Mr. Chairman, the reply that the hon. the Minister of Labour has given in regard to this Vote is, to put it mildly, most unsatisfactory. I should like, first of all, to deal again with the question of the cost of living, a question which I also dealt with yesterday. The Minister has neither accepted nor denied the veracity of the figures which I quoted. We do not know whether he accepts those figures as being correct or whether he rejects them as being incorrect. We do not know anything about the attitude of the hon. the Minister as regards this question of the cost of living, and the tremendous increases which have taken place over the past year. The hon. the Minister did, however, reply on the question of subsidies. He said that it was out of the question, that he was not prepared to subsidize employers in respect of paying employees a cost-of-living allowance.

Well, Mr. Chairman, the position to-day is that subsidies are being paid in respect of many foodstuffs. Now, if these subsidies were all abolished, what would happen then? Who would have to pay? Employees throughout the country would demand a wage replacement for these subsidies, and the responsibility would fall upon employers. Therefore, when I suggest that the cost-of-living allowances should be reintroduced and a subsidy, if necessary, paid to employers to assist them in meeting the extra expenditure, it is no use saying my suggestion involves a new principle and cannot be entertained. Because, Sir, this principle is applied at the present time. This principle is applied to keep down the price of essential foodstuffs. What has been said by this side of the House is simply this: That we do not see any merit in the very rich being subsidized at the same time as the very poor. We want to see help given to those who require it the most. And that is why we put forward the suggestion which we did. I am sure the hon. the Minister will be the first to agree that those who patronize the luxury hotels throughout the country should not be subsidized as regards essential foodstuffs in the same way as the most lowly-paid worker is subsidized. The Minister will not deny this. Again I ask the hon. the Minister, what is he going to do, what is the Government going to do, in connection with the tremendous, rapid increase in the consumer index figure which has taken place over the past year? It is true that during the period 1958-64 there was an annual average 1.2 point increase in the cost-of-living index, which was, of course, a very gradual increase. That we do accept. But during the last year we have experienced this tremendous increase to which I have referred. And that, Mr. Chairman, is why we ask the hon. the Minister what he is going to do about the matter. That is the first point I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister.

The next matter I wish to refer to is the manpower problem in the country. This side of the House is not suggesting that European workers should be replaced by non-European labour. That is not the issue at all. The issue is that the trade unions are asking the Government to give them a lead. They say they would like White workers in their unions if they could obtain them. But, if White workers are unobtainable, who will do the work? This, Sir, is the issue we place before the hon. the Minister. And what has been his reply? Nothing. We are left in the air. We do not know what the hon. the Minister of Labour is doing to meet the situation that has arisen, namely that there are just not enough White workers to do the work that should be done. The trade unions are asking for White labour. If they get the White workers, they say, then there will be no need for them to go elsewhere for labour. But they cannot get White workers. In many industries the trade union membership is restricted to White workers only. It would be foolish if they, being prohibited by law from allowing non-European workers to join their unions, were to go out of their way to encourage non-Whites to enter industry. It is in the interests of the trade unions that they should recruit White workers. But, Sir, there are not any, as I have said. And that is the essence of the problem. The trade unions are asking the hon. the Minister, and we are asking the hon. the Minister. But what is the Minister doing about it? We have received no reply from him whatsoever.

I should now like to deal with the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I quoted from the latest report available to indicate what big savings were now being effected as a result of the amendments which were passed two years ago. This is what the report says:

This, Mr. Chairman, is the issue. The requalification has made it possible for all these savings to be effected. The hon. the Minister has told us that he referred the matter to the board but the board is not prepared to agree to any further change. And we have to assume that the hon. the Minister agrees with the board. The Minister has, of course, the final say, and that is why we raised this matter with the Minister. But he has told us the board is not prepared to make any change. Are we to assume that the hon. the Minister is not prepared to make a change either?

I agree with the board.

The Minister says he agrees with the board. Well, I am not prepared to retract anything I have said about this fund, and the way in which the workers throughout the country were led up the garden path as regards the insurance side of the scheme. This fund should really be called the “temporary unemployment fund”. Because that is what it boils down to. Permanent employees are adequately covered. But workers who are temporarily unemployed qualify for benefits provided they work for 13 weeks in any one particular year. The hon. the Minister will have no record of the vast numbers who, when they approach the claims officers, are told by this official that it would be a waste of time to apply for benefits because they have not completed 13 weeks employment during the preceding year. Their claims would fail. But if the hon. the Minister were to direct the claims officer to refer to him all those applications which have to be turned down on account of the applicant not qualifying on the ground I have just mentioned, he will then see how much the shoe has pinched those unfortunate people who are now unable to work. They would very much like to work so as to qualify for the benefits, but they just cannot obtain work. They cannot obtain that sort of employment which will enable them to qualify. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I repeat that my criticisms of the amendments in respect of this fund are true and correct, despite what the hon. the Minister has had to say about them. Nothing in the reply of the Minister to this debate gave any comfort to the workers of South Africa whatsoever. Nothing whatsoever.

I have dealt with the manpower problem and I have dealt with the cost of living in the country. But of all the issues I have raised, the most urgent problem is the rise in the consumer price index over the last year. On food alone there has been an increase seven times greater than that in any of the preceding six years. Yet the hon. the Minister has seen fit not to comment on this huge increase.

Mr. Chairman, I think I should put on record the extremely unsatisfactory manner in which the Minister has replied to this debate. I gave certain figures to this House yesterday, and the hon. the Minister did not challenge them. Am I therefore to accept that my figures are correct?

Yes.

The hon. the Minister says he agrees that my figures are correct. Yet, despite his admission, is the Government not going to do anything to meet this very urgent, this very serious problem? I just do not know how the lower income groups are making ends meet. Because, by any standards the increase in the cost of living has been a tremendous one. Nevertheless we cannot get the hon. the Minister to say that he accepts it to be a problem, that he is doing something about it or that he is concerned about it. Nothing at all. When the hon. the Minister replied to the debate, the hon. the Prime Minister and most Ministers whose portfolios have a bearing on this matter were present in the House. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, to mention one, was present. Yet, Mr. Chairman, what do we get from the hon. the Minister, from the Cabinet? Not a single word. All we get is a sneer at the suggestion that cost-of-living allowances should be reintroduced and that employers should be paid a subsidy. This method would ensure that much-wanted relief was being given to those who are in most dire need thereof. After all, Sir. the same principle is applied in other spheres, for instance in regard to the payment of pensions to those who qualify. [Time limit.]

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 39.—“Immigration”, R6,212,000,

This side of the House is most keen to do everything possible and afford every assistance to stimulate the flow of immigrants to our country. I rise in the first place to give the hon. the Minister an opportunity of giving us a report on what he has been able to achieve in the past year, and what he hopes to achieve in the coming year as far as attracting immigrants of the right type to our country is concerned. As there has been an increase of R 1,882,000—or nearly 43 per cent— on the amount voted last year, we should like to have more information on certain aspects of the Vote. The object of obtaining the information is to ensure that we are spending and applying the amounts voted to the best possible use as far as drawing the most and the best immigrants for our money is concerned.

However, before dealing with this aspect, I should like to refer to a certain matter which has been receiving quite a lot of publicity recently. I refer to the case which is being referred to as the case of the “sunburnt immigrant”. The individual concerned is Mr. George Paissos, an immigrant to this country. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what he is doing about this gentleman.

If the newspaper reports concerning this man are correct, then I must say it is a most peculiar case. I shall explain why I say this. Sir. Mr. Paissos is being brought to South Africa as an immigrant from Egypt. He says that he holds a Greek-Cypriot passport, yet he has never been to either Greece or Cyprus. He says he was born in Egypt and he left that country on an exit permit—which means that he cannot return there—to come to South Africa. When he arrived at Durban he was refused entry by the officials there. As a result he was over-carried to Cape Town on the ship by which he came, was returned from Cape Town to Durb3n, and, according to this morning’s issue of the "Burger, he is being allowed to remain temporarily in the country while his case is being decided. Will the hon. the Minister tell us what the position is in regard to this gentleman? He is being brought to this country as an immigrant by the Minister’s Department, yet he seems to have fallen foul of another Department on the grounds that he is too dark-complexioned to be allowed to enter South Africa. In other words, he is not being regarded as a White person. Mr. Paissos, on the other hand, says that he indulged in quite a lot of sunbathing on the ship whilst on his way to South Africa, and that this is probably the cause of his difficulties.

However, Mr. Chairman, he has relatives in this country, and they obviously induced him to come here. According to his statement in the newspaper I am quoting from—and I must for the present accept this report to be correct —his passage from Port Said was paid for by the South African Government. His immigration was arranged by the South African embassy in Athens through an agent in Alexandria. Well, this seems to be quite a complicated issue, and it does tie up with certain increases in this hon. Minister’s Vote. I refer to page 228 of the Vote where there appears an item which has increased from R94.500 last year to R250,000 this year. This item deals with “per capita contribution in respect of each immigrant brought to the Republic by approved organizations”. Now, is this agent in Alexandria in fact one of these “approved organizations”? Is he a member of an “approved organization”? Is he paid a per capita commission—as it were—on this particular immigrant I have referred to? On what basis is an agent employed in Alexandria by our consulate in Greece? We should like the Minister to give us some information on this matter.

Item G—“contribution towards costs of passage of immigrants”—has increased this year by something like R750,000, namely from R2,134,000 to R2,879,000. I should also like a little information on this increase.

Another matter on which I should like to have some information—this has nothing to do with the case of this particular immigrant— is the question of the payment of customs duty on the personal effects of White immigrants from African territories. The amount here has increased from R560.000 last year to R 1,230,000 this year. Last year the hon. the Minister informed us that the number of immigrants from the African territories would decrease. Why then has this figure gone up almost three times compared to what it was last year?

The next item refers to “Financial assistance to Immigrants from certain African territories”. The figure remains unchanged at R180.000. What are the “certain African territories” referred to, and why do only those immigrants receive this particular type of assistance? Surely all immigrants receive assistance? Is this a special type of assistance? Why is this assistance listed separately? I should like the Minister to give us some information on these matters.

Then we have an amount of R100—a token amount—for “Assistance to Refugees”. This is a Department of Immigration, Mr. Chairman, and I am very curious to know how this Department ties up with refugees. Under what circumstances and subject to what conditions do refugees receive assistance from the Department of Immigration? What people are in fact considered to be refugees?

The last item refers to repatriation, and an amount of R10,000—a five-fold increase on last year’s figure—is provided for. Does this item refer to repatriation to this country, or does it refer to the repatriation of immigrants to this country who want to return to the countries they came from? I should also like some information on this particular aspect.

On page 227 under heading B I see that the amount allowed for inland transport of immigrants has been increased from R155,000 to R225,000. Is the hon. the Minister holding immigrants at certain points in South Africa until he decides whether accommodation is available for them at the centres where they wish to settle? We have had cases of immigrants who wish to settle in Durban being held in Cape Town and being directed elsewhere if accommodation is not available in Durban. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I should also like the hon. the Minister to tell us something about the housing problem in this country as it affects immigrants to the Republic.

Under items D and E, also on page 227, the amounts for advertisements, publications, and publicity expenses—I take it these items are concerned with bringing immigrants to our country—total R58.600. This seems to me to be a very, small amount. For publications an amount of R600 only is provided. The hon. the Minister has made quite a feature of the fact that publications are available to those who want information on South Africa with a view to coming here to settle. I think, Sir, that R600 is but a drop in the ocean. I should be glad if the hon. the Minister would inform us what advertisements for R1.000 he intends to use to attract immigrants to South Africa—I take it that is what the amount is for and what does he expect to achieve with an amount of R600 for publications [Time limit.]

If the incident of the Cypriot had not occurred last week, I wonder what the Opposition would have had to discuss under this Vote? This is probably the best proof of the fact that this Department and this Minister are performing their task in such a capable fashion that no real criticism can be passed. For this reason I have nothing to say in reply to the hon. member who has just spoken. The hon. the Minister will deal with the few questions which he asked. In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to direct attention to a few interesting figures and facts in connection with immigration.

In the first place I should like to draw attention to this fact—that the number of immigrants entering the country over the past while has greatly increased. But this is not the only figure I want to emphasize. The fact that we had 37,000 odd immigrants in 1963 and that only 7,156 left the country again, gives us a net gain for that year of 30,808. I should like to take emigration as a percentage of immigration and to point out that in 1963, that percentage was only 18.8 per cent: that is to say, that we had a gain of 81.2 per cent. This is the lowest this figure has ever been throughout the history of this country since 1924. We had the same interesting fact in 1964. There were 8.291 emigrants as against 40,865 immigrants. Once again, emigration expressed as a percentage of immigration was 19.8 per cent. These were the only two years in which this figure was below 20 per cent during the past 40 years.

The Opposition are so fond of talking about the wonderful days when they had immigration on a large scale and when thousands of immigrants entered the country, but what were the actual figures and the percentages then? In 1945 they attracted 2,329 immigrants, but there were 4,818 emigrants in that year so that there was a net loss of 2,489, and the percentage was 206.9 per cent, while our’s at the moment is 18.8 per cent. I also want to take 1946, which the Opposition consider to be one of their good years. In that year they had 11.256 immigrants and 9,045 left the country, which resulted in a gain of 2,211, a percentage of 80.4 per cent as against our 18 per cent and 19 per cent. These figures speak volumes. I want in the second place to discuss the type of immigrant coming to this country.

Once can open one’s doors to immigrants if one wants to and one can fill the country with immigrants. Millions of them will come, but the people of South Africa have never been prepared to open their doors and to say: Let everyone come in, the good and the bad. That is not the policy of this Government and we do not want that. It has always been an honour for us to be South Africans and it must also be an honour for every immigrant to this country to become a South African citizen. That is why we say specifically that we stand by the policy declared by the National Party in 1937 in connection with immigration. I should just like to make a brief quotation in this regard (translation)—

That is the point of view of this party and it is in that spirit and against that background that we recruit immigrants.

It is also interesting to mention figures in regard to the economically active immigrants in South Africa. It does not help simply to have immigrants. We want people who can be an asset to us, who can start new activities and start working in new directions—people who will be a real asset to the country. I have a number of interesting figures in this regard. In 1963 there were 14,026 immigrants who were economically active people. I am not speaking now of the wives and the children of these people. I am speaking of those who made a positive contribution towards the economy of the country. There were 2,938 professional persons. Because of the short time at my disposal I think I should rather discuss the 1964 figures.

There were 3,191 professional people in that year; there were 2,121 engaged in clerical work and there were 6,660 engaged in factory and construction work. I am only speaking of the males. This gives us a total of 15,564 economically active people who were a great asset and help to the country in that year. I want to take another interesting figure. The Opposition tell us continually that our immigration figures are very flattering simply because we are drawing immigrants from Africa. This was true in a certain sense up to 1963. In 1961, there were 9,299 immigrants from Africa as against only 7,010 from the rest of the world. There was, therefore, a majority from Africa in that specific year. In 1962, there were 10,830 from Africa and 10.086 from the rest of the world. In 1963, this was again the position, and far more so. Then we had 20,058 from Africa and 17,906 from the rest of the world. Then the number of White immigrants from Africa began to decrease.

We also had the position where the Government of Rhodesia tried to influence its people to stay there. I come now to 1964. The total for the year was 40,865, as against 37,000 in 1963. Of these 40,000, 17,101 were from Africa, but the recruiting campaign was so intensified and there was such a good reaction on the part of the various countries that we received 23,764 immigrants from the rest of the world. In other words, we have now reached the stage where the total number of immigrants is continuing to rise, in spite of the fact that the number of immigrants from Africa has fallen over the past year. [Interjections.] The position is that 8,092 left the country, but they were not necessarily immigrants. They were possibly people from other countries. They may have been people who had been in this country for years. In other words, the gain for the year was in any event better than in any previous year, a gain of 32,773. This Government’s attitude is that immigrants must be an asset and that immigration is a means of safeguarding the future of the country. It is not our intention to open our doors and to admit anybody. One can fill a bucket in two ways. One way is to turn on the tap in such a way that one has control over the flow and can see what is happening, and the moment that the bucket is filled, one can turn off the tap before the bucket overflows. The other way is to turn the tap full or and allow it to run as fast as it can and make the water bubble and froth. One has no control over the flow and the bucket overflows.

I want to conclude with these two thoughts. The Government is doing its duty in respect of immigration. I want to make an appeal to the public of South Africa to absorb immigrants in the community and to make them feel at home. We must give full rein of our typical South African hospitality in order to make these people feel at home. If we make them feel at home, they will become true South Africans and will be a great asset to the country. The second thought I should like to express—and every hon. member in this House and the public can assist in this regard—is that the best immigration there has ever been or will be is what I want to call internal immigration—it lies in the cradle. The larger the families, the safer our future. I think that at this stage we must make an appeal for larger families and every hon. member can assist by doing the same. Even the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) can do his share.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder). He has been reading the book of statistics, and so have I. We have common ground. Take the year he mentioned, 1963; his figures are correct. There were 37,000 immigrants and only 7,000 left. Where did they come from? 20,000 came from the North, from Rhodesia and Zambia and Kenya; only 16,000 came from Europe, and of these over 3,000 went back. They came in from the north. The outposts of South Africa have been driven into the laager. That is what is happening. You do not need an Immigration Department to do that. These men are coming back; they are coming home. We used to say that we did not like people who said they were going “home”, but now they are coming home to South Africa. The hon. member said what our great gain was. Well, assuming 30,000 did come here, that is only half of the natural increase in South Africa. It is insignificant, these numbers we get from an immigration scheme. But the hon. member mentions 1945, when we had a United Party Government, and he says that more people went out then. Of course. We were colonizing the north; South Africa was expanding. It was a country with a future. South African citizens were going to other countries and establishing the South African way of life. That was the difference between the two Governments. Now they are coming home again. They cannot take it any more. The name of this Government throughout the world is so low to-day that South Africans cannot live outside South Africa. That is the position. I am sorry the hon. member fell for the old war-cry of “the good and the bad”. Who said that?

General Smuts.

I do not know whether he did, but if he did he made this mistake: he spoke above the heads of the hon. members opposite. To-day the Minister is taking in immigrants, the good and the bad. Every immigration scheme takes in the good and the bad. What is a good immigrant, and what is a bad immigrant? Ask the Minister of Railways. He will tell you. A bad immigrant is not a bad man. He is not a man with a low moral standard. He is not a man who has failed in life and who will not be an asset to his new country. A bad immigrant is a man who cannot adapt himself to the new way of life in his new country. When you interview a man in London in South Africa House you do not know whether he will be good or bad. You cannot tell until he has lived in South Africa. I speak with some experience. I am an immigrant. I understand there are only two of us in the House, one on each side, the hon. the Prime Minister on the other side and I on this side. [Interjections.] I want to speak for the Parliamentary Immigrants’ Association. I am prepared to say that the president for election and the secretary of that association have both been good immigrants. I do not think we have done much harm to South Africa on the whole. That is the position in regard to immigration. This ballyhoo we get every week in the Digest about the success of immigration has nothing in it. We are not succeeding in getting the immigrants we want in the quantities we want, and that is not the fault of the Minister. We will not shoot the man at the piano; he is doing his best in the light of this country’s record throughout the world. But there is no hope for an immigration scheme to-day. There is only one hope, and that is a change of Government. When an immigrant surveys the situation in this country, he says he is not going to South Africa where every prospect pleases and only the Government is vile. That is the position to-day.

Now I want to come to a communication I received from the Transvaal Education Department, my old Department. They say that a delegation has left very urgently for overseas. It is a mission appointed to seek recruits to alleviate the shortage of personnel in the Transvaal Provincial service. Their quest is for immigrants in the medical, nursing and allied services, even for road engineers and technicians, and for teachers to help to make up the shortfall of teachers, mainly in our high schools. They say this—

Well, as they say at a continuous performance in the cinema, this is where I came in. I came in on that very nice note to South Africa. I was received well and treated well. They did not ask me whether I could pass a bilingual examination. That is where we have been going wrong. We have been putting the qualifications too high for the immigrants. But they did not ask me that. They said that if I was going to teach English or mathematics or science in an English-medium school, why should I be bilingual? If you are going to teach Afrikaans and history at an Afrikaans-medium school, why should you know English? The result is that to-day we cannot get teachers. [Interjections.] This is what they say—

They give them everything they want if only they will come to South Africa. Well, if you want to put South Africa over to the people overseas, the only way to do it is by a system of advertising by people who have been overseas. We are making the same mistake in Information as we do in Immigration. It is no good sending young people over there who do not know the way of life of the people there. We should send people who have had experience of living there and possibly have been brought up there. We have suggested that over and over again. I asked the Minister of Information on one occasion to let me go over there on a lecture tour at my own expense. Of course, I would not preach Nationalist politics; I would preach the South African way of life which is common to gentlemen on the other side as well as to us here. Where we are going wrong to-day is in trying to persuade people in other countries that South Africa is right and every other country is wrong; we are unique. We are in danger of political isolation to-day. Ask the immigrants why they do not come here. We are boasting now of having had 16,000 immigrants, of whom 3,000 left, in 1963. Australia gets 15,000 a month, for last month. Their budget is for 100.000 a year, 50.000 from the British Isles, if possible, and 50,000 from the Continent. But what are we doing? Look at the Minister’s records. We are scraping the barrel in the Southern European countries that America is not so keen on having, in order to get more immigrants for South Africa. We are in a very bad way in regard to immigration. We cannot be saved by the Digest. I think the answer is that we should try to work out a scheme on a national basis so that when an immigrant comes to this country we can tell him that bilingualism is desirable but not essential. If he is a German who goes to Australia he has to learn one new language, and they can generally speak English on the Continent. But if he comes to South Africa, we ask him to learn two languages. We must try to ease the adjustment period for the immigrant and we are not doing that. In the Transvaal, when we had a voluntary association to get immigrants some years ago, the Department of Education said we could get immigrants but they might not apply for permanent posts; they could receive temporary posts. To-day a delegation is going to England to try to get a few teachers. [Time limit.]

I shall deal first with the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis). The hon. member asked me to make a statement giving some indication of what progress had been made in immigration. I should like to give that statement. I have prepared a statement which I have here.

A record number of 40.865 immigrants came to South Africa during 1964. The net gain of immigrants over emigrants was also the highest ever, namely 32,773. There was a significant change in the trend of immigration in 1964. For the first time in four years the numbers from Africa were less than those from overseas countries. That meets the point made by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore).

Then why did you provide more money?

I shall come to that. Immigrants from Africa increased from 3,937 in 1960 to 9,299 in 1961, 10,830 in 1962, 20,058 in 1963, and it dropped to 17,101 in 1964. At present indications are that there will be a substantial drop in the numbers from African countries during 1965. Immigration from African territories is of a spontaneous nature and no recruiting as such is undertaken in any African territory. Madagascar, Madeira, Mauritius and St. Helena are all included under the African territories. Active recruiting of immigrants is for obvious reasons confined to the densely populated Western European countries and notwithstanding the present flourishing economic conditions in Europe and the keen competition from other immigration countries, our efforts have been most successful: Immigrants from Europe increased from 5,226 in 1960 to 6,199 in 1961, 9.142 in 1962, 16,441 in 1963 and 21,770 in 1964. Our intake from all overseas countries for last year was 23,764. In comparison with 1963, the numbers of immigrants from the following countries showed substantial increases in 1964: The United Kingdom, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, France, Ireland, Denmark, Italy, Portugal, Greece and Spain. It gives me pleasure also to say that our percentage increase in immigrants from the Netherlands was bigger than that of any of the other immigration countries in 1964. Furthermore, the numbers from Germany, Switzerland and Austria were the highest ever recorded for any particular year. The thousands of highly skilled immigrants greatly assist our brain and manpower shortage. No fewer than 3,193 were classified as professionals, also a record number. This record was established notwithstanding the fact that fully qualified people who were keen to settle in South Africa could not be accepted due to the stringent rules of some of the bodies controlling professional groups, which made it impossible for professionals from certain foreign countries to practise in the Republic. The manufacturing industries gained 4.654 qualified workers and our overburdened building industry gained 2,006 artisans. The ranks of the managerial, administrative and clerical groups were strengthened by the addition of 2,821 immigrants. I am also pleased to state that employers in large numbers responded to my regular appeals in the past that they should make their requirements known to the Department of Immigration. I have had the fullest co-operation and assistance from all employers. The effective co-operation between the employers and the officials of my Department greatly contributed to the success attained in 1964.

In regard to the prospects for 1965, I do not expect 1965 to be a very good ye ar. Considering the keen competition for immigrants and the present favourable economic conditions in Europe, my Department will have an even more difficult task than in the past. For this reason the staff in the overseas offices has recently been strengthened and new offices will shortly be opened in Vienna and in Milan.

That is a concise statement of the progress that has been made. The next question the hon. member asked me was what the position was in regard to the Cypriot who was recently refused admission to South Africa. He was accepted and his passage was paid by the Immigration Department. His application was handled in Athens through the application being sent direct to Athens from Egypt. We have no agent in Egypt. That statement in the press is wrong. The procedure as far as Egypt is concerned is that applications are made direct to our office in Athens, through correspondence, and this was one of the applications which was handled in Athens. The customary applications forms were filled in. The necessary supporting documents were attached together with photographs and on his application he received the normal State aid and came to South Africa. But of course passport control does not fall under my Department; it falls under the Department of the Interior, and he was refused permission to land in Durban by the Department of the Interior. But I can tell the non. member that in the meantime a permit has been issued by the Department of the Interior to this man for temporary residence in South Africa, and I am going to have the whole case investigated. In the meantime he will remain in South Africa on a temporary permit.

Will you make a statement when you decide on the matter?

Yes, as soon as we reach a definite decision I will make a statement.

The hon. member asked for information in regard to the increases in financial assistance to immigrants from certain African territories. Now the hon. member knows that the Government pays a grant of R120 per person in respect of each immigrant from territories in Africa, except Rhodesia, Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique and Angola, and of course the Protectorates. They do not get the financial assistance paid to overseas immigrants but we give them assistance in regard to custom duties. They can bring their effects, motor cars and furniture from these territories— Rhodesia, Malawi and Zambia free of duty. That is the item the hon. member referred to with regard to customs duties. As I say, we pay those customs duties and the result is that they bring their assets in custom free.

Then the hon. member referred to an item of R100 for refugees. We put that item on the Estimates as a nominal amount because there is always the possibility that a state of emergency, which may result in the influx of large numbers of immigrants into the Republic, may arise in one or other of the African territories. We have therefore made provision for this item in the Estimates. Then the hon. member wanted information on the item concerning repatriation. As far as repatriation is concerned, all countries which maintain large-scale immigration programmes have to contend with cases which, notwithstanding very strict selection, cannot adjust themselves to conditions in the countries of their adoption, with the result that they have to be returned to their countries of origin. An immigrant may become sickly and unfit for work, or the breadwinner of the family may die, leaving his dependants without a livelihood. For obvious reasons the dependants cannot be left to their own fate. Existing legislation administered by the Department of the Interior provides for deportation only but not for repatriation and that is why the Department of Immigration has to make provision for repatriation. I may say that there are very few cases of repatriation.

Then the hon. member wanted information about the inland transport of immigrants. The policy is that when an immigrant arrives in South Africa we supply him with free accommodation at the place where he arrives until he is placed in employment and when he gets employment his transport costs are paid to his place of employment. I think the hon. member mentioned the case of a person arriving in Cape Town. We will accommodate him here until he gets work in Durban and then we will send him to Durban at our own expense.

What about the housing position there?

So far we have been able to find accommodation for our immigrants. Of course, there is a shortage of housing, particularly in Durban. The hon. member is probably conversant with the position in Durban. But there are large schemes for building flats and houses in Durban particularly and also in Port Elizabeth and Cape Town and Johannesburg. We find that so far we have been able to accommodate all the immigrants who have arrived in our country.

The hon. member raised the question of publications and queried the amount of R600 which he said seemed to be very low for publications. Well, that is the amount for this year. In the past, we had thousands of brochures printed giving the necessary information to intending immigrants but that is not an expense which is repeated every year, so this is simply a supplementary amount for publications this year.

Then the hon. member raised the question of advertising for which provision is made for R 1,000. That item only refers to advertisements in local newspapers and magazines, which can be employed as a very effective method of contacting employers and thus ensuring the early placing of immigrants, especially those from the African territories.

But you have reduced it from R4,000 to R 1,000 this year.

That is so, but that is simply for local advertisements. It does not affect our advertisements overseas which are considerable. We advertise quite extensively overseas and when these recruiting missions go overseas preparatory advertisements are inserted in the Press in these overseas countries. They are paid for, however, by the particular organizations which send these recruiting missions overseas. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) referred to a recruiting mission which has been sent over by the Transvaal Provincial Administration. I think that mission has just come back. I have received no information yet as to the results of their efforts overseas, but the organizations themselves pay the expenses of these missions and they pay for all the advertising that is done overseas. It does not fall under my Department.

Do you not give them any assistance at all?

In the way of advertising?

In the way of advertising and getting the people we are looking for here.

Of course we do. We have a system of advertising ourselves overseas. That is apart from the recruiting missions which go overseas.

The hon. member also queried the payment of customs duties to which I referred. He said that there seemed to be an increase in the customs duty although there was a falling off in the number of immigrants from these African countries. The payment of customs duties was increased from R560,000 to R 1,360,000 in the additional Estimates for 1964-5; that has already been authorized, so the amount of R 1,230,000 asked for now is in fact a decrease on last year’s amount. I think the only other question on which the hon. member wanted some information was the increase in certain other items. My reply there is that we are expecting more immigrants to be recruited overseas and naturally more funds will be required. We are appointing additional staff overseas and there will be additional expenditure in regard to passage costs. I think those are all the items raised by the hon. member.

No, there were two others. First of all, I asked what the R 180,000, “financial assistance to immigrants, from certain African territories”, was for. The hon. the Minister has not dealt with that. Secondly, I raised the question of the per capita payment for immigrants who are obtained by approved organizations, in other words, by agents.

There are two agencies which are subsidized by us. Firstly, there is Samorgan, the immigration organization run by Mr. Foggitt. We subsidize that organization at so much per head. Samorgan only operates in the United Kingdom. Then there is the agency Transa which is run by Mr. Möller who operates principally in Germany and in Belgium and a few other European countries. We subsidize him on the same per capita basis. I cannot remember the figure off-hand, but if the hon. member wants it I can give it to him. We subsidize Transa and the S.A. Immigration Organization (Samorgan). The Cabinet decided to recognize them as the recruiting agents and to subsizise them with a view to enabling them to intensify their efforts to bring more immigrants to the Republic. This scheme came into operation in November 1960. In order to earn subsidies the organizations must, inter alia, comply with the following conditions: They must actually recruit immigrants; they must arrange their passages to South Africa; they must place approved immigrants in suitable employment and they must arrange their transport and accommodation in South Africa and accept financial responsibility therefor until the breadwinner has been placed in employment. The subsidy amounts to R60 per immigrant of 16 years and over and R30 in respect of children under 16 years. This scheme, of course, is subject to periodical review. There have already been a few changes in the last three years in the amount of the subsidy; it has been increased from time to time. In the year under review Samorgan recruited 1,831 immigrants and Transa recruited 1,369 immigrants, and our estimate for 1965-6 is that Samorgan will recruit 2,500 immigrants and that Transa will recruit the same number.

I want to thank the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) for his contribution to this debate. He said many things which I should have liked to have said . . .

It is usually the other way round: they usually thank you.

Well, this is a change!

