COETZEE:

When are you going to start the civil war?

Mr. RUSSELL:

The Act of Union stated unequivocally that “the legislative power of the Union should reside in the Parliament of the Union”; and the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act lays down specifically that “the legislative power of the republic shall vest in this Parliament and not in the Executive. That is why we on this side of the House always oppose the granting of powers to Ministers to legislate without reference to Parliament and without any proper safeguards. That is our main objection to this form of delegating powers. The hon. member for Heilbron tells us that there is no delegation of powers in this Bill. Well, if it is not a delegation of legislative power to allow a Minister to suspend or amend Acts of Parliament, I do not know what delegated power is. There is clearly a surrender of legislative power to the Minister. The Governor-General means, of course, the Minister handling the particular portfolio concerned. It is a clear surrender by Parliament of its powers to authorize a Minister to change the laws of this land; and especially remiss of us to allow him to change them without even subsequent reference to Parliament. There is no way open to us of subsequently modifying or altering or annulling what he has done. But what is much more serious is that we allow the Minister to do all of these things while we are sitting here in Cape Town in Parliament assembled. He can make laws, can legislate from his office across the street in Marks Buildings, ignore Parliament and merely lay his laws on the Table of this House knowing that there is no corrective action we can take adequately to safeguard what is called (if you republicans will permit me to use the word) the ‘sovereignty” of Parliament. What are the limited methods of correction we have? If the Minister, sitting in his office in Cape Town, were to alter an Act of Parliament, consequential upon the passing of legislation in Great Britain or one of the other Commonwealth countries, what remedy would we have to put right any mistake he may make or ill-judged change he may agree to? We could ask him questions about it in this House. But that would not alter or amend what he had done. Mr. Speaker, we have always said that, in times of emergency or when haste is essential to safeguard the interests of our country or its peoples, we must give the executive certain administrative powers; empower Ministers to take certain legislative action which Parliament, hampered by its slow processes, could not possibly complete or perform in the necessary time. But we have always added this proviso, that delegation should never be condoned without ensuring that Parliament is adequately safeguarded against the possible misuse of conferred powers; against misuse, either intentional or unintentional, of delegated power by any Minister of the Crown. That is what we are asking for now, Surely it is most reasonable to make this demand. All we can do at the moment is to criticize or question the Minister after the event; hold a useless post-mortem after the deed has been done, in Committee of Supply on his particular Votes. We might also raise the matter by special motion in the House if the Government gave us time. We might try to call attention to Ministerial error by moving the adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance. But nothing we can do constitutionally would undo what had been done. Indeed the Minister would probably not even take note of our objections. This is something that all people who value a continuance of parliamentary government should deplore. We do not wish to capitulate abjectly, as Government members are all too willing to do, without even adequate comment. We will not willingly surrender the right we have, as parliamentarians, to legislate; the right we have to insist that laws should pass through the usual channel of gradual, slow and adequate discussion in the two Houses of Parliament which exist for that very purpose. I am certain that no good can ever come out of this type of legislation. I am sure that if we persist in clothing the Executive with powers that are too vast, without correcting their actions in any way, we might well be at the beginning of a process which will end, as it inevitably must end, in arbitrary Executive rule. The tendency is growing every day and in every way. Since this Government came into power this process of delegating uncontrolled powers to Ministers has grown, is growing and it must end in a form of despotism that we should not tolerate.

Mr. B. COETZEE:

Well, then, you start your civil war.

Mr. RUSSELL:

Ministers should be answerable to this House for the use they make of delegated powers. I remember when this Minister for External Affairs sat on this side of the House with the present Minister of Finance. I remember how strenuously they opposed the granting of any powers to Ministers to act without reference to Parliament. I remember references by the Minister of Finance to the fact that delegation of uncontrolled powers “created a polluted stream of legislation against which we should be on our guard”.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member has now made his point and he must now come back to the Bill.

Mr. RUSSELL:

Uncontrolled delegated powers should not be granted in an unfettered way to this or any other Minister. I charge him with having thrown this ill-considered legislation before us without giving us adequate notice. Haste only produces bad laws. Even the Minister does not seem to know why he wants this Bill. I hope in his reply he will go into more detail and give us a better idea, before we go into the Committee Stage, of the type of legislation he plans to create with these powers. I hope he will tell us whether in fact he has been let into the inner secret of the kind of legislation other Commonwealth countries might introduce. He has been thanked by his side for all he did in London to ensure the continuance of certain relations with the Commonwealth immediately after the Prime Minister had withdrawn South Africa from that friendly and advantageous association of nations. Perhaps, as a result of his conversations and negotiations he was given some hint as to what changes in relationships might occur and has deduced that a certain type of legislation will be passed by Great Britain and other Commonwealth members. He must expect certain definite legal changes in South Africa’s status. He should know, even vaguely, what type of new foreign legislation is likely to affect us. I would like him now to give us more details when he replies to this debate.

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

This has so far as the Opposition is concerned been a most extraordinary debate. They obviously could not find arguments to deal with the provisions of the Bill before the House, which is the opposite number of the British Bill, so they introduced all sorts of extraneous matters and concentrated more particularly on what they called the delegation of powers. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) has seized upon this occasion to repeat one of his pre-referendum speeches, or to make a speech which he should have made when the happenings at the Commonwealth Conference were discussed in this House. That was the time when the speech now made by the hon. member for Constantia should have been delivered. Having regard to the manner and spirit in which I introduced this measure, had I known of the petty spirit which was going to be shown by the hon. member for Constantia, I would not have introduced this measure, because, as I told the House, according to the law advisers it is not strictly speaking necessary.

Mr. WATERSON:

Why don’t you withdraw it if it is not necessary?

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

I introduced it in the first place because this matter had been discussed in London, there had been a sort of arrangement between the hon. the Prime Minister and Mr. Sandys who told him that he was going to introduce such a measure in the British House of Commons. It was suggested that we should introduce a similar measure here. Furthermore, the British High Commissioner came to see me here and asked whether we were going to introduce a measure of this kind.

Mr. RUSSELL:

Do you think this is similar to the one introduced in England?

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

Because of the discussions in England, I decided to proceed with this measure. And then, there was always just the chance that there might be some law or other which had not been notified to us by the Departments that have been consulted. So, to make assurance doubly sure this legislation was introduced.

I must say quite frankly that 90 per cent of the hon. member for Constantia’s speech, dealt with extraneous matters, matters flowing from our withdrawal from the Commonwealth, and which had nothing to do with the Bill before the House. Mr. Speaker, I was strongly tempted to rise on a point of order, but I thought that it might be perhaps best to allow the hon. member to continue. The hon. member surely has read the Bill. We were told that there were complaints that we had not given sufficient notice. A Bill of two clauses! Imagine, Sir, these very intelligent people on the other side not being able to master a Bill of two clauses! The second clause deals with the matter which they have seized upon, viz. the so-called delegation of powers to the Minister concerned. The hon. member for Constantia apparently does not appreciate that this Bill is the opposite number of the Bill introduced in Britain. He only has to look at the Titles of the two Bills. Our Bill is “to provide for the continued operation of certain laws affecting Commonwealth countries and for matters incidental thereto”. The British Bill introduced in the House of Commons is titled: “A Bill to make temporary provision as to the operation of the law upon the Union of South Africa becoming a republic outside the Commonwealth”. The British Bill deals with certain laws and provides that these laws will be kept in operation for a period of one year, pending which discussions will take place between the Union of South Africa and Great Britain. Such discussions have actually been going on. Certain matters have already been discussed and others are still to be discussed. I was asked whether we have had any discussions with any other Commonwealth countries. Certainly. Certain matters have been discussed. The hon. members of the Opposition quite clearly do not understand, or they refuse to understand the real meaning of this Bill.

Mr. WATERSON:

He speaks as if he were speaking to the Mayor of Cape Town.

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

I am glad to see a smile on the otherwise sour face of the hon. member for Constantia. It is a pleasure to see him smile for a change. The hon. member for Constantia has never got over the 1948 defeat, and has been sulking ever since.

The hon. member for Constantia and others concentrated on the assertion that this Bill delegates powers. Mr. Chairman, the British Bill has a similar provision. It says—

During the period of one year beginning with the 31st day of May … all existing law which operates as law … shall unless provision to the contrary is made by an authority having power to alter that law.

The “authority” referred to is an authority outside the House of Commons.

Mr. RUSSELL:

But that is exactly the point.

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

I know the hon. member is very clever on these matters, but he is very stupid in this case. The authority here refers to an authority outside the British Parliament. And exactly the same provision is provided in our Bill. The hon. member can shake his head as much as he likes, but that is the meaning of “an authority” here.

The hon. member for Constantia wants to know something more about other Commonwealth countries. He says “We cannot assume that another Commonwealth country will take vindictive action”. Well, well! Has the hon. member been asleep during the past year? Has he not seen the sort of action that has already been taken against South Africa by certain Commonwealth countries? Of course we can assume it. We may find ourselves in the position that another Commonwealth country repeals a law affecting South Africa and we would be able to do nothing about it. Because it has to be borne in mind, Sir, that our laws remain in force, and we would not be able to do anything about it when Parliament is not in session. It is for the protection of South Africa against action which might be taken by a Commonwealth country, which might be detrimental to the interests of our country. That is why this provision is inserted.

The hon. member had much to say about trade agreements. I thought I had gone out of my way in introducing this Bill to state that trade agreements are not included in this Bill. I discussed the matter in London, and it was clearly said to me by the President of the Board of Trade and by a representative of the Commonwealth Relations Office, that all existing bilateral trade agreements would continue in force whether or not we are outside the Commonwealth. So the question of trade agreements does not enter the picture.

The hon. member asked about ratification. Of course there will have to be ratification. The hon. member had plenty to say the other day when the South African Trade Agreement with Southern Rhodesia was up for ratification by this House. Southern Rhodesia, although not a full member of the Commonwealth, is a British colony. Of course there will have to be ratification of trade agreements. What the point was in his argument, I do not know. I can only come to the conclusion that the hon. member and others who followed him were so short of arguments when dealing with this very simple Bill that they had to have recourse to all sort of ridiculous arguments. He also spoke about the sugar agreement. What has that got to do with this Bill? I think it was the hon. member for Vereeniging who pointed out that the sugar agreement is one in which the sugar producers are concerned, and the hon. member as a previous Minister of Economic Development should know that. Those are matters which will continue to be matters for discussion and negotiation between our respective governments.

The hon. member spoke about our defence and gave the impression that we are now all alone. I speak subject to correction, but I know of only one defence arrangement, which I think is called the Sea Routes Agreement, in which not only Britain is concerned, but also France and Portugal and Belgium. There is nothing to prevent an agreement of that type being negotiated in the future. If the British Government feels that it is in their interest, and in the common interest of South Africa and the United Kingdom to have an agreement on any of those matters, it can be negotiated.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is the opposite number of the British Bill. I think it is necessary to have such a measure, in spite of what the law advisers say, because something may transpire afterwards. At the moment all our laws remain in force, and strictly speaking, the Bill, for that reason, is not necessary. It could not be introduced within a few days, or a few weeks for that matter. Much research had to be done by every Government Department to find out whether in fact there was not legislation which might be affected once we are out of the Commonwealth. That took time.

Mr. Speaker, I thought I introduced this Bill in a conciliatory spirit. I said in my introduction that the introduction of the Bill was an earnest of South Africa’s desire to retain friendly relations and co-operation in matters of common concern with the United Kingdom, and with other Commonwealth countries that are desirous of maintaining those relations. I cannot but express my regret of the spirit shown by the hon. member for Constantia and other hon. members on the other side. It was another attempt to create fear. We have had that ever since the Commonwealth Conference. Attempts are made to create a feeling of fear in the country, as to the terrible results which will flow from South Africa’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth. They also try to prejudice the people of South Africa against the republic which is to be established on 31st of this month. There was talk of South Africa “waking up one morning, finding itself a foreign country” and what not. I recommend to the hon. member for Constantia and to others who spoke in the same strain, the statements which were made in the British House of Lords when the opposite number of this Bill was introduced, which had already been passed by the House of Commons. There we find that for instance Lord Fraser of Lonsdale said.

We should be patient and appreciate that it would be more likely to evolve happily and in a manner that would enable the friendship between the two countries to continue if we did not interfere with South Africa.

And Lord Milverton, a former Governor of Nigeria, said—

Surely there should be no specific or deliberate attempt to embarrass South Africa because of a political system of which so many South Africans disapprove. It was nonsense to talk of South Africa as a foreign country in anything but a technical sense.

I recommend that remark particularly to the hon. member for Constantia. Lord Balfour said that Britain did not want to hurt herself in trade just to spite South Africa—and she did not want to hurt the South African people. He said—

If we maintain our trading position with South Africa, and do not repudiate the Ottawa Agreement, I think it is likely other countries in the Commonwealth would follow our example. I sincerely hope we shall not speed the process of estrangement in future years by hurting her economically.

That, Sir, is what the hon. member for Constantia and others have been doing to-day, viz. “to speed the process of estrangement between South Africa and the United Kingdom”. Instead of following the line followed by Lord Balfour, he followed the line of the anti-South African socialist opposition in the House of Commons. There there was the sort of criticism that we have had from the hon. member to-day. I hope hon. members on the other side will accept the sincerity of the hon. the Prime Minister which he expressed in London and which he has expressed since his return, viz. that while we will be out of the Commonwealth it is our sincere desire to continue to co-operate and to maintain friendly relations. There are a number of matters of common concern in regard to which we can co-operate, and in respect of which we are willing to co-operate if only hon. members on the other side will make it possible for us to do so.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—86: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Pisanie, J.; du Plessis, P. W.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker. A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Louw, E. H.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scholtz, D. J.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Strydom, G. H. F.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M.C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. von S. von Moltke.

Noes—52: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Butcher, R. R.; Connan, J. M.; Cope, J. P.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Beer, Z. J.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, I. S.; Frielinghaus, H. O.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Horak, J. L.; Lawrence, H. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Lewis, J.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Shearer, O. L.; Smit, D. L.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Williams, T. O.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and the Bill read a second time.

DEFENCE FURTHER AMENDMENT BILL

Third Order read: Second reading,—Defence Further Amendment Bill.

*The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:

I move

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, you and other hon. members of this House must forgive me if I deal with this Bill on a note which rather differs from the usual note. I am deeply conscious of the fact that for the first time in our history in South Africa I am now going to institute a full-time force consisting of members of the Citizen Force. This heralds a new era in our defence development. It so happens that this particular task has fallen on my shoulders.

In this Amendment Bill, while pointing out the hurdles in the path of duty, I say to South Africa “Come on”. In this Bill I ask a great deal of South Africa. I fully realize that. I feel almost hesitant in asking for all this. I did not create the present world circumstances, but under these circumstances I am called upon to bring South Africa’s defence within the limits of our powers, to the stage of preparedness. To that end I need this sacrifice of men; to that end I need the determination of a nation; to that end I need the unconditional cooperation of all language groups in our nation. In order to obtain that, it is my duty to give full equality of opportunities to all language groups in our country within the Defence Force.

In asking the Government to take this step I did so in the full realization of what I was asking of South Africa. I know what I am asking of the young men. I know what I am asking of their parents, and I know what I am asking of the employers. But, Mr. Speaker, I do this in the conviction that South Africa has a great deal to give to everybody if the stability of our State and our safety remain assured. Yes, if our stability and our safety remain assured, South Africa offers the whole of her population freedom and increasing welfare. I have never heard anybody expressing any doubts as to the great future ahead of South Africa provided we remain Western in our orientation and provided we are able to maintain order here.