I just want to deal with one matter raised by the hon. member for Kensington, and that is the question of recruitment of teachers overseas. The hon. member made the point that it was difficult to get teachers overseas to come and work in South Africa when you insist on bilingualism. Well, we are not insisting on bilingualism; here I am talking about the Transvaal; I have no information about the position in the other provinces at the moment, but I know that this mission from the Transvaal, which went overseas recently, has recruited teachers. We ourselves have also recruited teachers, but we are not insisting on bilingualism. We do not insist that immigrants should know Afrikaans when they are recruited, but obviously it is in their own interests, once they come to South Africa and take up teaching posts, that they should learn Afrikaans in due course. They are engaged on contract until they are completely qualified to go on to the permanent staff. We also do that in the Civil Service. We have received quite a number of officials from Kenya and from Zambia and Tanganyika and we have given them employment in our Civil Service. Obviously we do not insist on bilingualism. We employ them on contract for three or five years as the case may be. I can tell the Committee that we have received some very highly qualified officials, particularly from Kenya, who are making a great contribution in the Departments in which they are employed. I may say that during 1964 we actually recruited 241 teachers for South Africa, which is quite a good achievement. Sir, I think I have covered all the points raised here by hon. members.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote No. 40,—“Community Development”, R6,600,000,

Right at the beginning I wish to voice the protest of this side of the House against the Government’s latest interference with the freedom of the public and the way in which the Minister of Community Development handles his part of the matter. Sir, one can have a fruitful debate here, and differ quite calmly, in regard to the necessity of trying to eliminate possible friction between the population groups at various levels of society, but Proclamation 26, which was recently issued and its application, which in respect of proclaimed areas falls under this Minister, in our opinion goes much further than the elimination of possible points of friction, because in almost all the cases in which this Minister took action there were peaceful gatherings; it affected places where people were not forced to be together against their will, but places where civilized people voluntarily and of their own free will peacefully attended the same proceedings. In many cases it was part of an old tradition we have had in this country. For example, the attendance by Colourds of symphony concerts in the Cape Town City Hall was traditional; the attendance by White patrons of Coloured church bazaars, the attendance of non-White weddings by the employers of the married couple, have been part of the tradition of South Africa over the years, and more particularly here in the Cape Province. I think it is time that the Government realized, in discussing our traditions, that it should not just select the bits which suit it; it should take into consideration the whole of the tradition of South Africa and not merely parts of it. However, what we have had recently is not the prevention of friction but the prevention of friendly contact and the literal driving out of the Coloured community from the various agricultural centres of the country. In fact, the hon. the Minister is now trying to prevent civilized contact, and not friction; and the ugliest aspect of it is that he is continually seeking to explain this removal of old facilities and privileges as being in the interest of the Coloured community and of the Whites themselves. Somebody has said that the Minister was cynical in his approach and in the way he acted, but I think it is more than that; I think the things we have seen just recently in regard to the implementation of this proclamation is nothing less than a blot on the national character of our people. Sir, that White people should be prohibited to-day from attending a Coloured school bazaar in all goodwill and making a contribution; that an employer should be prohibited from attending the wedding of an employee; that police should be sent to take down the names of people at a symphony concert with a view to possible prosecution; that in this country we have got to the stage where cinemas are closed by the Minister at short notice to the Coloured community; that people are at the last moment prevented from attending shows; that the use of halls for functions, where people have been using those halls for years, should now be refused to them; that White people should even be turned away, as happened at Stellenbosch, from an ordinary flower show which they have always attended and which was organized by Coloureds; that people cannot even show goodwill and interest in one another’s affairs: that the Government should intervene and put a stop to all this—I say that if these things are characteristic of the Government’s conception of “White civilization”, then we differ completely in regard to the concept of “civilization”, and then it is small wonder that the Government daily becomes more discredited in the eyes of others. There is not a drop of merit in this action by the Government. It can do the Coloured community no good because no nation can develop in isolation. One wonders where the Afrikaner would have been to-day if he had had to remain living in rural isolation; if he had not acquired business acumen in contact with other population groups; if his artists had not got to where they are to-day as the result of having contact with the artists of other nations. The policy of isolation which this Minister prescribes for the Coloureds, the policy of living by themselves, of doing everything by themselves, of remaining apart from the White community at all levels and not enjoying the benefits that are to be obtained as the result of contact with the most privileged section of the South African population, is a policy which is not in the interests of the Coloured people, and in the long run it cannot be in the interests of the White community either. I think it was Dr. Malan himself who said in another context that isolation meant death to the Afrikaner. What this hon. Minister is doing in effect is to prescribe social and cultural isolation for the Coloureds. I also particularly object to the enforced deprivation of access by Coloureds to cinemas which they have been using through the years. The hon. the Minister may bluff himself that there is such a thing as a White residential area, but strictly speaking there is no such thing as a White residential area anywhere in South Africa. The first attempt to create a White residential area where only Whites will live is now being made in Pretoria, but in every other so-called White residential area it is only a White-owned area; only Whites may possess property there, but it is not only Whites who live there. One can go to any White area and one will find that perhaps a quarter to half the people living there are non-Whites. I do not think the labour relations these people have among each other is relevant here, because all of us are servants of someone or another. A servant who works for me and lives on my premises has the same permanent residential address as mine. Therefore this idea that there is such a thing as White residential areas where no non-Whites live is not true. I think it is high time we realized that it is a form of meanness if the Whites want all the conveniences for themselves on their doorstep, but the poorer classes, who live on their properties with them and who work for them, should travel for miles in order to attend amusements and in practice, as the result of the very nature of domestic work, are in fact excluded from such amusements. I believe that if we want to utilize the services of people—and this is a concept one finds in all civilized communities—unless the Government wants to take steps to ensure that there may be no such thing as a servant who lives in—as long as one has the position in South Africa where thousands of non-Whites stay in proclaimed White residential areas, it is our duty to provide for the comfort. even though it is done separately, of the people who live in those White areas and work for the Whites there. Sir, this latest action on the part of the Government has roused terrible feelings against the Whites, and anyone who denies it is blind to the facts. The whole thing is unnecessary and it is unjust; it only creates new problems.

What proof have you for that statement?

A Coloured teacher of Stellenbosch recently told me that this action by the Government had aroused feelings among the Coloured community to such an extent that the bigger boys in his school were just talking of the day when they could fight against the White man. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down has now selected a new role for himself in South Africa and that is to see whether he can outdo the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) and the Progressives and Alan Paton and their allies in inciting the Coloureds against the Whites in this country. He was guilty to-day of the most reckless incitement of the Coloured against the White. He knows that he talks nonsense: he knows that he is completely unrealistic. Let us take the one point he made here. He said that there was no such thing as a White residential area; if a Coloured lived on one’s premises and worked for one, the Coloured should seek his entertainment in that environment. I want the hon. member to stand up and have the courage to answer this question: Where must the Coloureds working in Tamboers Kloof find their entertainment? Which cinemas must they attend? Which cinemas- must the Coloureds working in Sea Point attend? Must those people go to Wynberg to attend the cinema? Why does the hon. member not say frankly what he wants? Why does he not say what is in his mind? Why does he not come out with his firm conviction and that is that as far as he is concerned the Coloureds must be admitted to the Colosseum and the Alhambra and other White cinemas? Why does he not say that as far as he is concerned he wants no segregation between Coloureds and Whites? That is how he works himself up; in reality he does not want segregation. Mr. Chairman, those things which took place recently took place as a result of nothing but deliberate actions on the part of people who have nothing to do with South Africa. Deliberate attempts were made to undermine our traditional policy of segregation. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) can say what he likes but the traditional policy of South Africa has been one of segregation between White and Coloured.

That has always been the case.

That has always been the case. There have been a few exceptions here and there, for example, where Coloureds have attended symphony concerts together with the Whites. The Coloureds can still today attend those symphony concerts under permit. Detectives did not go to the City Hall as a result of the actions of this Government. The fact that detectives went there to take people’s names was as a result of the most extreme wilfulness on the part of the City Council of Cape Town. The City Council provoked the Government deliberately and on an unbelievable scale because the hon. the Minister of Community Development and the hon. the Minister of Planning told the City Council that Coloureds could be given permits to attend the symphony concerts in the City Hall provided the City Council made separate facilities available. Or is it a new tradition in South Africa that Coloureds and Whites should use the same washrooms and other facilities? Is that also part of our tradition in South Africa? Is it not part of our tradition in South Africa that there have always been separate facilities at public places such as stations and so forth? What would it have cost the City Council of Cape Town to provide these separate facilities? Why do they refuse to do so? Simply to provoke this Government and to try to subvert our traditional policy in South Africa. Mr. Chairman, I want now to challenge the United Party. Let them tell us whether they are in favour of segregation between Whites and Coloureds. Sir, one can only come to one conclusion when one listens to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I say that those things which took place recently took place as a result of the wilfulness of other people who wished to put South Africa in a bad light. These things put South Africa in a bad light because people overseas do not see the full picture; they do not know what the background to the matter is. All that the English newspapers publish is the fact that detectives visited the City Hall where Coloureds were attending a symphony concert together with the Whites. They do not tell the world what the background to this matter is and South Africa’s name is blackened in this way and she is placed in a difficult position. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout now considers it to be his sacred duty to assist in placing South Africa in as bad a light as he possibly can—he who is supposed to be an intelligent member of this House. He has painted the same picture to the world to-day—that detectives were sent to the City Hall to take the names of people attending the symphony concert there. I say that it is a shame that the City Council of Cape Town is so wilful that they refuse to provide separate facilities. I want to put this question very clearly and pertinently to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I want to put this question to him and I predict that he will not have the courage to reply to it: Is he in favour of there being separate facilities for Whites and Coloureds in the Cape Town City Hall?

I support the City Council of Cape Town.

The hon. member says that he supports the Cape Town City Council. I put a simple question to him—he who takes it upon himself so deliberately to place this Government and this country in a false light. Is he in favour of the use of communal facilities for Whites and Coloureds?

On a civilized level, yes.

Very well. Now we know, but he will only say it here. In other words, he is not in favour of apartheid. But they are just as much in favour of separate residential areas as this Government is. He says that this does not exist but according to their propaganda they are just as much in favour of separate residential areas as is this Government. What is developing in this country? Here we have a group of people who are trying to force compulsory mixed audiences upon us.

Rubbish!

Of course that is what they want to do. How much value does that hon. member who has just interjected “rubbish” attach to Equity overseas? Does the hon. member deny that Equity has told its members that they should not come to South Africa unless they can perform before mixed audiences? Their livelihood will be taken from them if they dare to perform in South Africa before segregated audiences. They are compelled to perform before mixed audiences. The position was developing and the hon. the Minister of Community Development and the hon. the Minister of Planning acted quite rightly in putting a spoke in the wheel of the evil work which these people were doing. The traditional policy of this country is separate residential areas and separate facilities for entertainment. We are making as many separate facilities as possible available for the entertainment of the Coloureds. We are experiencing a transition period and one experiences difficult conditions and situations in any transition period. They have a transition period of compulsory integration in America at the moment and there are unpleasant incidents taking place there. It is not the duty of a faithful patriot, of a man who loves his country, to exploit those difficulties and to give the world to understand that this is the true position. The world is given to understand that we are cruel and uncivilized people, although the Opposition know that this is not the case.

The hon. the Ministers of Planning and Community Development have said that they will be as reasonable as possible during this transition period and that they will allow these things to continue under permit until such time as there are adequate facilities for entertainment for the Coloureds. What is the position further? There is the question of the Wynberg Town Hall which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout exploited so recklessly without first making sure of the facts. There are other halls in that area. I understand that there are 10 or 15 other halls in Athlone but the Coloureds refuse to make use of them. Why do they not make use of them? When they were asked why they did not make use of them they said that they were afraid of skollies in that area and that that was why they wanted to use a hall in the White area. I say that this absolutely unbelievably reckless exploitation is shameful. I can understand why hon. members opposite are a party to this. They are doing so because they were given such a drubbing by the Progressive Party during the Coloured election. They have now to fight for the favour of the Coloureds. Because they are being rejected by the Whites they have to curry favour with the Coloureds. This does not do their own cause any good nor does it do the cause of the Coloureds any good. I wanted to make a different speech completely but I am pleased that I have had the opportunity to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout what a contemptible role he is playing in the politics of South Africa.

The only time I really feel any sympathy for an hon. Minister on that side of the House is when the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) gets up to defend him. This subject of the treatment of the Coloured people of the Cape, which they are calling Community Development at the moment, is surely not a subject for rabble-rousing. When the hon. Minister in charge of the whole movement deals with this subject in the House—whether one agrees with his policy or not—he puts forward all his arguments which he believes to be sound in favour of his case and he is prepared to debate them. He does not accuse anybody who disagrees with him of being unpatriotic, of making scandalous remarks and all the other adjectives which the hon. member for Vereeniging has in his vocabulary. I think it is a pity that that kind of speech is made at a time like this.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), in a perfectly rational speech, put forward his criticism of the Government’s policy and more particularly the application of that policy. The hon. member for Vereeniging suggested that his speech was a deliberate attempt to stir up ill feelings between the Whites and Coloureds. Let me assure the hon. member for Vereeniging that Proclamation No. 26 has done more to stir up ill feeling between the Whites and the Coloureds than anything that has ever been said in this House. I don’t want to discuss Government policy this morning. I want to take this opportunity of bringing one particular case to the attention of the hon. Minister. I want to ask him whether he cannot reconsider this particular case. The hon. member for Vereeniging referred to the fact that there had been assurances from this hon. the Minister and the Minister of Planning that while they were carrying out their policy and removing large sections of the population from one place to another they would endeavour to be as reasonable as possible and cause as little suffering as possible. Here is a case which I do want to bring to the Minister’s attention because I do believe it is a case which does not forward his policy and which causes unnecessary hardship and unhappiness to a large section of my community. I refer to the closing of the Orpheum cinema in Claremont. It is towards the Newlands end of Claremont and in the centre of a. big Coloured community. It is a very respectable Coloured community, a community which has been settled there for a long time. One of the oldest Mosques in Cape Town is within a stone’s throw of it and a Malay congregation is all around it. One of the best Coloured schools, with about 200 to 300 children, is in that area. Generally it is a thoroughly respectable Coloured community. They are to be moved and that must take some years. Meanwhile in the middle of that community there is a cinema which has been established for over 40 years. It has a weekly attendance of some 2,800 which is quite considerable. At a moment’s notice the permit has been withdrawn or refused and that cinema has been closed down. I ask the hon. the Minister: What are those people going to do during the next two or three years until they have been moved? There is no other cinema within three or four miles. I think the nearest one is the Luxurama right at the other end of Wynberg. These are not rich people. They are working class people and cannot afford to travel three or four miles if they want to go to a cinema. I think the hon. the Minister has overlooked the position of this particular cinema. I know he is planning new villages and townships in which there will be amenities like cinemas and so on. I know his intention is that they will be managed and run by the Coloured people themselves. That is fine, but those new townships are all going to be some miles from where this particular community is. Even if those new cinemas are started there it won’t help these people until such time as they have all been moved. I want to take this opportunity of asking the Minister whether he will be good enough to reconsider this particular case. I do not believe that by causing this cinema to be closed down he is furthering his own policy in the least and I am absolutely certain that he is causing unnecessary hardship, unhappiness and resentment to a very large section of highly respectable Coloured people who have been living there for many generations. They have done nothing whatever to deserve this type of treatment in the course of carrying out Government policy.

I have no quarrel with the appeal made by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) to the hon. the Minister in connection with the particular case to which he referred. But what I do object to is the fact that the Opposition and people in certain other circles have an entirely distorted idea as to the objects and the activities of the Department of Community Development. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), who gave the lead in this debate as far as the Opposition is concerned, would like us to use the opportunity afforded by this debate for the sole purpose of ventilating Coloured problems in connection with incidents of the kind to which he referred here. Sir, the hon. member for Constantia gave a very clear indication here as to how the Opposition view this debate. He says that it concerns “the treatment of the Coloured people in the Cape which they call community development”. One would swear that the Department of Community Development was a department which was established with the sole object of looking after the interests of the Coloureds or to deal with Coloured Affairs. Sir, we on this side of the House cannot allow the activities of this Department to be discussed along those lines without making any reference at all to the constructive work that is being done by this Department amongst all sections of the public. It is small wonder that this distorted conception of the objects and the functions of this Department has assumed such wide proportions. There are people today who think that the Department of Community Development is only there to build houses for non-Whites. There are others who have the idea that the Department of Community Development is simply intent on encroaching, in a gratuitous and domineering way, upon the powers and the functions of local authorities and that it is a Department which delights in bullying the local authorities all along the line. Sir, it is precisely because of the type of debate that is conducted in this House that these erroneous impressions are created in the minds of members of the public as to the activities of the Department, and the time has come for us to put this matter in its correct light. As a result of the fact that in very exceptional cases the Department finds it necessary to pull up a city council for having failed to do its duty towards the community and, the fact that unfavourable publicity is then given to the matter, unfavourable publicity which is given further momentum by speeches made by members of the Opposition, the impression is created that the Department is gratuitously poking its nose into the affairs of local authorities. Sir, the time has come to do away with this conception of the activities of the Department. When one looks at the most important functions of this Department, I cannot see how anybody can hold this view as to the activities of the Department. In my opinion one of the most important functions of the Department of Community Development is to help to build up fully-fledged communities. To that end the Department needs the assistance of the Provincial authorities, of the local authorities and of the communities themselves. The Department’s functions are not confined to the building of houses and least of all are its functions confined to the building of houses for non-Whites. They embrace the social, economic and cultural conditions of every community. The Department is out to obtain the assistance of all bodies such as local authorities in carrying out the tasks that it is called upon to fulfil. The Department is not out to take over the functions of local authorities, utility companies and other bodies. I think it would be highly unpractical and foolish on the part of the Department of Community Development to create special machinery to render certain services and perform certain tasks where those services are already being provided by other authorities. In the case of many of the important services which are being rendered to communities, services such as the supply of water, lights, sanitary facilities and even transport, the responsibility rests upon the shoulders of the local authorities. That is why the Department of Community Development has to maintain harmonious relationships at all times with the local authorities because it needs their assistance; that is why the Department goes out of its way to gain and to try to retain the maximum confidence and co-operation of these bodies. It is only when certain City Councils or local authorities offer stubborn opposition and refuse their co-operation in the interests of the community that this Department intervenes in the public interest, even if it has to do so against the wishes of the local authority concerned.

The other important function of this Department is to administer the housing fund. Sir. this is a matter which is of much greater importance to us than this petty exploitation of grievances on which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout concentrated in this debate. The building of houses for all races, not only for non-Whites, is the responsibility of this Department. There are two reasons, of course, why the impression is created in the minds of the public that this Department only builds houses for non-Whites. The first is that this Government has taken active steps to establish separate residential areas for various races, as a result of which large numbers of people have had to be resettled and houses have had to be constructed for these people. It so happens that the vast majority of the people for whom houses have had to be built with a view to resettlement are non-Whites. In the second place this Government was the first Government in South Africa actively to undertake slum clearance. Here again alternative housing had to be provided and once again the majority of the people concerned were non-Whites. Sir, the Department of Community Development has an incomparable record as far as the provision of housing is concerned. In that regard there can be no difference of opinion between this side of the House and the other side. Since 1910 a total sum of R426,000,000 has been spent by the State on housing. Of that sum no less than R3 52,000,000 has been spent in the period during which the National Party has been in power. Since 1948 the State and Government Departments have provided 342,000 housing units and a further 115,000 have been provided by the private sector. This year again provision is being made in the Estimates for no less than R40,000,000 for the building of houses. In addition to that the Community Development Board will have R 18,500,000 at its disposal to purchase and to develop properties.

I want to use the rest of my time to draw the attention of the Committee specifically to the great work that is being done by this Department in connection with the provision of housing for Whites. From 1920 up to 31 March 1948 the Housing Commission and the local authorities erected a total of 22,301 residential units at a cost of R53,730,000. As from 1 April 1948 until 31 March 1964 the Housing Commission and the local authorities together constructed 38,838 houses at a cost of R 157,320,000. In other words, the National Party Government has spent more than R104,000,000 more on housing for Whites than all the other Governments did over a period of 38 years. I want to point out specifically that at this very moment the Department is tackling enormous projects in the five large urban areas with a view to providing housing for Whites. In the Cape Peninsula, 1,431 residential units are being erected. In Cape Town, Johannesburg, Durban, Pretoria and Port Elizabeth together provision is being made at the moment for 7,219 residential units for Whites of which no less than 3,559—about one-half— will be constructed under a crash programme. [Time limit.]

I do not want to discuss Government policy in regard to the permits, except to place on record the profound disapproval of all Coloured people of the attitude of the Government in this respect. I want to suggest a new line in connection with housing to the hon. the Minister. The position at the moment is this. I refer particularly to sub-economic housing and I want to offer a few suggestions where I think the lot of the Coloured man can be made considerably lighter. The standard of the sub-economic housing for the Coloured community is too low, Sir. The housing units can only be described as—I shall not use words like “disgraceful” and “appalling” and so forth; I shall use a moderate word—“totally inadequate” for the people who are expected to live in them. They are, as the Minister knows, two-roomed cottages. They have no ceilings, no floors, no inside doors; they have no washing facilities. There is usually a standpipe in the street 100 yards or so away from where these people live. The street lighting and the roads and the side-walks have to be provided by the local authority. They usually follow so far behind that these people live in Stygian darkness. It is no use hon. members on the Government side saying that this is a matter for the local authority. The money comes from the National Housing Commission and we know that a large number of houses has been built. But the problem which faces all of us—not only the Government—is how to make provision for those in an income bracket which does not allow them to afford a house.

Before I make my suggestions I want to cover one or two other points in connection with sub-economic housing and say to the Minister that it is grossly unfair to force Coloured people out of the urban areas into new townships, where most of them have to go into sub-economic houses and where they must sometimes live double-banked, i.e. two families in one house with three, four or five people of both sexes in one room. Because their income is high they must pay an economic rent. This is causing a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction amongst the Coloured community. These are the only houses available. The Minister may say the local authority can build economic housing. That is perfectly true, but it takes time. I submit that, in its anxiety to get on with this policy of separating us all, the Government is losing sight of the meghan. ics of the case, because we are knocking down old houses before we have adequate housing for these people. What is more the Coloured man must produce a certificate so that his rental can be fixed. If he does not provide the certificate via the local authority, the local authority is instructed to charge him an economic rent. That style does not make for good relations. Sir.

It has been my contention for many years— I have already put it to the Minister in the hope that it will bear some fruit—that we should get away from the viewpoint of sub-economic houses and think about sub-economic tenants instead. The type of house of the standard to which I have referred, namely, the two-roomed cottage, is as cold as charity in winter—and that is very chilly—and as hot as Hades in summer—I won’t say how hot that is. Sir! These people are not in a category where they can possibly pay a higher rental and they constitute a sociological problem, which I believe should be tackled by the Social Welfare Department. I believe that the Minister should set a minimum standard of house for a man with a wife and family. If the tenant is unable to pay the rent, the subsidy should be, not on the basis of subsidizing the low rental, but on the basis of subsidizing the higher rental, so as to give the man an opportunity of living in decent circumstances and decent surroundings. Coupled with that is the opportunity for social welfare workers to teach these people what should be done and how to live.

Mr. Chairman, it has been my lot to visit townships right thoughout the province. The pattern is the same; the complaints, the grousing and the dissatisfaction are the same. It all revolves round this one particular question and that is that the Coloured person is forced into these low standard houses. They are rapidly becoming of the standard and type of the worst possible slums. I do not want hon. members opposite to jump up and say I am putting a black mark against the good name of South Africa. But, unless the tenants are taught how to live, in a better house, you will get the situation, which they have in Britain, where many new buildings were put up in the form of houses and flats and went from palaces to pig-sties in a matter of 12 months. I believe that, in tackling the whole problem, the hon. the Minister would do well if he applied his mind to the suggestion I have made: The subsidy should not be on the rental to the local authority. On subsidized rentals where the local authority must share in the loss, many authorities have reached the stage where they are unable to meet the loss on the £ for £ basis. I say, therefore, that in the case of the smaller authorities it is totally impossible for them to carry out the programme which the Minister envisages at the pace many people desire, and which the Minister himself wants.

I would also like to say to the hon. the Minister that the Department of Community Development is unrealistic in forcing and putting pressure on local authorities to proceed with housing schemes. I have letters in my possession from local authorities in which they state that they are unable to proceed because of the lack of engineers and technical staff to carry out the work. Nevertheless, the Department is pressing for the acceleration of the creation of group areas and for the construction of houses in group areas, especially in the sub-economic class. I think it is bad. It has created a great deal of dissension and dissatisfaction where it need not exist.

I do hope that the Minister will also consider the following suggestion: Where a township is laid out by a local authority, as approved by the Commission, money should be made available in advance for the provision of proper roads, proper kerbs, proper streetlights and proper drainage, before the houses are commenced and before they are built, so that people can be attracted to these properties and not forced there or driven there. The hon. Minister himself knows that representations have been made to him from all over the province, about the unsatisfactory sites, which have been selected by the Minister of Planning under the Group Areas Act. I do not propose to cover that now except to say that I believe that if the hon. the Minister were to look at the sites himself—as I understand he has already done in some cases, where I brought them to his notice—he would agree that the one section of our population which is having a most difficult time and which is on the receiving end of all this apartheid legislation, is the Coloured community, particularly the Coloured communities in the small towns of the Cape Province. I make the suggestion again that the hon. the Minister might slow down: Rome was not built in a day, and this thing cannot be carried out in a hurry. We are running into snags and difficulties on all sides. My final point is that in making proposals to local authorities, the National Housing Commission should set limits and say to local authorities: “You may build between these limits.” The Commission says that they do pay attention to the fact that physical conditions and the nature of the terrain in various townships differ from one place to another, but I think the general experience of local authorities is that when tenders are called for and submitted the National Housing Commission invariably refers them back, suggesting either calling for fresh tenders or stating that the tenders are too high. [Time limit.]

I want to asssociate myself with what was said here by the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé), namely that this Department also does positive deeds, and in this respect I should like to deal for a moment with what has been done in Port Elizabeth by the Department in a positive way. In the first place huge building programmes have been tackled there, such as Algoa Park, Walmer, and South End (the most important one in Port Elizabeth (South)), particularly that part which in recent years had become a very poor residential area, practically a slum area, which was and still is inhabited by Malays, Indians and Chinese. According to the figures, this is a very poor area indeed, and in those circumstances the Department has done a good thing in deciding to clear up South End. I know that the Department Pas not received the co-operation of the City Council of Port Elizabeth. On the contrary, the problem which has always faced this Department, and not only this Department, is that difficulties have been created by the City Council of Port Elizabeth. And now that the Department has taken this action the Eastern Province Herald comes along and tries to frighten the people who will possibly have to be cleared out of South End. Amongst other things, this newspaper says—

All races in South End shocked.

Sir, I cannot believe that the fact that this area is going to be cleared up will come as a shock to the people who are living in South End under the conditions prevailing there. The report goes on to say—

But that is entirely untrue. So far there has not been a single person, whatever his colour may be, whether White or Coloured, who has been dissatisfied with the compensation paid to him. In these circumstances, when excellent work is being done by the Department why try to shock the various races living there? Why spread these untruthful stories? In this respect I want to thank the Department and the Minister wholeheartedly for the fact that the Department has given it full attention to this bad spot in Port Elizabeth and that positive steps will now be taken to remove it.

If the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) would take the trouble to talk to some of these people, the inhabitants of this area, he would find out why they are not satisfied.

What do you know about Port Elizabeth?

I happen to have spoken to some of these people myself.

When?

A few months ago when I was in Port Elizabeth. They are most unhappy at being moved, most unhappy, because they have been in those houses for over 100 years. They are quite prepared to accept the slum clearance idea, they are quite prepared to have conditions cleared up. but there is a considerable difference between the clearing of slum areas, removing the excess number of inhabitants, improving houses, and condemning others, and moving an entire community. This is something that hon. members opposite cannot understand. There is a complete difference in moving a whole community that has been living in an area for over 100 years, simply for ideological reasons.

We heard the same about Meadowlands.

The same applies in regard to Meadowlands and Sophiatown. One could have erased the slum areas of Sophiatown and rebuilt at that very same place, again giving freehold rights to people who had freehold rights. But this is something that hon. members can never grasp. They always put everything down to slum clearance. South-End is not being removed under slum clearance, but under group areas, because the White people feel that they would like to have that part of Port Elizabeth, even though it has been inhabited by Coloureds and Malay people for over 100 tears. This is the objection to the removal because it is done on ideological grounds and of in order to improve the conditions there.

Now the hon. member for Parow told us that there were functions of the Coloured Affairs Department and Community Development other than mixed entertainments, etc. I could not agree with him more, and I wish to goodness that the Department would devote itself to those functions and leave this business of mixed entertainments alone. They are spending all their time bothering with a granting or refusal of applications for mixed entertainment, where the Department is sorely short-staffed. Let them devote themselves to rehousing people, to building better houses, to improving conditions, and let them not bother their heads with ideological nonsense such as permits. The hon. member for Vereeniging said that this separate entertainment was traditional in South Africa. Well, if it is traditional what do we need proclamation R.26 for? Will somebody tell me that? If we have always had this separation of the races, if we have always had separate amenities, if the City Hall of Cape Town has always reserved its concerts only for White or only allowed others under conditions which are acceptable to the hon. member for Vereeniging, would he tell me what we need Proclamation R.26 for? We need it, because the Government thought it is bad to be challenged on this issue, because the Government is so adolescent.

We needed it because of the obnoxious attitude of some people.

If the slightest doubt is cast upon its policy of social apartheid, it believes it has to go all out to eliminate any vestige of mixed entertainment, and let me tell the hon. member for Vereeniging that mixed entertainment has been the tradition in this country, not the other way round—otherwise you would not have needed Proclamation R.26.

Where was that the tradition?

In the City Hall of Cape Town there have been mixed symphony concerts ever since I can remember, at the University in Johannesburg, at city halls in the other large centres.

What about all the bioscopes in Johannesburg: Which one is mixed? What about all the other entertainments?

In Johannesburg you did not need R.26, but in Cape Town where you did have mixed amenities, you needed it. The tradition in Cape Town was to have mixed entertainments. What I want to ask the hon. Minister is whether he has decided on what the criteria are, because it will be of great assistance to the entire country if one knew what the criteria are. It started off by not allowing mixed audiences; then one could have mixed audiences as long as there were separate amenities within the hall itself: then one could only have mixed audiences if facilities were not available in the areas set aside for the different races themselves; then one could only have these mixed entertainments if the particular events could not be repeated: then one could only have them providing it was only a non-White orchestra with a non-White choir, not a White audience and mixed group of performers on the stage. So we would like to know what the criteria are. You have this absurd nonsense, that the “Messiah” for instance in Johannesburg recently was interfered with. Let me tell the hon. member for Vereeniging that it has been traditional that the “Messiah” should be performed in Johannesburg with an African choir, with a White orchestra and a White conductor. Indeed so traditional has it been that the Government’s own political organ “Bantu” came out with a triumphant article “Messiah choir has great success”. It devoted two pages to pictures of the Black choir, and parts of the White orchestra are shown. That was the traditional thing and we are proudly told that this is one of the highest standards of musical entertainment ever presented in Johannesburg. But now this cannot be allowed. Now this is forbidden, because now it is no longer tradition, because the hon. the Minister and the member for Vereeniging have discovered that it is not traditional to allow a Black choir to sing in front of a White audience with a White orchestra and a White conductor. So they have to have a Black conductor and they were allowed a White organist instead of an orchestra. The nonsense of all this goes beyond words, it surpasses belief. Nobody knows where we are getting to in this country with this complete nonsense. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, may I have your protection against the interruptions by the hon. member for Vereeniging? I did not say one word when he was uttering his nonsense. Why can he not keep quiet for a few minutes?

The hon. Minister does not bother to give us statistics any more. I have asked him on two occasions to tell us about the number of permits that have been applied for, how many were refused and how many granted? The hon. Minister says it is too much work for his Department n assemble these statistical details. I might say that his colleagues, other Ministers in charge of this nonsense, the Minister of Planning and the Minister of Bantu Administration were able to give us statistics. This hon. Minister is not able to. I put it to him that the reason is that he is being swamped by applications for permits, so that he does not know whether he is coming or going. His Department does not even bother to tell people when they apply for permits that they do not need to apply for permits in certain cases. For instance, as I understand it, the legal position is that only public entertainments per se in fact are affected by Proclamation R.26. But people are so nervous of breaking the law that they come along to the Minister and apply for permits for private functions, such as weddings, which do not fall under “public entertainment” at all. But the Minister’s Department does not even bother to tell the people that they need not apply. They keep them hanging around and waiting, and in some cases they were actually refused permits. I would like a direct answer from the hon. the Minister to this question: Is it correct, legally, that permits are in fact not required for private functions? In other words, for a wedding, which is not a public entertainment, which is by invitation only? Are permits required or not required in terms of Proclamation R.26? Because there is a considerable amount of confusion over this particular point. I think the hon. the Minister will save his Department a lot of trouble if he would at least publicize the fact that permits are indeed not required for private functions. I say that this proclamation R.26 had made us ridiculous in the eyes of the outside world, absolutely ridiculous. Incidentally, I do not consider it an issue of petty apartheid. I disagree with people who think that this is petty apartheid. I think it is a grievous insult to human dignity, and I believe that it is in that light that this matter is viewed by the non-White people to whom this applies. I also think that it is a severe injustice, because where people were spending peaceful leisure hours watching soccer matches and other matches, they are now prevented from so doing. For instance, at the Rand Stadium and the Wanderers Stadium, those people are now turned back on their own resources and have no way in which to enjoy their leisure hours peacefully. What are we trying to do? Are we intent on turning more people into delinquents with no facilities for decent recreation? The hon. Minister said that millions of Rand were spent by his Department and the Department of Indian Affairs and Bantu Administration to provide facilities for these people in their own areas. It just is not so. [Time limit.]

Every human being has to endure a number of tribulations in the course of his life. I for one can only regard the views of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) as one of the tribulations which one simply has to endure because one cannot really do anything about the matter. I take it that the hon. the Minister will reply to her in due course, and I am almost hoping that he will adopt the same attitude towards her as I have tried to adopt towards her in this House.

I had really hoped that after last year we would get a different spirit and a different tone in this debate on the Vote “Community Development”. I am saying “after last year”, because very important changes were made in this Department in 1964. I regard those changes as being so important that I even want to call 1964 a memorable year as far as this Department is concerned. You will recall. Sir, that as from 1 April 1964 the Group Areas Development Board was added to the Department of Community Development, which has to carry out the housing policy of the Republic, and that the object of that was to promote the more effective development of group communities. I think it was a very progressive step that was taken at the time. Furthermore. in August 1964 the Department of Planning was established, which Department was to undertake the overall planning, while the Department of Community Development was to continue with the positive development work. That is why I am saying that I hoped that from last year onwards we would get a more clear-headed attitude being adopted in regard to the Vote “Community Development”.

With the changes that have been introduced, the old idea of group areas has been taken out of community development and we are now concerned with the development of group communities, in other words, we are concerned with positive development work which must lead somewhere on a rising line. Obviously it will be essential for us to have criticism in the course of that development, but then it must not be criticism such as we have now had from the hon. members for Houghton and Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), which was of a purely negative nature and based solely on the few exceptional cases. We need positive and constructive criticism which will help us to make progress. I am afraid, though, that we did not get that in this debate. The change that was introduced last year has enabled us to judge this Department and this Vote on their merits, and not on the basis of any political aversion we may have to certain legislation in connection with this Department. To me it is a matter of the greatest disappointment that so far I have seen very little of that new spirit which I expected in this debate. I am saying that the changes which were introduced have enabled us to judge the achievements and the work of the Department and the Minister on the basis of merit, and let me assure you, Sir, that the hon. the Minister and his Department are faced with no mean task! Let me also tell you that they have not always received the necessary co-operation from persons and bodies whose co-operation was essential, and here I am thinking specifically of certain local authorities.

For example?

There are many examples that I can mention, but I am speaking in general here. If the hon. member for Hospital has a guilty conscience, I shall leave him with it. We can now judge the Department’s work on its merits, and it so happens that my hon. colleagues the members for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) and Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) have already quoted particulars here to show what miracles have been performed by the Department under the leadership of the present Minister. All of us believe that useful work ennobles, but although we all believe that our work is essential and ennobling, no matter how humble or how important it is, very few of us are granted the privilege of really making history. As far as the Department of Community Development and the Minister in charge thereof are concerned, I think we may say to-day that in the brief period for which they have been functioning as such, they have really made history in our country, for which this House certainly owes them a debt of gratitude, and for which all the communities in our country, including the non-Whites, can be grateful to that Department. As I have said, it is no mean task to achieve this segregation which will make it possible for the members of each of the race groups to live in their own social context, to develop as a socio-economic unit and to enjoy privileges in their own communities which have otherwise very often been denied them. The fact that through the agency of this Minister and this Department this Government has been prepared and able to do what they have done is something which all of us should be grateful for.

I pointed out on a previous occasion that the achievements of this Department have received international recognition as well, and that some of the plans of this Department are exhibited in the council chambers of the United Nations Organization, for example, to show how the provision of low-cost housing can be undertaken and carried out successfully. On another occasion I also mentioned how, through planning and through judicious use of materials, this Department had succeeded in reducing building costs, in spite of the upward spiral existing in the rest of the building industry. I am saying that all of us should be grateful for what has been achieved by this Minister and this Department. I do not want to quote any more figures here, but I want to plead that a more positive approach should be adopted, and I want to do that against the background of the major changes introduced in this Department last year. Let us come together in this Chamber and discuss the task of this Department, and let us judge to what extent the Minister and his Department have succeeded or have failed in that task, but for Heaven’s sake do not let us come here and single out a few cases and magnify them and present them as being the general state of affairs in South Africa. Let us not lose sight of the positive work which is being done everywhere by this Department, and let us free ourselves of that negative, critical, unfair, unreasonable attitude and, by so doing, try to facilitate the task of the Minister’s Department and to assist them in carrying it out.

I want to preface my remarks by saying that we have heard a lot about laws being introduced prohibiting the interference of white people with Coloured politics, but there is one law which I hope will come into being and that is to prevent the Transvaal from interfering with the Cape. If we can only have such a law preventing the Transvaal from interfering with the affairs of the Cape, we would be the happiest province in the whole of South Africa. Because what has been traditional in the Cape has not been traditional in the Transvaal. I want to tell the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) that when he talks about “tradition” I can tell him that it has been tradition in the Cape for Whites and Coloureds to work together happily, to live nearby happily and to mix happily. That has always been the position, and there have always been mixed audiences in the Cape. Now we have had the interference by the Transvaal where they have traditionally no mixing, and they now want to come along and interfere with the happy relations in the Cape between Whites and Coloureds. If they would leave us alone, we would be a happier community.

I do not want to deal with the many questions about permits already raised. I want to ask the hon. Minister: The closing of those two cinemas in Wynberg comes far too close on the heels, of the Luxurama fiasco. I want the hon. Minister to tell me whether the Coloured people are wrong when they believe that the closing of the cinemas is a quid pro quo for the action taken by the Luxurama owners in having it purely for Coloureds? Because that is what happened in the past. I can say that it has been traditional for the people in the Strand to sit upstairs in the bioscope for years and years, until there was an objection by a Coloured man who owned a cinema nearby. What happened? Instructions were given that Coloured people no longer can sit upstairs in this white cinema, and they have had to go three miles away to a Coloured bioscope. I say that it has been traditional and I want to ask the hon. the Minister what is to become of South Africa? What is to become of Cape Town when the Eoan Group, a most cultured organization, which has put opera on the map in South Africa, plays to mixed audiences?

The hon. member for Vereeniging will feel unsafe.

Will the hon. member feel unsafe to sit there and enjoy opera as it has never been performed here before? I say that they want to kill the Coloured people in their culture. What happened when the Eoan Group refused to accept a threat from the Government that they must play to separate audiences? The Government took away their subsidy. But they went from strength to strength and the White people who were liberal in their outlook went to see them, and they carried on and to-day we are proud that the Eoan Group has become the most outstanding cultural organization in South Africa.

I now want to deal very shortly with housing. I have dealt with the question of sub-economic housing since 1958, and I do not intend to go into the history. However. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not reconsider the position in regard to sub-economic housing. I read in the Press that where the City Council of Cape Town has agreed to put in ceilings and doors into sub-economic houses and to charge a small extra rental, the Minister has given instruction that that could not take place. I would like the hon. the Minister to explain the position, but I saw that in the Press that where these facilities are provided, and a small extra rental is charged, the Minister has indicated that he cannot agree to that. If that report is correct, then I feel the Minister should reconsider his decision in that regard. If that press report should be correct, I want to make a strong appeal that he should reconsider the position, because I feel that these people would only be too happy to pay a little extra to have these facilities which are not granted to them under sub-economic housing. I want to repeat what I said years ago, that in a country as affluent as South Africa there should be no such thing as a sub-economic house. People should be able to earn sufficient to have a home of which they can be proud. If you raise the standard of living and pay them a sufficient wage for the work they do, there should be no need for sub-economic houses.

I want to say that reference has been made to slum clearance. I believe that we should all support the hon. the Minister in whatever attempts he makes to clear the city of slums. I think he would have the support of all of us if he can achieve that, but I ask that he should not make the same mistake that was made in the past, and that alternative housing should be there before any slums are cleared. Although it is not strictly germane to this particular Vote, I want to refer to the trouble that is taking place in Bonteheuwel, where last night they had a meeting of police reservists. That "trouble is due to the fact that Coloured people of all groups have been herded into Bonteheuwel without proper regard for their social status. You must understand, Sir, that the Coloured people want to live decently and the mere fact that there has been a great response by the residents of Bonteheuwel to the plea to eradicate the bad elements is evidence of the desire of the Coloured people to uplift themselves, and the Minister should try to see to it that there is an opportunity for Coloured people to have better houses than those provided at Bonteheuwel. It should not be beyond the means of this Government to build more and more houses, not completely on a sub-economic basis but on a basis where the people can perhaps own a house and pay just a little higher rent. We appreciate the efforts made by the Government in regard to housing. No one has ever denied the fact that there has been a determined effort to house the people of South Africa, but it is no use giving them houses which are not habitable from a health point of view. I have made that point before, and I say it again, that the type of house given to these people, without ceilings and inside doors, is not conducive to building up a healthy Coloured community. There has been an increase in tuberculosis and I am quite prepared to say that a considerable amount of that comes from the people who live in these houses. That is my information. I hope the Minister will tell me that I am wrong. There are many aspects of community development I would like to deal with, but unfortunately time will not permit of it. I would like the Minister to tell us something, if he can. There is a sword of Damocles hanging over the people living in District Six. Nobody knows what the future of that area will be and I should like the Minister to tell us when he expects the report of the Commission he has appointed to advise him as to the future of District Six. [Time limit.]

In view of the fact that business will have to be suspended shortly, I want to make use of the remaining time to make a short announcement in regard to District Six.

I announced in this House last year that I had appointed a Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Niemand, the Secretary for Community Development, with Professor T. H. Louw of the University of South Africa, who is also a member of the National Housing Commission, Mr. P. S. Reinecke, Chief Urban and Regional Planner of the Department of Community Development, and Dr. S. S. Morris. Chief Engineer of the City Council of Cane Town as members, to investigate the possibilities for the replanning and the redevelopment of the area generally known as District Six and the surrounding areas of Woodstock and Salt River. I may mention that this Committee has submitted to me its report and its recommendations, which were unanimously agreed to by all the members of the Committee. The Committee in its recommendations made very definite suggestions, which will be published, for the redevelopent and the replanning of the aforementioned areas. I should like to announce briefly what steps I have taken, or shall take within the near future, for the implementation of these recommendations which have been accepted by me.

The first recommendation of the Committee is that detailed planning and development of the area concerned should take place under the general supervision and guidance of a Committee consisting of properly qualified persons who are to represent the following bodies: (a) the Department of Community Development, including representatives of the Community Development Board and the National Housing Commission; (b) the urban planning section of the Provincial Administration of the Cape Province; and (c) the City Council, through the City Engineer or his nominee. Because I am convinced that such a committee not only has the essential advantage that persons of great experience and specialized knowledge will guide the urban planners, but will also eliminate the necessity for protracted negotiations between the main bodies concerned, I have decided to call this committee the Committee for the Rehabilitation of Depressed Areas in Cape Town. This committee will consist of the following persons: Professor T. H. Louw, Chairman, and Messrs. I. P. Strydom, G. P. Nel and A. B. Nichol, Dr. A. G. Kellerman, Mr. E. G. Tindale, or his nominee, and Dr. S. S. Morris or his nominee. Mr. Strydom is Chairman of the Community Development Board and Dr. Kellerman is a member of it. Mr. Nel is a Deputy Secretary of the Department of Community Development. Mr. Tin-dale is the Director of Local Government in the Cape Province, and Mr. Nichol is the Urban and Regional Planner of the Department of Community Development, and Dr. Morris is the City Engineer of Cape Town. I have decided further that the area known as District Six, where the most dilapidated conditions are to be found, should be given first priority in the development of urban renewal areas, and that residential accommodation mainly of an economic standard should be provided. The precise borders of the area affected will be published in the near future and potential speculators will be restricted. In view of the fact that more specific details had to be gathered in regard to all the areas affected by the investigation before absolute clarity could be obtained as to the use and redevelopment of those areas, I have also decided that the priority to be given in the redevelopment of these areas is to be determined by the committee for the Rehabilitation of denressed Areas which I have just mentioned. The financial implications resulting from the urban renewal scheme to which I have already referred, and also from other schemes which may later be necessary in the area, will be determined by the committee, but in view of the fact that these projects will stretch over a period of at least ten years, the financial burden can be spread conveniently so that it need not stand in the way of the essential clearing up of these areas. Redevelopment, for which the provision of alternative accommodation will to a large extent be a prerequisite, will have to be regulated judiciously by the committee. I must also refer to the opinion expressed by the Committee of Inquiry that enough attention is generally not devoted by local authorities to areas adjacent to slum areas in order to prevent the first-mentioned areas from deteriorating into slums as well. The recommendation that local authorities, in whose area of jurisdiction such areas exist, be requested timeously to take active steps in consultation with the Department of Community Development to prevent further deterioration has been accepted by me and I trust that local authorities will take this recommendation to heart and act accordingly and wherever necessary will not hesitate to ask the Provincial Councils for further legal powers to deal with this problem satisfactorily. The Department of Community Development will of course follow up this matter further. The newly-appointed committee is being instructed to commence its task practically immediately.

May I ask a question? When will the Minister be able to say whether this will be a Coloured area or a White area?

The report of this Committee of Inquiry will be published from which it will be clear that these areas will be dealt with in various phases, but this report will also go to the Minister of Planning and he can then act on it.

I want to thank the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) very heartily for the contribution he made this morning. I think the hon. member has given this Department the greatest testimonial which an Opposition speaker can give a Department, because what is the position now? We have before us Estimates which mean that this Department will get an amount of R49,000,000 from loan funds, with which it is intended to tackle housing, slum clearance and urban renewal in South Africa; which is intended to deal with the problems of our urban White workers and with their housing; which is intended to improve the conditions of communities; which is intended to improve the conditions of the Coloured population, which to a large extent inhabit these slums, and from the side of the Opposition we get this testimonial in regard to the way in which this Department proposes to deal with this R49,000.000 and the way in which it has dealt during the past year with the amounts already spent, and the way in which it is dealing with the projects it is itself busy with at the moment—and at present the Department itself is dealing with 64 different projects in the Republic, including projects such as Bosmansdam and Triomf. the establishment of townships; it is dealing with 64 projects and at the moment it is acting together with hundreds of local authorities in South Africa in respect of planning and the provision of housing for all racial groups—and what does the Opposition say? They say we have contributed nothing to that work; we have only one task and that is to issue permits. For that reason I thank the hon. member for Bezuidenhout for his testimonial. I do not know whether he meant it that way. If he did, I express even more thanks. If it was not meant that way, then I cannot help the hon. member. But I think the Opposition at least owes it to the country, when dealing with the affairs of a Department which has been voted the second highest amount in the Loan Estimates this year, after defence, to express some thanks. Therefore I should like to thank the hon. members for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) and Westdene (Mr. van der Spuy) for the positive contributions they have made here, because it shows that those two hon. members at least know what the activities of this Department are.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Before the House adjourned for lunch I was emphasizing the fact that the Department is at the moment engaged upon 64 different projects, apart from the hundreds of schemes which are being carried out by local authorities. That is why I want to thank the two hon. members heartily for their positive contributions and for the study which they have made of the comprehensive work which is at the moment being tackled by this Department.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) referred to the announcement in connection with the renewal scheme at Port Elizabeth (South). While he was discussing this matter interjections were made and there was, inter alia, a very sharp reaction from the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). I want to tell the hon. member that that announcement was not only welcomed by the Mayor of Port Elizabeth by way of a public statement but leading businessmen there all expressed their pleasure at the steps which the Government has in mind at the moment in order to overcome those evil conditions which prevail there. I can also tell the hon. member that in spite of the wild tales that are being spread, my departmental officials have met the inhabitants of South End and have explained to them the procedure which will be followed. Everyone present expressed their great satisfaction in this regard. The steps which are being taken in connection with South End can only be of the greatest importance for Port Elizabeth. The persons who will be resettled there will be properly provided for, inter alia, at Willow. As the hon. member knows, large White housing schemes have already been started at Walmer and a contract has been given to a firm which will build 800 houses at Algoa Park by means of prefabricated building methods. In other words, proper provision will be made for those people who will be resettled at South End because of these other developments which we are setting in motion there.

May I ask a question? In pursuance of what the hon. the Minister has said in connection with the resettlement of the people of Port Elizabeth (South), can the hon. the Minister give us any indication at this stage as to what he has in mind in regard to the resettlement of Coloureds there?

The services are being constructed and made available at the moment so that a large housing scheme can be started by the City Council in the direction of Bethels-dorp.

I do not want to devote much time to the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member for Houghton was rather hysterical this morning. Among other things, she cast doubt upon a statement which I am supposed to have made in regard to the amounts which are being spent in order to have alternative facilities made available for non-White groups. She referred, inter alia, to a statement which I made at Durban a short time ago in which I said that the Departments of Bantu Administration and Coloured Affairs and the local authorities were spending millions of rand in making alternative facilities available. She rejected this statement here this morning and said that this was not true. She even put a question to me a short while ago. This is not actually relevant but because she has raised this matter, I shall have to reply to it. My Department along is making an amount of R600,000 available for these facilities in the form of subsidies. I have asked for the figures from the Department of Bantu Administration. From 1960 to 1964 they spent an amount of R2,000,000 from the Bantu account on entertainment and sporting facilities on the Witwatersrand and at Pretoria.

Through the local authorities.

From the Bantu account. These two alone amount to more than R2,000,000. [Interjections.] Why then create the impression that I am misleading the public? I leave the hon. member at that. She can become as hysterical as she likes. I do not think it is worth while taking too much notice of her.

The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) was particularly critical of the sub-economic housing which is provided. What are the facts? The facts are in the first place that the two-roomed house is the cheapest form of housing that is provided under the sub-economic schemes. That money is made available to local authorities at i per cent interest over a period of 40 years. Once the amount has been redeemed, those properties become the property of the local authorities but in the meanwhile, if the economic position of a family occupying that two-roomed dwelling improves, that unit, which is usually built in the form of semi-detached houses, is converted into an economic unit, and this is continually happening. It happens here in the Peninsula that families whose economic position improves are immediately given a larger dwelling in that the whole semi-detached house is made available to them and is converted into an economic unit which therefore stands on a larger plot. In other words, the lowest form of sub-economic houses is used in order to comply with the elementary requirements of a family which cannot afford more. In the second place I want to tell the hon. member that our lowest form of sub-economic housing is comparable with that of other countries. It has been tested against international standards and in no country in the world is the standard of sub-economic housing higher than in South Africa. On the contrary, I have already said here that in a country like Pakistan . . .

Cannot you draw a better comparison?

Our houses are better, but I want the hon. member to listen to the facts. A large city to accommodate more than 200,000 people is being built in Pakistan under the guidance of a great authority like Doxiadus. We compared our sub-economic standards with those of that city and we discussed the matter with them. Does the hon. member know what they give? They give one room with a ring-wall in the front. That is their sub-economic standard and they boast of this as being a great achievement. We do not build these units in South Africa. All our sub-economic housing in South Africa is planned in such a way that it can be converted into economic housing. This is continually happening, but what the hon. member forgets is this: We do not prohibit a local authority from providing the necessary facilities which the hon. member has appealed for in those dwellings. All that we say is that the State is not going to lend money at f per cent interest over 40 years and still include all the frills and fancies to which the hon. member referred. We say that the local authority can do this because eventually the local authority will pluck the fruits of that scheme. It will eventually own it. As soon as that unit is converted into an economic unit, the occupier can receive those facilities. There is no difference between economic housing for Coloureds and economic housing for Whites; the standards are the same but then those people have to pay a higher rate of interest and a higher rate of redemption. The hon. member must not make sweeping statements here. The allegation made by the hon. member here this morning is a very irresponsible one. I did not expect it from him because he knows the conditions from which those sub-economic families are sometimes rescued. These people are sometimes living in hessian and galvanized iron shanties.

But there are many of them who are not living under those circumstances.

If a man can afford a higher standard of living, he can live in an economic house, but even our sub-economic houses are not all limited to two rooms. There are also dwellings with three or four bedrooms: it depends upon the size of the family. The hon. member knows this: he served for years on a local authority. The hon. member does his country and those people whose interests he gives us to understand he is serving a great injustice by creating the impression that they are people who have been unjustly treated. Sir, there is an international standard which is that one has to ensure that a person does not pay more than more or less one-fifth of his income in interest and redemption. We are trying to comply with that standard. As I have said, we are making this money available at the cheap rate of interest of i per cent. Does the hon. member want the State to suffer even greater losses? The hon. member must not ask for the moon when he knows that he cannot have it.

There is one further point to which I must reply and that is in regard to the question of permits, which was the main attack of the Opposition. I want to devote a little time to this matter because what are the facts? We have heard a great deal here about Proclamation No. 26. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) set the pace in this connection. What is the position? Where we have taken action in regard to permits we have acted not in terms of Proclamation No. 26 but in terms of a proclamation which we have had for eight years in this country in regard to cinemas. What we have done in connection with cinemas, which was the main complaint, has been done in terms of a proclamation which has been in existence for eight years. All that Proclamation No. 26 did was to extend the provisions of the old proclamations to places of public entertainment. Sir. what is the basis of this attack? The Government’s policy, as laid down in legislation by this Parliament, is that there has to be segregation between White and Coloured in respect of social intercourse and residential intercourse. This is the basic legislation which this Parliament has passed. The legislation provides that during the transition stage and where circumstances require, we can depart from that basic principle of segregation between White and Coloured. Will the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) who is sitting there mumbling deny that this is basic policy? This Parliament has laid down the fact that there must be segregation. I did not lay it down. That legislation was placed on the Statute Book before I became Minister. The permit system is simply intended to provide for the transition stage and for circumstances in which the facilities do not comply fully with the requirements. I admit that an attempt was made, when this further proclamation was issued, to overwhelm my Department, but this attempt was unsuccessful. The permit system has entered a quiet period because we sorted out the position very quickly and the difficulties of the first few weeks are now past. Let me start with the cinemas in regard to which we are acting in terms of a power which we have had for the past eight years. We have had this power since 1957. All these matters in connection with cinemas have been disposed of in terms of that authority. The procedure which we have followed is as follows. We have said that where no alternative cinemas are available, we will permit non-Whites to attend a cinema which is also attended by Whites, under certain conditions, namely, that separate entrances, seats and so forth have to be provided for them. In most cases in which these conditions have prevailed the position has been arranged by way of permit over the past eight years. Reference was made here this morning to the case in the Strand. There was such a case in the Strand, namely, the Rialto Cinema, where the Coloureds sat in the gallery and the Whites downstairs until a cinema was built in the Coloured township. That permit was then withdrawn and the Coloureds now attend the Coloured cinema. That cinema is in the Coloured residential area. The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) does not know what he is talking about. That cinema is in the Coloured residential area, one of the prettiest parts there.

What about Somerset West?

Was a permit withdrawn at Somerset West? No, the permit was not withdrawn. The hon. member knows that the permit was not withdrawn at Somerset West. In other words, we withdraw the permits when proper alternative facilities are made available. Our action in this matter is influenced by a few considerations and these are prescribed by the Act. In the first place, we have to see whether there will be any hardship. If it can be proved that there will be hardship, the party concerned has the right, after my Department has dealt with the matter, to appeal to the Minister. I made concessions in many cases in which I was convinced that there would be hardship if a permit was not granted. In the second place, we ask ourselves what is in the interests of the community, because in the development of communities, whether White or Coloured, it is not simply a question of providing housing; one has also to make cultural and other amenities available in the community in order to enable those people to enjoy a full community life. This includes schools, churches, sports fields and so forth. This is the only way in which one can develop those communities properly. Every possible assistance is given to guide these communities in that direction.

I want to deal now with the cases which were mentioned specifically here this morning. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Water-son) put the question of the Orpheum to me in a very courteous and reasonable manner, for which I want to thank him. Let me say immediately that I did not act irresponsibly in regard to this matter nor did I act in terms of the latest proclamation. I acted under an authority which I have in terms of a proclamation which has been in existence for the past eight years. We made a public investigation there. A report was submitted in this regard and all interested parties had the opportunity to give evidence. After this I allowed a deputation from the cinema authorities concerned to discuss the matter with me. I told them that if they could submit new facts to me I would reconsider the position but that on the facts before me I could see no reason why these two cinemas should continue to operate on this basis in the White area. I did not close them down; all that I said was that I would issue no further permits to enable Coloureds to attend that cinema in the White area. I have been asked by hon. members whether the Coloureds have facilities elsewhere. I have here before me a list of cinemas in the proclaimed Coloured areas of Cape Town and I find that in the proclaimed Coloured areas of Cape Town there are no fewer than 23 cinemas having a total seating capacity of 18,500. These are the cinemas: The Avalon, British. National, the Star, the Alabama, the Gem, the Palace, the Astra, the Orient, the Blue Moon, the Athlone, Broadway, Empire, Kismet, Regent, Royal, Dixie, Rio, Bijou, Sunset, Carlton and the Luxurama. The Luxurama, about which so much fuss has been made, is one of the finest cinemas in South Africa. That theatre has been made available exclusively to the Coloureds. Why is this slanted, negative picture always painted of South Africa while these people have more than 23 cinemas at their disposal with seating for 18,500 people?

What about Claremont? Are there any Coloured cinemas in Claremont?

There are cinemas available within an area of 2 miles to those people who would otherwise go to the Orpheum and the Gaiety. Let me tell the hon. member further that the authorities concerned have informed us that cinema-goers to the Gaiety and the Orpheum are not chiefly local people but people who come from places as far away as Hout Bay. If they come from places as far away as Hout Bay they may just as well go to one of these 23 decent cinemas which are available to them.

They may not like the films which are shown there.

Sir, what does this mean? While we reserve the right for the White man to develop and live in his community as his own community as far as his culture, economy, education and religion are concerned, we do not begrudge the same facilities to the Coloureds but then we must also permit the Coloureds to have their own cinemas and their own businesses in their own municipal areas. How is one to allow them to build up their own cinemas if one allows powerful organizations in the White areas to entice their clients away from them? Sir, that is exploitation.

Just as they exploited the Coloured vote.

The question is whether this fuss is not due more to interests rather than to policy.

Whose interests?

The interests of large companies. I do knot know why African Consolidated Theatres should have the right to accommodate Coloureds while the Coloureds in their own townships are struggling to keep their own businesses going. That is my reply. Sir, are these matters put to these people in this way? No. A fuss was made here in regard to permit cases and the question of the availability of halls. Immediately after this fuss was made I had a survey taken of the halls available in the proclaimed Coloured areas. We discovered that there were no fewer than 18 halls available. We found that the Parow Town Council had built a large community centre for its Coloured community and that it was not being used, that it had not been booked for four weeks. We said that we would grant permits on certain conditions but that we had to be convinced that other halls which were available to these people under ordinary circumstances were not available. What is wrong with that?

Mr. Chairman, I have not yet finished with this matter.

What about the Eoan Group in the City Hall?

What has happened over the past few weeks? I have kept quiet about this because I knew that somebody in this House would put his foot in it. One can always rely on the Opposition to fall into the trap. Before I deal with this matter I should just like to say this to the hon. member for Constantia. The hon. member put his case very reasonably and I just want to tell him that if he can submit new facts to me to prove that the facts which I have before me at present, that is to say, the facts which came to my attention through the public inquiry and the facts which the deputation submitted to me, are not correct or complete, I shall be prepared to reconsider the question of the Orpheum, but I cannot reconsider the matter with the facts at my disposal.

The hon. member for Houghton almost went too far in regard to the question of the Messiah in Johannesburg. There were long reports over the week-end in regard to the terrible thing I was supposed to have done as far as this Bantu choir was concerned. Neither my Department nor I dealt with this matter, but I have been attacked in this regard. The facts given in this connection are completely wrong. This brings me to the point I want to make, namely, that the country was told a number of falsehoods in connection with this question of permits. I want now to mention a few flagrant examples of this type of falsehood told to the country.

And overseas.

In the special issue of the Cape Argus of 19 March it was stated that non-Whites would not be allowed to attend the soccer match between Germiston Callies and Adddington. In the City Late issue it was stated that this decision had been reversed. The first newspaper contained a report that I did not want to allow Coloureds to attend the match and in the second newspaper of the same day it was contended that I had changed my mind. Neither my Department nor I ever dealt with the case covered by that first report. We only dealt with one case in which we allowed Coloureds to attend under certain conditions. But, Sir, here is another example of the tactics which are used. A report appeared in the Cape Times of 4 May 1965 to the effect that the Department had refused the Mayors of Cape Town and Simonstown permission to attend a function of a Coloured body, the Cape of Good Hope Walking Club, in the Woodstock Town Hall. That is not true. Application was made for a permit for a function at which the Mayor of Simonstown was to be present, and the permit was granted. We knew nothing about the Mayor of Cape Town but it is said that I refused to allow them to attend the function!

Why did you not deny it?

Because I cannot deny all the lies about the Government which appear in the newspapers every day. I can deny some of them but I simply cannot keep up with all the lies which are spread about this Government. I am doing positive development work in South Africa through my Department, and if people want to lie, let them do so.

Let me mention another example. In a report which appeared in the Cape Argus of 12 May 1965 it was stated that there was a great deal of uncertainty on the part of some of the Cape Town rugby clubs because the Department of Community Development was slow in issuing permits to allow Coloureds to attend rugby matches, and the names of two clubs where this uncertainty apparently existed, were mentioned, namely, Hamiltons and False Bay; they were dragged into the disorder which apparently prevailed. The fact is that when that report appeared there was no such thing as an application for a permit from the two bodies concerned, and yet that tale was told! Sir, I can go on in this way to give examples of how these reports are fabricated in an attempt to distract attention from what is actually happening in South Africa and from what our actual policy is, namely, that the White community is entitled to its own amenities and facilities, and we want to make those facilities available to it. Just as the White community is entitled to these things, so we are going out of our way to try to ensure that the Coloureds come into their own in their own areas. These tales are spread with only one purpose and that is to cause confusion and trouble.

And to vilify South Africa.

I want now to mention a few examples of what I have forbidden and I should like to test the attitude of hon. members of the Opposition in this connection. The Rag Committee of the University of Cape Town applied for a permit to enable non-Whites to attend certain fund-raising functions and a dance organized by the University. I decided not to allow that mixed dance. I challenge the Opposition to tell me whether I should have granted a permit, yes or no.

Reply, Japie.

That is a matter for Russia, not for our country.

I challenge them. They do not have the courage to say that they would have, wanted me to issue that permit.

For what reason do you issue that challenge? To play at race politics!

I want to see whether there is any substance in the attack of the Opposition. Sir, the Opposition are in trouble. They started this attack and now that they are asked to answer a simple question, whether the permit should have been granted or not, they do not have the courage to reply. Sir, this Government is committed to combating social integration and to bring about residential segregation between White and Coloured in South Africa. That is the policy of this Government. The Government was put into power on this policy and it intends carrying out this policy. The Government is carrying it out in this sense that in every town and city to-day one is beginning to see the fruits of this policy which is being implemented successfully.

What about the crime at Bonteheuwel?

Sir, I thought the hon. member would put his foot in it! Bonteheuwel was established by the Cape Town City Council under the guidance of my Department, but the country has never been told this. Bonteheuwel has always been held up to the country as a monument to the Cape Town City Council, to such an extent that at the request of the Cape Town City Council, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a tour of that area and waxed lyrically about the wonderful things being done there. Now that crime has broken out, it is no longer a monument to the Cape Town City Council; no, now it is our fault! Sir, if the policy of the United Party had been carried out, these crimes would not have been committed at Bonteheuwel; they would have been committed in the northern suburbs of Cape Town where the Whites are also living because the United Party does not want compulsory separate residential areas. What a miserable Opposition! Sir, the crux of the matter in a township like Bonteheuwel is this: One cannot allow the leaders of the community to give way to the weaker elements in that community. It is an accepted principle throughout the world to-day that the cultural, economic and other leaders of a community must accept responsibility for the weaker elements, and it will only be when the Coloureds have reached the stage where the Coloured leaders accept responsibility for those weaker elements in the community and do not give way to them that they will be able to do something for their own community. If it is a question of the maintenance of law and order then this is not a matter which must be taken up with my Department; it is a matter which must be taken up with the Department concerned. As far as I know one does not have this problem of crime at Bonteheuwel alone; this is a problem which is met with throughout the world. As far as I know, the Department of my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Justice, is dealing with the problems of Bonteheuwel as far as crime is concerned. Therefore that interjection was a stupid one.

What about the cases of stock theft at De Grendel?

There is one further question to which I must reply. We have been asked on what basis we Act and what the norm is we follow in making provision for separate facilities. In the first place we say that where there are separate facilities of the same kind in the case of functions which can obviously be repeated, such as cinema shows and so forth, separate facilities must be provided, such as separate cinemas, separate halls and so forth.

In the second place we say that where a stage or film show is not of a repetitive nature, in other words, where, if one brought about absolute separation, one would be depriving some of those people of the privilege of attending such a show, we allow the Coloureds to attend under permit. The only condition we make is that separate seating and entrance facilities must be provided. I want to tell hon. members that a very fine thing has happened since this arrangement was introduced and that is that separate facilities have since been provided at numbers of places where the separate facilities available were of a very unsatisfactory nature, in other words, where the non-Whites were placed in an inferior position if they wanted to attend those functions, and it is actually to the advantage of the Coloureds that this decision was taken. I can mention numbers of examples of cases in which we have said: “We realize that in this case we must allow Coloureds to attend but only under certain conditions.” The improvements which have been brought about in the facilities for Coloureds as a result of this have obviously been to the advantage of the Coloureds. In the third place, when we consider whether a permit must be granted oi not, we consider whether or not hardship will be caused if the permit is not granted. In the fourth place, we consider how the community will -be affected and what is to its advantage. These things are not done arbitrarily or out of hatred. We believe that by means of this system we can create conditions in South Africa under which both Whites and Coloureds can live their own lives.

An attack was made here to-day upon the Department’s application of the policy of the resettlement of people from White residential areas. It was said that we are arbitrarily uprooting people from areas where they have lived for hundreds of years and placing them in new areas. Can hon. members give me an example of a peaceful area which is a mixed residential area? Give me one example in the world. Take England and America; mention one urban area to me where there is peace and quiet in a mixed residential area.

I want to conclude by saying that we do resettle people. That is true. But every person who is resettled is adequately compensated for his property after a proper and independent valuation has been made of that property. People who have no property and who are resettled in this way usually find themselves living under far better conditions than those which they experienced under slum conditions and admixing in the residential sphere. I think that I have now replied to all the questions put to me.

Will the hon. the Minister please reply to the question of whether permits have to be obtained for the holding of private multi-racial functions in halls? I am thinking, for example, of wedding receptions.

Our interpretation of this matter is that they must be public places of entertainment. We do not interfere in private matters. The merits of the case are first considered before a permit is granted. I suggest that the hon. member advise her friends to make certain before they hold such a function. They must first make sure from the regional office before they hold such a function.

With reference to what the hon. the Minister has said about South End at Port Elizabeth there is one aspect which worries me somewhat. In reply to my question where alternative housing for the Coloureds in that area would be found the Minister mentioned Bethelsdorp. We realize that a great deal has already been done as far as sub-economic housing is concerned. In 1950, for example, there was a shortage of 20,000 units in the municipal area of Cape Town. It was necessary to take drastic action; buildings had to be completed hurriedly and it was inevitable that there would be shortcomings, such as no inside doors and so forth, shortcomings which could subsequently be rectified. As far as the sub-economic class is concerned the position is simply that people have to have a roof over their heads.

As I know Port Elizabeth South it is obvious that a large number of those people should be better housed and that those who already live in slum conditions should be rehabilitated. Over and above those there are many others who are without a roof over their heads. It is obvious that when you have to accommodate the sub-economic class they cannot pick and choose. But in Port Elizabeth South, as in other areas, you also have another class of person, namely the type who finds it economically possible to buy his own plot and have his own house built. When you think of it. Sir, that Port Elizabeth South is right on the doorstep of the city of Port Elizabeth, you realize that it will be a hardship to those people to be moved seven or eight miles out of the city. I bring this to the notice of the hon. the Minister because there is still an unproclaimed area, namely, a portion of Walmer, called Fairview. I am sure the hon. the Minister would be relieving a great deal of the anxiety of those people who can afford to buy plots and build their own houses, people who are already property owners in South End, if they realized that there was a possibility of their being moved to Fairview, which is in any case mostly owned and occupied by Coloureds at the moment, instead of to Bethelsdorp. I know the facts; I personally appeared before the committee of inquiry when it investigated the position at Fairview. It is very clear to me that economically it will be much better to declare Fairview a Coloured area than to dispossess all the Coloureds in Fairview and move them to Bethelsdorp.

I do not want to go any further into the question of mixed audiences. But as someone who has grown up in Cape Town and who has lived here since the age of nine I want to bring another aspect to the notice of the hon. the Minister. I want to make a serious appeal to him to use his discretion in this respect. I am referring to the symphony concerts in the Cape Town City Hall. I think that is one of the aspects of mixed audiences which should never have been dragged into this whole matter.

That falls under the Minister of Planning.

In that case I shall bring it to the notice of the hon. Minister of Planning. It is difficult sometimes to differentiate between what falls under planning and what not because this matter has indeed been raised and discussed. The matter of mixed audiences in cinemas, for example, has been discussed.

That is in a proclaimed area.

Then I want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister something which I find from place to place in my constituency, mainly in the smaller towns, namely, that a Coloured area has indeed been proclaimed but where it is not possible, at this stage, for a Coloured company or a private individual to build a cinema, for example. Will it be the policy of the Department, in a town like Riversdale or Mossel Bay, for instance, where those amenities do not yet exist, to continue to allow the non-Whites to attend the cinemas. It is customary to reserve the gallery for the non-Whites. The cinemas in Cape Town have been closed in the light of the fact that there are cinemas in the proclaimed Coloured areas which meet that need.