I know that good order is not dependent only on military preparedness. No, good order in a country is dependent on infinitely more than that. Good order is the result of the sum total of State activities, not the least of which, however, is the State’s preparedness in the military sphere. It would be a fortunate state of affairs if the military preparedness of all states could rest on a peace-time basis, but one sometimes wonders whether there really can be such a thing as a peace-time defence force strength, because if there was implicit confidence in peace no defence force would be needed at all. A so-called peace-time defence forec is only necessary in a country really because there is no faith in the prospect of peace, and that strength varies between so-called peace-time strength and full strength in propertion to the degree of confidence in the world in the ability to maintain peace. To my mind there can never be such a thing as a peace-time defence force strength in our country as long as the world is in the grip of a cold war, particularly not when prominent world figures tell us that the world situation is still not hopeless! To keep the State’s military preparations on a peace-time basis in the present cold war, would be to gamble recklessly in my opinion with the safety of the State and even with the life of the nation.

We know the circumstances of the world and we know that every nation that can afford to do so is making military preparations. No state, as far as I know, relies to such an extent on its diplomacy, its good government, and has so much faith in its allies or its potential allies, that it itself makes no proper military preparations. In South Africa too we are building up a defence organization which will provide proof of our realism. Mr. Speaker, in other countries of the world we have the unrealistic people, the people who are only able to take their stand on “what might have been”. The way they argue is this: “But for this and but for that no expansion in the military sphere would have been necessary.” The fact remains that I have to take care of the safety of the State, and I cannot allow these people to make me deviate from my course. If I took any notice of them, I would end up by getting my marching orders.

General E. G. Brink, former commander of South Africa’s First Division, a man with extensive military experience therefore, said quite recently that—

Our Defence Force had never been ready to meet a sudden emergency. The Permanent Force was a cadre organization designed to furnish administrative and training staff, some specialists and the nucleus of an air force.

This gentleman went on to say—

The fighting troops must be provided by the Citizen Force, because South Africa’s army was to-day and had always been a citizen army.

He also said—

When real trouble starts it is not recruits we want—we want soldiers.

He then went on to say this—

The bulk of the men recruited at the out-break of the last war needed nine months of intensive training before they were fit to take the field.

I might just mention here, Mr. Speaker, that during the last world war, the first South African soldier to fire a shot did so 18 months after the declaration of war. And I wonder whether there is anybody in this House or even in this country who would take the responsibility on his shoulders to build on such a possibility for the future, particularly under present-day world conditions. We may not even have 18 days or even 18 hours left for preparations if we are plunged into another war.

I said that I knew what I was asking of the young men of South Africa. I know that I am asking them to make great sacrifices. I know that I am asking them to make those sacrifices whereas it is quite possible that they may never be called upon during their period of service to make use of this improved and more intensive training. But, Mr. Speaker. I know that I am asking the kindred spirit of the Dirkie Uyses and the Dick Kings to make those sacrifices. I am relying on the steel-like qualities of young South Africans of the two language groups who in these days of South Africa’s need of determination and preparedness will say to one another, in the words of Beukes—

Kom, lê jou hand in myne vriend,
Dan word ons skouers die ysterklip
Wat ru en bankig,
Stuk op stuk gestapel word—
Die hegte skans wat trou bewaar.
Die oog en hand wat brandwag staan
Oor een beminde naam,
Een eer een trots,
Suid-Afrika.

I also know, Mr. Speaker, that while we are asking a great deal of our young men, we will also be giving them a great deal during this long period of military training. First and foremost we will be giving them the ability to defend the country in which they will have to live and reside. We will also be giving them a better opportunity to defend themselves if they should be called upon to defend their country. It almost borders on reckless cruelty, in these days of military specialization, to demand that an untrained man should take an active part in war. I shudder, Mr. Speaker, to think that the time may come perhaps when untrained men will have to defend South Africa under present-day conditions. We shall be giving these young men even more than that. We shall be giving them that discipline that will make them better employees; we shall also be giving them that discipline which in the future will make better employers of them. I know that the young men who are trained in our military gymnasiums are much sought after. Only last week a director of a large building society told me that their staff manager had been given instructions to employ all gymnasium lads, whether they need them at this stage or not. Since we are now going to train greater numbers of young men, I really believe that we are doing an injustice to those young men whose names are not drawn in the ballot. If in the future the employer has greater opportunities—four opportunities every year—to obtain employees from the ranks of that well-trained section of our population, I think the young men who have not received that training will have fewer and fewer opportunities of obtaining employment.

Mr. Speaker, what we give these young men, we naturally also give to the parents. I know that it is hard for the parents and particularly for the mothers perhaps to accept that their sons will have to go to a military camp or perhaps to a military training institution for nine months of the year. But it is and remains the privilege of mothers to give their fatherland the men to defend that fatherland. It is the mothers of South Africa who gave our country a Christiaan de Wet and a Dan Pienaar. It was mothers who gave England a Nelson and a Montgomery. It is men of that kind who in their sphere of service make nations great. It is men of that kind who never fade away in the history of a nation, who with the passing of the years always stand out more strongly. I know that we are also asking sacrifices of the employers. But it must be remembered that in fact it is the employers in any country who derive the greatest benefit from the maintenance of law and order in that country, and particularly if peace can be maintained. It will be the employers of South Africa therefore who will benefit most, directly and indirectly, if we can maintain peace in this country.

Mr. Speaker, it is sometimes alleged in the Press and elsewhere that the Government is suffering from a fear complex, and that that is why it is making all these military preparations. Nothing can be further from the truth. At this stage the Government sees no direct military threat, but we are living in times in which no government that is worth its salt can dare to allow its country not to be fully equipped within the limits of its capacity. Even the President of America has pointed out unambiguously that the communist activities in Cuba which is 90 miles from the American coast, represent a threat to them; and it is for that very reason that America has to be prepared in every sphere. He went on to say that the Western world was being swallowed up bit by bit and could be swallowed up without a single shot being fired. In South Africa too we are aware of the fact, and we believe, that the communists are making their influence felt too close to our borders. We too are aware of the fact that the Western world is being swallowed up bit by bit, with the aid of a cold war in this ideological struggle. The great America realizes that she must prepare herself at an accelerated tempo in the military sphere; we notice that she is even expanding her army for conventional warfare, and in these circumstances we must also realize that the time is overdue for us to expand our army. While the great America has to prepare herself in the face of such dangers, there are still people in South Africa, including politicians, who contend that it is unnecessary for us to make military preparations, people who refuse to realize that in South Africa too we must be ready, within the limits of our capacity, to defend our fatherland against anybody who might threaten our freedom. The question is sometimes asked: Who is threatening us? My reply is that the state of the world is such that almost every independent state in the world is threatened, and we are also threatened. In the struggle between the free world and Communism, South Africa can never be an unprepared spectator. In the search of the over-populated parts of the world for living-space South Africa can never be an unprepared target. In these days when there is talk in an unstabilized Africa of an Africa army and when no secret is made of the fact that the White man is unwelcome in Africa, we dare not allow South Africa to be caught unprepared in the military sphere. We have living-space here; we have wealth here; we have expansion possibilities here that we shall not be able to utilize fully for centuries to come. We are looking for people, we are not looking for space. It would be folly on our part therefore to build up an army which is designed for an aggressive war. We are building up an army purely and simply for defence purposes. We are building up a force for the maintenance of our freedom in a defensive capacity, a force to maintain peace, however and wherever it may be threatened. We want to build up a defence force that will be able to stand firmly in the cold war that is also being waged against us, that will be able to stand firmly in the face of the so-called peaceful swallowing-up process to which the President of America also referred.

I want to assure hon. members of this House that the expansion of our Defence Force which is contemplated in this Bill is not our sole attempt to be better prepared in the military sphere. No, after making a thorough military appraisal we have become convinced that amongst other things we need a full-time force. In order to strengthen ourselves in the military sphere but particularly so as to be ready to act immediately against aggression, a full-time force is being built up. This fulltime force, although it is not being created specifically for this purpose, will naturally also strengthen our internal security to a greater extent than is the case at present. For financial reasons, amongst others, this expansion must be brought about by means of a longer initial training period (nine months) for the Citizen Force, and not by means of an addition to the Permanent Force.

The intention is to call up groups for training every, three months. After three months’ basic training at depots, they will serve for another six months under Permanent Force officers and non-commissioned officers in strategically placed units. Thereafter they will return to civilian life and will be allotted to Citizen Force units. This will produce fully trained part-time Citizen Force soldiers and in that way increase the Force’s preparedness for battle in due course to a point where it will need no further training after mobilization in order to be ready for active military service. This also means that after the completion of their service in the Citizen Force, these men will be better reservists than we have ever been able to achieve through peace-time training.

It is a well-known fact that the mere donning of a uniform does not make a soldier out of a citizen. But after three months’ training, although not fully equipped for conventional warfare, he will be fit to be used for internal security duties. But the task of the Defence Force embraces much more than that. Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that if we had to prepare our Defence Force for internal circumstances only, this longer training would really not be necessary. Anybody who alleges therefore that we are giving our people longer training because we want to maintain internal peace, is entirely wrong. We do not need it for that purpose. The man who has had three months’ training is quite good enough for that purpose. But we have to look at much more than that. In order to allow the recruit to develop to his full worth, he should be attached to a unit for another three month’s training, after having had his first three months’ basic training. That will be followed by more specialized training, as I have said, for another three months to round off his training for all combatant as well as internal security duties.

As I have mentioned already, the idea is to allot the ballotees every three months. The reason for that is that if all the ballotees were brought in on the same date and had to be discharged nine months later, then for six months of every year there would be no properly trained citizens under arms. In view of the fact that the threat exists throughout the year and that a trained full-time force would therefore have to be available throughout the year, the period of nine months would have to be extended so as also to include the basic and early training in units of the next groups. Full-time training would then last 18 months instead of nine months. It would mean that for six months of every year twice as many men would be under arms than will be the case at present, and it would not provide a greater number of trained combatants, while the expenditure would be infinitely higher.

Even if the intake were limited to twice a year, full-time training would have to be extended to at least 12 months in order to provide the necessary overlapping, and this would again mean that more men would be in camp at the same time than is going to be the case at present.

Mr. Speaker, under the proposed scheme the Permanent Force would also have to be expanded because the whole military organization is being expanded. Since more ballotees would have to be coped with at once if the intake were limited to once or twice a year, the Permanent Force organization would have to be further expanded, and in addition to that more housing would have to be provided and more training equipment would have to be used, which would make the whole organization much more expensive for the State.

This quarterly intake may cause dislocation, particularly in the case of would-be university students, but provision will be made for that, firstly by letting the training period commence one year earlier. This amending legislation makes provision for that. This will mean that the majority of would-be students who are balloted will be able to come in for military training immediately after leaving school. Furthermore, steps will be taken to see that would-be students are allotted in the first two quarters of the four quarterly intakes so that they will not be kept away from their studies for more than one calendar year. Where students want to go to university before they have reached the training age, they can have their training deferred until they have completed their studies. They can even have their military training deferred after they have reached the training age, if they first want to complete their studies. If they complete their nine months’ continuous training before they go to university, they will be allotted thereafter to Citizen Force units which will make it possible for them to receive their further training for two continuous periods of three weeks during the long vacations. I can give the assurance that every possible step will be taken to make it as convenient as possible for would-be students and students. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the longer period of training may also cause inconvenience to apprentices and their employers. In this connection we negotiated with the Apprenticeship Board, and we received their full support. The earlier training age will also facilitate matters. In addition to that the Apprenticeship Board has agreed to reduce the period of apprenticeship by four months where an apprenticeship is interrupted. The apprentice will therefore only lose five months, but we also undertake to defer the training of apprentices until they have completed their apprenticeship in those cases where they commence their apprenticeship before their military training period and wish to complete their apprenticeship first. The same opportunity will be afforded to other young men who are studying. This will, of course, make the allotment of ballotees all the more intricate, but South Africa must be defended. In many other countries of the world the period of military service extends over a much longer period than our proposed training period, and the defence of South Africa means as much to us as the defence of other countries means to their citizens.

Mr. Speaker, the duty to defend the country rests on every able-bodied man without regard to persons. But cases do occur where consideration must be given to the question of exempting a citizen from the obligation to undergo training in the interest of the country or to the question of deferring that training. In the past this was considered by a board appointed by me, under the chairmanship of a magistrate, but it is now proposed, in view to our increased requirements and the resultant implications in respect of the labour market, to entrust this duty to the Minister of Labour.

I want to give the assurance that this question of the Exemption Board was very thoroughly investigated and considered before we decided that the Board should be placed under the control of the Minister of Labour. It is the Government’s intention to allot at least 10,232 ballotees every year in the future as against approximately 4,300 this year and just below 4,000 last year. This in itself will bring about a greater dislocation in the labour market, but in addition to that these greater numbers will now be brought in for nine months’ continuous training, which will bring about a complete change in the situation as it existed in the past. I am strongly convinced that the Department of Defence does not possess and cannot build up the organization to make a proper study of the State’s manpower position, and since we are now going to take a considerably greater percentage of our manpower out of the labour market for such a long period, it must be done in a scientific way. The Department of Labour, with its connections, is in a much better position to do that than the Department of Defence. Our Department will notify them every year how many young men we want for the army, and then the Exemptions Boards, which fall under the Minister of Labour and on which Defence will be represented, will have to make the allotments. I know that there are hon. members who feel so strongly about our defence needs that they are of the opinion that the Exemptions Boards should also fall under the Minister of Defence but. Mr. Speaker, for the reasons that I have indicated, I am convinced that what is contemplated in this legislation is a much better arrangement.

Let me now deal briefly with the clauses.

Clause 1: The present Section 21 covers both service and training authorization and also provides where the training is to take place. In order to set out clearly the liability for service and training, it is proposed that Section 21 should provide for service and training only. The places where training is to take place can be provided for in Section 16 (2), and sub-section (4) of Section 21 will not be incorporated therefore in the revised section.

The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 21 are being incorporated in the proposed Section 22 (3), just as in the case of the existing sub-section 22 (4), which contains the same provisions as a result of the amendment brought about through Section 2 of Act No. 12 of 1961. It excludes repetitious reference to the training liability of experienced volunteers for the Citizen Force.

Sub-section (3) of Section 21 now becomes an independent sub-section, namely, Section 24bis (Clause 4) because it is an important provision in the Act and is applicable to the whole of the Citizen Force; that is to say to those who serve in terms of Sections 19, 21, 23 and 24.

Clause 2: The maximum period of compulsory continuous training for the Citizen Force under Section 22 is nine months over a period of four years, subject to a limitation of three months in any training year. In practice we used five of the nine months after 1954, and, more recently, when greater emphasis was placed on internal security and we had no direct links in respect of foreign action, the period was reduced to four months. The use of only five and four months out of the possible nine months was based on the understanding that the South African Defence Force would be further trained after mobilization before taking part in any struggle. Under the present circumstances this assumption is unacceptable, and citizens must be brought to full readiness for battle. Hence the longer period of nine months in the first year of training. However, the citizen must fit into his unit (part-time Citizen Force) and trained in his unit. Provision is, therefore, being made for further short periods of training in units in the next three years. In view of the extended first period of nine months and the quarterly allotment for training, it may happen that the first period of nine months may run into the next year. It will then not be possible to commence the first period of three weeks’ training in the second training year, because no member is called up twice in the same training year. In the future, therefore, there will only be two further periods of three weeks’ training in the remaining three years. That means that there will only be a total of three compulsory training periods over four years. This principle is contained in the new Section 22 (2).

In addition to this, the existing non-continuous training liability is also being changed Whereas in Section 22 (2) it was limited to 26 days over the four years, it is now being limited in sub-clause 2 (4) to only six days in each of the four years; that is to say, 24 days over the four years.

Paragraph (c) of sub-clause (2) provides for an exemption board, instead of the prescribed officer, as provided hitherto in Section 21 (1), to grant a deferment of training. The position is that in the past we had an exemption board which could grant exemption from the ballot but not exemption from or a deferment of training. The training will still have to be completed within seven years. The wording had to be changed, however, because the commencing date of service will no longer be 1 January, but will depend on the quarterly intake.

It has come to my notice that the word “deferment” mentioned with reference to training here and in Clause 3 may give rise to misunderstanding because, in Section 1, in the definition, it only relates to a deferment of the ballot. For the sake of clarity, I propose to move an amendment in the Committee Stage therefore to extend the definition, so that it will also place deferment of training and service in the correct light.

Clause 3: Section 23 deals with the enrolment of gymnasium pupils. Here a fairly big change is being brought about. Sub-section (2) provides that those persons, after completion of their training, are exempt from further training liability. Provision is now being made that they may also be allotted to units, if it is considered necessary, and thereafter they are treated in the same way as other Citizen Force recruits as far as training and deferment of training are concerned. If such a member is not allotted, he is exempted from further training liability. While there was a considerable difference between the periods of gymnasium and Citizen Force training, one could justify unconditional exemption from training liability after completion of the year’s training. In the future, however, there will be very little difference in practice between the training liability that is proposed in Clauses 2 and 3. The gymnasium pupils are now trained for 11 months or for such shorter period as may be determined. In the past this was considered as an achievement in comparison with the two or three months’ training received by the ordinary Citizen Force member. They had this advantage, therefore, that, after a year’s training, they could be allotted as Citizen Force members. The ordinary Citizen Force member will now also receive training for ten and a half months—continuous training included—and it would, therefore, be altogether unreasonable to give gymnasium pupils, who are already getting certain privileges, complete exemption from further service while the ordinary Citizen Force member, who also has to receive ten and a half months’ training, is not exempted.

Clause 4: As I have already said, this new Section 24bis is the same as the existing Section 21 (3), which now falls away.

Clause 5: Of the number of citizens who are drawn in terms of Section 67 and the reserve percentage who are drawn in terms of Section 70 (e), there often remain, after the shortages have been supplemented through allotment, considerable numbers of balloted citizens who at present cannot be compelled to serve in the commandos and who may consequently escape training altogether. The intention is that it should also be possible to allot some of them to commandos, just as in the case of citizens whose names have not been drawn in the ballot. For some reason or other the procedure in the past was that only those people whose names were not drawn in the ballot could be allotted to the commandos, while large numbers of citizens whose names were drawn in the ballot were never allotted for service and went scot-free therefore.

*Mr. DURRANT:

They never received training.

*The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:

They receive training through the commandos. Let me proceed to deal with the clauses.

Clause 6: So as to allow a citizen to receive his compulsory training as soon as possible after leaving school, thus limiting the disruption in his civilian life to a minimum, it is proposed to dispose of the registration, balloting and other processes within a year instead of two years, and this requires a change in the ages mentioned in sub-section (1).

Paragraph (a) brings into the 1961 ballot those who register this year and next year and those whose ballot has been deferred.

I fully realize that the new scheme will tend to disrupt the careers of young men to a certain extent. I have already dealt with that. This applies particularly to academic students and apprentices. In this respect, however, as I have already indicated, discretion will be used.

Paragraph (b): The processes leading to the ballot can, it is true, take place within a few years, except that the preliminary ballot list, for administrative reasons, cannot be drawn up before the last day of March and posted up at the prescribed places. Sub-section (2) is, therefore, being amended so as to make available an additional two weeks for this purpose.

Clause 7 provides that exemption boards will fall under the Department of Labour. The composition of the exemption boards has been changed in consultation with the Department of Labour. The proposed subsection (4) has been inserted so as to add the provision in the first portion of sub-section (6) of Section 69 to the powers relating to exemption boards in Clause 7, because that is the more appropriate place for it.

Clause 8 only contains consequential amendments. The Exemption Board mentioned in the proposed Section 98 to consider exemption in terms of Section 97 (2) must also be covered here.

Clause 9: This amendment is necessary in order to fit in with the principle in Section 68, read together with the proposed Sections 22 and 23 (Clauses 2 and 3), namely that all exemptions and deferments are placed under the control of the Minister of Labour.

Clause 10: In a state of emergency it is imperative that essential services should continue and it would be better, therefore, for the Department of Labour to grant exemptions. Persons who have sound reasons for not wishing to perform military duty will then be satisfied that it is not the Department of Defence but the civilian authority that decides whether or not they can be given exemption in terms of Section 97 (2).

Clause 11: This section has been inserted to cover serving members such as gymnasium pupils and other members of the Citizen Force who have already started their training. They will not fall under the new set-up and will, therefore, only be liable to complete the compulsory training prescribed in the existing Act. Clause 12 is intended to authorize the administrative change-over.

Clause 13 really has nothing to do with the preceding clauses. Because of the fact that Chapter VI of the regulations for the Permanent Force was only promulgated in September 1960 and because of the clear and unambiguous wording of Section 87 (3) of the Defence Act, 1957 (Act No. 44 of 1957), which limits to 12 months the period in which certain regulations can be made applicable with retrospective effect, it was not possible to make the provisions of Chapter VI of the regulations for the Permanent Force applicable before 30 September 1959; 1 January 1960 was, therefore, fixed as the preliminary date of application.

However, in view of the fact that these leave privileges were made applicable as from 1 January 1959 to the South African Police, the Prison Service and the Public Service (excluding nurses) and should also have been applicable, for the sake of uniformity, to the Permanent Force with effect from the same date, this clause is necessary so as to make the application of Chapter VI of the regulations for the Permanent Force valid as from the same date in respect of members of the Permanent Force, excluding members of the South African Military Nursing Service, and as from 1 April 1959 in the case of the latter.

Mr. GAY:

The hon. the Minister has given a very exhaustive review not only of the objects of the Bill and its background but the various reasons which have necessitated it, and I do not propose to take up the time of the House by recapitulating what he has said, but certain features of it will need to be dealt with as one proceeds to deal with the Bill itself. I only want to say at this stage with regard to the first section of the Minister’s speech, his introductory remarks, that as far as his sentiments with regard to the spirit of South Africa in connection with its defence are concerned and the methods which he proposes to adopt and the realization of responsibility not only on the part of the population but of the Government towards defence, these sentiments can be received by this side of the House with appreciation and I can assure the Minister with all the greater appreciation because it is so long overdue. So much of the necessity for this Bill flows directly from the lack of appreciation in past years of the sentiments now expressed by the Minister. This is the second important Bill amending the Defence Act to be introduced this Session. I think one could sum it up by saying that it is a most drastic and far-reaching change in the Union’s defence organization ever to have been introduced in peace-time. It is a matter of regret in a sense that a Bill with such far-reaching implications, which affect almost every facet of life in the country, should not have been referred to a Select Committee for examination before it came to this House. However, that has not been done.

Summing up the three main features of the Bill, I think we can say that they are contained in Clauses 1. 2 and 6, which between them reduce the calling-up age by one year. In other words, you now register at 17 and you are balloted at 18 instead of 19 years of age. Clause 2 lays down the new compulsory system of four years’ training between the ages of 18 and 25 and provides for nine months’ compulsory training in the first year, which the Minister explained means three months’ basic training at a depot, three months’ unit training and three months’ training for combat tasks, and then they go back for the remainder of the four years’ service in regiments of the Citizen Force including two continuous annual training periods of three weeks in between. I think that briefly sums up the new training system from the time angle.

The third feature which emerges is in Clause 7, which varies the present system of exemption boards and in lieu thereof transfers the authority to a large measure to a new type of board constituted and controlled by the Minister of Labour, instead of as hitherto by the Minister of Defence. The Minister also stated that under the new scheme the number of men who would be called up would be changed from about 7,000 to approximately 10,000 a year as the scheme gets into full swing. In effect, the Bill introduces a system of compulsory, continuous national service and in effect amounts to national conscription as far as defence is concerned. With the Union’s very limited manpower—and the Minister made this clear in dealing with the changes in the exemption boards—and largely due to the Government’s lack of an immigration policy, employers of labour have to depend for recruitment of their staffs from the boys leaving school every year. We have arrived at the stage where we have to try to squeeze a quart out of a pint bottle. The Minister has explained that some fair apportionment has to be made between the various facets of our life, defence, commerce, industry and other sections of our national life. It is, therefore, inevitable that this new system of training will have very severe repercussions in many directions, including not only industry and commerce but also on the lives of the trainees themselves when they are called up. The Minister has referred to some of the problems in the Other Place and also here today, and he said that internal security still forms the first task of our Defence Force and that the large-scale training of the Citizen Force would be carried out in a nine months’ cycle so as to ensure that combat-trained troops, as the Minister put it, were constantly under arms at strategically placed camps throughout the Union. Also that this system would provide fully trained part-time soldiers who would be ready for immediate mobilization to support the Permanent Force in maintaining internal security and to provide field forces to protect our borders. I think that is a fair representation of the general picture as described by the hon. Minister. The Minister has also stated that the threat remains throughout the year, and the pertinent question is being widely asked throughout the country as to just what that threat is—whom we are really preparing to fight? I would like the Minister in his reply to say more about that. I would like to say that we on this side are firm believers in having a properly equipped and well-trained and experienced defence organization which will be led by experienced officers because that is undoubtedly the best way to avoid trouble. But when in time of peace the military forces are built up to war strength, as the Minister has stated, and are strategically placed throughout the Union as is now being envisaged, there comes a time when the very extent of the preparations may well be a cause for alarm that such drastic steps have become necessary in peace-time. The Minister has dealt at some length with the external pressures which are building up and the necessity for us to see that our own house is in order so that we will not be caught by surprise in the general world unrest. There the Minister is on sound ground and we agree with that point of view.

Mr. GREYLING:

May I ask a question? I want to ask the hon. member whether he does not admit that all other Western countries are reorganizing their armies on the same basis that the Minister is proposing now?

Mr. GAY:

If the hon. member would just be patient, I will deal with that point. At this stage I would like to say that with regard to any comparison between the potential strength we can muster and that of some of the nations the hon. member referred to, there is such a great difference that it becomes difficult to make comparisons.

Getting back to the point with which I was dealing, the cause for national alarm, I want to ask the Minister in his reply to give the country a more reassuring statement on the Government’s defence policy than what has preceded the introduction of this Bill, not only here but also in the Other Place. Whatever good reasons exist, and they undoubtedly do exist, in regard to the necessity for a Bill like this, two main features emerge from a study of this Bill. It is, firstly, that by the measures now described in this Bill the Government is setting out to restore the efficiency of South Africa’s Defence Forces which they themselves over the past ten years have so systematically broken down and destroyed; and the second reason is that the machinery to re-establish an effective citizen force is now again being built up whereas it appears to have been the previous Minister’s object to destroy it. Those two features emerge very clearly from the Bill. The other point which emerges is that much of the changes made in the other provisions of the Bill flow from the failure of the Government’s internal colour policy … [Interjections.] Whilst we accept the axiom that law and order must be maintained, because that is the first principle in every civilized state, force by itself cannot supply the final answer to the problem we are up against. I am dealing now with internal security. Force must be accompanied by the widest possible positive action to remove the causes of frustration upon which the unrest breeds. There can be no question of that. At the same time it is impossible to ignore the general unsettled condition of world affairs which the Minister referred to, including the growing pressure inside Africa which we would be foolish not to take note of, and the danger-signals which they constitute for the security of our country.

The Minister has dealt at length with this Act, but the dangers which he has rightly pointed out are made all the greater by the isolation into which the policies of the Prime Minister have driven this country. So that when we deal with defence we are dealing with the situation more or less entirely on our own, because despite references made to pacts with other nations, they are very nebulous at the moment and we are now standing more or less alone, and we must face that fact. There are features in the Bill which we shall require further information about and which other speakers will deal with, and it may be that in some cases we will introduce amendments in the Committee Stage.

Now turning to the Bill itself, Clauses 1, 2 and 6 which introduce the age reduction and the four years’ service period and the compulsory period of training, this training system means that the average young South African under this scheme will go almost direct from school into his four years’ military training and will serve his nine months’ continuous service during the first year. Speaking in the Other Place, the Minister stated that at the end of his nine months’ continuous training the men concerned would be absolutely prepared—I am quoting from Hansard—for combat, as well as for internal security tasks, and that combat trained troops would be readily available at strategically placed points throughout the Union. I want to sound a word of very serious warning in regard to this sentiment. Outside of actual battle experience there is probably no type of military duty which demands a greater measure of discipline, self-control, experience and mature judgment than is called for in dealing with what you might call civilian disorder or riot control. What the Minister will have at the end of his nine months’ training, with the best will in the world and accepting the fact that the material he will have to deal with is the equal of anything in the world, will be regiments of average young South African men with an average age of between 18 and 20, with some degree of military training and discipline but by no means the mature combat-trained troops the Minister has referred to. The country is already paying very dearly for what to some extent must be regarded as the bitter price of immature judgment and lack of experience. It is one of the first responsibilities of the Minister and the Government to ensure that the young South Africans who are now to be called up under this system will not be exposed to similar risks. We must not be too optimistic about these battle-trained troops we are going to produce. They can eventually become that with experience, but do not expect too much of young chaps who have not yet had the opportunity of becoming mature. The Minister referred to the desirability of increasing the size of the Permanent Force and then went on to give perfectly valid reasons why at the moment that is difficult due to questions of finance, etc. I want to say this, that actually it is highly probable that a largely expanded Permanent Force is the only really practical answer to the problems we are now facing, particularly with regard to external security. The Minister, when introducing the Bill, referred to his difficulties in regard to manpower and the greater cost, etc.—I think it is necessary to draw attention again to the fact that it is long past time when Parliament, the Government and the country as a whole began to realize that this particular measure and the cost of it, in both money and men, is the price we have to pay for our dangerous isolation to which the Government has brought the country. I think we have to face that position and the country must realize that they are the people who will have to pay for it, and it is a pretty expensive bill. The Minister has dealt at considerable length with the question of the new type of exemption boards referred to in Clause 6, the exemption boards which deal not only with the inflow of personnel into the Defence Force but also the other boards which deal with the exemption of people during wartime. One can appreciate that with the development of the country and the close interlocking between the technical side of industry and the technical side of the Defence Force, which has changed out of all recognition from the days of the PBIs—the soldier is to-day largely a technician in some form or other. One can appreciate that there must be careful control to see that both defence and the basic supplies on which it has to depend, the industries of the country, and the national life of the country as a whole, all have to be protected. Therefore there is some ground for support of the Minister’s proposal to hand over the control of this board to the Department of Labour. At the same time there are features about it which we on this side of the House are not too happy about. We feel that to a large extent it is placing very important powers into the hands of a Minister who is not responsible for the defence of the country, and in any conflict of opinion, which with the best will in the world, human nature being what it is, may arise, this may impose difficulties in the way of defence at a critical time. It may be that after a discussion and after some further explanations by the Minister we may find it necessary to move an amendment on this point in the Committee Stage. There are many ramifications that require examination and there are many possibilities where difficulties may occur. Even the last section of that clause which rules out any appeal against the final decision of the board and the Minister of Labour, appears to place such vast powers in a Department which is not responsible for defence that we doubt whether it is wise to go to the extent that the Bill goes. That there must be close collaboration with Labour is true, because Labour can play an active part in guiding Defence in regard to manpower requirements but we feel that there is room for improvement in the proposed changes.