We shall follow the old policy.

In that case I am satisfied with the hon. Minister’s reply and I shall, therefore, leave the matter at that at this stage.

We are aware of the fact that there is a serious housing shortage in the country. It was only last week that I read in the newspapers that the building societies had no more funds to assist private people to build houses. We are grateful to the Government for having made R60,000,000 for housing available this year but there is one matter I want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister, namely, that in view of the fact that the cost of living has gone up the lower income group is finding it much more difficult to find houses. Sub-economic houses are only available to persons earning a basic salary of less than R80 per month. Under the economic housing scheme houses are only available to people earning a basic salary of R180 per month. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to increase these amounts to R120 in the case of sub-economic housing and to R240 in the case of economic housing. That will enable more people to find houses.

The position is revised from time to time.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote K.—“Community Development” R49,000,000 put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote 41.—“Public Works”— R27,436,000,

It has been brought to my notice by some Coloured employees of the Government that it has been traditional for Coloured people to look after the gardens of the Houses of Parliament and also after the gardens attached to the President’s residence. They tell me that there has been a change and that they have been replaced by European labour. I would like to know from the hon. Minister whether that is so and why they have made this change.

I am informed that there has not been any change of policy. It may be due to the availability of labour; it may be that gangs of workers have been changed around but there has not been a change of policy. The procedure followed is not different from that followed in the past.

I just want to ask the hon. the Minister one question. What explanation can he offer for the delay in constructing the Supreme Court building at Kimberley. I see that an amount of only R50 is on the Estimates for 1965-6 for this purpose. The Minister will know, of course, that representations have been made. This is long overdue, and I am quite sure that the public of Kimberley would be very interested to know why, there is this delay in respect of this particular building.

That building is still in the planning stage.

For how long?

The hon. member cannot expect me to reply to that. Work of this type is usually commissioned, as the hon. member knows. We depend on the work done by the architects and the planners. It is still in the planning stage; we are not ready to ask for tenders yet.

Does it affect the Minister of Planning?

No. This is a very large undertaking.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister why there is such a delay in regard to the post office at Florida. [Interjections.] It is all very well for the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) to interject. He does not worry about post offices; he is only concerned with ministries. In the course of my humble career I am only concerned with the post office at Florida.

Order! Will the hon. member please refer me to the item under the Loan Vote?

Yes, Sir. It is on page 38; the second item—R74,000—Loan Vote B.

The hon. member may proceed.

The premises on which the building is to be erected have been vacated and the money has been placed on the Estimates but all that has been allocated for spending this year is R50. I was under the impression that tenders had already been called for, in other words, that the specifications had been completed and that all that remained was to call for tenders. I think the Department is aware of the terrible congested conditions which obtain at the Florida post office at the moment. That fast-growing area is confined to very small premises. The premises from which the post office functions is about a mile and a half away from the centre of the city. The Department of Justice specifically vacated premises so as to enable the postal authorities to commence building operations.

The fact that only R50 appears in the Estimates does not mean that that is all that will be spent. What happens is this: Parliament is asked to agree in principle that building operations can be commenced in terms of the estimated cost of R74,000 as it appears here. But we are not going to spend only R50. It means that the planning has advanced to such a stage that it is anticipated to start spending money this year in connection with the matter.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote B.—“Public Works”, R25,000,000, put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote No. 42.—“Coloured Affairs”—R41,285,000,

May I ask for the privilege of the half hour? I have no wish to raise again the question of the political future of the Coloured people. Hon. members will remember that this issue has been raised by me session after session with no avail up to the present. The Government is apparently determined in its attitude to prohibit the Coloured people from achieving full citizenship rights in their own country. It would appear to me, therefore, that no good purpose can be served by my utilizing the limited time at my disposal to discussing that aspect any further to-day. Time will show, I am sure, that my views with regard to future political rights of the Coloured people are correct and that the Government is wrong in its inflexible attitude of denying the Coloured people full political rights as citizens of South Africa. The Minister and I must agree to differ on this aspect. For the purposes of the present debate I do not intend to take that aspect any further.

I feel that much more could be achieved by adddressing some constructive remarks and making some constructive suggestions with regard to the upliftment of the Coloured people in order to win back the goodwill which we have unfortunately lost in many cases. I propose, therefore, to leave aside the political rights of the Coloured people for the time being and to deal with bread and butter issues which affect their daily lives. My approach to this matter is based on the following premises, and I think it is just as well that I recapitulate them here this afternoon: In the first instance, the Coloured people, generally speaking, must he regarded as a member and a literate community; secondly, they must be regarded as speaking a European language and, thirdly, they must be regarded as having been reared in the religion, in the traditions and in the ethics of the White people of this country. If you approach these bread and butter issues on those premises I feel certain that you can come to only one conclusion and that is that the time has come when there must be a modification in our outlook towards the Coloured people.

The Coloureds have made a substantial contribution to the economic and industrial development of South Africa, particularly that of the Western Cape. I wish to deal in particular with the position which applies in the Western Cape. I wonder if this House realizes how absolutely dependent South Africa is on the labour force of the Coloured people. In the Western Cape economic region we could not possibly continue to flourish without the work of our Coloured citizens. There are nearly 2,000 firms in the Western Cape engaged in secondary industry. They employ nearly 250,000 persons of whom the vast majority are members of the Coloured group. They produce some R250,000,000 worth of goods; they include industries which are engaged in the production of clothing and textiles, wine and liquor, fruit, footwear and paper products, and in food processing, packing, printing, engineering, ship-building and ship-repairing, fishing, canning, motor assembling and so on. None of these important industries could possibly survive without Coloured labour. The Cape in particular, and South Africa generally, owes its buoyant economy to the increasingly productive employment of Coloured people. In recent years there has been a very substantial change in Coloured employment from primary activities to secondary and even higher activities. This upward trend has obviously become associated with an improvement in earnings and in the economic stature of the Coloured people. I want to pay tribute to industry generally for having assisted in bringing about this improvement in the status of the Coloured people. In fairness to the Government I want to say this that the Government has, m many instances, helped to bring about that improvement in the economic status of the Coloured people.

The stage has now been reached where all of these industries have become more and more dependent on the Coloured population. I repeat that the Coloured people generally have played and are playing an important part in the present economic development of South Africa. They have shown a tremendous degree of responsibility and loyalty to South Africa, despite the fact, may I say, that they are aware of the fact that they are carrying out first-class jobs as second-class citizens in their own country. For these reasons, therefore, Sir, I suggest that we cannot allow some of the frustrations and irritations and the resentments of recent months to continue. In view of the important part the Coloured people are playing in the economic development of South Africa I would urge the Government to do everything possible to rearrange our race relations in this country so as to remove as far as it is humanly possible, the unfortunate irritations, so as to bring about a more peaceful and more co-operative co-existence between the Coloured people and ourselves.

I have no wish this afternoon to become involved in giving details of what has caused all the frustration and irritations in recent months. I think that the Government would go a long way in removing these irritations and frustrations if the hon. the Minister were to take a strong line with all Government Departments so as to ensure that wherever possible there will be an elimination of what has been generally described, here and overseas, as petty apartheid. It is the infliction of petty apartheid measures which causes . . .

What is petty apartheid?

Do not let us go into all the details again. The hon. member knows as well as I do what it is. This morning’s debate was an indication of what petty apartheid was.

It is the infliction of petty apartheid measures which causes such frustration and resentment. As I have said, I don’t propose wasting my limited time on giving details because they are well known. These measures not only arouse the antipathy of our Coloured people but adversely affect South Africa’s image overseas. I was struck by an article which appeared in this morning’s Cape Times. This article emanates from London, and it is clear from it that the British people are at long last taking a much more reasonable attitude towards South Africa’s racial problems. A student at the London School of Economics says this in that article—

I have quoted that to show what incalculable harm petty apartheid does to this country. [Interjections.] I will ignore all this nonsense that emanates from these stupid interjections. I am dealing with a serious matter and I do hope the Committee will also deal with it in a serious spirit. I would therefore appeal to the hon. Minister to do everything possible to get every Government Department to adopt a more tolerant attitude towards the Coloured people and to organize our race relations with the Coloured people in a way that will bring about peaceful, co-operative co-existence between the Coloured and the White people.

There is another matter that I want to deal with and that relates to the manpower scarcity in Government Departments. From a statement made recently in this House by the hon. the Minister of the Interior it would appear that there were 8,487 vacant positions in the Public Service and that public servants are now working an average of 258,057 hours overtime each week. Mr. Chairman, these figures speak for themselves. They illustrate the alarming extent of the manpower scarcity in the Government Departments. My request to the hon. the Minister is that he should explore every Government Department in order to see whether some of those vacant posts could not be filled by Coloured staff. I know that the Coloured Affairs Department, and I say it in fairness to them, is already doing a great deal to ameliorate unemployment among the Coloured people, but I feel that where we are faced with such a large number of vacant positions in the Public Service, there surely must be many positions which could be adequately filled by Coloureds. From figures given in this House, it appears that a quarter of the vacancies in the Government service exists in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. It occurs to me that Coloured personnel could quite easily be used to fill some of these vacancies, and I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to give this aspect his most careful and earnest consideration during the recess. I am certain that upon a careful examination into all these vacancies which occur in Government Departments, the hon. the Minister would be able to fill many of them by highly qualified Coloured personnel who are available to join our Government services and to carry on the work which is now being done by means of this enormous overtime service given by civil servants.

I would like to say a word about Coloured education. I am very glad indeed to see on the Estimates the increase in the amount that is to be spent on primary and secondary education, in respect of high schools and trade schools and for the training of teachers, an increase from an estimated amount of R2,547,000 last year to R3,543,000 for the year 1965-6, an increase of R996,000. I am sure that I am voicing the sentiments of Coloured educationists when I say that we are glad that this increase is taking place and of the advance that is being made in the field of Coloured education. I was glad to hear from the hon. the Minister in this House that it has been decided in principle to establish a medical school for Coloured people and that buildings for the departments of physiology and anatomy were at present being planned. I was also glad to hear from the hon. the Minister that it is his intention to establish a training college for Coloured teachers in Bellville during the financial year 1966-7. I am sure that these pronouncements will be well received generally by the Coloured people. I know that there has been certain criticism about Coloured education, but in fairness again, I feel that I would like to convey to this House the views that have been expressed to my two colleagues and myself by Coloured educationists in regard to the advancements made in Coloured education under the control of the Department of Coloured Affairs. I feel that it is only right -that the House should hear some of the favourable views which have -been expressed as against the adverse criticism which receives a great deal of publicity from time to time.

These Coloured educationists whom we have taken the trouble to discuss the matter with, have asked me to convey this to the hon. the Minister and to this House. In the first place they wish to place on record their appreciation for the easy access which they now have to the officials dealing with Coloured Education. Mr. Chairman, this facility was not available to them previously, and they have asked me to say on their behalf how appreciative they are of the fact that they can now meet these officials who deal with Coloured Education and of the most sympathetic treatment they get from -these officials. I would like to pay tribute in this House to those officials. Those facilities were not available to the Coloured people in the past. They also appreciate the better type of school building which is now being made available to Coloured children. In many instances, from my own experience, these new buildings are an improvement on some of the European school buildings in this province, and the Coloured people are appreciative of the new -type of school that is -being made available to them.

Then they appreciate the decision to appoint more Coloured principals and to improve the salary structure of those principals. This applies generally, Sir, to the whole category of Coloured principals throughout the Cape. But they particularly have asked me to mention, Sir, the approval with which the appointment of a Coloured principal to the Hewit Training College at Athlone has been received amongst the Coloured community. They are glad that the Department has appointed this Coloured principal and this appointment has given a great deal of satisfaction. I may say that there is some disappointment at -the appointment of the vice-principal to the same college. It was felt and is still -being felt that there are many better qualified and more experienced teachers to fill that -position, and the hope has been expressed that in due course the hon. the Minister and his Department may reconsider this matter.

The recent salary increases for Coloured teachers has also given much satisfaction, except in some quaters. Quite obviously you will never be able to satisfy everyone. But generally speaking, the recent salary increases in respect of Coloured teachers has given satisfaction. The increase in increments has been well received. It is noteworthy that the maximum can now be reached in 17 years as against a 30 year period under the old scheme. I think there should be periodical reviews of the salary scales of Coloured teachers, and in that connection I understand that the hon. the Minister has given an assurance that he will from time to time review those scales. I hope that the hon. the Minister will bear it in mind, because in that way you will keep the Coloured teachers satisfied in regard to their economic position. I feel certain that, all the hon. Minister can do to narrow -the gap between European teachers and Coloured teachers will result in much satisfaction and will be to the benefit of Coloured education. I know the hon. the Minister has given an assurance to delegations he has seen that he proposes to review the salary structure from time to time, and I do hope that the hon. the Minister will give the greatest possible favourable consideration to this matter.

There has been improvements in the salary structure of Coloured principals which are appreciated, but there is one aspect which is causing some dissatisfaction, and which I promised I would raise with the hon. the Minister under his Vote to-day, and that is the case of the older principals of Grade A schools who have not the required academic qualifications to benefit from -the new salary structure. Under the new scheme, Mr. Chairman, a principal must have two years post-matric training at a training college, plus three academic degrees. Otherwise such a teacher does not qualify -for the new salary structure. The old principals have not got those qualifications. In other words, these old Coloured men rendered excellent service, but have not got these qualifications to enable them to qualify under the new scheme, and they are now too old to try and acquire those qualifications. They have asked me to remind the hon. the Minister of the fact that in many instances they have given nearly two generations of faithful teaching and community service to the Coloured people, services which have been appreciated not only by the Coloured people, but also by the White community of this country. My request to the hon. the Minister is that -these old principals who have rendered excellent service should not be penalized. By all means let the new qualifications apply to new principals who now come under this new scheme, but I do urge upon the hon. the Minister to make this one exception in the case of these old principals. I do hope that the hon. Minister will see the justice of that plea and will give favourable consideration to this reasonable request.

Mr. Chairman, the Coloured people have also asked me to express their appreciation of the fact that the Coloured Affairs Department has relaxed the hard and fast rules for the elimination of married female teachers. The Minister, I understand, has now agreed to allow married female teachers to continue for a period of three years and then to review the position from time to time. This has also been well received by the Coloured people, and I just want to mention this aspect.

The Coloured people seem very satisfied with the Government.

With some members of the Government, perhaps.

In a more personal vein, I want to say how satisfied my two colleagues and I are with the Department’s vocational high school project for Coloureds. This structure stands in Athlone, and to use the words of a couple of Coloured leaders, it is a monument of proud achievement. It will be remembered that my two colleagues and I supported the Government in the Bill introduced on that occasion to enable the coming into being of the vocational high school, and we are highly delighted with the progress made and the work that is being done there. From the report which we have received, the new Coloured technical college under construction at Bellville will also be of a very high standard, and there too, I would like to urge the hon. the Minister as far as possible to maintain this high standard.

Finally, for the first time in South Africa there have been appointed two Coloured inspectors of schools. This has received the approbation of Coloured educationists and the hope has been expressed that the appointment of these two inspectors will be the forerunner of many more similar appointments. The hon. the Minister will know that he has got a lot of very highly qualified Coloured educationists, who are well able and well equipped to fill the position of school inspector.

Having said all that, and I felt in fairness, that I should say it, having been asked by Coloured leaders to express these views, I am coming back to what I said originally. I want to say in conclusion that I have no intention whatsoever of dealing now with the political aspects which have been raised so often by me. But there are these minor apartheid measures which have given rise to so much adverse criticism and irritation, and they must at all cost be eliminated. The hon. Minister will appreciate from the trend of my speech this afternoon how the Coloured people appreciate it when things are done in a spirit of goodwill and kindness to them, and surely, it is our bounden duty to see that that spirit prevails. Occurrences recently can only lead to the elimination of whatever goodwill exists between the Coloured people and ourselves, and I do urge the hon. the Minister as far as he possibly can to try and see that these irritations are eliminated.

I do not want to follow the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) in respect of the matters raised by him. I differ with him as far as petty apartheid is concerned. I say that there is no such thing. Either there is apartheid or there is not.

I should like to raise the very matter which he avoided, and that is the political rights of the Coloureds. Sir, we have lately had some confusion in the ranks of the United Party and I think it is in the interests of the country that the matter be cleared up. I may just say that our policy in regard to the Coloureds is clear and unambiguous. It is not a new one, it was drafted as long ago as 1945 by the Sauer Commission. There have inevitably been adaptations in the course of the years, and only recently we again had two commissions, one in 1960, which was appointed by the Cape Leader of the National Party to make adjustments, and another in 1961, which was a Cabinet Committee, and which also adapted our policy of 1945 to the circumstances. The principle was enunciated in 1945 and it remains valid, but let me say now that the last two committees reached the same findings independently of one another, and made the same adjustments. But now some confusion has arisen. An opposition, Sir, forms part of our system of government. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) must know that there has never been any confusion on our side in the past 17 years, and that there is no confusion now either, and I can give him the assurance that we on this side know exactly where we are going and what we are aiming at, but now I want to issue a challenge to the hon. member. The hon. member indulged in gossiping. He said that he knew of persons on our side who did not agree, and who also wanted to grant the Coloureds direct representation. I challenge him to mention names. He is unable to do that. That forms part of his political huckstering, and that is also the reason why he is sitting on that side. He is unable to mention any names. I say that it was a lie that the hon. member told outside. There are no such persons on this side of the House.

(Mr. Vosloo): The hon. member must withdraw the word “lie”.

I withdraw it, Sir; it was a public untruth. Allow me to point out now that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a statement which is creating confusion. He stated that he now stood for direct representation for the Coloureds, and now I am saying that the Opposition and the hon. Leader of the Opposition must answer to the country. I am sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not here. The Leader of the Opposition is paid more than any other member in this House, and therefore he has a responsibility towards the country, and it is for that very reason that he is paid more than other members. He is the one who has to clear up this matter for us after the confusion which has been created by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. It has always been the United Party’s policy to restore the Coloured people to the Common Voters’ Roll, and the country is under that impression. Now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has come along and said: No, he stands for direct representation. The United Party are bound by a solemn promise that if they ever get into power, they will restore the Coloureds to the Common Voters’ Roll. As a matter of fact, they kicked a leader out of the United Party—Mr. Strauss —because he did not want to make that promise, and a man like Dr. Friedman left the United Party because that promise had not been made, and when the present Leader of the United Party became leader, he did make that promise; in fact, he made a solemn promise.

No, that is a public untruth.

In the no-confidence debate this year he repeated it and said that when he spoke of “White leadership” he regarded the Coloureds as forming part of the White group. But what did they do after that, in this brief period? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout comes along and says he is in favour of direct representation of the Coloured people. One would say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should have reprimanded the member for Bezuidenhout. But how does he reprimand him? He appoints him chairman of the Coloured Affairs Group of the United Party, he gives him promotion, he gives him more responsibility. The Leader of the Opposition could have made a statement then, but he did not do that either. He summoned together his head committee, and as far as I know the head committee of a party, together with the leader, has all the say if the congress of the party is not in session. In any case, he summoned together his head committee, he did not repudiate the member for Bezuidenhout, he did not say that they stood by the Common Roll—no, he said they had to wait until a congress had been held about this matter. Now my question is just this: Suppose the National Congress of the United Party only meets late in the year, almost at the end of the year, as usual. Suppose we have an election, on what policy is the United Party going to fight the election as far as this matter is concerned?

The policy which stands at the moment.

Which one? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s policy of direct representation, or the policy of restoring the Coloured people to the general voters’ roll? Which one is standing at the moment?

There is only one policy standing now.

Would you like to know?

Very much, but I am sure that hon. member does not know at all. I want to tell him that these are burning questions. The hon. members get up on the other side and want to criticize this side, but say that the Opposition forms part of our system of government and we must know what its policy is. Nor do I think it is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who has to make a statement to us. I think it is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself who has to get up here and make a statement to us. We are being accused of putting a ceiling to the development of the Coloured people in the political field. I just want to say now that we on this side are tired of that story, because there is no truth in it. The Coloured Representatives sit in this House, and no restrictions are placed upon them. They are full-fledged members here, and if a member of the Coloured group happens to be a member of the governing party, there is nothing to prevent him from becoming a member of the Cabinet. As a Coloured Representative the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) was the leader of the United Party in the Provincial Council. If he had remained there and the United Party had got into power, he would have been the chief member of the Executive Committee, and if his party should get into power, there would be nothing to prevent him from being appointed to the Cabinet. If he is capable enough, although I do not think he is there is also no reason why his party cannot elect him as supreme leader of the party and why he cannot become Prime Minister of our country. Where does this story of the ceiling come from? This side of the House is granting more opportunities to the Coloureds than ever before in history, and if the hon. member wants proof of the statement I am making here he should, if he did not listen to the speech made by the hon. member for Peninsula, just take the trouble to go and read up that speech in Hansard, (Time limit.]

May I have the privilege of the half-hour? The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) asked a number of questions which are not difficult to answer, and I want to give him the assurance that all his questions will be replied to during the course of the day.

The political position and the future of the Coloured section of our population have recently evoked more discussion and greater interest and have become more real than they have been for a long time. There are various reasons for it. One is the remarkable capacity this Government has for creating disquiet where there was peace. The complaint is made against this side of the House that it always ignores the positive things done by the Government. But, Sir. the Government itself always spoils the positive things it does by the exaggerated attention it gives to insignificant and unnecessary things, which then upsets the country. It creates its own difficulties and some of the difficulties in which the country finds itself. It is no use the Government’s Chief Whip repeatedly calling out: You are harming South Africa with your criticism. In the first place, we do not regard him and his party as being South Africa. We have our duty. But it is the actions of that side of the House, with all petty apartheid which was referred to by the hon. member for Peninsula—and I fully agree with what he said in that connection— which does so much harm for our country. The hon. member should see what his own Press says about it. I have here, e.g., a cutting from the main organ of the Nationalist Party, the Burger, and this is its complaint (the Burger 19 December 1964)—

The manner in which this Government handles matters results in a trail of destruction for South Africa overseas, and to me it is a continual source of surprise that people who profess to be patriots do not care a rap what harm they do the country through their handling of affairs. The second reason why the position of the Coloureds has come to the fore is the reformulation of policy we recently had from the hon. the Prime Minister and the low ceiling he has set on the constitutional development of the Coloureds . . .

That is not true.

. . . after he and the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs and members of the Government had created all kinds of great expectations in the minds of these people in regard to future developments. There are, of course, other contributory factors also, but I think one can summarize everything by saying that the one great reason why there is now so much fresh interest displayed in the political position of the Coloureds is because it has become a test for the whole racial policy of the Government. The honesty and sincerity of the Government’s policy, its practicability and consequently its acceptability, will be tested by the set-up it evolves for the Coloured population. Because any reasonable person can see that if the Government in respect of the smaller groups, for the easier problem, has no proper solution, and cannot see the end of the road for them, and cannot even provide something for the Coloured minority group which is clearly justifiable and morally defensible, it is self-deception to believe that it will succeed in finding a solution in respect of the more important problems of race relations. I repeat that the validity of the Government’s whole racial policy, as expressed in nice words, will depend on how it first puts it into practice in respect of the smaller problem, namely that of the Coloureds. Now it is no use the hon. member for Malmesbury and others saying what the policy of the Government was in any particular year or the year before, because the simple fact is that we have recently had one Government leader after another making statements amounting to this, that we on this side of the House are really unfair in our condemnation of the Government’s policy: that apartheid is not domination and discrimination, but in fact a measure leading to the eventual disappearance of discrimination. It is now called parallel development with parity of status as the final object. The Prime Minister was the first to make a statement along those lines. He promised that there would be “full” political development for every population group in the country, without any ceiling being placed on anyone. The Minister of Foreign Affairs emphasized it and stated that the Government envisaged a system—and I quote again—“in which all political discrimination would disappear” and “in which no single nation in South Africa would dominate the other”. And the hon. the Minister sitting over there told the Coloureds directly, in so many words, that they could take it from him that as far as their future was concerned, “the sky is the limit”.

Where did I say that?

I quote it from a speech made by Mr. Tom Swartz when he recently opened his party congress.

Quote what I said.

I will come to that quotation. It is no use the hon. member for Malmesbury telling us about old statements of policy. All these statements, about the removal of discrimination, parallel development right to the end with no ceiling, the sky being the limit, are all new statements made by this Government. These statements created expectations.

Why do you not quote my words correctly?

I do not wish to misquote anybody. If the Minister says it is not correct, then I accept it. But the crux of the matter is this. Let that Minister or any other Minister get up here and deny that I correctly reflected what the Prime Minister promised and what the Minister of Foreign Affairs promised on the world platform—and I again quote his exact words from the text of his speech—that this Government envisages a system “in which all political discrimination will disappear” and “in which no single nation in South Africa will dominate the other”. These statements enjoyed wide publicity. They aroused great expectations. They aroused expectations on the part of their own newspapermen, and on the part of the Coloureds themselves. I mentioned that Mr. Tom Swartz, the Chairman of the Government’s own Coloured Council, recently launched his own party, the Federal Coloured People’s Party, at the end of March, and this is what he said on that occasion—

Then he addded the following. He said that in achieving this object he would rather cooperate with the Government than with other parties, because he said—

Now are those my words, or those of Mr. Tom Swartz?

Are you already repudiating Tom Swartz?

The Minister will have a chance to reply. I have no interest in misquoting any man’s words. But let us ignore this statement about the sky being the limit, and let us look at what was said by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence. One after the other they promised a new dispensation. It was because of all these things, these very promises that it came as such a shock for thinking people when the Prime Minister made a volte face a few weeks ago and put an end to all the promises about “equal status at the end of the road”, which he and his Minister had themselves held out to the Coloureds. We know that the final set-up has now been announced. At the end of that road the Coloured will still have all the humiliations of petty apartheid. He will still have no direct represensation in this Parliament where all the important decisions affecting his life are made. He will have a sort of council which at some levels will have fewer powers than a municipality, at other levels fewer powers than a divisional council, at other levels fewer powers than a provincial council, and in all respects fewer powers than this Parliament. For the rest, there will be a conference once a year between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Coloured Affairs with the leaders of the Coloured Council to talk about “common interests”. I just want to say in passing that the Government continuously tries to link the words “Cabinet” and “Parliament” to this Coloured Council. All these tricks tried by the Government for putting things in the wrong light have been tried by one colonial power after another in other countries and we have seen what the results were. Our advice is: Let a thing be what it is, or otherwise it derogates even from the little good it contains. But the important point is that we now know that the Government’s racial policy in regard to the Coloureds is back now to where it always was, to domination, to White supremacy and to the concept of a dictatorship in the sense of permanent domination over the Coloured. And I think it is high time for the Minister to give us an acccount of certain things now.

The first thing in regard to which he should give us an account is this: Why did he and the leaders of his party arouse these false expectations on the part of the Coloureds? What was the object of that game? What did they hope to gain by it? What good could it do? Why arouse expectations and then place a damper on them? How can one hope to gain respect for oneself as a White man when one does this sort of thing? That is why there was such a shocked reaction in the columns of the Government Press after this statement in regard to the future of the Coloured which was recently made by the Prime Minister. That is the first point on which we asked the Minister to give us an acccount: Why were these misrepresentations made to these people?

The second thing in regard to which we call him to account is this: What is his and his Government’s real objection to a Coloured man sittting in this House? I want to ask him to give us an honest reply.

Is that now the policy of your party?

This Parliament is the conference chamber of the country and of the nation. It is a place of work. I want to ask the Minister this: Is it simply a dislike of colour which makes them unable to take their own policy to its logical conclusion and to give these people their own representatives in this House? If so, what future is there for us, if it is just a dislike of colour? What right have we then to complain if others develop a dislike for the White South Africans? I think it is time for the Minister to give us an account of their attitude, because when he and the Prime Minister, as Ministers of this Parliament, can go and sit in the Coloured Council, in other words, if part of this Parliament can go and sit with the Coloureds in their Council to deliberate with them there, what is the difference if we rather arrange that, as it were, portion of the Coloured Council comes here to deliberate with us? What is the difference in principle? I want to ask him further: If the Coloureds can take a seat in the Prime Minister’s future Commonwealth Council, why not in this national Council? What is the difference in principle? And further: If I understood the Minister correctly—and if I am wrong he can say so—he recently stated that there was no room in the Nationalist Party for people who cannot reconcile themselves to the idea that Coloureds should be represented here by Whites only. I want to ask him what he is going to do with all the prominent Nationalists who are continually pleading that the Coloureds should be allowed to send their own representatives to this House?

Who are they? Mention them.

I will mention a few. What is he going to do with Dr. G. B. A. Gerdiner, who as leader of Sabra openly advocated it? What is he going to do with Sabra under Dr. A. L. Geyer, a prominent member of that party, who made recommendations to the Government along those lines? What will he do with Professor Johannes Bruwer, who is a very prominent member and supporter of that party, and who wrote an article in the book, “South Africa: The Road Ahead”, in which he openly and urgently advocated and said that it was the duty of the Afrikaner, and that it should be done immediately, to allow the Coloured to sit here? What is he going to do with all our N.G. Kerk leaders who took a resolution in that direction? What will he do with the Church itself where Brown elders sit in the Synod, the “spiritual parliament” of the D.R. Church, which has to determine the spiritual matters of the Afrikaner? What will he do with Mr. Daantjie Scholtz, who is a member of the Nationalist Party and who said that he would do his utmost to see that the number of Coloureds’ Representatives here was increased and also that Coloureds themselves should sit here? What is he going to do with Professor H. J. J. M. van der Merwe, the well-known radio commentator and a Nationalist, a professor at the University of South Africa, who said before the Rapportryers: Why cannot Coloureds sit here, and why cannot the Senate be thrown open to them too? What is he going to do with Mr. Jan Smith, who was recently appointed as assistant editor of the English newspaper of the Government in Johannesburg, and who wrote a book, “The Gulf Between”, and who devoted a lot of space to saying that it was essential, because a Greek could not represent an Afrikaner, and therefore a White man could not represent a Coloured, that the Coloureds should have their own representatives in this House?

What is he going to do with Mr. Jannie Momberg? He is the secretary of a branch of the Nationalist Party in Stellenbosch, and has just recently been re-elected as such. The hon. member for Malmesbury speaks about confusion, but what is he going to do with the Minister of Bantu Administration, who made a speech in the Senate a few years ago in which he said that one could not hope, if one retains the representation of the Bantu in Parliament, that it should be through Whites, because one cannot for ever allow people to be represented indirectly by others. Surely the same principle must apply to the Coloureds. What is the Minister going to do with himself? He revealed a very different spirit in the beginning, when he was still Deputy Minister. He should go and read the speech in Hansard which he made on 12 April 1960 when he said (translation)—

The hon. member for Malmesbury challenged me to mention the names of Members of Parliament, but it has always been my policy that where I was in a position of confidence I will not give a man away if later we differ from each other politically. When I sat over there I never did that to my former friends in the United Party. If a man attacks me, I shall have to defend myself, but I refuse to use any information here which I obtained while I was in a position of trust. [Interjections.] I would be sinning against my own political code were I to do that. I simply do not do that. Everybody realizes that there can be no talk of “equal status” between the Whites and the Coloureds if the Coloured is not given the freedom to elect his own people to represent him here; and as long as the Government tries to avoid this we must reject its whole policy of parallel development with so-called full rights for everybody eventually, as insincere and impracticable, and every step it pretends to take on the road in that direction will be a step leading nowhere and it will be a waste of valuable time which we could have used to build up sound relations between the White man and the Coloured man.

I want to call the Minister to account for a few more things, but in reply to the hon. member for Malmesbury I now first want to give an account of the United Party. There is nothing secret in progress on this side. In the first place everybody knows what the official declared policy of the United Party is at present in respect of the Coloureds. Firstly, it is to restore the rights which were violated in the Cape and Natal; secondly, representation to the northern Coloureds as a group in the Senate; thirdly, the right to the Coloureds to come and sit in this Parliament if they choose. That is the present stated policy of this party. There is nothing obscure in it. I therefore need not expatiate on it. [Interjections.] I said I would answer all the questions, but if hon. members are going to be unfair my time will elapse before I have had a chance to do so. In the second place, it should also be known that the United Party follows the same system as other parties. His policy is determined by its central congress, and the congress has the fullest right to implement or to amend that policy according to the circumstances of the day. In that respect there is no difference between our two parties. Surely it is also well known that it is in the very nature of politics to discuss future policy—covering the whole sphere of politics, and therefore also future policy in regard to the Coloured. That takes place in all parties and the United Party is no different in that respect. In fact, it is the Nationalist Party which ad nauseum brags that it is the party of “change and renewal”. I hope it does not think it has a monopoly on that. But in the fourth place the hon. member asked about my own position. That is the easiest question of all to answer. Nobody on this side of the House has any objection in principle to the Common Roll. What we do object to in principle is the concept of a Separate Roll as an article of faith in the religion of apartheid. When I voted here in 1951 for separate representation, the position was different from what it is to-day. because the road was then wide open for the next step, viz. that the Coloureds could be represented here by their own people. [Interjections.! If hon. members read the speech I made then they will clearly see that I said that I voted for it because it opened the road to further great improvements in the position of the representation of the Coloureds. In fact, under Dr. Malan the right of the Coloured to sit in the Provincial Council was retained. In terms of the 1951 Act, the Coloured retained the right to sit directly in the Cape Provincial Council, and the road was therefore open to the same thing happening later in this House. I cannot mention names here, but there was a very strong group in the party, and among them were members of the Cabinet, who spoke and thought in this direction that the separate Voters’ Roll would open the road to two things for the qualified Coloured women to be added to the Voters’ Roll later, and for the Coloured to be represented here by his own people. In fact, both when Dr. Malan was the leader and also in Mr. Strijdom’s time, I was on the Executive of Sabra together with prominent Members of Parliament on that side.