I want to turn to another aspect of the result of these amendments, because through this Bill practically every phase of the life of the country will be affected. You can take it that as the result of the new training scheme we will have to realize that even the number of permanent instructors must be increased with consequent wide effect on the Permanent Force. The amount of equipment and accommodation, transport, stores, and Q services and medical services, which will have to be built up to maintain what will now be practically a whole-time army in the field. Then there is the provision of welfare and recreation services for these young men, because there is nothing more important than this if you are going to congregate 10,000 young men into camps over the country. That side of their lives will have to be very carefully looked after. Then there is the question of the pay organization. We know that even with a sound Government like the United Party Government in the last war they ran into difficulties in that direction. These are features which have to be considered. Therefore I want to raise this point. The present system of pay and allowances as affecting the Citizen Force was never designed to meet the position which will now devolve upon it when there will be what is practically a whole-time army in the field. It was to a large extent inadequate even under the existing system when in many cases the pay had to be augmented by the employers of the men concerned. Many young men now go direct from school to work in order to help to maintain their family and parents. In other cases—the Minister has dealt with the educational factor of the people who are going more or less whole-time to higher education institutions like the universities, but there are many other cases of young men who, because of the financial position of their family, have to help their families by working and therefore have to get their higher education by means of extramural attendance at universities or technical colleges, they will be adversely affected as the result of this full-time call-up. Under the new training scheme where you will have 10,000 young men going direct into the service from school, it can impose real hardships on their parents, and also on the man who is more advanced in years and who already has his own home and family. What does the Minister propose to do in regard to this new situation which will be created by the Bill? Both the precedent and the principle of making special allowances to deal with situations such as this have already been accepted and provided for in the Defence Act. Section 145 of the Act which is made specially applicable to the A.C.F. in the case of death or disablement while on military service also provides for medical services and compensation. The provisions of the War Pensions Act covering the Permanent Force have also been made applicable to the A.C.F. This is another case where if we want the country to be defended we must be prepared to pay for it, and it will be necessary to see that these young men and their families are not penalized as a result of their being called up. It would appear that some suitable adjustment will have to be made of the scale of C.F. pay and allowances.

I would like the hon. the Minister when he replies to give us some idea of what it is considered it is possible to do in that respect, and how it is intended to deal with that pay position which is undoubtedly going to arise as a result of this Bill. If defence is necessary—and we submit it is—then it must be paid for and the cost spread over the nation in its full effect and not carried just by the group of people who are called up for service. Other points which arise from the new training scheme will be dealt with by other speakers, but I want to refer to Clauses 7 and 8 which replace Sections 68 and 69 of the Act. I have dealt in part with that, but there again I want the Minister to give very careful thought, before he replies, to the implications of the suggestions made in the Bill with regard to the change-over to the new system of exemption boards, which virtually hands over to these exemption boards the control of the inflow of trainees who are called up, particularly in view of the huge increase in the number of applications for exemption. I would like the Minister to give that careful thought again before he replies, to see whether he is still quite satisfied after this debate, that he is not handing over too much power to the Minister of Labour. As far as the old boards are concerned, it was considered so important to give regard to the local needs and requirements of an area that the Act laid down that the chairman of the board had to be either a magistrate or a retired magistrate with five years’ continuous experience in that capacity. Sir, you see the importance that is attached to that aspect of exemptions. Under the new boards that proviso regarding the chairman is abolished altogether. As far as the new boards are concerned, the discretionary power to appoint a chairman is handed over entirely to the Minister of Labour, who has full authority with regard to the appointment, the rejection or acceptance of any member of the board. The functions of the exemption board have always been important both to defence and to the people and the public interests concerned in particular areas, and under the new conscription scheme they are going to be still more important. The tremendous increase in the number of exemptions, makes it quite clear how important the work of this board is.

Those are some of the more important features of this Bill. The hon. the Minister has dealt with other amendments which to a large extent are consequential on these three main factors. He has also referred to the final clause in the Bill, the little orphan in the storm, and I can assure him that as far as we on this side are concerned, no difficulties will be placed in the way of that particular clause going through, because it seems to us that, as usually happens, defence came last in the inquiry concerned and that unless we can help to remedy the position, they are going to be penalized in the matter of improvements in conditions of service approved by that particular inquiry, and we certainly do not want that to happen. I want to say that in approaching this Bill as a responsible Opposition we have always stood by the principle that the defence of the country is a national concern and should be kept out of the ordinary run of politics. We as a responsible Opposition are not opposing this Bill and we shall not oppose its second reading. As I have said, there are certain questions on which we will require answers and we will possibly ask for certain improvements by way of amendments in the Committee Stage. But the Bill, drastic as its effect is going to be on the lives of people in this country, having regard to the circumstances in which we are living to-day, is one which we intend to support. But I want to conclude by saying that whilst we do not oppose the Bill, the responsibility for giving practical effect to the very wide provisions for the betterment of defence enshrined in this Bill and the responsibility to see that they are not abused, rests squarely on the shoulders of the Government. No matter how much the proposals set out in this Bill may assist in building up an efficient and well-trained Defence Force, it would be utterly unreal for us or anybody in this House to delude ourselves that in the world position that exists to-day we can successfully defend South Africa on our own, against any form of major external aggression. It is utterly unreal, so let us disabuse our minds of that, and the country must not fall into that trap. Sir, we have heard it said across the floor of the House by members who have thumped on their chests stating “let them all come; let the world come: we are ready”. Let us forget that idea. That idea verges as close to lunacy as it is possible to get in this House. No isolated nation can do it. There is no nation, however big, living in isolation that can defend itself. The only security lies in collective security. In supporting this Bill we support it also with this proviso that the defence arrangements which are now required in this country form part of the price that we have to pay for the isolation brought about by the follies of the Government. No matter what the Bill can do to restore that defence position, the only real hope for national security is the quickest possible adjustment of the Government’s internal policy in order to help to remove the disabilities under which we are suffering vis-à-vis the outside world; help to remove the causes of world condemnation and assist South Africa to return to the only practical hope of security which is offered by our readmittance as partners in the combined Western defence scheme, to which we can not only make a very valuable contribution but from which we can also obtain a reasonable hope of security. Any course other than that, any course other than a combination of those two things—the tightening up of the defence position as this Bill envisages, coupled with those other practical steps to remove the internal causes of friction and to restore South Africa to her rightful place amongst the nations of the world—could merely be regarded as deliberate race suicide on the part of South Africa.

*Capt. STRYDOM:

The hon. the Minister spent a great deal of time explaining the provisions of this Bill to us and we are grateful to him for it. He appealed to members not to drag politics into this matter. The hon. member who has just sat down agreed wholeheartedly and said that he and his party did not oppose this Bill. That is very wise of them, but the sting came towards the end of his speech when he said that it was the fault of the Government that the Defence Act had now to be amended so drastically.

*Maj. VAN DER BYL:

That is true, isn’t it?

*Capt. STRYDOM:

No, that is not true. We only spend a small sum on defence. Some countries spend up to 40 per cent of their revenue on defence. We only spend a small amount but we feel that we on the southern tip of Africa should be prepared for all contingencies. We do not want to be aggressive towards any country; the Opposition knows that and neither is that the intention of the Minister, but we should like to be prepared in these uncertain times of a cold war. We have to train our men and be prepared for anything that might happen. We see what is happening along our borders; we see what is happening in Angola. Even the troops of UNO who sent ammunition and food to Angola are used against the inhabitants. We must be prepared to defend ourselves. It is not the Minister’s or anybody else’s intention to be aggressive towards anybody. That is not the intention of this legislation either. The object of this legislation is simply to prepare the small White population for anything that might happen. We have many friends; it is not a question that we are isolated now that we are out of the Commonwealth. Ships belonging to the Western powers touch at our ports time and again and they are on very friendly terms with us. They know that South Africa is one of those points that they cannot sacrifice in any circumstances, because if the route through the Red Sea is closed, the route via South Africa has to remain open. We trust, however, that that position will never arise. In any case I welcome the attitude which the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has adopted and that he supports this Bill. There are certain things that we have to do in present-day circumstances; we have to have a strong Defence Force; we have to have better equipment and we must be prepared for all contingencies. As someone who has been through a number of wars, I make an appeal to the Opposition and to the nation, not to drag our political differences into the Defence Force. We dare not do that. When it comes to defence matters we should speak the same language. What struck me was the fact that during the recent disturbances in Natal, English-speaking persons approached me and said: “We support the Government in times of difficulty” and I am convinced that they will do so. [Interjections.] The hon. member over there (Mr. Lawrence) will also stand by us. I do not know whether he can still handle a gun but I think he will still be able to do something. If they station him at Woodstock I am sure he will be able to defend the whole of Woodstock.

Before I sit down I want to make this appeal to hon. members: It is unnecessary to waste any time on this Bill because all of us agree that it is necessary. I wish to thank the Opposition for supporting this measure. They will not regret it. The Minister will not abuse the powers which he has under this Bill. He will only use them in exceptional cases where he has no alternative, but then we are at least prepared. With these few words, Sir, I want to thank the Opposition once again and I hope that no further time will be wasted on this Bill.

*Brig. BRONKHORST:

I wish to say to the hon. member who has just sat down that I agree with him 100 per cent when he says that politics should be kept out of the Defence Force. I am also pleased to be able to say that it seems as though it is being kept out of the Defence Force. It is only a pity that hon. members did not say that sooner.

*Capt. STRYDOM:

I have also said that.

*Brig. BRONKHORST:

I personally welcome the extensive training which this Bill envisages. A few months ago I said in this House that the time was long overdue that the training period, particularly in the case of our Citizen Force, should be extended and that we should increase the number of recruits, and for that reason we welcome the changes which the Minister contemplates in this Bill.

The Minister quite rightly said that if we were involved in a war in this country again, we shall not have 18 months or 18 days or even 18 hours. It will descend upon us much quicker. We see what is happening practically every day wherever there is trouble. By the time the Government realizes what is happening, the trouble will already be upon us, and the Minister is quite right when he says that we will not have those 18 months within which to prepare ourselves. That is why it is essential that we prepare ourselves at this stage already. We should perhaps have done that sooner.

I personally am sorry that it is not possible for the Department of Defence to put every young man in this country who is physically fit through this type of training. It is the duty of every young man in this country but we appreciate that the money is not there and that the equipment is not there, and we are pleased that the Minister has seen his way clear to increase the number to the extent that he has done.

Other members on this side of the House will deal with the compulsory training at a later stage. We now have a period of nine months. From the nature of things the strength of an army is not determined to-day only by the number of men in it; its strength is mainly determined by the quality of those men and the training they have received. A modern army may to-day be described as a corps of technicians. The equipment is becoming more and more complicated. I am afraid that the old idea that the man who is unsuited for anything usually makes a good soldier is no longer of any force to-day.

Although this period of nine months will not give the men 100 per cent training, it will go a long way towards giving them that basic training that every soldier has to have. They will also receive training in the handling of the equipment that they will eventually have to use in their units, in their regiments. This continuous training period of nine months will fortunately provide the Citizen Force with recruits or men who have not only been partially trained but men who can be put to good use. The balance of this period of compulsory training that he has to serve with his unit is the broken period of training. The continuous period of training can now be devoted to special training and this is a great improvement on the old method.

The Minister has quite rightly said that this extended training scheme will mean that we shall have a much greater Permanent Force. I make bold to say that the Minister will not find that so easy for this reason: In the past the Permanent Force has been comparatively small and there has been a scarcity of experienced officers. I am seriously suggesting that the Minister will overcome that difficulty if he keeps the men longer in the Permanent Force. At the moment men in the Permanent Force—I am referring to officers as well as other ranks—have to retire at a comparatively early age. We find that senior officers have to retire at the age of 55 years. Junior officers have to retire at an even earlier age and under officers and ordinary soldiers are comparatively young when they retire. I suggest to the Minister that he should extend the retiring age and that he should make more use of the men that have had training and experience. I am not suggesting that those who have already planned their future should be kept in service beyond their retiring age, let them exercise their right to retire if they wish to do so, but give them a choice of remaining on for another two or three or more years. That will greatly assist the Minister to wipe out the shortage which he is experiencing to-day.

I also want to take up the cudgels on behalf of the officers and non-commissioned officers of the Citizen Force units. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has asked that the scale of pay and conditions of service in regard to recruits be revised but we have officers and non-commissioned officers in the Citizen Force who are no longer under any obligation to do service. They are doing it voluntarily. In many cases they attend the camps of their various units during their annual leave which they could otherwise have spent with their families. They sacrifice two or three nights every week to instruct their units and to train the men and in addition to that they themselves have to attend refresher courses. These men are sacrificing a great deal in the interests of our country and I want to plead with the Minister to see to it that these men are better paid. As the hon. the Minister has already said, in times of trouble they are the men who get sent into the field first and I really think the time has arrived that their scale of pay be revised.

Then there is another matter that I wish to raise at this stage and that is that these recruits should be trained by Permanent Force officers and non-commissioned officers and I take it that that they will receive that training in both languages. The Permanent Force is 100 per cent bilingual and the men are quite capable of using both languages. I trust the Minister will not separate our English- and Afrikaans-speaking boys during their training. I hope they will be kept together. Once they have received their nine months’ training they will be sufficiently bilingual to join their units where both official languages ought to be used.

*The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:

Surely the hon. member does not expect us to give them schooling!

*Brig. BRONKHORST:

No, I do not say that we should give them schooling, but I have already pointed out that the training they will receive will be in both English and Afrikaans by Permanent Force men. After their training, when they return to their units, they will be quite proficient in both official languages. We must remember that bullets do not distinguish between the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking soldier. They will serve together in a war. Here we have a golden opportunity of training our Afrikaans- and English-speaking boys together, of keeping them together, and of making their units 100 per cent bilingual. If we have to apply the principle of bilingualism 100 per cent in the Defence Force we will find that we will have to have an Afrikaans-speaking squadron in the Air Force and an English-speaking squadron.

*Mr. VOSLOO:

What are you going to do in Natal?

*Brig. BRONKHORST:

We will soon enough break Natal in! We will have to have a ship on which only English is spoken and a ship on which only Afrikaans is spoken. That is completely impracticable. Furthermore if we should get involved in a war we will be on the side of the West, won’t we, and which language will we be using? Surely it will be English. We do not want our men to suffer because they are unlingual. We had that position in the Special Service Battalion before the war when we had boys from the platteland who could only speak one language. In most instances they were boys with a low standard of education and there was no language difficulty. They made good use of the training which they received in the battalion and there was no difficulty. I want to plead with the Minister to see to it that once these recruits have received their training and they return to their units or regiments both official languages should be used in those units.

As the Minister has rightly said there will of course be a great deal of opposition to the long period of training that these young men have to undergo. We know that there is a shortage of manpower throughout the country. But, as the Minister has also very rightly said, that is the price we have to pay for the protection of our country, and the price we have to pay if we wish to be prepared to defend our country when the need to do so arises. Parents, employers and industry have to pay that price. We shall have to face up to the disruption that that will cause in our economy but I am convinced that in the long run the advantages attached to this training will far outweigh the disadvantages. The military value of this training is obvious, but it also has a social value. These men will be disciplined and trained in the maintenance of law and order. We know of what value the Special Service Battalion and the Pioneer Battalion were to this country before the previous war. Just as the employers are competing to draw employees from the gymnasiums to-day, as the Minister has told us, they competed before the last war to get employees from these battalions—both the Special Service Battalion and the Pioneer Battalion—and the end result was that those boys regained their self-respect, they were trained and I do not think that we would have found one of them amongst the ducktails had there been ducktails in those days. That training made men out of them.

Before I leave this subject I just want to say this to the Minister: Some of our best soldiers during the last war came from the Special Service Battalion. When they went into service they had a great advantage over those who came from outside, and very few of them did not eventually attain some high rank or other.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

*Brig. BRONKHORST:

When business was suspended I was saying that we on this side of the House welcomed this legislation and like hon. members opposite we realize that this training is very essential in these difficult times in which we are living. I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that because of this nine-month period of training he will now be able to get recruits for his Permanent Force. He has a golden opportunity of strengthening his Permanent Force with very good material.

*The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:

I think so too.

*Brig. BRONKHORST:

I must say, however, that I am sorry that we have to do this at this particular stage and that we have not done so previously. I do not want to enlarge on this but I want to tell the House why I am sorry that this is happening at this stage. We have already seen what the reaction has been in certain countries of the world. They are already saying that South Africa is now arming herself and strengthening her defence force in order to oppress the non-Whites, and I will be pleased to learn from the hon. the Minister this afternoon that his object with this training is not in the first instance to ensure internal security.

*The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:

You do not need nine months’ training for that.

*Brig. BRONKHORST:

There I do not agree with the hon. the Minister, because you require more experience to combat internal disturbances. In the first instance that is the duty of the police and I shall be pleased to hear from the Minister that he will not be too quick to call on the Defence Force to assist the police. The police have been trained for that work and we should leave it to them. You see, Sir, the Defence Force is trained not to act internally but to fight the enemy beyond our borders, and the Minister has already told us that he is going to equip the Force mainly with automatic weapons. That is the last weapon you should use to control the position internally, because when there is trouble in our country we do not want to shoot our own people. It is necessary sometimes to shoot but if we have to shoot it should rather be done with ordinary rifles. You may find an irresponsible person losing his head, placing his finger on the trigger of an automatic weapon and killing or injuring more people, innocent people perhaps, than necessary. I am pleased therefore that it is not the intention of the Minister to call out the Defence Force too soon. You know. Mr. Speaker, rightly or wrongly some of our young people also think to-day that the Defence Force is being strengthened with the object of shooting certain sections of the population. I will appreciate it and I think the country will appreciate it if the Minister will emphasize it on every possible occasion that that is not the intention and that the training that our men have to undergo to-day is with a view to defending our country.

I wish to refer to the preamble of the principal Act, Act No. 44 of 1957. There it says quite clearly that it is an Act “to make provision for the defence of the Union”. We should let that idea become fixed in the minds of our people and in the mind of the world outside, the idea that it is not for the maintenance of internal security and that we have our police for that purpose.

The hon. the Minister knows as well as we on this side of the House know that you cannot forever govern a nation with a strong defence force. The day will come when you can no longer do so and in this respect I associate myself with the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) and I want to recommend very strongly that the Government should ascertain what the causes are for the unrest that we have been experiencing internally so that those causes may be removed, and that the Government should not try to govern the people with force and violence.

*Mr. PELSER:

Except for his last few sentences I wish to congratulate the hon. member for North East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) on the sensible speech he has just made. My congratulating him has a peculiar significance because the hon. member and I were school mates and for the information of hon. members I want to tell them that he was a good student; he learnt easily; and when I compare the speech which he has just made (except for the last few sentences) with the speech that he made when he first took part in a debate on Defence in this House, I find that he has not lost that ability to learn.

As far as I myself am concerned, this measure which the hon. the Minister has explained to us this afternoon crowns the various measures and steps which he and his Department have taken in the past for the protection of our country. It is not necessary for me to enumerate all those steps, but I want to mention one which is particularly appreciated as far as internal security is concerned and that is the closer co-operation that the hon. the Minister and his colleague the Minister of Justice have brought about between the Police Force and the Defence Force. I shall be failing in my duty if I did not, on behalf of the constituency which I represent, heartily congratulate the hon. the Minister on the steps which he and his Department have taken and if I did not tell him how much we appreciated this particular measure.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) spoke in a very subdued way and he told us that his party had always been in favour of it that politics should be kept out of politics, but immediately after saying that the hon. member told us that this measure was a direct result of the policy of this Government.

Mr. GAY:

You cannot get away from facts.

*Mr. PELSER:

The hon. member started his speech by saying “this measure is long overdue” but a few minutes later he said that the country should realize that this was the first account to be rendered as a result of the fact that South Africa was leaving the Commonwealth. Those two ideas clash with one another. Does he want to tell me that if we had remained within the Commonwealth it would not have been necessary for us to do anything in this country and that in that case we would have been able to depend on Ghana and Nigeria and Malaya and Pakistan and India or even on Mr. Diefenbaker for the safety of our own people? That does not make sense to me, and seeing that he was the main speaker on that side I do not think that was a very sensible thing to have said. We are living in dangerous times, Sir, and South Africa is not the only country that is going through a dangerous period, nor is Africa the only country that is going through a dangerous period. The world is going through a dangerous period and that is why we are prepared to support the hon. the Minister in this measure. When the hon. the Minister spoke this afternoon and told us how every boy, how every young man should do his share, how that was his privilege, how it was the privilege of every mother to bear the children who have to defend their country, he really stirred my feelings, because I myself have four sons and I think the eldest will just be old enough to fall under this new legislation when it comes to the drawing of lots, and the second one will follow soon afterwards. Realizing what is at stake I, as a father, feel—and I think every citizen in South Africa feels the same way—that that has to be; it cannot be different. That is why we wholeheartedly support the hon. the Minister.

I want to refer briefly more specifically to Clause 5 of this Bill which says that those recruits whose names have been drawn in a ballot and who subsequently cannot be assigned to the Citizen Force, can be assigned to the Commandos. Previously the position was that those whose names have not been drawn in the ballot could be assigned to the Commandos and now those whose names have been drawn and cannot be assigned to the Citizen Force can be assigned to the Commandos. They can be added to the Commandos. That gives me the impression that it is the desire of the hon. the Minister to strengthen the Commandos as well. I think the total numerical strength of the Commandos is approximately 80,000, or that ought to be its strength. I do not know what the exact figure is at the moment. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he feels that enough is being done by assigning those ballotees to the Commandos? Does he think that the Commandos are used to the fullest extent in that way? I am asking that question because of my personal experience of the Commando in my constituency, which is a semi-urban area. When I think of the facilities at the disposal of the Commando and I think of the training they receive, I ask myself the question whether we are making the best use of the almost 80,000 men that we have at our disposal in the Commandos throughout the country. In the first instance, as far as the facilities are concerned, we find that the Commandos have to do the best they can with the funds they themselves collect to construct rifle ranges. A rifle range is an expensive item. They have to construct their own targets. These are usually far out in the veld; they have to lay on their own water, and from the nature of things they have to have some kind of building in which to store the targets and other equipment. I am speaking subject to correction, but I do not think the Department contributes anything towards the erection of those ranges. I am informed, however, that the Department does make a maximum amount of R180 available annually for the maintenance of those ranges. That is appreciated and I think that amount is fairly adequate once the range has been constructed. But I want to ask the Minister at this stage to remember that to leave a Commando to fend for itself, to construct their rifle ranges at their own initiative in an urban areas, is something which the Commandos find very difficult. When I think of the training they receive. I am reminded of what the hon. the Minister said this afternoon when he said that he shuddered to think that untrained men should be sent to the front. Here we have approximately 80,000 men whom we could possibly use at some stage or other, and it may become necessary to use them, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is convinced that those men, who give their services voluntarily, receive the proper training? I am not even referring to the rank or file, but more particularly to the officers. I think there are 14 officers, including the medical officer in the Commando in my constituency. The Department provides short courses for officers and officers from the Commandos may attend those courses—they last for three weeks—and they receive a certain amount of training there. But under what circumstances? In the first place—and I want hon. members to remember that these men render these services on a voluntary basis—in most cases in the urban areas they are men who are in employment, they have employers. It often happens that while the officer is available and enthusiastic and while the course is there for him to undergo, he simply cannot afford to attend that course, or it may be that his employer refuses to release him. Or the employer allows him to attend the course but if he does he receives only R1.60 per day (if he has dependants slightly more but as an employee he has to sacrifice his usual income. In other words he is expected to undergo training voluntarily during his own time and at his own expense in order to protect our country and I do not think that is fair and reasonable. True, I believe they receive a uniform allowance of R80 but if the hon. the Minister compares the position of such an officer with that of an officer in the Permanent Force or in the Citizen Force, he will find that the remuneration which the Commando officer receives is absolutely negligible. I want to raise another point: To train a Commando properly, to carry out all the instructions and to make all the returns etc. require a tremendous amount of administrative work. I speak from experience because it so happens that that work is being done in my office, and that gets done free of charge, and if the Minister wishes the Commando system to work smoothly I think he should make some concession in the form of an allowance for administrative work. Cannot the hon. the Minister consider making some allowance available that will enable the Commandant or the Adjutant to have that work done outside, whether it be typing or any other administrative work.

The hon. the Minister said this morning that the employers were really the people to whom he wished to appeal to make those sacrifices, because the employers were the people who would be involved if trouble arose and if it became necessary to defend ourselves; the interests of the employers would be the first that would have to be defended in case of trouble. You have the position that an officer in a Commando is willing to attend a course in his own time and at his own expense, apart from the allowance which he receives, but his employers is not prepared to let him go. I do not know what to suggest. I do not want to go so far as to say that the employer should be forced to do so, but pursuant to the appeal which the hon. the Minister has made to the employers. I want to ask the Minister to consider whether some system cannot be evolved whereby one or two officers in a Commando can receive proper training in a specific year at State expense and in his employer’s time. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that these people are very enthusiastic and I think the Minister and his Department should encourage the Commandos and keep that spirit of enthusiasm alive. If we do that the Commandos will develop into a very strong fighting: force that may perhaps be used where we cannot use the ordinary Citizen Force.

Mr. MOORE:

We live in wondrous times. Yesterday one of the Ministers told us of a State-aided immigration scheme; to-day we find hon. members on the other side displaying a remarkable enthusiasm for our new defence scheme. It is all to the good. In reply to the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Pelser) I should like to say in passing that I congratulate him on having four sons who will probably benefit by this training, but I should like to remind him that there are many men who had sons who do not have them to-day, who also entered for training in time of war. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Klerksdorp took the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) to task because he spoke of the reason why we have to have this Bill. I think we should never forget that sometimes we have in a country one kind of foreign policy and another kind of defence policy, but we should never forget that if we have a powerful foreign policy, that policy will beget obligations, and one needs what the hon. Minister calls a realistic defence policy to carry out the foreign policy. Now this country for years has had a policy which has been not powerful but aggressive, challenging, defiant and it has been such that we have lost our membership of the Commonwealth, we have lost our prestige in the United Nations …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member is wandering very far afield now.

Mr. MOORE:

Mr. Speaker, may I say that my next point is that when you have a foreign policy that has brought that disaster upon us, it is necessary to have a fresh appreciation by our military strategists, and because we have had a fresh appreciation by our military strategists who advise the Minister, we have this Bill. That is the reason why we have the Bill. To-day our position in the world is the position of an isolated nation and we have to gird up our loins and be prepared to defend ourselves. I think that instead of criticizing the attitude of my hon. friend on my left, he should have been congratulated for having seen the cause of this, and having seen the cause he is prepared to assist in finding the remedy—although I find a good deal that will improve the remedy.

Mr. Speaker, the situation is very serious indeed. Before it was so serious, we had a Consolidated Defence Act, which I regarded at the time as quite a good piece of work. But then the Minister of the day referred that Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading in order that all parties could cooperate under the chairmanship of the Minister of Defence of those days himself so that we could draft together a Bill which would be satisfactory to us and to the whole nation. That was done, and I regret very much indeed that the present hon. Minister did not see fit to do that. He could have drafted this Bill with that intention; it is not a complicated Bill; it contains certain principles, but it certainly is not an ordinary amending Bill. When we hear in this House that there is an amending Bill we think of an odd clause or two that have to be amended in the light of experience. It is not that. This is a completely new conception in South African defence; it contains a new principle—South Africa is starting on a new way of living in defence. We are now going to conscribe all the young men in this country whom the Minister is ready to call upon—and I will have a word to say about the manner of conscribing them, the form of conscription we are going to have.

In carrying out the provisions of this Bill, there is an opportunity for the Government to take one step in the direction of the national unity we have heard so much about and seen so little of during the régime of this Government.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member is continually drifting away from the Bill.

Mr. MOORE:

Sir, I am not saying exactly what the hon. members on the other side would like, but I am speaking to this Bill because it is a new Bill containing a new principle. The principle of this Bill is National Service, something that South Africa has never known before. Field-Marshal Montgomery advised the British Government some years ago that one-year national service was not sufficient; it should be two. One year is a very great step forward for South Africa. Many of us regret that it should be necessary, but this comes to one year of national service. When you take nine months out of a year of a young man’s life and then the following year and the year after another three weeks per year you are taking from him one year of his life.

*Mr. G. H. VAN WYK:

May I ask the hon. member a question? Is he satisfied that in the United Kingdom they have a system of national service but not in South Africa?

Mr. MOORE:

Mr. Speaker, I want to state this principle, that in considering defence we are not bound by ordinary party rules. There may be men on the other side who have different views from the Minister; there may be members on this side who have divergent views even amongst ourselves; that is inevitable in discussing national service. Now I want to give my view on this. My view is that if we are to have national service—that seems to be the feeling of the House—we want national service for all, for every young man in the country. We don’t want to hear about exemption boards, special conditions, sending them to Commandos instead of the 12 months’ service. I want national service for everyone, Duke’s son, cook’s son, everyone. Mr. Speaker, it has been pointed out on more than one occasion that our Defence Force as at present organized is not able to cater for national service for everybody. If we cannot give them national service in the Defence Forces of the country, we must give them national service in some other branch of the Government service but every man must be called up. That is the first point I make. If we are to have a system of compulsory training, it must be compulsory for everybody, and if we are to have exemption boards, I have no confidence in any Department of Government controlling exemption boards alone. Much as I respect the Department of Labour, much as I respect the Department of Defence, if you have national service, you are bound to have national dissatisfaction if you have an exemption board, similar to the board defined in the Act, and this Bill.

I am going to tell you what to do. I assume that our military experts have been overseas and have studied national service in other countries. In every district of South Africa there should be an exemption board, and there should be a central board of appeal similar to the board the Minister has defined. The district should be told how many men will be required from that district for the forces and a representative board of the community, consisting of industrialists, agriculturists, commercial people, employers, university men, whatever you wish, should sit together to decide on exemptions. I would go further. I would say that this Government which finances university education in South Africa, should say that these men who have done their year of national service must have priority in the universities, priority in admission to the universities, that we shall not say to a young man: “You have brains; you can go to the university”, but to the other lad: “You also have brains, but not quite so much; you can go and work in the defence forces for 12 months.” That is my next point about national service. Everybody, and priority for the man who has served, just as I would give priority to these wonderful young fellows who serve in a gymnasium.

The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:

All must get priority to go to the university?

Mr. MOORE:

I will explain to the hon. the Minister. You will have conscription for all and, when they have served their year and then make their usual applications for admission to a university, the man who has served should get priority over a man who has not served.

Mr. MARTINS:

[Inaudible.]

Mr. MOORE:

I see the hon. member’s point. If my first point was not accepted in the spirit in which I made it and you still maintain the ballot system, then my second point of priority comes in. Perhaps I did not make that clear. My next point is that we must not say that a man cannot serve because of his vocation although I concede the case of ill-health. I understand that his training can be postponed in that event, but to postpone it for seven years, or up to seven years, is I think a great mistake, because a man of 18 years will in all probability seven years later be married and have children. A system of family allowances would then have to be introduced, and that I think is not the intention. In the case of a young fellow of 18 years, there will only be an occasional case of a family allowance having to be paid, when he supports his mother for instance. There will be such cases. We know that. But if you are going to postpone his training until he is 24 or 25 years of age, you are going to create a very complicated system similar to being on a war footing, and I do not think that that is the intention of the hon. Minister.

My next point is that if we carry out our conscription service under this Bill and allow exemptions as outlined in the Bill, you are going to have very great dissatisfaction in the country. You are going to have favoured young men not going for service and less privileged one who do go. The point I want to make is that if there is to be any privilege, then it must go to the man who has served.

Another point is the question of the organization of regiments, mentioned also by the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst). I have had some little experience of the Defence Force and the experience I have had was very pleasant. I would, however, not go as as far as the hon. member for North-East Rand although I go in the same direction. My attitude to the organization of regiments, or flights in the air force, or ships in the navy, is that you should arrange a system of options. If men of a district say that they want a purely Afrikaans-speaking regiment, I would not tell them that they must also have English-speaking fellows; and if they say that they want an English-speaking regiment without any Afrikaans, then I would let them have that; but if they say that they want their regiment to be organized on the lines of the regiments at Voortrekkerhoogte, I would say that they should have that too. That is also our attitude towards education in the United Party. In education we say that parents must decide on the organization of their schools—if they want an English-language school, they should have one, and if they want an Afrikaans-language school, they should have one, but if they say they want a school with parallel classes, we do not want the Transvaal Nationalist Party to tell us what to do.

Mr. VON MOLTKE:

What has that to do with the Bill?