I can mention the name of Dr. Otto du Plessis as being one of them, because he is now deceased, but I do not want to mention other names. We were in favour of Coloureds being able to sit here, and later such representations were even made to the Government, and members of this Parliament were on that executive. That was the position under the former leaders of that party, but the position changed under the present Prime Minister. Under him the nature of apartheid changed. It has become a caste system, where even friendly contact is prohibited. Separation has become absolute. All the doors which stood open have now been closed. The possibility which existed under formal leaders, and which was discussed, even by members of the Cabinet, that Coloureds should eventually be represented here by their own people, has been negatived under the present Prime Minister, because in terms of his policy of apartheid the road ends with the four White members who sit here. Therefore I say I have an objection in principle to the separate Voters’ Roll as an article of faith in the present religion of apartheid. Group representation is something quite different. It is not part of a caste system which excludes the right of a group to be represented by its own people. It is a system one finds right throughout the world, and it is something quite different from the separate Voters’ Roll as an element in a policy of apartheid. We all know what the aspirations of the Coloureds are. We know that the Coloured wants to be an ordinary, first-class citizen of his own country, as we all are; and the only duty resting on us and on all parties is to determine in how far we can meet him, and by what method it can best be done; what is the best method to adopt to help the Coloured along on the road to first-class citizenship? And in this regard discussions are being held in our party. We must remember that when a new Government comes into power all the limitations which have been laid on the Coloured in recent years will have to be investigated. Discriminatory laws will have to be revised, and it is my conviction that in those circumstances, without necessarily having to abandon any promises, it will be best for their own leaders to sit here, so that White and Coloured can consult in conference as man to man and remedy what is wrong, so that we can help him along the road to proper citizenship. The view of the United Party is that the Coloured is and remains part of the White cultural group. That is fundamental and that outlook will remain, and on that basis we on this side will continue seeking the best possible means to assist him along the way to the restoration of his honour and his rights and of proper citizenship in his own country. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) has the ability to bandy about the concepts of morality and justice left, right and centre without applying the true test thereof to himself as well. The hon. member very easily applies the test of morality to Government policy. Some time ago he also wrote about this matter in an article in a Johannesburg Sunday newspaper and said, inter alia, the following with reference to the speech made by the Prime Minister—

That is how the hon. member applies the test of justice and morality to the Government, but then he wrote further—

If the hon. member really believes in his heart of hearts that it is the position that the Brown people of this country are culturally and otherwise a part of the White population, why does he then advocate other methods of representing them in this House? Why does he not persuade his Party to adopt the true course of morality with regard to the Coloureds, the course adopted by the hon. member for Houghton, and say: Abolish the separate Voters’ Roll and abolish franchise qualifications? Why discriminate at all between the Coloured voter and the White voter?

But I want to deal further with the way in which the hon. member applies the test of justice and morality as far as his own side is concerned. In his article he now gets to the point where he sets out his own idea of separate representation, and then he states—

You see, Sir, if one has separate representation as introduced by the Government, it is immoral, but if one has group representation as advocated by him, then it is no longer immoral, but a “matter of practical politics”. Do you see now, Sir, how that hon. member reasons? He writes further—

and this is important, Mr. Chairman—

... or, at least, has the right to do so.

These words, “the right to do so”, tell me something important. They remind me of the history of the United Party in regard to the Coloureds, and I now want to put the following question to that hon. member, who advocates that Coloureds should at least have the right to represent their own people and be-believes that the whole matter then becomes moral and just: Do the Coloured voters of this country have the right to be members of the United Party? Will the hon. member reply to that question? I want to go further: Does a Coloured person have the right to-day to serve on a branch committee of the United Party? I also want to ask the hon. member whether a Coloured person has the right today to attend a congress of the United Party? Sir, we know what the reply to that question is. We also know that the Progressive Party state their attitude in regard to this matter very frankly and honestly. It is not for the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and hon. members of the Opposition to accuse us of being immoral and unjust if the United Party refuses to grant the Coloureds the right to serve on the governing bodies of the United Party. We know how Coloureds have been treated by the United Party at congresses in the past: we know how the Coloureds have been deliberately kept out there. I want to make the following statement to-day: These words “or at least has the right to do so” indicate to me that if they came into power and granted Coloureds the right to represent Coloureds in the House of Assembly, they would deliberately see to it, as in the past, that no Coloureds came here. In other words, they would have a sham right, as the hon. the Prime Minister said the other day.

Perhaps I should also just mention here that I deplore the way in which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout dragged in names here to day in support of his attitude. He mentioned the names of prominent persons, but he never got so far as to quote those persons. The hon. member mentioned the name of my predecessor in this House, the late Dr. Otto du Plessis. The late Dr. du Plessis was the author of this little book which I have in my hand, Afsonderlike Verteenwoordiging van Kiesers, in which he tells the whole story and sets out the historical trend on the part of the Whites in all the provinces of this country over the past hundred years.

He is wrong.

He is not wrong.

Of course he is wrong; I shall prove that he is wrong.

Sir, I do not want to weary this Committee with an argument with which the hon. member failed at that time, ten years ago, to prove that what was written in this book was wrong. The late Dr. du Plessis proved in this book of his that over the past hundred years the trend in political thought in this country had consistently been to protect the White franchise to an increasing extent, and I deplore the fact that the hon. member dragged the late Dr. Otto du Plessis’s name into the debate in this way to-day.

Mr. Chairman, there is a certain process taking place in this country to-day; the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) again referred to it to-day and certain English newspapers are constantly playing that game, and recently a certain gentleman by the name of Jan Rabie also joined in that game when he addressed a gathering at Somerset West and said—-

Because of a preponderance of voters in the North the Coloured people have to stay on a separate roll ...

What follows upon that is of no importance.

Quote further.

It is not relevant.

Read on.

Very well, I shall read it to the hon. member if it will console him; I think he needs a great deal of consolation—

Does that satisfy the hon. member? Sir, this statement is aimed at creating dissension between Nationalists in the various parts of our country, and I want to reject it to-day with the contempt it deserves, and I want to say clearly to the country that it has all along been the standpoint of the Cape National Party that there would be separate representation of Coloureds by Whites in this Parliament. If we go back into history, we find that there was a motion in this connection at a congress of the National Party of the Cape Province held at Malmesbury as long ago as 1922. At a congress held in Stellenbosch in 1932 a resolution was passed by the congress, and that resolution found its expression in the non-White policy which was formulated by a commission of the National Party under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). The report made by that commission in 1945 formed the basis of the National Party’s election manifesto in 1948, and in that I read the following. This programme has its basis in the Cape Province (translation)—

Sir, this Committee can judge for itself to what extent that programme has already been carried out. [Time limit.]

Sir, the only comment I would like to make on the last speech is this: Let Government speakers understand one thing, and that is, that no Coloured man will be prepared to accept being regarded as a second-class citizen. He may not have the means, at the moment to have his status changed. He is compelled to accept what is handed to him by the Government in various forms, because he has no other way of registering his protest other than through the voices of his representatives in this House. The Coloured people always have been, and always will be, loyal and steadfast to us, in this country. They are good citizens; they have done their duty and many of them died in the defence of their country. I want to say this to hon. members on the Government side, however much they may argue Your leaders and your speakers have said that you want no Coloured man to vote for you. That is what has been said by the Nationalist Party. They, the Nationalists, classs themselves as exclusively White, as the defenders of the White man. According to them we have a White South Africa although we do not know where its boundaries are. That is the attitude of the Nationalist Party, but the fact remains—whatever may be said—that there are nearly 2,000,000 of these people, Coloured people, mostly in the Western Province, and they are part and parcel of our particular way of life. As the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) recently pointed out, they speak our languages, they attend our churches; they share our educational system. [Interjection.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to proceed with his speech.

Sir, at least there are people in this country who are considering and thinking over this problem. I want to say something to Government members that has not been said for some time: The Government has given Bantu men and women in the Republic votes in a foreign country, namely the Transkei. Illiterate people, unable to write or sign their names have been put on the voters’ roll as Bantu voters. The Government has given Coloured women and Coloured men, in terms of the Coloured Representatives Council Act, the right to vote, but when we get into the Parliamentary sphere, then only Coloured men with particular qualifications are permitted to vote and women are excluded. It must be obvious that the time has come for some re-thinking, as to the place that should be occupied by these people and how they can participate in governing the affairs of the country. Let me say here and now, that the Coloured man knows that any appeal for concessions towards the non-White in this country has to be made to a White electorate. The Nationalist Party’s policy has always been to frighten the White people with the slogan of “die swart gevaar.” That has always been their attitude and we have heard it with regard to the Coloured people. I think the hon. the Minister himself said not so long ago that the Bantu would gradually infiltrate into the Coloured group and gain control. That was the only excuse that could be found by the Government to justify its policy. Here we sit to-day in 1965, at a time when the world itself, is looking at us critically, and when we are urging the Western world to realize that we are on their side in the fight against Communism, but our actions belie our words. I say that the time has come to put a stop to all this. The Government on the one hand says, “This is an exclusively White party. We will do nothing except look after the Whites. Everybody else is second-class; everybody else is second-grade; everybody else must get way down the line because we are the herrenvolk.

How many Coloureds are there in the United Party?

Never mind about the number of Coloureds in the United Party. I am dealing with the Nationalist Party at the moment. Sir, sharp words and fancy retorts do not help one little bit. I sat here to-day listening to the hon. member for Stellenbosch, that great seat of learning, where people have been taught over the years to think, and which is a part of the Cape, which is supposed to be well-meaning and understands and knows the Coloured man. Sir, where are these Cape Nationalists, these men who feel so kindly and well-disposed towards the Coloured man?

Van der Stel was there first.

I do not say much about Van der Stel; he was before my time.

He was a Coloured man.

Of course he was, but there was no population register in those days. Sir, this is no time for fancy words. Here we have 1,500,000 people with the ability, the energy and the desire to work with us, and to share in what is going. I think the great disservice that was done to the Coloured community was when the Prime Minister himself said that they would always be second-class citizens. That is what hurt them and that is what injured them and that is what upset them.

That is untrue.

No, it is not untrue; it is the truth. The Prime Minister said two years ago at Swellendam, “As ons begin konsessies maak, begin ons klei trap.” Those are the words that he used; nobody can gainsay that; it is the truth. Sir, even if everybody in this country voted for the Nationalist Party it would not resolve this problem. I have said, we have 1,500,000 Coloured people with us, half a million Indians and ten to twelve million Bantu, and votes at polling booths do not alter the problem one iota, one jot or title. That is why I say here this afternoon, after listening here to the last two speeches and to all the challenges which have been flung backwards and forwards: Are we mad? Because I think we are. [Interjection.] I just want to say to that hon. member that enough statements have been made by leaders of the Party for us to know what is what. The United Party’s policy was published in booklet form. Everybody saw the booklets and everybody waved them around, but one thing one can say, about the United Party, is, that we do at least do some thinking about the problem. The Nationalist Party on the other hand is regimented. They dare not think otherwise. The whole political history of this country over the last 16 years shows that any Nationalist who had any ideas which conflicted with those of the Party was kicked out very promptly. [Time limit.]

I am not going to take much notice of the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden). The hon. member has said that we are regimented. He is a member of the United Party caucus and he has to say what is prescribed by the party caucus, not what is in the interests of the Coloured people. Under those circumstances I am going to take no notice of him.

I want to deal with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). The hon. member made three statements here. In the first place he referred to the restoration of violated rights. I know what the United Party means by that. It means that those Coloureds who were on the Common Voters’ Roll should be replaced on the Common Voters’ Roll.

Quite correct.

But he went further and said that the Coloureds should also be given direct representation in Parliament.

Quite correct.

In other words, the United Party want to give double representation to the Coloureds in this House. They want to give the Coloureds representation on the common voters’ roll together with the Whites and they want to give them representation through the medium of a separate voters’ roll. [Interjections.] They are now taking fright at the implications of their own suggestions. They want to give representation to the Coloureds in Parliament in two ways. We know how the hon. member for Bezuidenhout thinks. He thinks progressively, just like the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). He wants the Coloureds to be directly represented by Coloureds in this House and my accusation against him is that this is only the first step which the United Party wants to take. Once the Coloureds have direct representation in this House, the next step will be to give direct representation to the Indians and the Bantu in this House. That is the Trojan Horse which the hon. member wants to bring into this House. Sir, if the Coloureds are to sit in this House why should the Indians and the Bantu not sit here as well? I make the accusation against the hon. member to-day with all the responsibility at my disposal that by giving the Coloureds direct representation he is seeking to bring a Trojan Horse into this House so that there will have to be absolute equality between Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Bantu in this House. That is the logical result of the policy which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is advocating. Let the hon. member deny it.

No. it is not, because there is a great difference between the Bantu and the Coloured.

But, Sir, that is not all. There are hon. members on that side who will not be satisfied with only a few Coloureds in this House. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) said in April last year: “They will never get the increased representation in this House which we always understood they were entitled to”. In other words, the hon. member for Gardens told this House that the Coloureds should be given even greater representation in this House. Hon. members opposite will not be satisfied with only four Coloured Representatives in this House; they want even more Coloured Representatives in this House. They do not want only four or five Coloured Representatives here; they want more than this. They want to give the Bantu a seat in this House and they want to give the Indians a seat in this House. That is the logical result of their policy and they cannot run away from that policy. We are not going to allow them to do so. Their policy amounts to nothing but equality between White and non-White in South Africa; that is the logical result of their policy. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout will have another opportunity to speak and he must stand up and tell us why we should not draw that conclusion from the speech which he has made here to-day. Sir, it is very easy for hon. members opposite to talk of consultation with the Coloureds. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout himself said at one stage that the Coloureds would be consulted and that action would then be taken in accordance with what the Coloureds wanted, not according to what the Whites wanted. Only the Coloureds will be consulted and when they say that they want ten representatives in this House, they must be given those ten representatives. The Whites will not be acknowledged in this connection at all. In other words, the policy advocated by the hon. member is in all respects the policy advocated by the hon. member for Houghton. The United Party is moving step by step in the direction of the policy of the hon. member for Houghton. This is the first step in that direction. It may possibly be more than the first step but it is in any case a step in the direction of the policy of the hon. member for Houghton. The only difference is that hon. members opposite are a step behind the hon. member for Houghton in regard to their Coloured and general non-White policy in South Africa. By means of the three points of view adopted here to-day by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout they have made it clear to us that they are heading directly in the direction of absolute equality of the Progressive Party. The story which has been spread that the United Party is swinging to the right is completely wrong, unless the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not speaking on behalf of his party to-day. If he is not speaking on behalf of the United Party. the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must stand up and repudiate what he has said: otherwise we shall have to accept the fact that the attitude adopted here by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is the attitude of the United Party. That is why we are entitled to conclude from these three statements which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has made here that the United Party has swung to the left and not to the right as some newspapers are trying to suggest.

I do not propose to spend much time on the hon. member who has just sat down. A gentleman with so much imagination should write a revised version of Aesop’s Fables because in the sphere of political imagination I have rarely known of a member who has allowed his imagination to run away with him to the extent that the hon. member who has just sat down has allowed his imagination to run away with him. Sir, I merely want to say this, in regard to what was said by the hon. member. He attempted to link the Bantu, the Asiatics and the Coloured people together. We stand on the principle so clearly enunciated by the late Gen. Hertzog who said that the Coloured people were an appendage of the White folk in this country. He put it in a nutshell; that was his statement, and that is what we stand by; they are an appendage of the White people. He did not say that the Bantu and the Asiatics were also an appendage of the Whites; he said that the Coloureds were an appendage of the Whites, and it is on that basis that our policy was framed.

I want to move on now to deal with the particular issue which I want to put before the hon. the Minister this afternoon. I want to make a plea for the Coloured people of Natal. Since the passing of the Separate Representation of Voters Act 14 years ago, apart from those who remained on the voters roll at that time, there have been no franchise rights whatsoever accorded to them. Sir, here you have a group who are the forgotten people as far as the Coloured folk are concerned. They are admittedly a small group, but they are a group without any hope whatever of getting franchise rights in terms of the present Government’s policy for South Africa. I think that is completely wrong. The Government’s policy ceased to have any moral basis whatsoever when the hon. the Prime Minister made that statement here recently in regard to the level to which the Coloured people can rise in the political sphere in South Africa. When the hon. the Prime Minister made that speech he cut away completely any moral ground that the Nationalist Party might have claimed for their policy in regard to the Coloured folk. But, Sir, so far as the Coloured people of Natal are concerned. he did no more to them than had al-ready been done to them. There is a handful of Coloured people in Natal who have retained the franchise from the time of the passing of the Separate Representation of Voters Act. but apart from that tiny group the Coloured people of Natal, have no franchise rights whatsoever. Compare their position with that of the Bantu who are to be given Bantu homelands and franchise rights there. What have these Coloured people of Natal got? Nothing at all. Sir, I want to come back for a moment to one or two particular cases, and I want to recall to the hon. the Minister’s mind the case of the Dunn folk in Natal, which I dealt with here some three years ago. I referred at the time to the position in which they find themselves. Let me recapitulate for a moment. Some 27 years ago Parliament passed an Act giving the Dunn people their farms. It was an Act of Parliament, but administratively they were never given their title deeds. They have never been given their title deeds right up to the present moment. Sir, it is not altogether this Government that is to blame; I made that quite clear from the start. This was in the days of the Government of which Gen. Smuts was the head, but when this Government took over assurances were given that that shortcoming would be rectified. Sir, this matter has never been but right. The hon. the Minister will recall that some three years ago I asked him to take steps to see that the Bantu were removed from those farms so that the people concerned could get their title deeds to the land, in terms of a promise made by Parliament some 27 years ago. The then Secretary for Coloured Affairs and a senior under-secretary for Bantu Affairs, or Native Affairs as it was then called, gave the most solemn assurance to a deputation from the Dunn people, in my presence, that they would get their title deeds. Sir, those promises have never been carried out and no step has been taken towards carrying them out. What happens to the word of the Government when promises of such importance are made and no steps whatsoever are taken to carry out those promises? Sir, are the Coloured people of Natal a small group, compared with the Coloureds in the Cape? Yes, they are. We do not know exactly how many there are. There may be anything between 40,000 and 60,000, but is that any reason why they should not receive equal justice together with the rest of the people who form part of the population of the Republic, because these people have no other homeland? Sir, those people, apart from the Dunns, do not stem from the same ethnic groups as the Coloured people in the Cape. We have people living there on farms and in farming areas where they are living entirely at peace with their fellow-men, but with the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads the whole time. They are afraid that they are going to be regimented. Sir. I am not dealing for the moment with the question of group areas and the building of houses and so forth for the Coloured people. If it was merely a case of good works, if it was merely a case of providing housing for Coloured people, then I am willing to say that here we have a group of Coloured people who would say quite frankly that they are happy that they have homes whereas in the past they had difficulty in so far as their homes were concerned: I accept that and I am not going to argue about it.

Then when we come to deal with the group of people who are specifically known as Mauritians, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that that term, in official circles, has now come to mean people who are of mixed blood. Sir, the Mauritians are not people of mixed blood. Mauritians can be as White as the Minister is or as white as I am. They can be people without any Coloured blood whatever in their veins. This term has become a term of reproach in the context of our racial problems here in South Africa, and where those people are concerned, I want to make a special plea for them, because Mauritians who are not of pure White blood are not in any shape or form derived from the same ethnic groups as the Coloured people in the Cape nor the Coloured people in Natal, who are not members of that colour group. They are people, Sir, who warrant special consideration in connection with whatever future may be planned for them. They find themselves in this position that while the Coloured people of the Cape were given the franchise at the time of the passing of the Separate Representation of Voters Act, they are left with literally nothing, not even with the hope that the Minister of Indian Affairs has held out that he is going to have a cabinet with a chief minister and cabinet ministers to deal with Indian Affairs. There is nothing of that kind held out to the Coloured people of Natal. If my memory serves me correctly there are one or two members on the Coloured Council who represent the Coloureds of Natal, but these are not people from the big towns; they are people from outside. Sir, these are people who unfailingly, throughout the whole of our history have stood on the side of the White man. They deserve better than to be left like this hanging between heaven and earth. No future is being held out to them of any sort whatsoever. They are without the franchise —I get no votes out of this—but I think a voice has to be heard, a voice that will make an appeal to the Government to carry out the promises to the Dunn family and to do something to fill that void, as far as the political aspirations of the Coloured people of Natal are concerned, which is not only a void at the present time but looks as if it is an eternal blankness.

I think that at this juncture I must reply to a few of the points raised. I do not see the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) here and I shall therefore not reply in full to what he said. I just want to rectify one or two matters. The hon. member said that the older principals have a legitimate grievance. My information is that the Public Service Commission’s attitude at present is that three years’ professional training is required for heads of Grade C schools and higher. This difficulty was brought to the attention of the Department and negotiations are at present being entered into with the Public Service Commission in order to effect an improvement in this sphere. We think that these people have a case. The negotiations are being conducted sympathetically by the Department with the Public Service Commission and we hope that good results will be obtained.

The hon. member said two things which I cannot allow to pass unchallenged. He referred to the tremendous manpower shortage in the Public Service and said that this Department and this Minister must urge the Government to make use of the services of Coloureds throughout the Public Service as far as possible. I think that the hon. member simply made a statement without first having consulted his book. Let us consider the background to the position. When one considers the facts one discovers that from 86 per cent to 90 per cent of Coloured children are at school. Of these, about 40 per cent reach Std. II, 27 per cent reach Std. V and 2 per cent reach Std. X.

Is that the position now?

These are the latest figures. Under conditions such as these one cannot adopt the attitude that one can fill 8,000 posts, or even 40 per cent of them, with Coloureds. They are simply not available, quite apart from Government policy. The Department of Coloured Affairs has posts for Coloureds. The Coloured can advance to any position on merit in the Department but we are not even able to fill all the vacancies in the Department of Coloured Affairs with Coloureds.

May I ask a question? Do 2 per cent reach Std. X or do 2 per cent pass Std. X?

They reach Std. X; they do not necessarily pass Std. X. This shows you, Mr. Chairman, that there is still a great shortcoming. What is that shortcoming? In the first place it is the poorly-trained Coloured teachers in the country. I do not say this in a contemptuous way; I am merely stating the fact that the vast majority of Coloured teachers are not able to provide the education which they should be able to provide. In the second place there is a great backlog as far as school buildings are concerned. In the third place the Coloured community as such are still backward to such an extent that they are not yet ripe for the idea of making their children further qualified. Do not let us make a mistake; a large number of them still do not think in those terms. This is the basic mistake which people make in discussing Coloured affairs. They give to understand that we are dealing here with a community which is on an absolutely equal footing with the Whites as far as its civilization and standard of living are concerned. We do not have the people to fill these vacancies. Let me tell the hon. member for Peninsula that as far as the filling of the posts of school inspectors is concerned, only one thing holds good and that is merit. In other words, if applications are made and the applicants comply with the requirements with which school inspectors must comply, Coloureds will be appointed, but they are simply not available. I want us to consider these facts when discussing the Coloured people. Do not let us become sentimental and picture the position as perfect while the facts are against us. We have to deal with a community in regard to which a great deal of upliftment and development work has still to be done. That is why the point of view of the Department, of the Government and of myself is that it does not help to try to uplift a community from above; one must uplift it by placing it on sound foundations. One has particularly to teach it to help itself.

I think that this does to a large extent answer the main point of criticism of the hon. member. I want to thank him for the words of appreciation which he expressed on behalf of the Coloured community. I shall come back to this point later. What have we actually experienced to-day? We experienced a full-scale attack upon the Coloured policy of the Government on the part of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) who was supported by the hon. member for Karoo .(Mr. Eden). The hon. member for Bezuidenhout started by speaking about the disturbing position in which the Coloured is now being placed because of the reformulation of policy on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to make use of this opportunity to-day to say what I have already said outside this House —that there has been no reformulation of policy by the hon. the Prime Minister. What happened was this: The hon. the Prime Minister replied to certain points raised under his Vote, but when one compares the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister, as far as he went—he did not discuss the whole policy because he only dealt with specific points—with the point of view which I adopted last year in this House when I introduced the Coloured Persons Representative Council Bill, one does not find one single fundamental difference, Sir. The arguments advanced by both of us are basically the same. I want to make it very clear this afternoon because I want the country to know that this Government, and I as the responsible Minister, stand by the policy as originally set out by the hon. the Prime Minister when he addressed the Union Coloured Council a number of years ago. I hope that we shall now see the end of the spreading of confusion among the Coloured people because it has only one result and that is to create confusion in the minds of those who still have to be trained, people who are under our guardianship. It creates confusion on the part of people who are gullible. Therefore I reject the statement that there has been a reformulation of policy.

In the second place, in reply to the hon. member I should like to deal very briefly with this matter from three aspects. I want to put three questions. The first question I think must be asked in order to test the policy of this Government is whether the Coloureds are being treated in a humanitarian way in respect of those things which one usually strives for in one’s search for happiness? In dealing with the Coloureds and in working with them as a population group in the country, does the Government treat them in a humanitarian fashion? I should like to test this in a practical way by saying what the Coloureds are receiving in respect of their need for land. Every community has the need to be treated reasonably as far as its ownership of land is concerned. I should like to answer this question by comparing the figures in regard to what has been done in respect of the 2,000,000 morgen of land which has been reserved over the years for the Coloureds in South Africa. This land was not reserved by this Government but by history— since the days of old Queen Victoria. Under previous Governments, up to and including 1943, the State spent an amount of R43,000 on those 2,000,000 morgen of land. From 1944 to 1952 the amount was R 15,000. Then this Government established the Department of Coloured Affairs in order to enable it to give special attention to these people. Since that time an amount of R 1,300,000 has been spent on improving those 2,000,000 morgen of land which forms part of the Republic of South Africa. This amount was spent on water conservation. afforestation, fencing, stock improvements. the surveying of building premises, development works and on properly planned grazing. I ask whether the Government has passed the test in respect of the rural areas? Let history reply.

In the second place, because townships are being built for them, is it not a fact that this Government is for the first time giving the Coloured a legal guarantee of being able to obtain property rights in his own municipal areas? Is it not true that no legal obstruction is placed in his path any longer to obtain this right and to exercise it lawfully?

He was always able to obtain property.

Never in planned townships; he was always the occupier of slums. Do not talk nonsense. [Interjections.] Of course it is true. Which previous Government established a planned township for the Coloured community in which they had property rights? I challenge the hon. member to tell me. I say that in spite of his land rights he is being treated in a humanitarian way. As far as his urban development is concerned, he is being given privileges which no other Government in this country has ever given him. When his wonderful friends were in power, when his wonderful moral friends were in power, the high priests of truth, what happened to his technical education? Where were his vocational schools? Where were his technical colleges? Is it not true that he had to slip in through the back doors of our White universities and to rely on the mercy of certain authorities in order to have a few of his students admitted each year?

Why the back door?

Because it was the back door which was opened to him; because he could never share in that university as a full-fledged student.

Let us test this in another sphere. After his towns and cities came into being, who established a Coloured Development Corporation for him, a corporation by means of which these people could become their own entrepreneurs in their own areas? Read the annual report of this corporation and find out what has been brought about in the short life of this Coloured Development Corporation. Talk with Coloured businessmen who are on the board of directors of their own savings bank to-day and ask them whether they have not been treated humanitarianly. When the high priests of truth were in power, what facilities were ever created for the Coloured to enable him to be trained in welfare services for his own people? Which Government was first to start training welfare officers as professional people? Was it not this Government? Was it not at the University College of the Western Cape where this training was first given? Who introduced a system, on which we are engaged at present, to place their education under one control, a system by means of which one can introduce differentiated education and can guide these people in various technical and professional directions? When the high priests of truth were in power did this ever happen? I know what the answer will be: Yes, but that is their right. Of course it is their right but it was also their right when those gentlemen were in government. It was then, according to those gentlemen, a special right because at that stage they were on the Common Voters’ Roll.

The second question which we must answer is this: Are we creating channels for negotiation? Is this Government complying with the need for channels for negotiation with the Coloured community, true channels and not imaginary ones without meaning which are striven for? In the sphere of education we have created better means of liaison with them than they have ever had before. They now have their own Coloured regional boards, their own Coloured school committees, their own Coloured school inspectors and so forth. In other words, there is a network of regional offices of the Department in which the parent of the Coloured child is more than ever before now able to decide in respect of the education of his child. This did not exist before. Notwithstanding the opposition of hon. members opposite we have started making local government possible for them in their own municipal areas. Mr. Chairman, how I was maligned here a few years ago because I initiated these steps! All four provinces have now passed similar ordinances by means of which they are engaged in setting up local management for Coloureds throughout the country, including Natal. A number of these local management committees have already come into being. We passed legislation here last year—I just want to say a few words in this regard—in terms of which a Coloured Persons Representative Council could be established.. When we introduced that legislation we said that we would not be able to establish this council before the end of 1966. I said this expressly when I introduced the Bill. I said that in the meantime we would continue to liaise with the Coloureds through the existing Coloured Advisory Council. But that Representative Council is coming into being. We are doing the preparatory work in that regard. It will be established and Natal will also be represented on that body. Not only will it be a consultative body but, as the hon. the Prime Minister stated, in the years which lie ahead, powers may gradually be entrusted to it in regard to Coloured welfare services, rural areas, education and various other branches of activity. This is possible and practicable.

The hon. member said that I had apparently said: “The sky is the limit.” The hon. member was not forthright enough to say that he was not quoting me. He quoted what somebody else had said I had apparently said. When I asked him to quote my words he said that he would do so, but he has not done so yet. What are the facts? I gave an interview to a newspaper recently at which certain questions were put to me. Among other things I was asked what future possibilities there were for Coloureds. I said that there were the highest possibilities for them in their own group— “The sky is the limit”, in their own groups. I say again that there is no post in the Department of Coloured Affairs which cannot be filled by a Coloured, on merit. They can advance to full-fledged local government by means of the local management systems. They can control their own welfare services, their education bodies, their rural areas and so forth. In their welfare services they can advance to the highest professional posts available. A Coloured can, on merit, advance to the post of rector of their own university. That was what I meant.

What this Government rejects is, in the first place the common Voters Roll and chiefly for two reasons. We reject it because, as we knew it as a common Voters’ Roll, it was perhaps the greatest contributory factor towards misunderstanding, a lack of confidence and suspicion between Whites and Coloureds in South Africa. Secondly, if one has to introduce a common Voters’ Roll in South Africa and one does what the Opposition say they are going to do, to repeal the Population Registration Act, I want to ask where they are going to draw a line between the Coloureds and the Bantu? The fact is that there is a large-scale admixing with the Bantu on the part of the broad mass of the Coloureds today. I have said here previously that if one were to introduce the system of a common Voters’ Roll one would be turning on a tap by means of which the Black proletariate in South Africa would win a bloodless victory. I am surprised that the United Party do not want to appreciate the consequences of their policy.

The hon. member also asked why the Coloureds cannot be represented by Coloureds in this House. I shall tell him why. My reply is that the Coloured Council cannot conquer South Africa. I am sure that the hon. member will be able to work this out for himself. It is very elementary. On two occasions I was a member of a commission of inquiry in connection with this matter. It was specifically investigated on both occasions. The hon. member tried to-day to claim Dr. Malan for himself. Let me tell him this afternoon that he is the last one who should try to lay claim to Dr. Malan. Dr. Malan’s life was an unswerving one and he never showed opportunism. If there is any person who can tell, him what Dr. Malan’s point of view was, it is I. Shortly before his death, Dr. Malan’s attitude still was—I discussed these matters with him—that we should never allow that corner stone of our constitution to be knocked out from under us and that this House of Assembly should stay White.

That should be clear enough.

Were you there?

The hon member asks who can check it.

No, I did not ask that.

I should hope the hon. member would not say a thing like that.

I do not doubt what you say.

No, I know the hon. member is on a slightly higher level than some other people. I say that this was always Dr. Malan’s attitude. It was under Dr. Malan’s guidance that this policy was formulated. It was under his guidance that this policy was born in South Africa. He gave his reasons in this House for rejecting the other road. The hon. member now asks me why. I shall tell him. Apart from the fact that if one permits this in the case of the Coloured, one has to allow it in the case of the Indian and the Bantu. . .

Why?

Because one’s whole moral attitude collapses. In the second place, if one allows the Coloured to sit here, what right has one then to tell him: You can sit with me in the same House of Assembly but I forbid you to sit with me in the same school? You can sit with me in the same House of Assembly, you can entertain your wife and children here, but I forbid you to live in the same residential area as I do. What right has one to apply social segregation and residential segregation outside this House if one breaks down that social segregation in the highest Chamber of one’s country?

What about the Coloured Council?

When we negotiate with the Coloured Council it is a question of one body negotiating with another. The hon. the Prime Minister has stated expressly here how we want to see the pattern developing in South Africa—that there are Black nations in the country and a White nation, and that the Coloured is not a member of the White nation. The Coloureds may be a Western group in their way of life but they are not members of the White nation. I want to go further with the hon member. Once we start along this road, whom will it be among the Whites who will have to pay the highest price? I shall tell him. It will not be those gentlemen living in Sea Point and Constantia and who can buy their apartheid with their money who will suffer but it is going to be the White factory workers and the railway men and the poor people in South Africa who are going to be subjected to this policy of integration. The Government’s attitude is that if the rich man can buy a separate way of life for himself by means of his money and so protect his White skin, then the broad mass of the White workers in South Africa must live under circumstances in which they can survive as White communities. It is for this reason that we reject the consequences of that policy. I want to conclude by discussing the solution suggested by the hon. member himself. What is his solution? He says that the point of view of the United Party is that the violated rights must be restored. That is to say, those who were on the Common Voters’ Roll must be put back on that roll. A leading Coloured man like Mr. Golding or Dr. Van der Ross, or whoever it may be, can be put back on the Common Voters’ Roll in the Cape, but if he is transferred as a teacher and he becomes head of a training college in the Transvaal, he will no longer be on the Common Voters’ Roll. He will then have to be represented in the Senate.

An illogical policy.

In other words, crossing a river makes this change for him ! I take it that when the hon. member said that the Coloureds should have seats in this House he meant those Coloureds who are on the common roll. I accept that. They can also stand as candidates. In other words if they are in the Cape, they can stand, but if they move to the Transvaal, they cannot stand. What a ridiculous position the United Party finds itself in because on the one hand it wants to run away from he Progressive Party and on the other hand from the National Party! Sir, the United Party must regain its soul in regard to matters in South Africa. It is a soulless party.

The hon. member asked me: What are we going to do with prominent people on our side who say that Coloureds should take their seats in this House? He mentioned names. Well, I do not know whether Dr. Gerdener is a member of the National Party.

But he was appointed by the Government.

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. Van Niekerk) is completely wrong. I am not talking about the Mr. Gerdener she means. I do not know whether Dr. Gerdener is a member of the National Party.