Mr. MOORE:

Everything, because it is a similar organization. Some members, Sir, will never learn! There is a further point I would submit to the consideration of the hon. Minister, one which I have made in this House before. That is that we do not seem to make advantageous use of our Coloured people in South Africa, especially of the Cape Coloured people. For many years I have brought up this matter under the Defence Vote, but now we have a new Minister who, I see, seems to have created a new atmosphere. We are very anxious to assist him and I therefore want to make this suggestion to him. South Africa’s Navy is a navy made up of little ships. We do not have cruisers; we do not have battleships. Our ships are little ships—frigates, destroyers. Beyond that we do not go. That being the case, we should look at the other naval powers of the world to see from what source they draw men to man their little ships. You will find that they go for the fisher folk; they recruit from fishermen. I say that in our South African Navy we should recruit from the Cape Coloured fishermen. They are first-class seamen. I know that because I have consulted some of the shipping companies. One South African shipping company employing Coloured crews under White officers, has told me that never in the history of that particular company has there been a complaint about the behaviour of the Coloured crew members in a foreign port. Their behaviour was exemplary, because there was a great demand for those posts. I want to suggest to the hon. Minister, therefore, that he should not use Coloured seamen merely as servants on board ship, but that he should train them as able seamen for our navy. That is a great career and we have not the White young men available. What is the use of going to the Western Transvaal, or to the North-Eastern Transvaal, to recruit men for the navy? They will be trained, and they will be good seamen, but a man who has had the good fortune in life to have been born and bred in the Transvaal will long only to go back there! He has not got the sea in his bones! But the Coloured fishermen have. The sons of these men are the young men whom we should recruit for our navy.

Mr. MARTINS:

Is that the policy of your party to have Coloured seamen trained?

Mr. MOORE:

I thought I made the matter perfectly clear at the beginning, namely that when we discuss defence matters, our views transcend the ordinary party limits. We have not laid down that policy, although we like the idea. My friends behind me like that idea and think it should be investigated. I know that hon. member is turning the matter over in his mind to see how he can use it in some local election! I do not want to bring the debate down to such depths. I want to appeal to the hon. Minister to have this matter investigated because I think it is worth being investigated. And if the hon. Minister cannot go as far as training them as able seamen for our Naval Permanent Force, then he should introduce a system, similar to the one in force in the British navy many years ago, where there was a naval reserve. The men of this reserve were called up every year for one month’s training. They liked it because they were called up usually when fishing was slack and the fishing boats not at sea. They were called up in such times, and they were paid for the period they underwent training. I should like the hon. Minister to explore these possibilities. Lastly, I should like to say one parting word to the hon. Minister: If it is to be conscription, let it be conscription for everybody.

*Mr. VAN DER WALT:

I am glad that the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) did not persist in the attitude with which he commenced his speech, because we are really thankful for the attitude which the two previous Opposition speakers adopted. I want to thank them both most sincerely. We are dealing here with a very important matter for South Africa. I want to say a few words about the remarks by the hon. member for Kensington and then I want to turn to what the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has said. In the first place he has described the Minister’s policy as one of conscription and he has advocated national service. But, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is unthinkable that a small nation like South Africa which must provide leadership to a large population of 15,000,000, can expect every young man who becomes available each year, to be trained for national service. We do not have the manpower, nor do we have the financial means to do so.

I am also very sorry that the hon. member for Kensington has started in advance to sow suspicion and prejudice against the board which is to be appointed under the Department of Labour with the very object of determining when we recruit the 10,000 men as the Minister has in mind how many young men we can train and from which industries we can keep them back; and in which respect we should help industry.

Then the hon. member for Simonstown has said that this legislation now places us on a war footing. I am very sorry that he has used the expression “war footing” because it is not true. We are not on a war footing. When we compare this proposed extended period of military training with the position in other countries, then it is apparent that the nine months which we now propose is still far shorter than the period in most other countries. I want to give the House one or two figures. The various countries realize today that they must be able to mobilize their forces as rapidly as possible in the case of an eventual war. The nature of warfare has changed completely during this atomic age and mobilization which takes four or six months, can no longer be relied upon because by that time the war might be over already. Future wars will impose heavy demands on the men of the Defence Force. They will fight with highly technical weapons. In addition they will use weapons in time of war which are beyond one’s comprehension when one considers what the effect may be on the mind and body of the human being. For that reason they must be given the very best possible training, and that is why these countries are also making arrangements for providing suitable training for their defence forces. I want to quote the example of the United Kingdom which decided in 1957 to abolish its system of national service and has abolished it completely, in order to place its forces on the basis of a permanent basis, that is to say a force of 375,000 men. This was done because the United Kingdom decided that it must be able to call up its forces immediately in case of attack. That is why they have abolished the old system of national service and have changed over to a full-time army of 375,000 men, an army which is on the same basis as our Permanent Force. That is also the position in America which to-day has an army of 2,500,000 full-time soldiers. In its defence force it has 2,500,000 men who are permanently in service. Here and there there are smaller groups which are being trained on a part-time basis, but as far as its army is concerned, America has 2,500,000 soldiers who are permanently available to defend their country. I now want to ask hon. member this question: Do they want to tell me that the United Kingdom is on a war footing because they have a full-time army of 375,000 men? Do they want to say to-day that America is on a war footing because they have 2,500,000 fulltime soldiers? Mr. Speaker, one is sorry that the idea is being spread that we are on a war footing. I want to express my regret at the fact that hon. members are taking part in this type of campaign.

Then the hon. member has said, and I think the hon. member for Kensington repeated it, that we are being obliged to extend our period of compulsory service and that the fact that we are having to do so, is due to the isolation which is the result of our leaving the Commonwealth and is due to maladministration. These are the two reasons which he has put forward. I cannot see how the cry of isolation can be raised in respect of our defence. To me this remains a hollow cry. Allow me to explain the position in this way. In an eventual world war South Africa will not be isolated because we stand by the West and we shall make our contribution. In other words, we shall not be isolated.

*An HON. MEMBER:

And they need the contribution we can make.

*Mr. VAN DER WALT:

The hon. member is correct; the West will be grateful for the contribution which South Africa can make in such an eventual war. Mr. Speaker, it is precisely my contention that the measure before the House to-night will enable South Africa to make a greater contribution to the war effort of the West, a contribution which we will be able to make available to the West more rapidly and more effectively.

If a local conflict should arise, if someone should attack us along our borders, and this should develop into a war, then I am not certain whether, even if we had been a member of the Commonwealth, the United Kingdom would have helped us or whether any Commonwealth country would have helped us. I do not think that the United Kingdom would venture lightly into such a local conflict unless her interests were involved. If there is an internal struggle, if violence breaks out in our country and our domestic security must be safeguarded, then that is our own domestic affair, and we should not like to call in any Commonwealth country to assist us in maintaining domestic order and security. In other words, the question of isolation has nothing to do with our defence at all. I do not think that hon. members should continue along those lines, because we are discussing a very serious and important matter.

*Mr. DURRANT:

I do not altogether agree with you.

*Mr. VAN DER WALT:

The hon. member for Simonstown says that we are ten years too late. My contention is that during the past ten years the eventualities for which we must provide in respect of our defence have changed completely. Ten years ago the previous Minister of Defence thought of training a task force consisting of one armoured division which he wanted to make available for the defence of the gateway to Africa. He thought of establishing an African defence organization. He wanted a defence organization consisting of the metropolitan countries with interests in Africa in order to assist in the defence of Africa.

*Mr. DURRANT:

May I ask a question?

*Mr. VAN DER WALT:

The hon. member is going to speak soon and he can then put his case. At that time the hon. the Minister had that in mind. In the meantime the whole position has changed. The metropolitan countries are granting independence to one country after another, and the countries which have gained their freedom do not want to take sides with the East or the West. In other words, an African defence organization has become unpractical. At the beginning of the 1950’s war between the East and the West appeared to be imminent; but as the years have passed, war between the East and the West has become less and less likely. That is why the position with which we are faced has changed completely. There is another aspect which we must also take into account. A large number of African countries have become independent since 1957, and since that time the position has changed completely. To-day we have unrest throughout most of Africa, and we find that both Russia and China are paying greater attention to Africa. In other words, we are faced with a completely new position, for which we must now try to provide. I therefore say that we are not ten years too late. It is a question that we could not foresee ten years ago with certainty how the position would develop in Africa. We are now making provision for a completely different situation.

Hon. members now say that this is the price which the people of South Africa will pay for our isolation and our maladministration. Allow me to point out that in this year we have budgeted for a considerably increased expenditure on the expansion of our Defence Force. But even this only represents 9 per cent of our budget. I do not know what it will be when the Minister’s plans have been put into full effect, but allow me to tell the House that it is still far less than most other countries in the world are spending on defence, and I repeat that hon. members will surely not consider those countries to be on a war footing. The United States spends 56 per cent of its Federal budget—not the budgets of the various States—on defence, that is to say $43,000,000,000 out of a budget of $77,000,000,000. The United Kingdom is spending £1,608,000,000 this year out of a budget of £5,980,000,000. This represents 27 per cent. France spends 28.5 per cent. Switzerland which has never taken part in a world war spends 50 per cent of her federal budget on defence. Holland spends 18 per cent of her State budget on defence. Hon. members opposite say that we are on a war footing and that we are now paying for our isolation. In our case the expenditure is still only 9 per cent. I now want to put this question to them. Are we responsible for the fact that those countries are paying so much for defence? Is South Africa responsible for the fact that Africa is in such a state of unrest, or are we only responsible for our own country? Is it our policy which is making it necessary for those countries to spend so much on their defence?

Mr. GAY:

I am glad that you have now woken up.

*Mr. VAN DER WALT:

The hon. member has asked: Against whom do we want to fight? I am sorry that he is still trying in such a subtle way to create the same impression as certain newspapers are spreading in the country. Previously the Opposition spoke about a “police state”. We now see that the newspapers are starting to talk about a “garrison state”. This is a new word which they have thought up. I am sorry that this idea is being spread abroad. I want to issue a serious warning against it. It is a pity that certain of our newspapers are describing our defence plan as now announced as a plan to recruit the White man against the Black man or against the non-White in South Africa. There can surely be nothing more dangerous nor more calculated to subvert the existing order and the position of the White population in South Africa than this type of propaganda. It can only have the effect of making the non-Whites combine against the White man. For that reason I am so sorry that the hon. member has asked in such a subtle way against whom we want to fight. I hope that every responsible member of this House will realize what the consequences of such propaganda can be, and that they will refrain from such propaganda.

We know that our Defence Act does not provide for aggression at all, and even if it were to be used locally, then we would use it as General Smuts used it when he shot the strikers in 1922 while quelling local disturbances and uprisings. That is all we are doing, namely to use it to preserve law and order. How can it now be argued that this legislation is aimed at the non-White population? I say that the object of this legislation is not to do that; the object is to defend South Africa. But if it were to be used for internal security, it would not be used against the non-Whites but against the Whites as well, as it was used last year in order to maintain order. I say that it is a pity that people are now trying to create the impression that we intend using it against the non-Whites.

Mr. Speaker, I say that we realize to-day that there are elements inside and outside this country which are making propaganda and disturbing law and order. We have already used this legislation against these people who are deliberately spreading the communist doctrine in South Africa. The Minister says that is not the main object of the legislation, but it can be used for that purpose, and it is only being done in order to restore peace and order.

South Africa at the moment is placing greater emphasis on internal defence. In my opinion that is of the utmost importance. South Africa will not be able to make any contribution to the defence effort of the West if South Africa allows subversive elements to disrupt the organized order and to subvert the strength of the Defence Force and our people. If South Africa wishes to make her contribution to the West, she will have to maintain order on her home front and she will have to keep open her lines of communication between her forces and the homeland. She will have to try to keep them open; otherwise we shall not be able to make any contribution in such a struggle. It may be that in case of an eventual war we may still be able to make our greatest contribution in this direction because it is foreseeable that agitation amongst the peoples of Africa will be amongst the main tactics used by the communists in an eventual war. I therefore say that if South Africa can put a well-trained force in the field which will not only be able to protect her own local security, but which will also be able to counter such subversive activities in African countries, it can be of inestimable value to the defence effort of the West. The communist countries have developed the technique of disruption and of subversion to a fine art. They have already achieved great success in that regard, as hon. members know, and I do not need to mention the countries. They have achieved great success in the East and in Europe and, Mr. Speaker, they have also achieved great success in the Middle East. This is also the technique which was used during the last world war. We know what part the partisans played during that struggle, even on the side of the allies. I say this is a fine art which the communists have developed and which they will use during an eventual war. The cold war to-day is being waged to-day by the communists in accordance with a fixed pattern. In Africa their tactics are very simple. Russia and China simply support every nationalist movement amongst the non-Whites in Africa. Once independence has been achieved, they consolidate their position by providing all sorts of assistance to these non-White states. It is for that reason that South Africa must prepare herself in her effort to make a contribution to the West.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that ten years ago we could not foresee the full outline and scope of the development in Africa. To-day there is unrest in most of Africa. I repeat what I have just said: It is surely not due to the policy of this Government nor the maladministration of the Minister of Defence. We are dealing with an Africa which is being subjected to increased influences from Russia and China and for that reason we must provide for our own security. Mr. Speaker, there is all sorts of unrest along our borders. There is unrest in the Federation. There is unrest in Angola. There is unrest in the Belgian Congo. That is near our borders. For that reason we thank the hon. the Minister for introducing these provisions into the legislation in order to meet the situation with which we are faced.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

There is an old maxim, Mr. Speaker, which I think is relevant to this Bill, namely, Qui desiderat pacem, preparet bellum: which means that if you wish for peace, then prepare for war. This Bill which the hon. Minister has introduced to provide for the expansion of our Defence Force and for certain other matters, gives expression to that maxim. The hon. Minister may be surprised to learn that we in this corner of the House intend to support him in this measure! The hon. Minister told us this afternoon, and told us quite objectively, that this Bill provides for virtual full-time military service for our Citizen Force, and then he added these very significant words, namely, that we must build up a defence organization which reflects realism. I am entirely at one with him on that.

I want now to say a few words about the provisions of the Bill, and then I would like to develop the theme he has introduced, viz. that we should prepare for the emergency which a dangerous world poses for South Africa, as well as for the rest of the freedom-loving countries of the West and of the East. I would like to say something about Clause 7 of the Bill, which provides for exemptions being vested in boards appointed by the Minister of Labour. I support this provision, because I think it is a reasonable one. I want to remind the hon. Minister, however, that during World War II the question of exempting key men from service was vested in defence liaison committees under the Adjutant-General. And let me say that there were many young men in the country who wished to go on active service, but who were prevented from doing so because they were key men. The discretion as to whether they should or should not undergo military service vested in certain defence liaison committees consisting of representatives of the public—representatives of trade unions, representatives of employers, industrialists and others. I want to suggest to the hon. Minister to-night that in setting up the committees proposed under Clause 7 of the Bill after consultation with his colleague, the Minister of Labour, he should incorporate this sort of idea, namely, to have committees representative of the various aspects of civilian life. I have the greatest respect for our Public Service. But I do believe that there is a tendency to be hidebound by certain red-tape conventions and regulations, and to introduce an element of non-civil service representation on these committees will have a very salutory effect. What these committees, to be set up under Clause 7, have to decide is whether certain young men, who may be called up for continuous service, should be exempted for one reason or another. I want to say that in this respect the present hon. Minister is fortunate in having a much larger White manpower potential to draw upon. During the last war, volunteers—because of the political background which I do not want to go into now—were confined to a certain section of the White population.

Mr. VOSLOO:

That is not correct.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

It is correct. Now, however, the hon. Minister is in the happy position of having the whole of South Africa’s young manhood to draw upon, and for this reason a much greater responsibility is vested, I think, in these exemption committees. I suggest, therefore, that these boards should be scrupulously careful in exercising their discretion whether to grant exemption to key personnel or to potential key personnel. I say “potential key men” because, obviously, a youngster leaving school is not yet a key man. I am offering these suggestions to the hon. Minister with all goodwill. There may, for instance, be an application from a young student who is brilliant in physics, for example, and who could make a great contribution in that sphere to the country. It would be a great tragedy, Sir, if someone in that position were to be debarred from immediately establishing his professional status because of a call-up. It is a difficult matter and a very difficult discretion. But I support the Minister in giving this discretion to the Minister of Labour. All I ask is that the Minister should draw the attention of his colleague to the need to deal with these matters not on a centralized basis but on a decentralized basis. I feel that it is quite unrealistic to deal with applications for deferment or exemption from Cape Town by a board sitting in Pretoria which knows nothing about local conditions. You cannot deal with these matters on paper. You really ought to have a sub-committee in all the major urban areas where the applicant can appear, or his parents or employer can appear before the board.

The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:

But the Bill does provide for more than one board.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Yes, and I am urging that the Minister should have more than one. I support this provision. I am not asking him to leave the matter in the hands of the Defence Department. I think he is wise to put it into the hands of the Department of Labour, but what I suggest is that he should urge the Minister of Labour to take local advice.

The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:

You don’t decentralize in the sense that the board in Cape Town will deal with cases in Johannesburg.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I am glad to hear that. I think these matters should be dealt with on a local basis. I do not wish to deal with the other provisions of the Bill because I have already said that we on this side of the House endorse what was said by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay), that this is a realistic approach to the conditions obtaining in the world at present. But I want to echo the question which the hon. member for Simonstown put to the hon. the Minister. He asked what we were preparing for; is it national defence against external threats, or against internal disorder, or a combination of both simultaneously? I believe from what the Minister has said that what he has in view is an attempt to streamline and reorganize and expand our Defence Force in order to be able to deal with external aggession on a limited scale, limited to our resources, and also to deal with possible internal disorder. If that is the Minister’s view, I think it is a realistic view because admittedly our military effort in a global war with nuclear weapons is minimal. We made a magnificent contribution in the Second World War when we were still using conventional weapons, but even in those days our contribution was only relative to the contribution made by other members of the Allied Nations, although it was a very gallant contribution. In saying that our contribution is only minimal, I am in no way seeking to detract from the valour of our soldiers and the potential valour of the young men who will now go into our Force. Two world wars have shown that South Africans of both language groups have been able to render magnificent service and that they are ready to defend their country in case of need. Obviously the purpose of the Bill is not to take precautions and to reorganize our Defence Force in order to meet a major act of aggression in a global war. We should of course be prepared to maintain the territorial integrity of our country, and in that respect I think we can play an important part. Here I would like to deal with some matters which perhaps would have been more appropriate to a discussion of the Minister’s Vote, but on the other hand it may save a good deal of time on the Minister’s Vote if I deal with them now because they are relevant to the Bill.

I want to ask the Minister who is taking these steps to expand our Defence Force certain questions. We were told this afternoon in solemn terms about the potential dangers to the country, I want to ask him certain questions. The first question is this: Now that we are about to leave the Commonwealth, will we still be privileged to the same exchange of vital military and naval information as we had while we were in the Commonwealth? We have of course the Simonstown Agreement.

The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:

That is relevant under my Vote.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I think it is relevant to this Bill and I would be glad if the Minister would answer when he replies to the debate. It is relevant to his plea that we should support him in the steps he is taking to expand the Defence Force. We have the Simonstown Agreement and there is no question that that agreement will remain in force.

The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:

It must.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I have no doubt that both the Minister and the United Kingdom want it to remain in force. The second question I want to ask is whether the Minister contemplates any further defence arrangements, either with the U.K. or the U.S.A., in regard to the defence of Southern Africa. In this respect I want to ask him to tell the House and the country what the position will be in regard to relationships, e.g. between the Commander-in-Chief, South Atlantic, i.e. the Admiral of the British Navy …

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order! How is that relevant to the Bill?

Mr. LAWRENCE:

With respect, it is completely relevant, because the Minister is seeking power to recruit men to the Permanent Force who may be placed in the Navy, and the Minister said this afternoon that we were now entering into a new period of our history and that we were embarking on semi-conscription. He said it was a matter about which he had grave hesitations, but he appealed to South African mothers and to employers to make these grave sacrifices demanded by the Bill. What are these sacrifices for? They are in order to provide personnel for our military and Naval Forces. I am asking the Minister for what purpose he will use this potential manpower? It seems to me, with respect, that it is entirely relevant to ask the Minister what the relationship should be between the Commander-in-Chief of the British Fleet in the South Atlantic and other Naval Forces.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

That is not relevant.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Then I would ask how South Africa stands in relation to the U.S.A.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

That is not relevant either.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Then I will not pursue the matter, but I have put the questions and I would be grateful if the Minister would reply to me.

I want to view this Bill for a moment from the point of view that it is designed to take reasonable and proper precautions, in the light of circumstances in the world to-day, against possible aggression from outside our borders. I would say to the Minister that if the purpose of the Bill is to be realistic, as is suggested, then obviously the wisest and most effective means of meeting this situation would be an all-out manpower effort on the part of South Africa. That, I would say, is a categorical imperative; and that imperative compels me to draw the attention of the Minister to the provisions of Section 2 (1) (b) of the Defence Act, which is being amended by this Bill. I want to quote that to the Minister. It says this

This Act shall not apply … except in so far as relates to any auxiliary, nursing or civilian protection services established under this Act, to females or persons who are not White persons as defined in Section 1 of the Population Registration Act.

The Act then goes on to say this. That section has two provisions. The first reads as follows—

Provided that the Governor-General may, with the approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament by proclamation in the Gazette apply any provision of this Act to females or any class of females or to such persons who are not White persons as so defined …

So the Governor-General may extend any provision of the original Act, which of course means any provision of this amending Act, inter alia to non-Whites. The second proviso reads as follows—

Provided, further, that nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing any female or any person who is not a White person as so defined from engaging voluntarily and in accordance with the regulations to serve in the South African Defence Force in such capacity and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.

So the first proviso to Section 2 of Act 44 of 1957 provides that the Governor-General, who naturally acts on the advice of the Cabinet, i.e. on the advice of the Minister of Defence in this case, can apply any provision of this Act relating to compulsory training to non-Whites. The second proviso provides that any non-White who voluntarily is prepared to render certain service, in accordance with the regulations laid down by the Defence Department, may be permitted to do so. Now those are two very important provisos indeed, and I want to ask the Minister to bear with me for a moment to consider them in the light of circumstances in South Africa at present.

No provision is made in this Bill for the military training of non-Whites. I want to ask the Minister whether, if this Bill is to strengthen national defence, this is not a grave defect. I put that question to him seriously. I want to raise the whole question of whether we in South Africa, in the dangerous world in which we live, with the threat of militant Communism, have not reached the stage where we should begin to consider asking not only the White population to whom the Minister has made an eloquent appeal tonight, but also the non-White population, to be prepared to make sacrifices and to make a contribution to the defence of our common fatherland. Sir, South Africa is one country. In this country there are not only Whites who owe allegiance to this fatherland. I owe allegiance to it and I shall continue to owe allegiance when we become a republic. But there are non-Whites, Africans, Coloureds and Asians who owe allegiance to the country. I want to ask the Minister whether we should not seriously consider how we can harness that great potential manpower towards the defence of our country, should we really be in danger of aggression from without. And if we come to the stage where we can harness that potential manpower on the basis of allegiance to a common fatherland, then in my opinion the need for dealing with internal security will disappear; because if you have all sections of the country prepared to defend it against external aggression, who will there be amongst our population to subvert the State from within? Let me remind the Minister that the Whites of South Africa comprise roughly 20 per cent of the population. I noted with interest an interjection from an hon. member opposite, who said that other countries in the world are arming to the teeth at present. When he said that I could not help remembering that if other countries are arming to the teeth they are in the happy position of being able to call upon every member of their populations. I am not blaming the Minister personally because he is the victim of circumstances. But I blame the Government. This Government is seeking to defend South Africa by drawing upon the resources contained in 20 per cent of the population. Surely no nation in the world is capable of defending itself through a section representing only 20 per cent of the population and I would ask the House to remember this, that this 20 per cent on which the Minister is now relying for his 10,000 recruits per annum, for defence against a major attack, comprises all our Whites of all ages. It includes men and women. Women are not subject to the provisions of the Act. It also includes skilled artisans, scientists, industrialists, technicians, our administrators and other keymen. In other words, this means that for our defence in the field against external aggression the actual number of Whites able to be armed is only a small proportion of the 20 per cent of Whites in the country, and this where we are in a position of extreme vulnerability. I would say to the Minister that if national defence against an external aggressor is the objective of this Bill, can we afford to exclude the 12,000,000 of our inhabitants on a colour basis from sharing in the defence of our fatherland? I am asking the Minister to consider this. I know I cannot move amendments to the Bill, but I ask him to consider this vital question. I hope he will give serious attention to it. I ask the Minister on what grounds are these non-Whites being excluded from rendering a contribution to the defence of our common fatherland? After all, we have precedents in this country for our non-Whites serving in the armed forces with White men to defend the country. There were non-Whites in the days of the Anglo-Boer War who stood at the side of the Afrikaners and fought against the British.

An HON. MEMBER:

Where do you get that from?

Mr. LAWRENCE:

If they did not actually fight, they certainly risked their lives for White men and they died for White men. In two world wars our Coloureds and Africans and Asians distinguished themselves. The roll of honour of the last war shows that of those who were killed on active service there were 943 Coloureds, 614 of the Indian and Malay Corps, and 1,707 Africans, making a total of 3,264. In World War I the Bantu Labour Corps did invaluable work in France, and the Cape Corps was armed and fought with great brilliance and bravery in Mesopotamia. I think there is at least one member of this House who served in the Cape Corps. In World War II we had our non-Whites also. They were not armed, but I know of my own experience and from what I have been told that the courage of our Cape Coloured transport drivers in the advance on Keren in Abyssinia was one of the vital factors in enabling a victory to be won there. They showed great bravery in North Africa and Italy, and so did many Africans. Their bravery and ability to fight are not in question. As transport drivers and ambulance men, and in other capacities, they showed their courage. So I would say to the Minister that if the objective of the present reorganization is defence against external aggression, why exclude the non-Whites? I want to come in a moment to some suggestions in this regard, because I know the question will at once be put to me whether I want to arm all the non-Whites. I will deal with that in a moment. But now I am raising the general question that in the year 1961, when the Minister of Defence comes to the House to ask for additional powers and says he will ask for sacrifices from mothers and employers to defend this country, it is completely unrealistic to ask for these sacrifices from 20 per cent of the population and not to give an opportunity to the whole population to show their patriotism to South Africa.

I have dealt with the first objective of the Bill, viz. defence against external aggression. I come now to deal with the second objective, namely preparation against internal disorder.

Mr. G. H. VAN WYK:

During the last war, how many of our Natives and Coloureds were armed and fought?

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I am not able to answer that in specific terms. They were not officially armed, but when they were in danger sometimes I hope they had the opportunity to defend themselves. The official policy was not to arm them. But I am not dealing now with 1940. What I would like to say is that there was a danger at one stage of South Africa being overrun by the Japanese. I remember those days very vividly indeed when we dealt with the order of battle and the possible scale of an attack on South Africa. I am perfectly convinced in my own mind that had the Japanese been able to seize Madagascar, Gen. Smuts would have had no hesitation whatever in calling upon the Bantu and the Coloureds to arm themselves to assist the Whites in defending South Africa, and I would have backed him in that and they would have fought for us. I know that from my own experience, from what was discussed at the time. If that had happened, the Bantu and the Coloureds would have fought with us to defend their common fatherland against aggression from the East.

I come now to deal with the second objective of the Bill, viz. our defence against internal disorder. Here let me urge the Minister as earnestly as I can not to let himself and the great organization under him be lured into becoming merely an auxiliary of our Police Force. I was glad to hear what the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) said to-night, that there were now no politics in the Defence Force. I think that also. I am grateful to this Minister for eliminating party politics from the Defence Force. We can now deal with our defence on the basis of merit and not of politics. I hope he will not allow the Defence Force to be used merely as an auxiliary of the Police Force. Of course in times of serious emergency the Defence Force and the A.C.F. may have to come to the assistance of the police to maintain law and order, and if that is so I put this question to the Minister. If it is necessary for the Defence Force to be used to assist in maintaining internal order, then why exclude the non-Whites from playing their part? Is it because the Minister or the Government views the threat of civil disorder as an internal strife between Whites and non-Whites? If so, I think the Minister should let us know where we stand. I would say to the Minister in all sincerity that the omission of non-Whites from any sort of military training serves to accentuate the colour clash and in this sense it is also an affront to all patriotic non-Whites. It is tantamount to saying, by deliberately excluding them, that the loyalty to the republic of all non-Whites is doubted; or alternatively, it is tantamount to saving that we, the Whites, regard the non-Whites as potential enemies of ours: or, thirdly, it is tantamount to the irresistible inference that the White man in South Africa is the enemy of the rest of the people of South Africa. I want to say this to hon. members opposite and particularly to the Minister in all seriousness. What hope of survival has the White man of South Africa if he has so little confidence in the loyalty and the trustworthiness of his non-White fellow-citizens? Therefore I want to make one or two suggestions.

I am not asking the Minister to tear up his Bill to-night and overnight to provide for the compulsory calling up of all non-Whites, but I want to give him my expression of faith. I believe that if we are to survive as White people, we can do so only with the co-operation of the non-Whites: and if there are to be dangers from abroad in the sense of aggression and we want to resist that aggression effectively, then we must have the non-Whites with us. I am not going to dilate now on the question whether the non-Whites will go with us or not. I am perfectly certain that they will go with us if they feel this is our common fatherland. That, nowever, is not a matter for the Minister of Defence but for the Prime Minister. The crucial question is whether the non-Whites regard this as their common fatherland with the Whites. We have to get them to do that. But that is the function of the Prime Minister; and I believe that unless we can get the non-Whites to cooperate with the Whites in regarding South Africa as their common fatherland which they will defend to the last ditch, we can play about with amendments to the Defence Act … [Time limit.]

*Mr. VOSLOO:

I do not think that it is only this House which is delighted to see the spirit which has been revealed this afternoon in the discussion of this defence Bill, but that the whole country is delighted to see that the House is discussing this Bill objectively and that the defence of our country being kept out of the political arena. In this regard I should like to refer particularly to the speeches by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) and North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst). I believe that these two speeches are of the utmost importance to the country and I want to thank hon. members for their speeches. As regards the remarks by the hon. member for Salt River, particularly those in which he has set out his party’s policy in respect of the training and inclusion in our Defence Force of the Coloureds and the Bantu, I hope that towards the end of my speech I shall have the opportunity to come back to that point and to reply to him. But there have been one or two other disappointing aspects about the attitude of certain hon. members opposite with which I want to deal for a few moments before discussing the points made by the hon. member for Salt River. The first disappointment is the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). We have known the hon. member over the years as someone who takes a great interest in the defence of South Africa and as someone we have known only as an expert in the field of defence. He has made an important speech, but it is just such a great pity that he has made one or two remarks which we cannot allow to pass unchallenged. The one remark to which I want to refer is the hon. member’s question, after praising this legislation: “But whom are we preparing to fight?” He then said with respect to this legislation: “We will be the cause of national alarm.” Now that we want to improve our Defence Force, now that we want to make provision for the improved training of our citizens, we shall be the cause of national alarm. It is this same hon. member who over the years has asked us how strong the Defence Force is: How we shall defend ourselves with the forces presently at our disposal if we should be faced with difficulties. Now that these forces are to be strengthened, now that an effective attempt is being made and now that steps are being taken to improve the training of our Defence Force, the hon. member has immediately started sowing suspicion by asking: “Whom are we preparing to fight?” Nor was this question only asked by that hon. member. Various other speakers have asked the same question. I could not help coming to the conclusion that that argument is being used in order to sow suspicion and to create the impression that this Minister is building up our Defence Force to deal with internal disturbances.