What about the others?

I shall tell him about the others. Strangely enough, on the 20th May, I received a letter from one of the persons whose name he mentioned here, Professor Bruwer. In his letter, which I am prepared to show the hon. member, Professor Bruwer told me that he was in full agreement with the attitude I had adopted in connection with the Coloureds.

It probably suits him now.

Why is Professor Bruwer’s attitude of less importance now than when the hon. member quoted him? I want to tell him in this connection what I said in regard to the people who differ from us. I said that the attitude of this Government and of this party was that its policy could be tested by its own people at its congresses. Our congresses are our highest authority. The policy of the party can be changed there. A man can say that certain things must be changed up to the congress stage, but once the congress has formed an opinion, it becomes party policy and then no loyal member of the party has the right to subvert it in public. Is that wrong?

No.

Well then, why does the hon. member use it against me? I say that any man has the right to put his personal opinion along party channels. But what I also say is this: There is no place in the National Party for people who do not want to submit to party policy as long as it is party policy. In the second place. I said that if an attempt was made to deviate from this policy in this sense that a policy of integration must be adopted for the Coloureds in South Africa, then I personally would oppose it at our congresses. Do I not have the right to adopt that attitude?

In conclusion let me say this to the hon. member. I did not become Minister of Coloured Affairs to buy the assitance of the White man in South Africa and as long as I am Minister of Coloured affairs there will be no interference with these basic principles. I want this to be clear once and for all to both friend and foe.

I should like very briefly to discuss two further points. The one is a warning which I issued previously. Because of the goodwill which it has created among the Whites, because of the goodwill which it has created among the majority of the White people of South Africa, this Government has made it possible to set an upliftment process in motion in respect of the Coloured in South Africa in a humanitarian manner as far as his welfare, his housing, his education, his rural areas and other spheres of his life are concerned. The White man has obligingly allowed this. Indeed, there has sometimes been strong urging on the part of the White man that the Government should act more swiftly. But powers have been unleashed in this country—and I am sorry to say that the official Opposition is feeding those powers, powers which are actually their water-shoots because they spring from the Opposition; they are the result of the actions of the United Party—which are creating ill feeling on the part of the Coloureds and which are continually giving them the impression, not that they are being benefited by the country’s policy but that they are being detrimentally affected thereby. I have here an example of this sort of irresponsible, childish action on the part of people who pretend that they are looking after the interests of the country. I have here a pamphlet issued by the hon. member for Karoo in which he makes an appeal to the Coloureds, who in any case rejected him in spite of his appeal. This is what he said (translation)—

Listening to this I must immediately conclude that the Coloureds who voted against him and against his party in his constituency during the provincial elections have now rejected him because he has told them that the United Party is opposing the National Party. That is what is stated in his pamphlet. He says that his party opposes the National Party. He goes on to say (translation)—

This serves to indicate to what depths a White man in this country can sink (translation)—

Sir, one can only pity a White man who distributes a pamphlet of this nature among the Coloureds because he is crawling for a vote; he is even crawling over his own soul for a vote. What is the impression which is caused hereby? I gave hon. members figures just now to show how many Coloureds leave school in Standards II, III and IV. If these people read this sort of pamphlet what do you think will be the impression they gain? The impression they gain will be that they are being oppressed.

Do you not think they are?

I have explained our positive programme to the hon. member. Was he not listening or cannot he understand? I want to issue a warning once again, and I want to conclude on this note. I say that millions of rand are being spent on the Coloured people. I have sometimes to defend the spending of this money before the vast majority of the White people of South Africa. I want to warn the United Party that if they continue in this way there will be a reaction on the part of the majority of the Whites in South Africa. This reaction will be that it does not help to do this welfare work and work of upliftment. If this is continually thrown up in our faces, if the public, the taxpayers in South Africa, who are prepared to allow this programme to be carried out are continually being slapped in the face, I warn the United Party that there will be a reaction and that reaction will be the responsibility of the United Party, that party which has lost its soul in the public life of South Africa.

It is very easy to get up here and to stir up feelings about colour. Both sides can do that. The hon. the Minister comes along here and says that he did not become a Minister to sell out the White man, but let me say this to the Minister, that security for the White man is not to be found in an attitude of mastership (baasskap). That attitude would be his downfall. I would not go so far as to say that the Minister deliberately wants to work the downfall of the White man, but it is the nature of his policy which is so dangerous to the White man. Security for the White man in South Africa lies in justice and in co-operation with the other sections of the population, not in domination. Let us have a few matters put straight now. The hon. the Minister says that there has been no redrafting of policy on the part of the Prime Minister. It may be that we differ about the meaning of words, but I can make one quotation after another from speeches made by the hon. the Prime Minister in which the policy of this Government was outlined as being a “getting-away from discrimination”. I shall quote him. Here is a speech by him which was published by the State Information Office under the title “Live and Let Live”. The words used by the Prime Minister were the following—

Surely the term “full political development” can mean one thing only? I can make one such quotation after another. This one is from the speech which the Prime Minister made before the South Africa Club in London. Under Dr. Malan and others it was horizontal apartheid, under this Prime Minister “vertical”, and under this policy as it has now been stated, there will be no ceiling, and the one will not be subordinate to the other. And now we say that it constituted a redrafting of policy when he announced here in the House of Assembly a little while ago that the end of the road for the Coloured group would be that they would have to remain subordinate to the White man. If that does not constitute a redrafting of attitude, the Minister must agree that words do not have the same meaning to us.

There was the question as to whether or not the Coloured people were receiving humane treatment. Let me just read to the Minister what one of the members of his own Council, who has been appointed by his Government, Mr. C. I. R. Fortein, said recently—

Then he speaks of the “Coloured’s soul erosion”: he speaks of all the humiliations of apartheid. It will be of no use for the Minister to hold out what is being done for people in the material field, because people regard that as their right. This is a prosperous country and every man has certain basic rights, but the things which hurt people to-day are those little things which humiliate them as human beings. I once asked a prominent Coloured person, “What do you tell your child when you walk along the street with him and you come to the door of a Government building; how do you explain to him that he is not allowed to go in there”? Then one sees what goes on in the heart of a father who has to say to his child, “You are Coloured; you are less than a White man; you cannot go in here”. And the Government consistently refuses to realize that it can do everything in the material field, but as long as it injures a person’s human dignity and humiliates him as a human being through petty apartheid, there will never be racial peace in this country. That is his greatest need.

Then the Minister always comes alone with the story: See how little the United Party did, and see what the National Party is doing now. But surely the National Party was in power before the United Party? What did they do then? The fact of the matter is that the world advances and changes. The United Party came into power in 1933 after a terrible drought, and there was a tremendous poor White problem, and it took General Hertzog and General Smuts a number of years to overcome those difficulties, and then the war broke out and immediately after the war the United Party went out of power. It had not governed for too long a period. But can President Johnson blame President Eisenhower to-day for the fact that there was not a man orbiting the earth in his time? Where it took nine months to build a house in the old days, one can easily build a hundred in a day at the present time, owing to technical changes, and not owing to the sound policy of any government. The whole situation has changed, and the comparisons which are drawn by the Minister no longer go down. I also want to say to the Minister that I did not appropriate Dr. Malan to myself. The Minister must have misunderstood me. I also knew Dr. Malan. I do not think he was in favour of direct representation of Coloureds in this House. If it sounded as though I said that, I want to put it right immediately. What I said was that under Dr. Malan that road was open and that he allowed that free discussion in which all the members of S.A.B.R.A. took part. Under the present leadership that road has been closed completely. But I did not appropriate Dr. Malan for the purposes of my attitude in any way. Nor do I want to say that he was not consistent in the attitude he adopted, but it is generally known that in Dr. Malan’s time Coloured persons came along and conveyed the greetings of the Coloured community at the congresses of the National Party. He was also in favour of the franchise being granted to Coloured women.

Then the Minister came along with a piece of logic which astounded me. He said that if one allowed Coloured persons to sit here, the logical conclusions was that he Bantu and the Indian should also sit here. If that logic is correct, then it also applies to the fact that his Government allows four representatives of the Coloureds to sit here. Then, surely, there should be representatives for the Indians and the Bantu here too? If his argument is that what one does for the Coloureds one must do for the other groups as well, then, surely, he must treat the Bantu the same as he treats the Coloureds? His logic is hopeless. That does not follow, because it has been our whole attitude right from the start that the Coloured people form part of the White cultural group. That attitude which was adopted by him and by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) is therefore a completely illogical one.

The Minister advanced the argument that it is the poor who are prejudiced by integration and that the rich buy their apartheid. But we have no fixed poor and rich classes. The poor man of to-day is the rich man of to-morrow, and vice versa. And the Minister’s complaint against the Progressives, such as the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), is in fact that they are practising equality. The Minister quoted Professor Bruwer. I have no objection if Professor Bruwer has changed his views. It is his right to do so, but he must not attack me for having quoted him, because he wrote an article in a book entitled “South Africa: The Road Ahead”, and this is what he said—

I find it surprising that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) thinks that with those few observations he has disposed of the argument of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel), which was subsequently elaborated by the Minister, and which was that with his proposal of direct representation for the Coloured people in Parliament he is, according to all the rules of logic, obliged to grant the Bantu direct representation in this House as well. When that was put to him by way of interjection, he said that there was a difference between the Coloured people and the Bantu. I do not think that is news to us, or that there is anyone who would argue about the fact of the difference, but now I want to put this to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout: On what grounds does his party say that the Coloured people should be directly represented in this Parliament? On the basis of one consideration alone. They say that the Coloured people form part of the Western group. That has been said here to-day as well. For that reason, they say, the Coloured people have the right to be represented here as a section of the Whites. The Leader of the Opposition says that every year. Here in my hand I happen to have an extract from what he said on 9 May 1962 (translation)—

The last part is not so important for the purposes of the present argument If that is the norm which is applied in arguing that the Coloured people should have representation here, how is the United Party going to get away from its own pronouncements in connection with the urban Bantu? I want to mention two examples in that connection. The Leader of the Opposition said the following in 1959. I am only reading this because I have not had the time to find something more recent, but it is said every year (translation)—

The norm which they are applying in arguing that the Coloured people should be represented here is therefore already being applied to the Bantu by them, and not only in one respect; they go further. The Leader of the Opposition put it even much more explicitly when he spoke at De Aar in May 1962. On that occasion he qualified it further. Referring to the Bantu, he said —

In the previous quotation he said that they had had the longest contact with Western civilization; in this quotation he says that they have become detribalized, and therefore no longer belong to their own people. They no longer belong to the Bantu peoples in the homelands. Where then do they belong? That, surely, is the simple question one must ask when analysing the attitude adopted by the United Party. How can it differentiate in principle between the Coloured people and the Bantu if it says that the Coloured people belong here because they form part of the Western community and says, on the other hand, that the urban Bantu have become detribalized and have had the longest contact with Western civilization, and is therefore saying in so many words that they form part of Western civilization? How are they going to differentiate in principle? In view of this exemption which is to be granted to the Bantu in terms of their policy, the exemption from reference books to identify them as Bantu, coupled with the United Party’s announcement that it is going to abolish the race classification system, how is it going to differentiate in practice between the urban Bantu and the Coloured people? No, when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wants to give us a few arguments on which the United Party is trying to base its attitude, we are prepared to listen to them, but he cannot dispose of the matter in this way. What the United Party is trying to do with the policy which it is propagating in connection with the Coloured people, merely amounts to the old policy to which it gives expression in many other ways, which is to establish a unitary society in South Africa. They do not want to say at this stage already that the Bantu will form part of that unitary society. They say that the Bantu in the homelands are still communities on their own, but they say that these urban Bantu no longer belong to those communities; they will become part of what the United Party calls the Western community, and they say that the Coloured people already form part of that community. With this view of South Africa the United Party is merely showing once again that it is the main disciple of the British colonial attitude and tradition in South Africa. Throughout the fifties it wanted to keep the Coloured people on the Common Voters’ Roll in the Cape Province for one reason alone, and that was to thwart Nationalism in its endeavour to attain national freedom. That was its main consideration in standing for that; it was not because the United Party adopted the attitude at that time that the Coloured people formed part of Western civilization and that they should therefore remain on the voters’ roll. They retained them on the voters’ roll to thwart Nationalism in its endeavour to attain freedom. Just as that National endeavour to achieve South Africa’s independence and freedom has been one of the basic that endeavour of nationalism in South Africa, which that party has tried to destroy, so the other basic principle is the preservation of a White race in South Africa, and to-day they want to use the Coloured people to thwart that endeavour of Nationalism in South Africa. That is why they are now saying that the Coloureds do not have an identity of their own, that they belong to the Western group, which is a vague concept the true meaning of which no-one knows. What is a Western group?

What is a unitary society?

Unfortunately I cannot give that hon. member some instruction in language now. Suffice it to say that these two things, nationalism’s endeavour to attain freedom and nationalism’s endeavour to preserve the identity of the Whites, are the age-old principles of nationalism in South Africa. They do not emanate from the Transvaal or any other place. I happen to have with me the Official Papers of the Afrikaander Bond and Boerenvereeniging which were printed in 1898 and in which these aims are clearly stated. In the Programme of Principles it is stated (translation)—

The unification of the various European nationalities in South Africa—

Those are the two essential objects which are entrenched in the National Party’s programme and which have traditionally been opposed by the United Party, and in opposing them they have used the Coloured people, not in order to do justice to the Coloured people, not to show them any sympathy, but for the sake of employing them in a political struggle against the endeavour of the White people in South Africa. And that is why to-day, now that nationalism’s aim of achieving independence and freedom has for the most part been realized, they are concentrating everything on destroying the other age-old principle of the National Party. According to them a White nation should not be preserved here . . . [Time limit.]

A great deal has been said under this Vote about the political rights of the Coloureds. I would rather at this stage have raised my voice in regard to many other matters which are important to the people I represent here but seeing that so much has been said about the political rights of the Coloureds, I cannot help but ask myself whether those who have such a great deal to say about the political rights of the Coloureds and make suggestions in regard to their political rights, have really taken any steps to get to the root of the matter and to find out in general from the average Coloured what his political aspirations are and what political rights he wants. This is a matter which has been discussed here for many years and in respect of which various attitudes have been adopted over the years by hon. members each stating his case as forcibly as he can in an attempt to give the impression that he is speaking on behalf of the Coloureds or that he is speaking with authority. The hon. member who has so far had the most to say about the political rights of the Coloureds has been the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). Mr. Chairman, it was that some hon. member who, in 1958, from the Government side of the House congratulated the Coloureds on their new political set-up, namely, their separate representation in this House. The hon. member was party to depriving the Coloureds of the political rights they had in those days, political rights about which they felt very strongly and the loss of which caused a great deal of bitterness amongst them. Well, I accept that the hon. member has in the meantime become converted, but if we have to become converted in connection with this matter, let us become converted as to what the actual political aspirations of the Coloureds are and let us first make sure what the political aspirations of these people are instead of making suggestions for political gain, suggestions which will not really bring to fruition the political aspirations of the Coloured. During the six or seven years I have been sitting in this House I have heard the hon. member for Bezuidenhout setting out three various standpoints as far as the political rights of the Coloureds are concerned. That is his concern, however, and I leave it at that.

You must be careful; you are vulnerable.

If the hon. member thinks I am vulnerable let him find out where and in what respect I am vulnerable. As far as my representation of the Coloureds is concerned I have so far been consistent in my ideas as to what my people are striving for.

What are they striving for?

I shall come to that. Sir, I do not want to belittle anybody. If a person wants to change his opinion let him do so. The point I really want to deal with is this that when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was a member of the National Union Party he pleaded for group representation for the Coloureds in this House. I told him at the time that he was wrong and his reply to me was that the Whites would not accept a common voters roll. Sir, I was a member of the United Party during the years, it is the only party to which I have ever belonged, when this matter caused political crises in South Africa. I want to say to the United Party in all sincerity and seriousness to-day that they must never allow this question of direct group representation to divert them off the course they set themselves when they emerged from the doldrums where Mr. Strauss could not say yes or no in 1955. In 1957 the United Party reverted to their old policy, namely, that of restoring the Coloureds to the common roll in the Cape Province and in Natal. If the United Party should ever allow itself to be diverted off that course there would be no honourable White political party left for the Coloureds as far as their political rights were concerned.

You are forgetting about the people who won the seats.

We shall come to the hon. member for Houghton Mrs. Suzman who talks about the people who won the seats. I am dealing with something else at the moment Sir. I am serious when I say that if the United Party should allow itself to be diverted off that course as far as the restoration of the political rights of the Coloureds is concerned, although it is fairly ambiguous in this sense that those rights are limited to the Cape Province and Natal only. the Coloureds would not longer have any White political party in South Africa which would in any way uphold its own honour in adhering to its standpoint in connection with a matter which can be absolutely justified, a matter which is morally justified and which must be rectified. I am not binding myself to any time limit.

Sir. I said at the outset that I would rather, at this stage, not discuss the political rights of the Coloureds because I did not think this matter was raised in sincerity here to-day. If any political party or any private member of this House is sincere in breaking a lance for the Coloureds that opportunity has time and again presented itself during this Session. The Coloureds cannot develop economically and culturally to the level of the Whites, a level at which they will be able to argue and negotiate with the Whites on an equal footing as far as their own political rights are concerned, unless they are economically and culturally assisted and uplifted. However, when matters were discussed and when a good case could be made out that the Coloureds should come into their own right as far as employment, for example, was concerned, that was not done and now we are playing at politics. That is why I say it is not being raised in sincerity. During the Railway debate not a single member of the Opposition had the courage, when criticizing the Minister of Railways about the manpower shortage in the Railways, to suggest that he should employ Coloureds to do the work so that the Railways could operate. No, it was said that the White trade unions must give their consent. When the Vote of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was under discussion nobody said: “Give the Coloureds a chance; employ them so that the post can be delivered and so that our postal service can be placed on the basis on which we want it and where it can best serve the public.” It is not only in the political field that the Coloured must come into his own right. An hon. member accused the Government of being unable to see the end of the road. I admit that if the Government cannot see the end of the road they are not to blame. I myself cannot see the end of the road. Just as little as you could have expected a reply in 1902 had you asked the Afrikaner: “When will the Afrikaner be an economic factor in South Africa; when will he govern the country?”, just as little as the end of the road could then have been indicated by giving a date, just as little can I indicate in what year the Coloureds will come into all their political rights in South Africa. It is quite clear to me in which direction the road is going and that direction is socio-economic and cultural upliftment to a level at which the Coloureds will be able to argue on an equal footing with the Whites as regards his position in South Africa, and that is why I have never yet departed from the attitude that the Coloured should be accorded full citizenship. The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) said “No Coloured man will be prepared to be regarded as a second-class citizen.” That is a negative statement but the hon. member for Karoo dare not make the positive statement that the Coloured wants full political rights because his party does not allow him to say that. Full-fledged citizenship is, however, what the Coloured is striving for. [Time limit.]

In a debate on racial matters in a multi-racial country such as ours I dare say one has the right to expect the discussion to be on a high level and to be interesting and constructive. When one listens to sneakers on that side of the House one is carried back 17 years into the past to the time when this policy was first announced by the Government. We simply do not succeed in reaching a level at which we can discuss these matters constructively with the Opposition. The Government is proceeding with he implementation of its policy, and it has already performed miracles, but the opposition come along here and do not refer to those matters; on the contrary they are constantly arguing about a principle which was accepted by this House 19 years ago and which has repeatedly been endorsed by the people of South Africa. I want to ask them to-day to stop arguing in this scattered way, because they are really not getting us anywhere with their arguments. They are partly trying to accept the policy which is being applied in South Africa and partly rejecting and criticizing it, but one never reaches a level at which one can have a decent debate with the Opposition. Sir, that is definitely not worthy of a decent Opposition. We expect of the Opposition that they should now once and for all get their feet on solid ground and that they should argue with us about the merits of the case, because our debates on racial matters affect the weal and woe of human beings and the harmonious future existence of races in South Africa. I think we have the right to ask firstly that of the United Party in South Africa.

Before referring to certain remarks made by certain hon. members on the other side, I want to put a few very candid questions to the Opposition. I hope they are going to give us replies to those questions to-day, so that we can make some, progress in our debates in the future, and not always go back to the debate which was settled in this House as long ago as 1948. I want to ask hon. members whether the Opposition accepts the standpoint of the Government, as repeatedly enunciated by the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs, other Ministers of our Cabinet and National Party speakers, that there are various peoples or races living within the geographical boundaries of the Republic which cannot be mixed so as to form a single racial or political or social unit.

Yes or no.

Yes—“yes or no”. Then we get “yes or no” from that flippant member. We know that is his usual way of replying to questions. We have the right to expect something better from a responsible Opposition. That hon. member thinks it is his duty to make jokes in this House I do not think the weal and woe of this nation is of any great significance to him. As we have got to know him in this House, we have learnt not to have a great deal of respect for his earnestness when these, matters are being discussed. I now want to put a question to those hon. members of the Opposition who are in earnest about these matters, as we are. I want to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) please to tell me whether he accepts the standpoint I have mentioned, yes or no.

I am sorry; unfortunately I had to go out.

Then I shall repeat the question: Does the hon. member accept the standpoint that there are various peoples or races living within the geographical boundaries of the Republic which are not to be mixed so as to form a single racial or political social unit? Do you accept that?

I accept that there are separate races.

And do you accept that they are not to be mixed so as to form a single political or racial unit? Is that right? Answer yes or no.

I shall reply to you; I am noting that down.

He is noting it down and he may perhaps reply to it in some dark corner. I want to predict that he will definitely not reply to it in this House. I want to put a further question to the hon. member, although it seems to me that it is not much use to put questions to him. I want to put a further question, though, and this question is a much more difficult one to reply to. I predict that he will not reply to it at all.

May I just say to the hon. member that I am perfectly prepared to reply to his questions, but that you, Mr. Chairman, will call me to order.

I am asking you to reply “yes” or “no”. I want to put a further question to the hon. member, and he can reply to it in his next speech, although I do not think he will. The second question I want to put to him is this: Do the hon. the Opposition. and in particular the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who has now become the leader of the Coloured Affairs Group, the member who was to announce their policy here this afternoon but did not do so, admit that in the essential character, the culture and the background of the Whites and of the Coloured group there is a difference between them which makes it absolutely undesirable that these groups should be mixed so as to form a single unit? I am reading this from my notes, Mr. Chairman, so that my words cannot again be distorted later. Please give me a reply to that.

I am not aware of any people who want to mix.

I am not asking the member who the people are who want to mix; I am asking the hon. member a pertinent question: Does the hon. the Opposition admit that in the essential character, the culture and the background of the Whites and of the Coloured group there is a difference between them? Does the hon. member admit that?

Of course; you and I also look different.

Very well. Does he admit that there is an essential difference between the two which makes it absolutely undesirable that these groups should be mixed so as to form a single political or social unit?

We stand for co-operation, not for mixing.

Very well, now we come to the co-operation, and that is what the National Party stands for. I shall deal in a moment with what constitutes a basis for co-operation. My objection is that the hon. the Opposition are always evading matters. When we come to that road of co-operation, as outlined by the hon. the Prime Minister and as again set out in such a wonderfully clear way in this House by the hon. the Minister to-day, then one cannot understand how the Opposition can sit there without condescending to join in the discussion. I know that there are hon. members on those benches who feel extremely unhappy about the performance they have put up here to-day. I sympathize with them.

In addition I want to ask them whether the Opposition does not realize that nothing can cloud race relations more than to try to make one group an appendage of another. Does the Opposition admit that? I want to mention an example to them, although this example is not a parallel; I admit that at once. I want to mention an example of a case in which an attempt was made to make one race group an appendage of another group. It happened here in our own fatherland. An attempt was made to make the Afrikaner, with his culture, an appendage of British culture. Do hon. members remember what bitterness was caused by that? Do hon. members remember the struggle of the past? That struggle has become a thing of the past, and do hon. members know why? Because the Afrikaner is to-day recognized as a separate cultural group. We have reached political maturity and the two groups respect each other. If one wants the co-operation of the Coloured group in South Africa one must stop making them an appendage of the White group. It is something which undermines them, it is something which is an insult to them. They have something in themselves which they can develop into something beautiful; they can develop themselves to form a race group of their own. I want to put it to hon. members of the Opposition that if they bear the true interests of the Coloureds at heart they will stop always talking about brown Afrikaners or about Western character. These people have something which is their own. They have been born out of the soil of this country and they have grown up here to what they are to-day. It is our duty to help them to develop their own culture into something beautiful and proud. [Time limit.]

I should like to refer in passing to the questions put to this side of the House by the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. G. de K. Maree). He asked us to tell them precisely where this side of the House stood. This side of the House definitely still adheres to the policy laid down by the late General Hertzog and the late Dr. D. F. Malan. We stand by that policy and we shall adhere to that policy. That policy is a traditional one in South Africa. Contrary to what my hon. friend the member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) said, it is not the policy of the Nationalist Party Government which is the traditional one in South Africa. The policy of this Government is in conflict with the tradition in South Africa. The tradition in South Africa is one which dates back at least 100 years; in fact, it dates back 113 years. It dates back to 1852. We adhere to that tradition.

What is it?

It is that in the political sphere the Coloureds form part of and are an appendage to the White group. Is that clear? In the economic sphere the Coloureds are an appendage or a part of the economy of the Whites.

What is an appendage?

In the residential sphere there is separation. That is traditional in South Africa, and that is the policy on which we have based our attitude. I do not know what hon. members are arguing about with us, because we have said that time and again. I shall tell you what we base our policy on, Mr. Chairman. We not only base it on the declaration made by the late General Hertzog in March 1939, but we also base it on the attitude adopted by a great leader on that side, a man for whom we have respect, the late Dr. D. F. Malan. What did he say? I have always admitted that that leader of that side was a great Afrikaner. Listen to what he said in connection with this matter—

The Coloured has accepted the White man’s civilization.

How can that civilization now be a danger to the White man? It is the White man’s own civilization, not so?

Why then do you want to impose such restrictions on them if they are not a danger

We have never said that. That attitude has always been the policy of the United Party; I said so a moment ago. The hon. member must please open his ears. Dr. Malan stated further—

That is precisely what is happening to-day. The present advanced civilization of the Coloured is becoming his death. Dr. Malan continued—

That was in 1921.

It does not matter when it was. The philosophy of a great man remains valid. Christ lived 1,900 years ago and his philosophy still remains the gospel truth. Please do not make so nonsensical a remark—

What Dr. Malan said about he attitude of the North is important—

That is precisely what the true facts are. We say: Preserve the friendship of these people; retain them as an appendage of the Whites, and when we perhaps get into difficulties with our Native population one day, they will stand by us.

You have not proved anything yet.

Let me indicate to you where this side of the House stands, Mr. Chairman. Our policy is based on the tradition in South Africa. We maintain and we are convinced that no trouble or danger can be occasioned by what we want to give to the Coloureds; no trouble or danger can arise if we do justice to them: but if their franchise does perhaps become a danger, what does the United Party say? We say that the people of South Africa themselves will then decide whether they will grant any further political rights to the non-Whites . . .

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

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman . . .

Order! The hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) must not show his displeasure . . .

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I did not say a word.

Yes, but the hon. member had a disgruntled expression on his face. I do not want to see that happen again.

I was surprised at the jeers flung at the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) by hon. members opposite when he quoted Dr. Malan in some of his speeches of the past, and in view of the Prime Minister’s statement that the policy of his party was not mainly territorial segregation, but political separation, and also the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) and others always telling us that their policy is the traditional policy of our South African way of life, let me once and for all nail that untruth and place the facts on record, especially as Dagbreek on 9 May, stated that the present Minister of Coloured Affairs’ policy was nothing more than that of Dr. Malan. In view of this I must quote Dr. Malan. and what I am going to quote here is from Hansard, No. 16 and it was said in the presence of practically everyone of the people I am quoting—I was in the House at the time —and in not one single case was it contradicted. But to digress for a moment, in view of the Minister of Foreign Affairs telling the world that for the Coloureds “the sky is the limit”, let me say that the same promises were made by the Nationalist Government before and that there is nothing new in that statement. The creator of the Nationalist Party and its Prime Minister till 1933. was General Hertzog. This is what he said to a Coloured delegation at Aliwal North (Hansard, Vol. 16, Col. 923)—

That was the Nationalist Party policy as stated by the then Prime Minister. And he went on—

Sir. in those days the Nasionale Bond, a Coloured organization had been created by the Nationalist Party and it was part of the Nationalist Party organization. Dr. Malan, the then Minister of the Interior, as reported in the Cape Times on 14 April 1925, speaking in the City Hall—no permits were then required— addressed the Nasionale Bond Congress of Coloureds and said this—

This was the leader of the Nationalist Party talking. I now want to ask the Government in passing: Was Dr. Malan not as great an Afrikaner as the present Prime Minister? Were his roots not as deeply set in the soil of South Africa?

Deeper.

Was the safety of White South Africa not as secure in his hands as it is in the hands of the present Government? Had he not wisdom as great as the present Prime Minister? Was his policy calculated to destroy the Whites? Was he not a very sincere man?

I now come to another great leader and policy-maker of the Nationalist Party, Mr. Tielman Roos, a Transvaler and Nationalist Minister of Justice (no less) at that time. Addressing a Coloured audience in Cape Town he said—

Was he not one of the creators of the Nationalist Party? Had he not roots as deep as the present Prime Minister in the South African soil? Was he not an upholder and defender of White Afrikanerdom?

The Nationalist Minister of Mines of those days said to the Coloureds publicly that “they were the backbone of South Africa”. Had he also less regard than the present Prime Minister and the Minister of Community Development for the safety of White South Africa? Were they traitors, were they communists? Were his views traditional? Or has tradition only been created in the last week or two by the present Government?

But to come back to Dr. Malan. Speaking as Minister of the Interior on 17 June 1928, again in the City Hall, he was reported as follows—

Then we had a great Nationalist Government supporter, a certain Mr. Arthur Barlow, related by marriage, I understand, to the present Minister of Information, and he told the Malays—

But to-day they are not wanted as a Western part of the South African civilization.

A few years later, this time in the Strand Town Hall (again no permits required), Dr. Malan, as Minister of the Interior congratulated the Nasionale Bond on its growth and added—

He went on to say of this Coloured branch of the Nationalist Party—

He said that on behalf of the Nationalist Party and he went on to say that he refused to give the vote to the White women in 1928, because it did not provide for votes for Coloured women. He went and told the Coloured people—

At the Strand meeting, the Minister of Railway (Mr. Charlie Malan), a founder member of the Nationalist Party, thanked the Coloureds for supporting Mr. Paul Sauer, and he said—

Oh dear, oh dear, Mr. Chairman! I could go on quoting indefinitely, but one more quotation will suffice. The Prime Minister of the National Party Government in 1928 in reply to a question by General Byron across the floor of the House asking him: “Will you give the vote to the Coloured woman?”, said—

That was General Hertzog and that was the traditional and declared policy of the Nationalist Party. But to-day, the new “old tradition”, aged incidentally, a few weeks, and which in racing parlance would be said to be “by hypocrisy out of expediency”, is that a Coloured person is unfitted to sit in the open air—even if segregated—with the Prime Minister and his Government at a football match. As I said earlier, they can’t even touch their country’s flag, because they defile it.

That is the position, and I say to this House here to-night, and to hon members: You can give the Coloured man schools, you can give him education, you can give him housing and everything else, but I say to you that nothing material he is given will make up for touching his ego by this petty apartheid. He will never forgive it, he will never forget it, and it is that which is causing our name to be so unpopular in the world to-day. That is what our friends opposite apparently cannot see. Can’t the Government realize that after the Boer War, notwithstanding all amends made by the British for the wrongs of the Boer War, still because of what they had suffered: humiliation and defeat, they could not forget or forgive; and to-day some are still fighting the Boer War. Why? Because of the touching of their ego and the humiliation they suffered. Cannot they see that these Coloured people are going to feel the same for the next 100 or 200 years? That is why I can’t understand the Government carrying on with their present policy. [Time limit.]

I am sure I will be pardoned for saying in all modesty but with great emphasis that I have too much respect for the memory of Dr. Malan and of the other gentlemen who were referred to by the hon. members on the other side shortly before the suspension of business and again now, to reply to the type of “after dinner speech” which we have just had from the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. Van der Byl).

Mr. Chairman, the proof of the pudding lies in the eating thereof, as the saying goes. Apart from the fact that the Coloured people themselves shatteringly rejected the United Party, including the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) at the last provincial election here in the Cape Province, it is rather interesting to try and find out what the Coloured people are saying about the United Party. I have taken the trouble to try and find out, and I want to make one quotation which I find a striking one and which I think summarizes many other quotations which I could use. That quotation is the following [translation]—

What was said by a Coloured man is indeed true of the United Party: “Master, you must not do to us what Master Jannie Smuts did to us. He held out a golden apple in his hand to us, and he went into his grave with it.” That is not what the National Party wants to do in respect of the Coloured people.

But what does a Coloured leader say about the matters under discussion? I quote—

Continuing, he says—

Who said that?

Tom Swartz, the leader of the Federal Coloured People’s Party, in a speech made before the congress of that Party held in the Maitland Town Hall from the 12th to the 13th March, 1965, a speech which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has in his possession, but from which he did not have the courage to quote. He stated further—

These, surely, are the words of a responsible Coloured leader. Another Coloured leader in the Transvaal said in Boksburg on the 13th April, 1965—not in the year dot from which the hon. members of the United Party try to quote—

I am quoting Mr. J. Poley, the Provincial Chairman of this Coloured People’s Party in the Transvaal.

“More and more of our Coloured leaders are beginning to see the wisdom of the policy of separate development,” he said. I could make many more quotations, but surely in the light of the quotations which I have already made it is true to say that the accusations made by the United Party against the hon. Prime Minister and the capable Minister of Coloured Affairs we have, and against the National Party, are hollow, as hollow as the United Party itself, and it is positively hollow, is it not, Mr. Chairman? The United Party are once again running away from their own policy in regard to the Coloured people, and that is why it can be said of the United Party that it has the appearance of something that has just come out of the clothes-basket. It has the appearance of a person with one remaining tooth, one missing tooth, one false tooth and one hollow tooth—that is the appearance presented by the United Party in this House.