*Mr. MILLER:

For what else?

*Mr. VOSLOO:

Do we need any better proof than that which the hon. member has now given us: “For what else?” That is after all merely sowing suspicion. South Africa is faced with difficulties; we expect disturbances on 31 May and now we have to build up a Defence Force to oppress these local disturbances! To put it like that, we are building up our Defence Force in order to oppress the Coloureds and the Bantu! That is the stigma which is being attached to this legislation. The hon. member is shaking his head in vain. He has just made the attitude of the Opposition as clear as it can be made by making that interjection: “For what else?” That is the whole attitude of the Opposition. I hold it against them that they are trifling with South Africa’s defence by trying to attach this stigma to this legislation and by refusing to allow South Africa to plan for its defence, as any country has the right to do. As the hon. the Minister has said, it is foolish to send a soldier to war unless he has had the necessary training. When we want to improve our Defence Force, then suspicion is sown and the impression is created that we are trying to arm ourselves against the Coloureds and the Bantu.

Hon. members have repeatedly flung the question across the floor of the House: Are these steps being taken with a view to our internal security? Then they add the remark that it is the “maladministration of the Government” and the colour policy of the Government which have placed us in the position where we are being obliged to adopt this legislation and to strengthen and improve the training of our Defence Force. It is the Government’s fault; otherwise it would not have been necessary! I now want to put one or two questions to hon. members opposite. Is it so peaceful elsewhere in the world where there is no National Party Government or a Dr. Verwoerd in power? Is there a National Party Government in power in Laos? Is there one in Cuba? Is there one in the Congo? Is there one in Kenya and the Federation of Rhodesia? I do not want to mention all the areas where there are disturbances and unrest. It is precisely here in South Africa where the position is the most peaceful of all, here where we have a Dr. Verwoerd, here where we have a National Party Government. But the attitude of the Opposition is that it does not matter what happens in Angola; it does not matter what happens in the Congo: there can be disturbances and threats in the Federation, but we in South Africa should sit idly by; we should not do anything because then we shall be oppressing the Coloured races. The National Party Government must not do anything which may be detrimental to those people. The hon. member for Simonstown has used the same arguments. I think the people of South Africa will hold it against this Government and the Minister if they do not take steps to ensure that the country is prepared if what is happening elsewhere in Africa and in the world should happen here. Together with our satisfaction at the fact that this Bill is receiving general support, I do want to make an appeal to the United Party to show a little love for South Africa. [Laughter.] Hon. members are laughing, Mr. Speaker, as though South Africa can be laughed about, but I make an appeal to them to show their loyalty to South Africa.

*Mr. RAW:

Who did so in the past?

*Mr. VOSLOO:

The hon. member should not provoke me. He must not ask questions; otherwise I shall tell him about our “gallant allies” for whom we fought and who are now South Africa’s most deadly enemies. I think we should rather not delve too deeply into the past; otherwise we shall find many people who sat here and made a noise while they should have been at the front. I now leave the hon. member for Simonstown at that.

He has said a great deal with which we can agree and to show that we can agree with him on these few points, I just want to refer to one or two of them before I come to the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). Where the hon. member says that the remuneration which the members of the Citizen Force received when they only underwent a short period of training will not be adequate now that they will have to make a living for practically a year, I agree with him. I appreciate the fact that he has asked that these people should be given improved remuneration. Previously it was the equivalent of a sort of holiday for these people, and they still received their salary or their wages, which will not be the position to-day when these men have to serve for nine months continuously. There are other points in respect of which we support him, but I must hasten. Before coming to the hon. member for Salt River I just want to say that we also agree with him that the passing of this Bill, the introduction of a new system of training for our Defence Forces, will cause disruption. We must realize that. We are a small country; we shall have to allocate a large proportion of our young people, of our labour force, so that they can undergo continuous training for such a long period. It must cause disruption. Sacrifices will have to be made. But we owe it to South Africa. I think that there are few members in this House who have not received representations at one time or another from ballotees who have said “Look, I am my father’s only son. There is a big farm which must be looked after. I simply do not see my way clear to doing three months’ military service. Please try to obtain exemption for me.” Or we have the case where someone say: “I have a big business and I have built my hopes on my only son. This is the son I now need.” My standpoint is, and I believe that it will be the standpoint of this House and the country, of every father and every mother, that the more a man possesses, the more he has to defend and the more essential it is that he should give his sons to South Africa so that they can be trained for South Africa’s defence.

I now come to the hon. member for Salt River. The hon. member for Salt River has raised a very important point to-night when he referred to inclusion of the Coloureds and the Bantu in our Defence Force. But the hon. member for Salt River made a mistake by simply accepting that the Coloureds and the Bantu will be eliminated and by simply accepting that the National Party Government envisages a defence system which will not make use of the Coloureds and the Bantu. We have already stated repeatedly—the previous Minister said so, but I cannot remember whether this Minister has already said so—that when difficulties arise in the future, South Africa will make use of the Coloureds, as in the past, and will also make use of the Bantu for specific services. The hon. member for Salt River has rightly praised the achievements of the Coloureds and the Bantu in the past. We do not want to detract from them. He is quite correct. But in the same way use will be made of the Coloureds and the Bantu in the future. I now want to go a little further to-night. I want to submit this for the hon. the Minister’s consideration: Hitherto the Coloureds and the Bantu have not received any military training. Recently, like many other members of the House, I had the privilege of attending the performance of the Coons here at Green Point. They are musicians; not military men. But there were one or two numbers which did incline towards the military and it struck me to see how the Coloureds are also trying to act in a militarily correct way. [Interjections.] Yes, I know about the Zulus. I shall speak about them later. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Salt River that the Coloured will seek his salvation with the White man in South Africa. We agree that the White man cannot defend South Africa alone on behalf of the whole population and that all groups will have to play their part and will have to help defend our country. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister to start in the first instance on a small scale in consultation with the Department of Coloured Affairs or in consultation with the Minister of Coloured Affairs who will be appointed after the establishment of the republic. One does not walk before one can crawl; I ask the Minister to start with something like a cadet corps for example in our Coloured schools. I think the Coloureds will welcome it and later some further steps can perhaps be taken. Hon. members must not ask me what steps, as they always ask the hon. the Prime Minister what a state within a state will look like. But they must not ask me what the next step will be. But we must start with the Coloured child as we start with the White child. Let us start a cadet corps in the Coloured schools.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

What about a “Junior Cape Corps”?

*Mr. VOSLOO:

The hon. member is once again running ahead of me. I want to tell him that if we start with a cadet Corps, we can perhaps go further by providing something similar to the training received by the Citizen Force. I also want to express myself unequivocally in respect of the Bantu. The hon. member has asked: What about the Zulus? We know what the military capabilities of the Bantu are. I want to put it in this way. As far as I am concerned I feel that at this stage we should give the Bantu something in his own areas where he must develop. He must be given something to which he can be loyal before we can give him military training. I am convinced that when the Bantu have accepted those areas which they are developing themselves, they will also be loyal to those areas and they will realize that it is not the task of the White man to defend them; then they will work towards that goal and then the time will be ripe for us to take the necessary steps and to give them the necessary training. Then they will be prepared to defend those areas of theirs, which will also form part of South Africa. I know the question will immediately be asked: Will you arm them? Do not let us look so far into the future. When they have shown their loyalty to South Africa and towards those areas of theirs, then I as a military man am not so foolish as to say: Look, I am going to train that man but when he must defend his country he will have to do so with a catapult. And the hon. member can infer from that what my attitude is. I also say that it will be foolish for any government to go as far as that to-day until it is absolutely certain of the loyalty of the Bantu towards South Africa itself.

I want to conclude by making an appeal to this House. Do not see an attempt in this legislation to incite the races against one another. Do not see in this legislation what the hon. member for Simonstown saw in it when he asked: “Whom are we preparing to fight?” This has been and this is our slogan: Defence not defiance. The best method of defence is to have a strong Defence Force. When I look at the hon. member for Rustenberg (Mr. Bootha) then I always think that, apart from how adept I may be myself, I respect him because it seems to me he is well prepared for any difficulties which he may encounter. The same applies to a country, Mr. Speaker. A country which is well prepared and armed is not lightly attacked.

One hon. member has said that we can speak freely to-night about defence matters and I do not really want to find fault with my colleague, the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt), but I just want to make one remark about something which the hon. member has said. If I differ with my party on this point, it is just unfortunate. I think we should now stop telling the West in advance that we are preparing ourselves for difficulties which may arise because we stand on the side of the West. Mr. Speaker, I want to stand on the side of the West. The West’s way of life is my way of life. The West’s interests are my interests and I should therefore like to stand on the side of the Western nations when difficulties arise. But I also think that it is necessary that the West should make it possible for us to stand on their side. I therefore want to say that we should not be so ready to say that we stand on the side of the West. You know. Sir, when we stand on the side of the West it must be accented that we are against the East, not so, and that we are against the Russians. I think of other countries; I am thinking of England and France for example which had experience of this at the time of the Suez Canal incident. I therefore say that we shall stand on the side of the West provided it is in the interests of South Africa to do so. We trust that the West will make it possible for us to do so. This legislation is going to call for sacrifices by South Africa but South Africa is firmly determined to defend herself both internally and externally as far as it is in her power to do so and she is preparing herself with that object in mind.

Mr. ROSS:

Various members have spoken on both sides of the House since the last United Party speaker and I want to come back to the debate where the first one started. At the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) said more or less that the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) did not know what he was talking about. I would like to let that hon. member know something about the hon. member for Kensington of which he is perhaps not aware. The hon. member for Kensington. Sir, was left for dead on the field in the service of his country. He was carried off and his life was saved miraculously by a relative of mine. In addition a son of his is sleeping somewhere on the battlefields of this world, Sir, and to be told that he does not know what he is talking about is something to be deplored. He went on to draw an analogy between our Defence Force as it is envisaged by this Bill and the position of the United States of America. I want to ask the hon. member whether or not it is correct that the United States of America is policing the whole world in the interests of the West or is she on a war footing purely and simply because of possible internal disturbances? I leave that question with him to answer when he chooses to do so. I want to say something else to the hon. member: If he tries to tell me that this new organization of our Defence Force is for the purpose of being ready to assist the West against the East, I suggest that he must think again.

The hon. member for Salt River asked questions about the Simonstown Agreement. I want to quote from the Argus of Tuesday, 25 April 1961—

London: “Britain would reconsider the Simonstown Agreement of 1955 in the light of British interests” said Mr. Bernard Braine (Under Secretary for Commonwealth Relations) in the House of Commons last night. He said the defence agreement relating to Simonstown was not legally affected, but it would be considered to see whether British interest called for any alteration.
Mr. FRONEMAN:

What has that to do with the Bill?

Mr. ROSS:

You will not understand. I shall tell the hon. member outside in words of one syllable. The article goes on—

If South Africa applied to Britain for military supplies or training the application would be considered very carefully, Mr. Braine said.
Labour members—with many a reference to Sharpeville and even a quotation of what Mr. Fouche had said on his policy of “internal defence”—strongly objected to the idea that Britain should continue to supply Saracens and other arms and to give paratroop and other training to members of the S.A.D.F.

That, Sir, is the position in brief.

The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) devoted a large portion of his speech on the hon. member for North East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst).

HON. MEMBERS:

No.

Mr. ROSS:

He said that the speech of the hon. member for North East Rand was filling the country with alarm unnecessarily.

Mr. VOSLOO:

I did not.

Mr. ROSS:

I want to ask the hon. member whether he thinks the country will not be alarmed when conscription comes in. Does he think that the country is not already alarmed because of the state of emergency?

Mr. FRONEMAN:

You do not understand Afrikaans.

Mr. ROSS:

I understand Afrikaans better than you understand English. You understand nothing. There will be a state of emergency because of the Bill that will be passed in the next few days. I would also ask him whether he thinks that this Bill which will be passed within the next few days was brought before this House because of threatening dangers from the Eastern hemisphere or whether it was submitted to this House because of possible dangers within this country? He thanked the Minister for taking the steps which he is taking in this Bill. So do I, I am not against that but I just want to answer the clap-trap that comes from that corner of the House. He says that my colleague is alarming the country. Then he went on to say that the Minister was quite right in introducing this Bill. He is right, but he says he is right because of what is happening in Africa. What has happened in Africa to the north of us Mr. Speaker? The position to the north of us is that the Black man is trying to get rid of the White man. He claimed that the words of my colleague were alarming the country and that this Bill which is before us to-night had nothing to do with internal security. He said that we must rush to the defence of our country. Obviously when the time comes we will do so, but isn’t it a great pity that that did not happen in 1939-45.

This Bill is obviously needed in present circumstances. How our position has changed since 1939-45, we now have a National Party Minister of Defence pleading for cooperation in the country. I think back to the time when the Japanese were at our doors, when there were bodies of our own boys on our eastern beaches …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Mr. ROSS:

I want to know where the cooperation was at that time. I can say that the picture has changed, Sir, and you will agree with me. This country of ours is in deadly danger to-day, possibly in more deadly danger than it was then. But it is only in this deadly danger because of the policies of this Government; its Native policy and the granite wall of the hon. the Prime Minister, who on his own withdrew us from the Commonwealth. We are friendless; the target for to-night for the whole world. And those gentlemen who are responsible for the defence of this country have a job on their hands which I do not envy them. I and the members on this side of the House will give him every assistance that we can, but we must be allowed to say what we think of some of the people who have brought us into this position. We will have to defend our hearths and homes. Men do that. The best way to do that will be to get rid of this Prime Minister and of this party root and branch and to follow the United Party whose policy will bring us back to where we were under General Smuts, to where we were in the Commonwealth, high in the world’s regard, with all the protection that that gives us and what is more important to follow a policy of leadership with justice which will enable us to strive to live together instead of striving to die together as under this Government.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! What has that to do with the Bill? The hon. member must return to the Bill.

Mr. ROSS:

Sir, with all due deference we are dealing with the defence of the country. I want to deal with two matters concerning the defence of the country. The first one is the affect of the Bantustan policy on our defence policy and secondly I want to deal with the question of the morale in the forces and how that question of morale will be and has been affected by the treatment of the English-speaking people in this country, by this present Minister’s predecessor Mr. Speaker, this side of the House has continually pointed out the dangers of creating independent states within the Union of South Africa. We are now a nation in arms; there is no question about that. We are a nation on a war footing, a nation facing the fact that this position has arisen that the Natives have to be kept down by force of arms. If this statement of mine is incorrect, Sir, then why are we on a war footing, why is the whole of the life of our country going to be dislocated. Of course, Sir, that is the position. The Minister is quite right, we must be prepared for uprisings. All of us realize that and when trouble comes we must fall in behind the Minister but surely we can say what we think about the whole position. I want to know why this Minister is following a policy which makes the task of our Defence Force impossible. I just want to give one instance. Does he think that if the Transkei, as promised, becomes independent our enemies will miss the chance of offering them help? Does he think that arms will not be supplied to them? Does he think that the mere fact that we are giving them independence will immediately make them friendly and that they will cast off any regard that they have had for the rest of the Blacks in South Africa? If he does not think so, Sir, how can he be party to the creation of hundreds of miles of hostile frontiers.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I do not see how the hon. member can raise that.

Mr. ROSS:

But Mr. Speaker, with all due deference, two years ago the hon the Minister sent officers to Algeria to study the Algerian campaign. It appeared in the newspapers that they had been sent up to study the Algerian campaign. They went up there to see what methods were being used.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must come back from Algeria.

Mr. ROSS:

With respect, Sir, this Bill provides for armoured units to be stationed all over the country. Those armoured units are stationed all over the country to be trained in warfare of a certain type. If we deliberately create several hundred miles of hostile frontier, these people have got to be trained with an eye to protecting our interests against any assault. That comes under the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Mr. ROSS:

Sir, this is a question of training these people. This is a most important matter.

At 10.25 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned until 19 May.

The House adjourned at 10.26 p.m.