But what does a Coloured man say about the Progressive Party? I am again quoting (translation)—

I am quoting from a letter in the Burger on 13th May 1965 by a prominent Coloured person from Heidelberg.

And another leader, Mr. J. Poley, from the Transvaal, whom I have already mentioned, says (translation)—

That is a quotation from the Transvaler of 17 May 1965, referring to the provincial election. Now I want to say this: Does the Progressive Party or anyone perhaps think that the Coloured people will be satisfied with the left-overs of Whites which the Whites themselves no longer want? I think, Mr. Chairman, that we need no prophet to tell us that if the Progressive Party continues to be totally rejected by the White voters, as we think will be the case, it will be just as, no, even more unacceptable to the Coloured people, because the Coloured people will surely not be satisfied with the left-overs which have been rejected by the Whites. In addition to what has been said so far, there is also the positive policy of the National Party, the positive policy of a Coloured Council elected by the Coloured people for the Coloured people, which will develop into a Coloured Parliament with legislative and executive power—Defence. Transport and a few other matters excepted —with direct access for Coloured Cabinet Ministers to our White Cabinet Ministers, a Coloured Capital, which the National Party Government will help to establish for the Coloureds, proper separate residential areas with rights of local government, without competition which would force them out, economic development—in this connection I want to mention that from September 1962, to March 1965, the Coloured Development Corporation dealt with 111 applications and made available R 1,213,233; I mention the Spes Bona Bank for Coloureds, the fishing concessions in Namaqualand which have been granted by the National Party Government, the crayfish industry which the Coloured people have entered, agricultural training for Coloureds, magnificent housing schemes. As a result of the amendment to the liquor laws in 1962— Section l00 sex of the Liquor Act—the Coloured people have been enabled to establish liquor-selling restaurants in their own areas. From some research which I have done I find that in one case Coloured persons, with the assistance of this Coloured Corporation, repaid the full capital amount plus interest after six months; in another case the Coloured persons concerned showed a profit of R17,000 after 12 months, which would make possible a dividend of approximately 300 per cent. That is in our country, in which there is so-called oppression, in connection with which the United Party and the Progressive Party are doing their share in trying to create such an image of the National Party abroad.

In respect of welfare services I just want to mention that the National Party Government provided R2,475,000 for child care during the year 1964-5, and R9,569,000 in respect of old-age pensions and pensions for blind persons and disabled persons. That is what is being done in this country of oppression! What a disgrace that the United Party and the Progressive Party are presenting that false image to the world!

Above all, the National Party Government is envisaging the establishment of a higher advisory consultative body in which the chief ministers, or leaders of the various groups, will be able to deliberate on matters of common interest. It may therefore truly be said that under the National Party regime a new day has dawned for the Coloured people in South Africa. In the words of a very well-known motto I want to say that under the National Party regime it may also be said of the Coloured people “Het daghet overal” (The dawn is breaking everywhere). [Time limit.]

I don’t intend to follow up what the hon. member for Edenvale has said, except to refer a little later to some of the references which he has made in regard to Coloured leaders. Nor do I intend to disturb the hon. Minister in the stratosphere in which he is floating and the Utopia which he has sketched for the Coloured people. All I want to tell the hon. the Minister is that it is not what you do for the people, it is what you do to the people that is important. I don’t care what you give the Coloured people; as long as you hurt them, as the Government has done, the Coloured people will resent this treatment. I agree with the hon. the Minister that this Government has done a lot for the Coloured people. I recognize what he has done in regard to housing, I know what has been done in the field of education. I admit all that. But the hon. the Minister himself will say that they are entitled to these things. Of course they are entitled to them. You have brought about the separation. They are entitled to houses, and they are entitled to schools. The hon. Minister made great play of the fact that the Opposition is dishonest with the Coloured people in that they have the vote in the Cape, but when they go to the Transvaal, they have not got the vote. But I raised this question with the hon. the Minister in 1960 and I asked in this House that the vote be extended to the Coloured people in the Transvaal and other provinces, and I suggested that when they decided to nominate eight Senators for the Coloured people in the Senate, that they should not nominate them, but that they should give the Coloured people the vote to elect these Senators. But the hon. the Minister did not take advantage of that. He cannot now throw it back at the Opposition that we do not want to extend the vote to the Transvaal, where he himself was in a position to do so since 1960 when I raised the matter, but took no steps to do so. I raise the question of the Senators because I have got an extract of the speech made by a Senator, the hon. Mr. Olivier who is a nominated Senator for Coloureds in the Senate. And here I want to ask the hon. member for Edenvale and the hon. the Minister: Do you regard the people whom you quoted as being responsible Coloured people?

Why not?

Do you think they are responsible in regard to what they say and in regard to what they will do for the Coloured people? The hon. Minister spoke about a Coloured Parliament in 1966, and he indicated that there will be responsibility for the Coloureds in finance, in education and one or two other things. I want the hon. the Minister to-night to repudiate the hon. Senator Olivier who said this. . . .

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to refer to a speech by a Senator in the Other Place.

Then I will say a prominent Nationalist said . . .

Who?

A prominent Nationalist said that the Coloureds would act irresponsibly. I say that that is an unfounded charge against the Coloureds who—I agree with the hon. member for Edenvale—would act responsibly in anything they would have to do for the Coloured people. But you see, Mr. Chairman, they speak with two voices. When they have to decide about a certain Bill, they attack the Coloureds as being irresponsible, but when they try to support their own policy, they say the Coloured people are responsible people. I want to agree with those hon. members who say that the Coloured people are responsible people, and that they deserve to receive from this Government the same treatment politically at any rate as they themselves ask. I want to make it quite clear, once and for all, and I think I can talk for my colleagues, that we will not accept anything less for the Coloureds that the common roll. We will not accept anything less for the Coloureds than political equality. Because we maintain, despite anything that the Government members may say, that the Coloured people are full citizens of this country and are entitled to full political rights, and we will stand by that all the way as long as we are members in this House. The next question I want to ask the hon. Minister is whether he can tell me when is a festival a commemoration, and when a commemoration a festival, because you will find, Sir, in the Estimates there is provision for an amount of R2,000 for a commemoration of the festival, whereas for the Europeans there is something like R20,000 odd granted. The Coloureds will have the commemoration and the Europeans will have a festival!

One gets a lemonade and the other a whisky.

I think that is more or less the position. I want to say that I am not going to give any lead to the Coloured people as to what they must do on 31 May. I as a true South African will accept that to-day we are a Republic. But what did the Government do to the Coloured people when it came to a referendum on the Republic? The Coloured people were excluded. They were not allowed to raise their voice for or against a change in the status of their country, but they are now asked to commemorate that great day! It may be said that Coloured people are free to do what they like on 31 May, but I do want the hon. the Minister to explain to me why the Europeans have a committee of between 20 and 30 people, representatives of every part of the country, and all that the Minister has done for the Coloured people is to appoint a committee, according to the Press report, consisting of four Europeans of the Department of Coloured Affairs, and two members of the Coloured Council. What about the other Coloured leaders of South Africa? Are they not entitled to be asked to serve on a committee to arrange the commemoration of the day when we became a Republic in 1961? The Minister has not shown that he wants the goodwill of the Coloured people for this commemoration by appointing people from all over South Africa to serve on this committee. Only the White people from all over South Africa can serve on this committee, but as far as the Coloured people are concerned, we have four White people and two members of the Union Council. Why did the Minister do that? Where are the other Coloured leaders? Why should they not be consulted? Why should they not take part in this? Why should there be four White people? Why not an all-Coloured committee? Are they not capable of leading their people? The hon. the Minister mentioned some names here this afternoon of responsible Coloured people who are able to serve on this committee. Is it necessary always to have representatives of the Coloured Affairs Department on these things when it purely concerns the Coloured people? According to the Press report no White man will be able to go to the Goodwood Show grounds for this festival, only the Coloured people being allowed there. I say that this separation on this national day, is all wrong. Every country in the world has a national day, when every citizen of that country is entitled to take part. In America it is 4 July. In every country of Europe they have a national day when every person who belongs to that country rejoices together as one group, but in South Africa you have this unique position that there is a separation of people based on colour. [Time limit.[

This House is in the very fortunate position to-day that it can discuss the vote “Coloured Affairs” absolutely objectively. It is in the position to do so due to the fact that the Coloureds have been placed on a separate Voters’ Roll and taken out of the politics of the White man. That is why this debate can be conducted without any one political party bidding against the other for the Coloured vote.

Mr. Chairman, the policy of the Nationalist Party in respect of this matter has repeatedly been stated very clearly and strongly by both the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs whose vote we are discussing at the moment. That being the case I think, therefore, that everything is clear. It has been stated clearly that it is one of separate development, that it means parallel opportunity for the White, the Coloured and the Bantu, as seen in the pattern of separate development. The policy of the National Party in respect of the Coloureds, has, therefore, also been stated clearly and strongly. But on 18 April of this year a new note was struck when a new direction of policy was announced in the Sunday Times as emanating from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), and with reference to that I maintain that the United Party is beginning to lose its democratic character. The voters who voted for the United Party and sent those hon. members here did so on the strength of a manifesto by the United Party and I want to quote from this official document which was issued by the United Party during the election. I read this concerning the Coloureds—

Quite right!

—

That was what was held out to the voters during an election and on the strength of that the voters voted for the United Party and sent them here even if it was as an opposition. It was the democratic right of the electorate to vote for them in terms of the policy which was held out to them. I want to put a question to any member of the Opposition who is prepared to answer it: Has that policy been changed by a congress? Has that policy been changed by their caucus? Has any member of the United Party the right to change such a policy? Is it democratic for an individual member of the United Party to publish a statement of policy? We know that a caucus was held days afterwards but I want to know whether a congress of the United Party has accepted this policy? According to this policy the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asks very clearly—he can get up and tell me if I am quoting him incorrectly . . .

We are not such bottle babies as you are.

The hon. member is talking in her sleep. We also have this spectacle that the member for Karoo (Mr. Eden), a Coloured Representative, is a member of the caucus of the United Party, but what happened? Can we blame the Coloureds for not having any confidence in him when the United Party caucus has no confidence in the hon. member? Because they have appointed the hon. member for Bezuidenhout leader of he Coloured Group and the hon. member for Wynberg secretary of that group. We must go into the historical background of the Coloureds’ removal to a separate roll. We had a joint sitting in order to do so. A Torch Commando came into being to register protest in support of the holy right of the Coloureds to be on the common roll. The Defenders of the Constitution came into being; the Liberal Party and the Black Sash came into being. They all came into being to protest against this devilish thing the National Party was doing of placing the Coloureds on a separate roll. Ever since then the United Party have stated that it is their policy to restore the Coloureds to the common roll. Have the United Party now changed their front? Has their congress changed that policy for them? We must have clarity on that and it will not go unnoticed by the electorate. But the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has added something. Listen to his reason why they should remain on a separate roll. Listen to this morality, Sir. This is his reason. [Interjections.] This change of front on the part of the United Party is motivated by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He says that if they were restored to the common roll not one of them will ever be elected to sit in this House. In other words the hon. member has not confidence in the United Party that they will elect and send Coloureds here. I want to ask him this. If the United Party is so anxious to have Coloureds in this House why don’t they guarantee a number of seats to the Coloureds?

They elect their own candidates.

Yes, but a moment ago the hon. member told us a story. He nearly moved us to tears when he told us about the Coloured father who, with his little boy, passed a Government building. I want to ask that hon. member what that father will say to his little boy if that little boy asks him to which branch of the United Party he belongs. Can he be a member of a branch of the United Party? Why does the hon. member not accept him in the United Party and why does the United Party not guarantee the Coloureds a certain number of seats and tell the Coloureds that in respect of those seats they will see to it that Coloureds are elected? Then, and only then, will we accept the morality of the United Party. But until we have that assurance all his change of front is nothing but bluff, a sham and political deceit as far as the Coloureds are concerned.

I want to raise a few matters but before doing so I just want to say a word or two to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg). Right from the outset he was on the wrong road. One really does not expect any hon. member opposite to say that the United Party has lost its democratic spirit. I want to ask the hon. member this: When did a congress of the Nationalist Party approve of the policy of independent homelands for the Bantu? That is a policy which the Prime Minister has handed to that party and neither he nor any other Nationalist member had any say in the formulation of that policy.

You are making a mistake. That is purely a consequence of our policy.

The other evening the hon. the Prime Minister got up here and while he was speaking I watched hon. members opposite. He talked about the Coloureds, and do you know, Sir. I noticed surprise and consternation on the faces of hon. members opposite. They did not know what had hit them. I asked myself whether the hon. the Prime Minister had consulted the caucus of his party. I take it that he did but I am sure that a newspaper like the Burger did not know anything about that transaction because it described it as a re-formulation of policy, which the hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs denied this afternoon. Now that hon. member says we are losing our democratic spirit. What has happened to that of his party? Or is he suggesting that his party has never been a democratic party?

He talks about membership and morality. Does he remember the days when Coloureds voted for his party on a large scale? Were they members of his party at that time? Did they attend the meetings of his party, and if not, where was the morality of his party? [Interjections.] It really does not behove the hon. member to talk about morality.

But I want to return to the hon. the Minister regarding a specific point. The Minister has appointed a special committee in connection with the removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape. I want to ask the Minister whether he can give us clarity on this matter. If I understood the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration correctly, the policy no longer seems to be one of removing the Bantu but one of keeping the Bantu here and converting him into a temporary worker. And as soon as you have made a temporary worker out of him you no longer have to remove him. I just want to know from the Minister whether I understand the policy of the Nationalist Party correctly as far as that point is concerned. The number of Bantu who are flocking to the Western Cape is continuing to increase.

Order! The hon. member is now going too far.

I shall be grateful if the Minister would assure me that I am interpreting the policy of the Nationalist Party correctly.

I want to say to the Minister that I think the time has arrived for South Africa to decide what place the Coloureds are to occupy in the political set-up of this country. I think we must state our attitude clearly and correctly in this regard. We have a huge number of people here with their roots firmly embedded in this country, they are people who share in our civilization and who have always been loyal to the Whites. I think that if we as the Whites, who have the control in our hands, we who also hold the fate of the Coloureds in our hands, want to approach this matter correctly, we must come to a decision which will place the Coloureds on as close a basis of partnership with the Whites as possible; in other words, that we should make them the permanent friends of the White group here at the southern tip of Africa which, as a result of various circumstances and developments, may find itself in an extremely dangerous position. I think our approach should be, inter alia, to hold out in prospect to the Coloureds the possibility of full citizenship in South Africa. In other words, the Coloured should be able to say that he can become a full-fledged citizen of South Africa. It should be possible for him to exercise his rights as a citizen of South Africa and that immediately brings me to this question: What is the approach of the Nationalist Party?

What does your full-fledged citizenship imply?

Read the Acts and see what a South African citizen is. then you will-know. I do not think I can agree with the approach of the Nationalist Party in this respect. The hon. member for Edenvale (Dr. Koornhof) had a great deal to say about the Coloureds who were supposed to be so happy about what the Nationalist Party was doing and so unhappy about the Progressive Party and the United Party. The very Coloured person he quoted as having made that accusation against the United Party is the leader of the Coloured Party which stands for full citizenship for the Coloureds in South Africa. He is also a supporter of a party who says it outright and the Minister has confirmed to-day that the Nationalist Party will never give more than limited political rights to the Coloureds. The Minister said this afternoon that he stood by that. I think the Minister has now closed the door for all time for the Coloureds ever -to obtain those full political rights in South Africa which will entitle them to enjoy full citizenship. I say that if the Nationalist Party continues along this road I do not think they will win the friendship and loyalty of the Coloureds in the long run. People talk about the safety of the Whites but I say the Whites in South Africa cannot afford to make an enemy of the Coloureds who have all these years been loyal to the Whites. I want to ask the Minister this: Do not close the door to the Coloureds; give them the chance to develop and if you do not or cannot now give him the chance to develop and to exercise his political rights in the normal way, hold out that hope to him at least; don’t do what the Nationalist Party is doing at the moment, in other words, do not close the door for all time because he constitutes a minority group. The Nationalist Party say unequivocally to the Coloured that he will never be in a position in which he will be able to assist in the government of South Africa; the White will always govern alone and the Coloured will for all time be in an inferior political position. [Time limit.]

I have listened with very great interest to the debate and particularly to the last speaker. Sir, I should like to bring this debate back to the basic difference between the National Party and the United Party as far as the Coloureds are concerned, and I do so in pursuance of the statement which was made a moment ago by the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) that the Coloureds must be given full citizenship in South Africa. I hope I understood him correctly.

What is the charge that is being made against the National Party? The basic charge is that we want to keep the Coloureds in a permanent position of inferiority. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that we wanted to place a low ceiling over the advancement of the Coloureds. The hon. member for Wynberg said by way of interjection that we wanted to make the Coloureds second-class citizens. Sir, what is the policy of the National Party and what is it prepared to offer to the Coloureds? In the first place we are prepared to offer them four White representatives in this House, and in that regard let me say this: I regard that political right that we are giving them, the right to have four White representatives here, as the least of the political rights that we are prepared to give the Coloureds. In addition to that we are offering them a Coloured Council which can develop into a Coloured Parliament, headed by a Coloured Prime Minister, a Coloured Cabinet, which will govern the Coloureds and look after their interests, their education and health, etc. There will be a Coloured public service and a Coloured judicial system, Coloured local authorities, Coloured mayors and Coloured town councillors. There will be a Coloured director of education, and we will develop amongst the Coloureds the one thing that they are anxious to have and that is a Coloured governing class; in other words, a Coloured prime minister, Coloured cabinet members, mayors, etc. That is what this party is prepared to offer to the Coloureds. These are the real rights that we are prepared to offer them, and in addition to that we are willing, as the Prime Minister has said, to allow the Coloured Ministers to have direct access to the White Ministers for the purpose of negotiating with them in matters of common interest. I say that in the circumstances this is as near as one can possibly get to complete political emancipation, social emancipation and economic emancipation. But what is the United Party, which accuses us of wanting to make the Coloureds second-class citizens and of wanting to keep them in a permanent position of inferiority, prepared to offer the Coloureds? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is willing to give them four Coloured representatives in this House. Would that give them first-class citizenship? Would that not make them feel inferior? If one wants to give the Coloureds complete equality on the basis of group representation and place them in a position in which they will be first-class citizens in exactly the same way as the Whites, then there is only one way in which it can be done. There are 1,500,000 Coloureds in this country and 3,000,000 Whites. One should then be willing to give the Coloureds at least one-third of the representatives in this Parliament. Sir, is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout prepared to give the Coloureds one-third of the representation in this House; in other words, on the present basis, 50 Coloured seats? I put that question to the hon. member for Musgrave. They say that they want to make the Coloureds first-class citizens. I want to know from him whether four Coloured representatives in this House would give the Coloureds complete equality? Is there any way in which one can make first-class citizens of the Coloureds on the basis of group representation other than by giving them representation in this House in proportion to their numbers, even if it is not to-day but in five or twenty years’ time? I want to know from the hon. member for Musgrave whether he is prepared to allow 50 Coloureds to sit in this House?

How are you going to give them first-class citizenship?

I have already said that under our plan we are giving the Coloureds something that is as close to complete political emancipation as it is possible to give them in practice. But, Sir, these are the people who accuse us of wanting to oppress the Coloureds! I contend that what they want to do is to keep the Coloureds in a position which amounts to greater oppression. They want to give them a sop by giving them four Coloured representatives.

Who wants to do that?

If the hon. member says that that is not enough, I want to ask him whether he is willing during his lifetime to let the Coloureds have 20 representatives in this House. Sir, there you have it! They want to offer the Coloureds four Coloured representatives in this House.

Who are “they”?

He and Japie.

No, only Japie. But they are not prepared to give 20 to 50 seats to the Coloureds so that they can enjoy full citizenship. Sir, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is still a young man. Is he prepared to say that he is willing to let 50 Coloureds sit in this Parliament during his lifetime? Of course not. But now I come to the hon. member for Maitland The hon. member does not believe in group representation. He is involved in a bitter struggle with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout but I want to offer him this consolation: If he knows the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as well as I know him, he will have an easy victory. The hon. member for Maitland says, “No, put the Coloureds back on to the Common Roll.” How does he want to put them back on to the Common Roll? You will have a number of Coloureds in the Cape on the Common Roll, no Coloureds in the Free State, no Coloureds in the Transvaal, and a small number of Coloureds in Natal. Where does the morality come into it? Where does first-class citizenship come into it? What becomes then of the brown Afrikaners to whom the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred? The hon. member for Maitland is willing to do no more than to keep the Coloureds in a position of the utmost inferiority because there is only one way in which they can be given full citizenship, first-class citizenship, and in which the ceiling over their heads, which hon. members opposite say should be removed, can be removed, and that is by placing the Coloureds on the Common Roll—every man, every woman and every child over 18 years of age. Unless one is willing to to that, then surely one is keeping them in a position of inferiority. The attitude of the National Party is that having regard to our social position in South Africa it is only in terms of our policy that the Coloureds can be given the greatest measure of emancipation. Under the policy of the National Party the Coloureds can be brought much closer to political and economic emancipation than they could under the policy of the United Party. Sir, having listened here this afternoon to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and other hon. members opposite, I am convinced that the real policy of the United Party is one of complete equality for the Coloureds, whether they are off the separate roll, in other words, where they have at least 50 Coloured representatives in this Parliament, or whether they are on the Common Roll on the same basis as the Whites, where every man, every woman and every person over 18 years has the vote. [Time limit.]

It is quite a privilege to me to enter this debate immediately after the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). I must say that the one thing I will always be prepared to give him is a tranquillizer, if only he would take one.

The Minister this afternoon made some rather startling statements, but I am not going to talk about politics at all; I am going to talk about education. The Minister made a rather astonishing statement when he said that the Nationalist Government had done more for the education of the Coloured people than any other Government in our history and that it had really put the Coloured people on the road towards vocational and technical training. I would like to remind the Minister that that is not correct. I put it as politely as that. I want to draw his attention to the recommendations of the De Villiers Commission on Technical and Vocational Education, which reported in 1948, just before the United Party Government went out of office, and I want to read a few of those recommendations which it has taken his Government 17 years to implement. These are the recommendations. One of the paragraphs reads—

That, may I say, in terms of these recommendations, was to be applied to both Europeans and non-Europeans. Chapter 18 contains recommendations which apply entirely to non-Whites, and paragraph 1807 reads—

That was in 1948. Paragraph 1810 says that the school should be closely integrated with the life and activities of the community it serves. The Minister made much this afternoon of the link between parents and school committees set up by his Government. This was recommended in 1948 by our Commission. In paragraph 1881 it says that a detailed survey of all types and levels of occupational opportunities for non-Europeans is to be undertaken, to be used as the basis for a training programme. I could go on quoting these recommendations, but they are all more or less on the same lines, practical recommendations in regard to compulsory schooling and vocational and technical training for the non-White peoples. Coloured and Bantu, 17 years before this Government ever even thought about it. Then I would like to take the Minister upon another point. He laid great emphasis on the fact that we on this side of the House opposed the Population Registration Act. The Minister asked how we were going to distinguish between the Coloureds and the Bantu if we continue to take this line. I would like to take this opportunity of quoting to the Minister the regulations framed in terms of his own Coloured Education Act, and I quote from the Government Gazette of 4 December 1963 regarding the admission of pupils to school. The Minister should note that this regulation has no bearing at all on the Population Registration Act as is incorporated in every other education ordinance throughout the provinces in this country or in every other education Act. Under these regulations no child other than a Coloured shall be admitted to a school provided that, where circumstances render it necessary, children of other non-White races may be admitted with the approval of the Minister. In other words, the Minister will find it very difficult to decide whom to admit to a Coloured school. It is provided, further, that where a pupil, other than a Coloured, has been enrolled at a school on the date of commencement of these regulations it shall be deemed that the Minister’s approval therefor has been obtained. That mean that if the principal is satisfied that the child is a Coloured and accommodation is available, then it is left to the principal to decide whether he is a Bantu or a Coloured, and the Minister knows very well indeed that there are lots of Bantu children being educated in Coloured schools. This has been the case ever since this Government took over the control of Coloured education. The final point in these regulations with regard to the Population Registration Act is this: The parent or the guardian may appeal to the Regional Board against a decision of a school committee if he thinks his child has been wrongly classified, and then it says that the decision of the Regional Board shall prevail over that of the school committee, and then the parent or guardian may appeal against the decision of a regional board to the secretary, whose decision shall be final. But nowhere in these regulations, made by the Minister in terms of the Coloured Education Act, is there any reference to the Population Registration Act as a means of distinguishing between Coloureds and Bantu, for the obvious reason that he knows the difficulties in which be will land himself. So his attempt this afternoon to write us off in this regard was just a waste of time.

The first issue I should like to raise with the Minister is something which has not been mentioned in the course of this debate. It is the question of compulsory schooling for Coloured children. I raised this matter under his Vote last year and I received no answer from the Minister. In April last year, by notice in the Government Gazette, in the province of Natal, compulsory schooling for Coloured children was introduced and all Coloured children were compelled to go to school up to the age of 16 or Standard eight, which is the same level prescribed for White children. I would like to know from the Minister whether he is prepared to implement the same principle as soon as possible in the other provinces, and if not why not ? In reply to a question of mine last year, the Minister told us that the number of children in the Free State whom he estimated were not yet in school was only 808. Now that, with respect, was more than twelve months ago, and I would like to know whether accommodation has been found for those 808 children. It represents the equivalent of two schools, although they are distributed throughout the province, and I would like to know why he is not prepared to introduce compulsory schooling if there were only 808 pupils to accommodate.

In the Transvaal the position is very similar. In 1964 there were only 3,181 children not in school, according to the Estimates. I would like to ask the Minister whether he has done anything about this situation since then, because it seems to me that it would be a reasonable proposition, from an educational point of view, for the Minister, if he wanted to prove his bona fides, to introduce compulsory schooling for Coloured children in Natal and the Transvaal up to the age of 14 or Standard four, a provision which existed in our Cape Education Ordinance for many years—as a start, at any rate. It would be something which would be very acceptable to the Coloured community. It does not seem to me that the Minister would require a great deal of accommodation or many more teachers to accommodate 808 children in the Free State and 3,000 in the Transvaal. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, since I last replied to the debate, not much has happened to make it worth the trouble for me to reply again. What I said in connection with another Vote this morning, applies with regard to this discussion as well. That is that here, too, the Opposition discussed quite a number of matters, but did not discuss the Budget proposals which are before the Committee.

The hon. member who has just resumed her seat (Mrs. Taylor) would have known, if she had listened this afternoon, that I already said, when I referred to the education of Coloured persons, why compulsory education was not possible. The position is therefore that I already dealt with that this afternoon . . .

But not sufficiently.

Apparently the hon. member was so excited at the time that she did not listen to what I had to say. I referred, for example, to the shortage of properly trained teachers— an inheritance. I also pointed out the shortage of suitable school buildings, as well as the fact that the Coloured population as such is not yet ripe for general compulsory education. Surely I cannot be expected to repeat these things year after year, and even twice in the same debate?

Are they not even ready for it up to Standard IV?

No, and I told the hon. member why not. There are other means that we can employ. This links up with a question which the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) put to me about the issue of the replacement of Bantu labour. In that connection it has never been the idea to replace Bantu by Coloured persons only. If the hon. member went and took a look at the statements which have been made in connection with this matter, he would see that we said that a process had to be set in motion here, a process which would make possible the gradual replacement of Bantu labour. One facet of that process was the better preparation of the Coloured people for certain work. That was only one of the means, and therefore not the only one. We said that it would be a gradual process. A public committee has been established to work out the process, a committee on which various economic interests are represented, as well as district committees all over the country, committees which are constantly working out plans and deliberating on the ways in which this policy can be introduced from district to district. In this connection I want to say that we are grateful for the co-operation we are receiving here from farmers’ organizations, economic institutions, local authorities, and so forth. As a matter of fact, there is a whole network of people who are paying attention to this matter.

But that is not all. As far as the Coloured people are concerned, we shall have to take certain steps to prepare them better for employment. I can mention a few examples to you in this regard. I cannot go into details now— we could have discussed those details this afternoon, and more profitably than was the case with the lot of hollow stories which we had to listen to. If hon. members had really been interested in these matters, they could and would rather have discussed them. There is. for example, the question of better training in the agricultural field with a view to farm labour. We are paying active attention to that aspect, in collaboration with farmers’ committees. There is the question of technical training and the vocational schools which we have established in that connection. It is the intention to commence with the establishment of five different trade schools at the beginning of next year. We are busy establishing a technical college. We are working on a course for training more Coloured persons as waiters in the hotel industry. The Department is paying attention to all these matters, in collaboration with the interested parties. If hon. members had wanted to discuss these matters on their merits, we could have done so. It is not much use to come and put these matters to me at this late hour. Hon. members should have thought of them earlier.

But now the hon. member for Maitland comes along and says that what he really wants to know from me is what my attitude is in regard to the question as to whether or not we want to grant the Coloured people full citizenship or not, Mr. Chairman, I could still have understood it if that question had been put to me by any other hon. member. But that it was done by the hon. member for Maitland, he of all people—that I cannot understand. Is he not the man who led a deputation from his constituency and submitted a petition to me in which objection was made to the fact that Coloureds had to pass through a White residential area in walking to bus stops? And he did that only a few weeks ago! It was mentioned in the Press and that is why I am referring to it.

That has nothing to do with citizenship.

Oh! A full citizen! Mr. Chairman, I am just referring to this incident to point out the absolute hollowness of that argument on the part of the Opposition.

Hypocrisy!

Here a responsible general-secretary of the party on the other side, and a member of this House at the same time, comes along and pleads for the granting of full citizenship to the Coloured people. At the same time, behind the scenes, he leads a deputation to me . .,

Not behind the scenes.

... or outside of this House, to come and object to the fact that Coloureds have to pass through a White residential area in walking to bus stops. [Interjections.] That is his “full” citizenship!

Mr. Chairman, may I . . .

No, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member must take his medicine now. I am saying that that is the “full” citizenship which he wants to offer the Coloured people—fine talk in this House when he is speaking in the presence of the Press, but when his own person is concerned he also objects to integrating with the Coloured people, because then he does not even want to allow them to walk through a White residential area.

Now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will thrash the hon. member! Now he will get a hiding!

But, Mr. Chairman, what have we really experienced here to-night? We have seen a spectacle here to-day and I think it is necessary for us to summarise that spectacle for ourselves.

I do not think I am doing the Opposition any injustice by saying that what they advocated here this afternoon was nothing but absolute equality for Whites and Coloured people. They advocate absolute equality for Whites and Coloured people by, for a start, only restoring the small group of Coloured people in the Cape Province to the common voters’ roll. There are only 30,000 or 40,000 of them. Now I want to ask whether matters will remain at that, or do they want to restore all Coloured people, that is to say, those in the Cape Province and in Natal, to the common voters’ roll? If not, what is then the difference between the Coloured people of the Cape Province and those of Natal? What is the difference between the Coloured people of the Cape Province, who then have to be restored to the common voters’ roll, and the Coloured people of the Transvaal, who then have to get representation in the Senate? Can’t you see the absolute hollowness of the Opposition’s arguments in this connection? I have never heard bigger double-talk on the part of a political party than we have had to listen to here this afternoon.

What then does full citizenship mean? We hear them talking about “full citizenship” and “We do not want second-class citizens” and “We want full citizenship”, not so? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is the man who speaks of “brown Afrikaners”. Very well then. If one wants to be honest, there is only one consequence arising from this, that is to say, if one accepts that the Coloured people, the “brown Afrikaners”, must enjoy full citizenship and that they must share all the privileges enjoyed by the Westerner in South Africa—and on an equal basis, that is to say. without any difference between the political rights of the various groups. Only one consequence can arise from that—and now I want to lay this at the door of the United Party; they can deny it, because there will still be an opportunity to do so. I say that their policy aims at bringing about absolute equality in the Public Service. Their policy aims at throwing open all Government Departments to both the Whites and the Coloured people. Over against that, it is the policy of the Government to admit Coloured persons to the Public Service only for the purpose of serving their own people. We grant them rights of citizenship, but at the same time we say that we are granting them those rights in order to enable them to serve his own people—in their own areas and within their own working conditions. Over against that the Opposition wants to throw open the entire Public Service to the Coloured people. Will they deny that?

Yes, of course.

There is the man who wants to grant these “brown Afrikaners” full citizenship rights! So it is absolute double-talk!

We are speaking of political rights.

The United Party says that the “brown Afrikaners” should be granted full citizenship. What right does one have to say to a man that one is granting him full political rights, but that he must remain living in his own residential area as I in mine? Therefore I make the charge against the United Party that if it should get into power, it would abolish the establishment of separate residential areas. They would abolish that. Now is their chance to deny that. [Interjections.]

You know our policy.

Which one?

Order!

If one wants to grant the Coloured people full rights of citizenship, you will have to abolish the colour bar in industry; then the colour bars which are laid down in our industrial legislation and which are implicit in our traditional policy as far as our industries are concerned will have to be abolished. I therefore say that the White worker must realize that if the United Party gets into power, the colour bar in industry will disappear, because that is what full citizenship for the Coloured people will entail. But one has to go even further if one wants to grant the Coloured people full citizenship according to the recipe of the United Party.

What are the Parliament and the Prime Minister the hon. member for Vereeniging wants to grant to the Coloured people going to do?

I shall tell the hon. member in a moment how we see the matter. At the moment we are still dealing with the “full” citizenship which the hon. member wants to grant the Coloured people. Let him tell me now whether what I have outlined are not the consequences of the policy of his Party.

I was attacked here this afternoon because I do not want to allow the Coloured people to attend certain places of entertainment. If they must be granted full citizenship according to the recipe of the United Party, then the doors of all public places of entertainment must be thrown open to Coloured persons, as they are open to the Whites—social equality, therefore. That is full citizenship— social equality in cinemas, in theatres and in restaurants; as a matter of fact, in all public places of entertainment, because if one wants to grant full citizenship to any group, it is a logical consequence that one cannot refuse that; and then one cannot establish separate schools for them. All government schools therefore have to be opened to them.

But we had separate schools for them all those years.

Precisely! In other words, it has been a hollow cry of the United Party all along.

That has always been the position under United Party policy and we experienced no difficulties in that regard.

Precisely! That simply proves that what is advocated by the United Party in public differs from what is applied by it in practice.

The consequences which you attach to the policy of the United Party are therefore not correct.

Let us put each other to the test a little. The United Party opposed the establishment for the Coloureds of a university of their own—in other words, they wanted to have a mixed state of affairs at our universities.

I repeat that they are not denying the consequences which I have outlined: Either they grant the Coloured people full citizenship with everything associated with that, or they are known as a Party which cannot be trusted as regards what it advocates in public.

What does the Government say? We say that the Coloured people are entitled to human rights. They are entitled to exercise their rights in their own townships, for example. They are entitled to their own places of entertainment in their own areas.

Will the hon. the Minister define “human rights”?

The Coloured people must be entitled to lead a family life, to lead their own cultural and economic life and to lead their own political life as a group within the limits of their own existence as a group. Those are their human rights: everything which the existence of man embraces—his art, his culture, his schools, his churches, his places or entertainment, and so forth. All these things we grant the Coloured people in their own circle. We make these things possible for them in their rural areas, in their townships, in their urban areas, in their own schools and universities and places of entertainment. But at the same time we say that what we grant to the Coloured people, we also demand for the White people of this country.

May I ask you a question?

No. I want to go further and say that the White man in South Africa must accept that there is only one power between his downfall and his survival, and that is this National Party Government. If this Government should be overthrown and the United Party should take over, the flood-gates would be opened which would lead to, firstly, the Whites and, secondly, the Coloured people being ruined and, thirdly, the Bantu being handed over to the forces of anarchy which are being unleashed by the states of Africa. That is the road of the United Party and it is a road to ruin, just like that of the Progressive Party, with this difference, that the United Party is moving more slowly along that road than the Progressive Party is.

The Whites are becoming aware of their plans. They have already rejected the Progressive Party. That is why they now have to use money to try and get the Coloured people on their side. And allow me to say to the United Party that if they continue along that road, they will still have to compete with the Progressive Party as far as spending money is concerned. The other day I alleged that the Progressive Party was misusing money in an unholy way to exploit the vote of the Coloured people. I want to repeat that to-day. I have documentary proof here with me, proof supplied by nine court cases which have taken place so far, and in each of those court cases an agent of the Progressive Party played a part.

That is not true.

I shall read to the Committee what an agent of the Progressive Party declared under oath. Alwyn Percy Obo, of 85 Welling ton Street, Vasco, an organizer of the Progressive Party, said inter alia the following in an affidavit made to the Police—

Twenty cents for an illegal registration, therefore!

Was it a voting or a registration card?

Twenty cents for each illegal registration, therefore! I have another example that I want to mention. It appears that a certain D. Ashley of the Progressive Party Offices played a part in organizational work amongst the Coloureds. In the case of The State vs. Roman he said in evidence that he alone had handled 14,000 registration cards. And do you know, Mr. Chairman, that as a result of these court cases and as a result of illegal practices by agents of the Progressive Party in which money flowed freely, people lost their employment? Do you know that they misused Coloured teachers who were commissioners of oaths and that those teachers lost their employment? They were charged; they had committed offences which could not be tolerated.

I also say, Mr. Chairman, that the United Party, with this attitude of theirs, will eventually find themselves on the road of the Progressive Party—the road to ruin; in other words, the road of the exploitation of the Coloured people. The more they are rejected by the Whites, the more they will resort to clutching at straws and the more they will try to ride in here on the backs of the Coloured people.

For the sake of preservation of sound race relations this Government will therefore have to take a stand and take action. It will have to do that for the sake of preserving good relationships in South Africa and also in order to protect the Coloured people themselves. With this object in mind it will have to put a stop to this reckless behaviour.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad the hon. the Minister has raised this matter again, because otherwise I would have raised it. He has just repeated the most scandalous allegations against the Party which I represent in this House. He alleged that we—as he put it—misused money in order to buy Coloured votes. Well, the case to which the hon. the Minister referred has nothing whatsoever to do with the buying of votes.

Oh, come, come, come.

The case he referred to had nothing to do with my Party’s employees, or with any instructions that we gave them in regard to the registration of Coloured voters.

But you paid them.

Certainly we pay people to register Coloured voters, in the same way as the Government pays enumerators to put White voters on the voters’ roll at the time of a general registration. [Interjections.! There is nothing illegal about assisting voters in exercising their lawful right of becoming registered voters. The Government also pays people to do this sort of work. Electoral officers have telephoned Progressive Party officers to enquire whether we can provide canvassers, who will be paid by the Government, to register White voters on the voters’ roll.

Why were there then court cases?

Out of 20,000 registrations 100 registrations were found to have been . . .

Oh, no!

Oh, yes! As I was saying, in 100 instances registrations were found to have been incorrectly filled in by Commissioners of Oaths but these were not paid for by my Party.

I have all the documents available.

The Commissioners of Oaths concerned were State Officials and they were doing the registration of Coloured voters. Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister is misleading this House. He is trying to create the impression that we paid Commissioners of Oaths to effect illegal registrations. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is presenting the case in an incorrect light. He is trying to make out that the cases which he quoted had to do with payment for incorrect registrations, and that is not so. The people who were paid 20c per vote were the people who assisted in the registrations. The 20c per vote was not paid to the Commissioners of Oaths, or to the voters.

Why should they get paid at all?

Why should they not be paid? [Laughter.] There is nothing illegal about it. The Government pays White canvassers to register White voters. What is more. Sir, I say that we were doing the Government’s job for them! [Interjections]. The Government has made every effort to prevent the Coloured voters from becoming registered voters. The greatest difficulty was experienced in obtaining the services of Commissioners of Oaths. Why, the hon. the Minister’s own Department refused to supply us with a list of Commissioners of Oaths who were prepared to act in connection with the registration of Coloured voters. When Coloured voters were taken to police stations they experienced the utmost difficulty in becoming registered. I maintain, Mr. Chairman, that we did the State’s work when we helped the Coloureds to exercise one of the few remaining rights which they still enjoy. I challenge the hon. the Minister to repeat outside this House the allegation that the Progressive Party bought Coloured votes. That, Sir, is the impression which he has attempted to create on two occasions inside this House. On two occasions he has done this.

I now wish to accuse the hon. the Minister of blatant intimidation—I repeat blatant intimidation—against the Coloured voters who supported the Progressive Party. I say this because the Security Police visited people who were canvassing on behalf of the Progressive Party. The Security Police cross-examined Commissioners of Oaths who were undertaking the registration of Coloured voters. The hon. the Minister has done his best to intimidate and threaten Coloured voters. In every possible way—in his public utterances, in his denial to Progressive Party candidates of the rights to exercise their lawful democratic right of addressing bodies of Coloured voters—the hon. the Minister has done his absolute best to intimidate the Coloured voters. And, Sir, I say that it is to their eternal credit that they did not allow themselves to be browbeaten by the Minister, who in any case is a past master at intimidation. We saw some more of it this afternoon, because this afternoon the hon. the Minister attempted to exercise his intimidation tactics on the Official Opposition. He said that if they continued putting out the sort of circular which the hon. member for Karoo has put out, he, the hon. the Minister, would be unable to continue on his magnificent path of elevating the Coloured people.

He did not say that.

Yes, he did. [Interjections]. The hon. the Minister said he would no longer be able to convince the White voters of this country that millions of Rand should continue to be spent on Coloured housing, on Coloured schools, on Coloured hostels, etc. Well, let me tell the Minister that the coffers of this State do not belong to the National Party. The coffers of the State of South Africa are contributed to by the voters, the taxpayers belonging to all the parties in this country. It is not only National Party supporters who pay their taxes in South Africa. It would indeed be interesting to see what the different sections of the community contribute to the coffers of the State.

Mr. Chairman, I have news for the hon. the Minister. I want to tell him that he is not administering National Party funds. When the hon. the Minister hands out these “gratuities” to the Coloured people in the form of schools, housing, etc., he is but allocating funds out of the coffers of the State of South Africa. And into these coffers, Sir, go contributions from Opposition taxpayers and even from Progressive Party taxpayers! Believe it or not. [Interjections]. Therefore it does not depend on whether the taxpayers of this country happen— as the hon. the Minister thinks—to be governed by the National Party. The National Party does not represent the taxpayers of this country. Therefore the threats and intimidation of the Minister cut no ice with me, and I am pleased to say—since it does not really matter as far as I am concerned, and apart from that I am perfectly able to look after myself —that the threats and intimidations of the hon. the Minister, cut not ice with the Coloured people either. They know the value of everything that the Minister has offered them. They know they are receiving their ordinary rights as citizens, and not their ordinary rights under the apartheid regime by reason of the munificence of the hon. the Minister. They are getting what they are entitled to. And let me tell the hon. the Minister that they are not getting nearly half of what they are really entitled to.

The hon. member for Vereeniging gave us a long speech about all these great opportunities. It was the old Alice in Wonderland stuff—jam to-morrow, jam yesterday, but never jam to-day!

I want to tell the hon. member for Vereeniging that this great Coloured Council which he and the hon. the Minister spoke about, will be able to legislate on everything except the things that really affect the Coloured people.

Like what?

Like group areas, for instance; like job reservation, for instance; like whether or not they shall have the compulsory education which, indeed, they are entitled to. I agree entirely with what was said by the hon. member for Wynberg in this respect. Mr. Chairman, the Coloured Council means nothing in the lives of the Coloured people. But what does mean something in their lives is this Parliament. This is the Parliament that legislates for the lives of the Coloured people. This Parliament controls their destiny, their economic development, and their social advancement. This Parliament is the place where their fate is decided. Therefore, Sir, this Coloured Council does not mean a thing to them. Because the powers that have been given to the Council mean nothing.

Let us now hear something from the hon. the Minister regarding his future proposition for the Coloured voters and their representation in this House, since he has already taken one step on the path towards watering down the rights of free choice of the Coloured people in the next election. Perhaps, Sir, he would like to take this opportunity of taking the country into his confidence and tell us what Machiavellian plan he has worked out for the Coloured voters as regards his attempts to prevent them from choosing the representatives of their choice as opposed to the representatives of his choice.

Wait and see.

Yes, I will wait and see because unfortunately I have no alternative. It is a great pity that the hon. the Minister, instead of harping on policies that are 20 years old, instead of worrying about what the policies of the Opposition are, does not give us an inkling about what his great brain is now mulling over and about what he has in store for the Coloured people. That would be to the advantage of this country. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, when my time expired earlier this evening, I was dealing with the political hopes and aspirations of the Coloured people, not as I see it but as the Coloured people see it themselves and as they express it themselves. I said. Sir. that the Coloured people of this country are striving to obtain full citizenship in this the land of their birth. And when I talk about full citizenship I do not use the term in the sense it is used by the hon. member for Maitland. He used this term earlier this evening, and I was surprised to learn later that he was a member of a deputation to the hon. the Minister that complained of Coloured people walking through a White residential area. I am afraid I was very shocked to hear about this.

It was in connection with residential separation, and what is wrong with that?

Even if the hon. member believes in social and residential separation, I think it is going too far when people complain to the hon. the Minister because Coloured people walk from their homes through a White area to a bus stop. But I leave this matter there.

Mr. Chairman, I say that you cannot sit on two stools at the same time. You cannot in honesty and sincerity plead the Coloured people’s cause here, and yet at the same time crawl before the White voter, exploiting his colour prejudice and trying to obtain his vote.

I should like to say a few things about this so-called direct group representation. I have discussed this matter with responsible Coloured people, and I can give this House the assurance that the consensus of opinion of the Coloureds in my constituency is that they are only too well aware that over the years political parties have peaded their cause, both inside the Houses of Parliament and outside, in order to obtain their vote, but once the party who solicited their support came into power they conveniently forgot about their promises to the Coloured people they so ardently wooed before the election took place. As far as direct group representation is concerned, the Coloured people regard it as nothing else but a political strait-jacket. I know from the history of this country, from the development that has taken place, and from the part played by the Coloured people ever since they took part in politics in this country, that should the Government allow direct group representation in this House, irrespective of what government succeds this Government, the Coloured people will be told that they have their four Coloured representatives and they will advance no further in this respect.

In view of the political climate in this country, in view of the fact that a racial and colour prejudice does exist in South Africa, a prejudice which has existed since the first White man set foot here, since Western civilization took root in this country, and since we have developed constitutionally and otherwise to where we are to-day, it has to be conceded that it will take time, a long time, to live down this colour prejudice. I am glad to say that I have noticed a different attitude on the part of the Whites towards the Coloured people, and a different attitude on the part of our Coloured people towards the White people. After all, Mr. Chairman, we have a common destiny in this country, and Coloured and White people realize that. It is realized that the one cannot live without the other. Because, Sir, both groups are Western in origin, speak the same language, have the same religion, and practise the same way of life. Of course there is a very great economic, social and educational gulf between the bulk of the Coloured people and the White people in this country.

What the Coloured people are hoping and aspiring for is nothing less than full citizenship in South Africa. But it is fully realized— and I speak on behalf of the Coloured people when I say this—that their ideals will not be attained overnight. Nevertheless, full citizenship remains their aim. The Coloured people will make full use of the economic and educational development talking place at the moment, the Coloured people will utilize the facilities at their disposal, in order to achieve their aim. They desire to reach the same educational and economic level of the Whites. In this way, Mr. Chairman, the Coloured people of South Africa will come to their right.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote P.—“Coloured Affairs”, R8,000,000, put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote No. 43—“Justice”, R 12,263,000,

Order! Before I put this vote, I should like to point out that hon. members may also discuss Vote No. 44—“Prisons” and Vote No. 45—“Police”.

Mr. Chairman. I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister two matters which fall under his Vote and which are causing the public much concern at the present time. In the first place I should like to refer to the depressing and alarming wave of lawlessness and violence—one may describe it as a lust of brutality—which is being experienced in this country, I think in particular of the many shootings, stabbings, murders, rapes, suicides, and deaths on our roads. In the second place I want to speak about the system of giving aid to those people who cannot afford the cost of litigation and who are thereby deprived of making full use of our courts.

When Mr. Justice Beyers, the Judge President of the Cape Provincial Division, opened the annual general meeting of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope at Beaufort West, he had some very interesting things to say in the course of his address. He said that there had been a complete change in the nature of the duties of judges in this division. He referred to this change as being in the nature of a revolution. He said that when he was elevated to the bench about 11 years ago, there were ten judges of whom one did criminal work four times every year. That was considered to be a terrible task, Sir, and he was pampered and exempted from other duties by his fellow judges. He said that instead of one judge doing criminal work four times a year six of the ten judges now do it full time. He went on to say that when one remembers that the regional courts probably do more than half of the work previously done by judges he made bold to say that had those courts not been established we would have had 20 judges in the Cape and 16 would have been assigned to criminal work The Attorney General of the Cape had something similar to say in an interview with the Argus on Saturday, when he described the court roll for the June criminal session as a matter of serious public concern and shocking in the history of the Cape. “The roll is such” he said “that there may not be sufficient judges to deal with it. Seven or eight of Cape Town’s ten judges would be occupied daily at trial for murder, culpable homicide, rape and other matters involving violence. One serious case would have to be heard during the vacation as it was a protracted case and could not be heard during the session. Many trials would have to be held in temporary court rooms, equipped with temporary furniture”. In an interview on the Rand on 27 April Brigadier Joubert said the police had shot and killed five dangerous robbers on the Rand in the preceding eight months. In the same period 185 individuals had been brought to trial on charges of robbery under aggravating circumstances. He said there were 147 in Durban and 88 in the Western Province. One only has to look through the newspapers for the month of May to see that the position is worsening practically every day. We read of more acts of violence every day. At Bonteheuwel the position has become so bad that a meeting was held last night with the police officer, leaders of the church and leaders of the Coloured community to discuss the reign of terror which was taking place there. Over the years the crime rate has progressively worsened. I know the population figure has risen too but not in proportion to the crime rate as the following figures will show. The Commissioner of Police reports are unfortunately only available up to 30 June 1963 but let us have a look at the position: In 1951 there were 1,983 allegations of murder; in 1962 there were 4,753. Over 11 years there were two and a half times as many. In 1951 1,462 persons were indicted on the capital charge and 298 were convicted. In 1962 3,647 were indicted and 850 were convicted—over two and a half times as many. In 1951 there were 2,716 lives lost through criminal acts of violence. In 1962 there were 5,953. Again more than twice as many. In 1951 there were 2,979 allegations of rape and 662 convictions. In 1962 there were 5,762 with 1,797 convictions. Again more than two and a half times as many. Capital sentences also rose. In the 174- years, from 1944 to 1962, 35 Europeans, 139 Coloureds, 771 Bantu and 13 Asiatics were sentenced to death. In the five years, from 1 July 1959 to 30 June 1964, 18 Europeans, 84 Coloureds, 606 Bantu and 3 Asiatics were sentenced to death. With the exception of the Asiatics, where there is a drop, the proportionate increase over the years, especially in the case of the Bantu, is much greater. It is also interesting to note that, although over the years, a higher percentage of those sentenced to death were actually executed, the crime rate has still increased. Compare the figures of the past 20 years with those of the preceding 23 years: In 1947 the Lansdowne Commission Report gave the figures of sentences and executions between 1923 and 1946 as 1,416 sentenced and 416 executed i.e. 29.3 per cent of those sentenced were executed. For the seven year period from 1947 to 1954 626 were sentenced and 316 were executed, i.e. 50.4 per cent. But according to figures given by the hon. the Minister just recently from 1 July 1959 to 30 June 1964 711 were sentenced and 518 executed, i.e. 72.8 per cent. 1 quote these figures, Sir, to show that despite the fact that a high percentage of sentences were carried out the crime rate of violence and murder still seems to be on the increase.

The magistrates’ courts also show an increase in trials. In his annual report the Chief Magistrate of Johannesburg refers to the increase in serious crimes such as robbery, political offences and thefts. In 1963 135.629 cases came before the magistrates in Johannesburg. In 1964 there were 156,655 cases, an increase, in one year, of 21,026. Admittedly in the same period the population, according to the report, increased by approximately 46,200. Fortunately —and the Chief Magistrate could not explain why this was so—the downward trend in serious juvenile crime continued with the exception of house-breaking, robbery and receiving stolen property.

We want to know what the hon. the Minister is doing about all this? Is he, for instance, considering an address given by Mr. Justice Rumpff at the Potchefstroom University Graduation Ceremony when he said that our penal Code—not our procedure—was in most instances primitive and unscientific. He referred specifically to sexual offences. He also dealt with alcoholism and said that it could not be stopped without research and that the slaughter on our South African roads could only be controlled by psychological study. He gave the figure killed last year as 5,000. If 5,000 were killed just imagine how many were maimed and injured, Sir. He said the cost to the Republic was R50,000,000. If the death rate in the Republic continues at the same rate as during the last few months in the Western Province then that figure will be topped for next year. It will mean that more people will be killed on the roads than were killed during the last war annually on the average.

That matter should be raised under the Transport Vote.

No, Sir. I raise it under this Minister’s Vote because when a driver is charged with negligent driving or with driving under the influence of liquor it comes under the Department of Justice. I want to know what the Minister of Justice is doing in conjunction with the Minister of Transport to combat this evil.

Do you want me to put him away?

I don’t think it would help putting the Minister of Transport away for 90 days. We need him to try to put the Railways in order.

I know that social problems undoubtedly influence the crime rate and the movement of the population from the rural to the urban areas brings in its train many social problems. It is therefore one of the reasons for the increase in crime. On the other hand, we also know that affording recreational amenities for the younger people assists in keeping crime down. We also know that the Government is doing a great deal in that respect in the Bantu townships. I do not intend to go into detail into the social problems; other members will do that. In any event other Departments are also concerned. Our concern to-night is with the Minister of Justice and his Department. We want an assurance from him that the Government is alive to these social problems and that he is collaborating with other departments in overcoming them. I want him to tell us what is, in fact, being done. We know too that crime is not only committed because of greed accompanied, unfortunately, by lust or brutality, but also of need. Although the Government may have difficulty in counteracting the weakness of greed and lust it can also do a great deal to counteract need and frustration. It could eliminate some of the conditions which create frustration and crime. It could give the non-Whites, for instance, a stake in the country and make them our allies in combating crime. He could build up the middle classes and give them more opportunity for economic advance thereby doing away with need; he could amend the pass laws for which hundreds of thousands are arrested each year; he could review all laws which are discriminatory and offend against the rule of law or impinge on the dignity of the individual. It is a matter of amazement to us. Sir. how the police can carry out all their duties. When one compares their task with that of the police force in other countries who only deal with crime proper one must congratulate them on the efficient way in which they deal with crime proper in this country because they do a magnificent job with so few men. To-day the police rely on reservists to help them do their work. This is wrong and dangerous. It is dangerous for the police force to have to rely on volunteers to help them to do their job. It is quite clear from what the police officer said last night at Bonteheuwel that they have to have volunteers to assist them in carrying out their task because they have not got sufficient policemen to do the job. We need more policemen, and we need policemen who are satisfied with their lot. We all know that the policemen’s lot is not a happy one. He has a most distasteful and dangerous task. There is a reluctance on the part of the better educated youth to join the police force.

On what do you base that allegation?

In comparing them with the Public Service. If you compare the educational standard of the man joining the police force with that of the man joining the Public Service you will find that it is not the same, I submit.

You are totally wrong.

The Minister is not going to tell me that the majority of the policemen joining the force to-day are matriculated.

It was Std. VI previously; I raised it to Std. VIII.

I know the Minister has raised the standard. The Minister cannot say that the standard of education in the police force is as high as that in the Public Service. I submit that the conditions of employment in the police force are not as attractive as they are in the Public Service. That only stands to reason and in order to make them as attractive the Minister must give them a status salary. The policeman works 24 hours a day; he is always on duty. He does not get weekends off; he does not get off at regular hours and he has a special task to perform in comparison with the Public Servant. Other members will deal with the conditions under which policemen serve and I shall not go into details.

It is essential that the police embark on a public relations campaign to win over the sympathy of the public not with regard to their conditions of service—that must be left to the Minister—-but with regard to their duties and the service they perform. They must make friends with the public and get their assistance in combating crime. Brig. Joubert remarked the other day, according to the newspaper, that the police were handicapped by the lack of co-operation from the man in the street. Unfortunately, because of the various tasks assigned to them, such as liquor raids which are now fortunately becoming something of the past, although we still have beer raids, pass inspections, group area inspections and so forth, they have built up a hostility in the majority group of the country. If the police were only entrusted with combating crime for the protection of law-abiding citizens and were not burdened with the enforcement of petty apartheid, with all its unnecessary humiliations and intimidations, the attitude of the majority group of the people would change towards the police. In that case, I am convinced, they will win the support and the collaboration of the law-abiding public in carrying out their duties. Their position now is an intolerable one. I say we should reduce the activities of the police force.

I recently read an interesting article on the way in which Chicago, the city of gangsters, dramatically reduced its crime rate. It was largely through the efforts of one superintendent of police who was appointed in 1960, by the name of O. W. Williams. He was called in from the University of California to reorganize the police force. I am not suggesting that that is necessary in this instance, but he took a completely different line with the public. He did what we have pleaded for over the years. He freed policemen from non-police tasks and civilianized the posts which did not require actual policemen. I say we should free our policemen from all the petty tasks, apartheid tasks, which they have to do.

Such as?

Such as group area inspectors. More civilians should be employed in the police force to do all the clerical work. I submit that better use can be made of women. Williams said that the common cry was: “More men on the beat”. That is our cry. He put them there not on foot but in cars. Those cars were not seen once in a while but at frequent intervals. One could hardly move without seeing a distinctly marked blue and white police car. That was necessary in Chicago. They had to do that to overcome the difficulty.

They have 1.600 cars.

No, 1,800. Naturally the size of the beat is dictated by the incidence of crime in a particular area. In this country we would not require the same number of policemen on beat on duty at Sea Point as we would require in the heart of Johannesburg or in a Bantu township. The beat areas which demand most attention in this country would be in the Bantu townships, and apparently now too at Bonteheuwel. The law abiding Bantu in the townships live in a constant state of fear from molestation by hooligans and it is our duty to see that they are protected, especially on pay-day. This matter has been discussed before but the complaint continues. You only have to talk to Africans living in those townships—although I have not heard of many complaints in Langa lately—to know what is happening.

Where else?

Go to East London, Qua Mashu. on the Rand.

Not Qua Mashu.

Oh! Lawlessness is not confined to one area. If it succeeds in a township it spreads elsewhere. As in a factory, the gangs are bred in the township and then operate in a wider field. The figures which I have quoted show that the increase, especially in violence, is leaping forward and we must find new and more effective ways of combating crime.

The Minister will tell us that he has increased his police force but the change over through resignations is so rapid that the police force is not sufficiently large to meet the situation. I know the Minister is training more. I know he has built a new building at Pretoria to train more policemen but I think the drain of resignations is great. The Minister can stop those resignations by making the conditions of employment more acceptable to the police. In that connection I again want to mention the police in the Transkei. I was comparing the police with the public servant a moment ago. The Minister must consider the way in which public servants are treated in the Transkei. Those who are seconded to the Transkeian Government get extra allowances, such as territorial allowances and housing allowances. Houses are bought for them but the Minister’s policemen do not get that treatment. That naturally leads to resentment. A house is bought for the public servant in the centre of town or in a good residential area but houses are now being built for the police concentrated in the police camp in congested conditions. There is an example of where the policemen are not being treated on the same footing as others. Before I leave the question of crime I want to mention one example of the ineffectiveness of this Minister in dealing with crime. I refer to the cattle rustling on the Basutoland border. The position has recently become so bad there, according to reports in the newspapers, that the farmers are thinking of forming a commando to go and rescue their cattle which have been stolen across the border. We know that the Minister met a deputation last week, I think and the spokesman for the farmers said that the Minister was doing all he could and that he had promised that cattle rustling would end once formal relations had been established with a properly constituted Basutoland authority. I don’t know whether the Minister did say so; I only stand by what the report said. But if that report is correct I must say that I am very much puzzled. How is it that there is no properly constituted authority in Basutoland with which the Minister can deal? Surely somebody must have taken over the Department of Justice. Justice was not simply left in the air in Basutoland because I see there has been co-operation between our police and the Basutoland police. In fact, tribute was paid by our police in Maseru for their co-operation. I cannot understand how it is that there is no properly constituted authority for the Minister to deal with. This problem may have international repercussions because Basutoland is now an independent state. We don’t want any difficulties with our farmers on the Basutoland border in East Griqualand. While I am discussing that I want to know whether the Minister can tell me what he is doing to combat the thefts of sheep from the Transkei across the East Griqualand border this side of Kokstad. Again we might have repercussions on the part of the Transkeian Government. The position of East Griqualand is becoming a delicate one because of the fact that different governments are controlling the neighbouring areas. I should like the Minister to tell us what he is doing about that.

I also want to deal with the difficulties of our people in making effective use of our courts because of the cost of litigation. We pride ourselves on our courts and on our system of the administration of justice. I am not now referring to legislation dealing with political crimes, I am referring to the ordinary criminal and civil courts. Every citizen is entitled, except in certain political offences, to appear in court and state his case. Most people desire to have, and in fact should have, a trained lawyer to help them state their case and to assist them in court. Such a lawyer assists the court in seeing that the proper evidence is led and that the law is properly interpreted. Unfortunately everybody cannot afford this assistance. It has become a luxury to-day except in capital cases where professional advisers are paid for by the State or in the case of paupers, where legal aid is given free by the profession.

Mr. Justice Beyers, in that speech at Beaufort West, referred to the falling off in civil work. He said he could not remember when last he had tried a civil case. He said civil cases were simply disappearing from the rolls; that people were settling, not because they wanted to. but simply because it was impossible for them to go to court. He felt that the solution was a single bar and a dual practice. But there is no proof that this change would necessarily be a cure. In any event, Sir, there is no unanimity amongst the members of the Bar or the Side-bar on this question. I feel there is another solution which I suggested in this House some time ago and which the Judge President of the Eastern Provincial Division recommended for consideration at a Law Society Conference some years ago, namely, the adoption of the English legal aid system. We do have a system of legal aid here. Formerly we had the legal aid bureaux which were administered by the Side-bar associations, with a subsidy from the Government to pay for the office and the profession did the work free. But that system was changed and the legal aid is now administered by the Department itself. A magistrate is the officer concerned. Experience is that the people are not making use of this free legal aid system any more. There are several reasons for it. I submit that the first reason is that they do not want to go to a magistrate’s office to seek legal aid. If they have been involved in criminal work a magistrate’s court is the last place they want to go to, especially if they have to see a magistrate. The service should be away from the magistrate’s court office and the official should not be a magistrate.

A means test is also applied and this means test is so low that very few people can possibly fall within it. The test for Whites is an income of R24 per month with an allowance of R6 for each child. Very few Whites work for less than that. It is probably only pensioners who have a lower income than that. In the case of Coloureds it is R12 per month with an allowance of R3.35 for each child. In the case of Bantu it is R3.50! What Bantu gets less than £1.15.0? I submit these figures are ridiculous and that very few people qualify for assistance under this means test.

Mr. Jennet, who studied the system in England, addressed us on the system. He explained that there the litigant sent his case to a board for consideration. If the board thought he had a case they sent him to an expert for a means test. If he fell within the means he was sent to attorneys and barristers. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down made two points. The first is the high crime figure and the cost of litigation. As far as the crime figure is concerned I want to say at once that he has said a great deal with which we can agree but that he has also said many things with which we cannot agree with him. It was not quite clear to me what his complaint was. He quoted the statistics of the various crimes that were committed but it was not clear to me whether he complained because the police were too thorough in their work in that they detected all these crimes or whether he complained that they did not do their work thoroughly and that that was the reason why there was such a high incidence of crime. He did not explain that point.

He apparently places this high crime figure at the door of the police; that the police are not properly equipped. I want to paint a different picture of the position. It is not really the task of the Department of Justice to prevent crime. It is the task of the police, in the first place, when a crime has been committed, to detect that crime and to bring the person to justice. The prevention of crime is indeed not the task of the police. We must also seek the reasons for crime elsewhere. I want to mention a few of the reasons why we have such a high crime figure which the hon. member, incidentally, did not mention. The hon. member said it was as a result of certain social problems which had now arisen. That is quite right. We must remember that South Africa is to-day passing through a revolutionary period. South Africa is becoming industrialized on a large scale. We are becoming an industrial country and as a result of this high industrialization both the Bantu, who come and work in the cities, and the Whites are becoming urbanized. That means that the rural population has to adjust itself on a large scale to becoming an urban population and at the moment there is a great deal of maladjustment in this process of adjustment. There are, however, more deep-seated reasons than that, such as, for example, the spirit of the age in which we are living; the spirit of materialism. That spirit of the age is the cause of many, many crimes. Take, for example, the crimes of motor car theft amongst the youth. That is a crime which has its origin in the spirit of the age of materialism which is rampant to-day. Then you have the spirit of the age of loose morals. That is also a reason why many crimes are committed. It is a time when people want a liberal outlook. It is there where we must look for the reasons for this high incidence of crime.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) creates the impression, that this incidence of crime is due to the fact that the police do not give effective service. I cannot understand how he can argue like that. He said he wanted to give some advice and that we should get more police. Let me say at once that more policemen will not really reduce the incidence of crime. If the police were to be more effective the crime figure he is complaining about will only go up because more people will be brought to justice. He also said we should canvass better recruits; that they should be matriculated persons so that the police force could become a better force than it was to-day. I want say that our police force—many of them only have Std. VI or Std. VII—is an excellent force in spite of the fact that they are not all matriculated. I want to say at once that the person with a matriculation certificate is not necessarily a better policeman than the person with only Std. VIII. It is the training which he gets in the police force itself and that training is very, very thorough. People with the lowest academic qualifications have subsequently proved to be some of the best police officials we have ever had. The solution does not, therefore, lie in that direction.

The hon. member also said the police should have more friends amongst the public. In this regard he referred to petty apartheid. He said petty apartheid was one of the reasons why there was such a high incidence of crime. I do not quite know how he reconciles those two. He said the police should be relieved of the task of applying petty apartheid measures so that more police would be available to do the serious work. What nonsense. Mr. Chairman. Whether the police apply apartheid measures or not the fact remains that many murders are committed in South Africa. Whether we use policemen to apply apartheid measure or not will not reduce the number of thefts. He said the police should not be used as group area inspectors. I think the Bantu constituted the biggest group in South Africa and according to the statistics it appears that most of the crimes are committed by Bantu. As far as the Bantu are concerned the police do not act as group area inspectors at all. What has that got to do with the incidence of crime amongst the Bantu? There are no group area inspectors amongst the Bantu people. He also said there was a great deal of unrest in the Bantu residential areas. I want to deny that to some extent. I do not think he is au fait with the position. It is not quite correct to allege, as the hon. member has done, that there is a high incidence of crime in the Bantu towns to which he has referred. The crimes are committed in the uncontrolled areas on the Rand. Most of the murders and thefts are committed in the uncontrolled areas and often in the White areas.

I cannot understand how the hon. member can allege that it is because the police attend to petty apartheid that the incidence of crime has increased in South Africa. I do not think he has any right to make such an allegation. I think he simply tried to drag a small measure of politics into the whole matter where there ought not to be any politics.

I want to deal with something else he raised, namely, the stock thefts along the Basutoland border. He apparently referred to a deputation which had come to see the Minister. That deputation came from the Matatiele section. The police have stepped in along the eastern border of the Free State where the position was the worst and it has now improved considerably. As a matter of fact the whole position along the eastern border of the Free State is under proper control at the moment. We also obtained the co-operation of Basutoland in that connection. The hon. member complains and says there are apparently no authority in Basutoland with which we can negotiate. There are indeed authorities in Basutoland with which we can negotiate and we have indeed obtained the co-operation of the Basutoland authorities in this connection. It is due to their very co-operation that we have succeeded is getting the entire eastern border of the Free State under control as far as stock thefts are concerned. It is true that there have been fresh outbreaks along the southern border of Basutoland, at Matatiele, but I am convinced that we shall likewise, in due course, be able to get that position under proper control.

Let me say this. We are fully aware of the fact that the incidence of crime is increasing but let us view this matter in its true perspective. We must look for the reasons for the crime so as to be able to eliminate those reasons. If we do that the task of the police will be lighter. Do not think we shall reduce the incidence of crime by simply always saying the police are not doing their duty. They are doing their duty so thoroughly. . . .

Who blamed the police?

[Time limit.]