House of Assembly: Vol2 - FRIDAY 2 MARCH 1962


I have to inform the House that it has been brought to the notice of Mr. President and myself that the silver model of the Imperial Institute, which is on display in the Parliamentary Library, is the only replica of the Institute in existence. The model was originally presented to Queen Alexandra by the City of London and formed part of the United Kingdom exhibit at the Empire Exhibition in Johannesburg in 1936. It was presented to the Union Parliament in 1937. Since then the Institute has been demolished and rebuilt as the Commonwealth Institute. Members will appreciate the great historic value the present Commonwealth Institute must in these circumstances attach to a model of the original Imperial Institute, and Mr. President and I, after consultation with our respective Committees on Internal Arrangements, have decided that the model be presented to that Institute as. a gesture of friendship and of goodwill on the part of our Parliament.


For oral reply:


—Reply standing over.

Refusal to Allow Tour by Japanese Artists *III. Mr. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of the Interior:

  1. (1) Whether permission for a group of Japanese artists to enter and tour the Republic has been sought; and, if so,
  2. (2) whether permission has been granted; if not, why not.
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) No. It is not considered to be in the public interest to furnish the reasons why permisison to enter the Republic is not granted to any particular person or group of persons.

Arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, is it possible to give an explanation as to why the Japanese swimmers and gymnasts were allowed to tour the Republic and not these artists referred to?

Students Enrolled at University College for Indians *IV Mr. HUGHES (for Dr. Steenkamp)

asked the Minister of Education, Arts and Science:

  1. (1) How many (a) students and (b) new students have enrolled at the University College for Indians for 1962;
  2. (2) how many of (a) the students and (b) the new students at the College are (i) matriculated and (ii) taking degree courses;
  3. (3) whether any applications for (a) admission and (b) re-admission were refused in 1962; if so, (i) how many and (ii) for what reasons; and
  4. (4) what is the total amount spent on the College since its establishment.
  1. (1) Enrolment of some 50, mostly external, students is still continuing, but the day before yesterday there were (a) 291 students enrolled; and (b) 248 of them new students.
  2. (2) (a) (i) 244; and (ii) 244; and (b) (i) 209; and (ii) 209.
  3. (3) No. No person that qualifies for admission or re-admission, as the case may be, is refused.
  4. (4) R295,593.

I should point out in connection with “matriculated” in paragraph 2 (a) (i) and (b) (i) that all the students are matriculated in the popular sense of the term, but of the 291 enrolled, 244 obtained matriculation certificates issued by the Joint Matriculation Board or satisfied the conditions of exemption from the matriculation examination and obtained certificates to that effect, while the remaining 47 either obtained approved senior, school-leaving or other recognized certificates equivalent thereto, but did not comply with all the conditions of exemption and enrolled for diplomas or are awaiting the results of supplementary examinations to obtain exemption certificates in order that they, too, might enrol for degree courses.

Students Enrolled at Fort Hare *V. Mr. HUGHES (for Dr. Steenkamp)

asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

  1. (1) How many (a) students and (b) new students have enrolled at the University College of Fort Hare for 1962;
  2. (2) how many of (a) the students and (b) the new students at the College are (i) matriculated and (ii) taking degree courses; and
  3. (3) whether any applications for (a) admission and (b) re-admission were refused in 1962; if so, (i) how many and (ii) for what reasons.
  1. (1) (a) 160—the registration of students has not been completed yet, 200 or more are expected, (b) 34—for the same reason as> mentioned in (1) (a)—more are expected.
  2. (2) (a) (i) 145, (ii) 145; (b) (i) 20, (ii) 20.
  3. (3) (a) (i) 100, (ii) they did not comply with the admission requirements; (b) no; (i) and (ii) fall away.
Students Enrolled at Ngoya *VI. Mr. HUGHES (for Dr. Steenkamp)

asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

  1. (1) How many (a) students and (b) new students have enrolled at the University College at Ngoya for 1962;
  2. (2) how many of (a) the students and (b) the new students at the College are (i) matriculated and (ii) taking degree courses;
  3. (3) whether any applications for (a) admission and (b) re-admission were refused in 1962; if so, (i) how many and (ii) for what reasons; and
  4. (4) when did building operations at the College commence.
  1. (1) (a) 63—the registration of students has not been completed yet, more are expected, (b) 31—for the same reason as mentioned in (1) (a), more are expected.
  2. (2) (a) (i) 33, (ii) 38; (b) (i) 13, (ii) 18.
  3. (3) (a) (i) 2, (ii) they did not comply with the admission requirements; (b) (i) 2, (ii) they failed to obtain the matriculation exemption.
  4. (4) June 1959.
Students Enrolled at University College for the Western Cape *VII. Mr. HUGHES (for Mr. Russell)

asked the Minister of Education, Arts and Science:

  1. (1) How many (a) students and (b) new students have enrolled at the University College of the Western Cape for 1962;
  2. (2) how many of (a) the students and (b) the new students at the College are (i) matriculated and (ii) taking degree courses;
  3. (3) whether any applications for (a) admission and (b) re-admission were refused in 1962; if so, (i) how many and (ii) for what reasons; and
  4. (4) what is the total amount spent on the College since its establishment.
  1. (1) Up to last Wednesday morning (a) 351 students enrolled; and (b) 123 of them are new students.
  2. (2) (a) (i) 195, (ii) 170; (b) (i) 80, (ii) 71.
  3. (3) (a) Yes; (i) 57, (ii) because they failed the relevant admission examinations or did not apply in time; (b) yes; (i) 32, (ii) unsatisfactory academic progress.
  4. (4) R739,408.

I should point out in connection with “matriculated” in paragraph 2 (a) (i) and (b) (i) that all the students are matriculated in the popular sense of the term, but of the 351 enrolled, 195 obtained matriculation certificates issued by the Joint Matriculation Board or satisfied the conditions of exemption from the matriculation examination and obtained certificates to that effect, while the remaining 156 obtained approved senior, school-leaving or other recognized certificates equivalent thereto, but did not comply with all the conditions of exemption.

Bantu Students Enrolled at Cape Town and Witwatersrand Universities *VIII

(for Mr. Russell) asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

  1. (a) How many Bantu students have applied for permission to be enrolled for 1962 at the Universities of (i) Cape Town and (ii) the Witwatersrand;
  2. (b) in how many cases was permission granted for each University; and
  3. (c) in what faculties have these students been enrolled.
  1. (a) (i) 5; (ii) 5.
  2. (b) Cape Town, 2; Witwatersrand, none.
  3. (c) Diploma in nursing for sister tutors and music.
Students Enrolled at Turfloop *IX Mr. HUGHES_(for Mr. Russell)

asked the Minister of Bantu Education

  1. (1) How many (a) students and (b) new students have enrolled at the University College at Turfloop for 1962;
  2. (2) how many of (a) the students and (b) the new students at the College are (i) matriculated and (ii) taking degree courses;
  3. (3) whether any applications for (a) admission and (b) re-admission were refused in 1962; if so, (i) how many and (ii) for what reasons; and
  4. (4) when did building operations at the College commence.
  1. (1) (a) 169—the registration of students has not been completed yet; 180 or more are expected; (b) 80—for the same reason as mentioned in (1) (a)—more are expected.
  2. (2) (a) (i) 77, (ii) 67; (b) (i) 27, (ii) 25.
  3. (3) (a) (i) 53, (ii) they did not comply with the admission requirements for degree courses, and the diploma courses were already full; (b) (i) 2, (ii) one for health reasons and one for unsatisfactory behaviour.
  4. (4) June 1959.
Production Costs of Bananas *X. Mr. MITCHELL

asked the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing:

  1. (1) What was the production cost of bananas in (a) the Lowveld and (b) Natal as ascertained by the Division of Economics and Marketing in its survey during 1955; and
  2. (2) whether he will take steps to have a further production cost survey conducted; if not, why not.
  1. (1) (a) On average 1.94 cents per pound f.o.r.; (b) European farmers on average 1.87 cents per pound f.o.r. and Indian farmers on average 2.23 cents per pound f.o.r.
  2. (2) No. Production costs can only serve as a guide in determining producers’ prices and the high cost attached thereto is only justifiable in cases where a fixed producers’ price must be determined.
Control of Coloured Education in Natal *XI. Mr. HUGHES (for Mr. Wood)

asked the Minister of Coloured Affairs:

  1. (1) Whether the transfer of the education of Coloured people in Natal to his Department has been under consideration; and, if so,
  2. (2) whether the Coloured people of Natal have been consulted in regard to the matter; if so, which bodies or persons have been consulted.
  1. (1) Attention is invited to the statement on this subject by the hon. the Prime Minister when he addressed the Council for Coloured Affairs in Cape Town in December last. This statement was published in the Press at the time.
  2. (2) Consultation with various bodies and authorities is still taking place.
Area of Jurisdiction of Proposed Transkeian Government *XII. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

  1. (1) Whether the borders of the Transkei area for which self-government is contemplated are to remain unchanged in the immediate future; and, if so,
  2. (2) whether these borders are the borders of the Transkeian Territories as defined in Proclamation No. R.160 of 1960; if not, in what respects do they differ.
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) No. Proclamation No. 160 of 1960 was issued to give greater clarity in regard to the interpretation of certain laws still applicable in what is known as the Transkeian Territories. The hon. member has based his assumption that it describes areas on a wrong premise, and the second part of this question therefore falls away. The area of jurisdiction of the proposed Transkeian government will be described at the appropriate time.
*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Arising out of the reply of the hon. the Minister, a statement has been made that the boundaries of the Transkei will remain unchanged for the immediate future. Where can we find out where those boundaries are?

Dormant Accounts in P.O. Savings Bank *XIII. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

  1. (1) (a) Under what circumstances are accounts in the Post Office Savings Bank regarded as dormant or unclaimed, (b) how many such accounts are there at present and (c) what is the total amount standing to the credit of these accounts; and
  2. (2) whether steps are taken to trace the holders of such accounts; if so, (a) what steps and (b) with what results; if not, why not.
  1. (1)
    1. (a) For administrative purposes an account is considered dormant after the expiration of a period of seven years from the date upon which the last deposit or withdrawal was made by the depositor. The deposit book remains in the possession of the depositor and, even after the lapse of seven years, he is at liberty to operate on his account at any time and at any Post Office;
    2. (b) and (c) 1,555,761 accounts with a total credit of R3,723,493; and
  2. (2) the addresses of the depositors of dormant accounts are unknown and the balances are invariably negligible.
*XV. Mr. RAW

—Reply standing over.

Reciprocal Arrangements Under Old Age Pensions Act *XVI. Mr. LEWIS

asked the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions:

Whether reciprocal arrangements in terms of the Old Age Pensions Act have been established with any countries; and, if so, which countries.


No reciprocal arrangements have been made with any country in terms of Section 16 of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1928.

No More Colonels-in-Chief *XVII. Mr. ROSS

asked the Minister of Defence:

Whether the

  1. (a) Royal Durban Light Infantry,
  2. (b) Royal Natal Carbineers,
  3. (c) Imperial Light Horse and
  4. (d) Rand Light Infantry

regiments still have a Colonel-in-Chief; and, if so, what is the name of the Colonel-in-Chief in each case.


(a), (b), (c) and (d) No.

Rest falls away.


Arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, I am advised that Her Majesty the Queen of England is honorary colonel of those particular regiments at present. Is my information incorrect?


The position is that when I was overseas, these things were discussed and it was decided to advise that these colonelcies-in-chief would simply lapse.


—Reply standing over.

Distribution of Copies of Press Commission’s Report *XIX. Mrs. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of the Interior:

  1. (a) How many copies of the Report of the Press Commission (Part One) were made available to the Press,
  2. (b) to which newspapers, and
  3. (c) on what date were they issued.
  1. (a) Nine copies of Part One of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Press were handed by my Department to the Department of Information for distribution amongst the various newspapers for use by them on a loan basis for a period of two months.
  2. (b) The copies of the Report were distributed as follows:
    • One to the South African Press Association.
    • One to the South African Broadcasting Corporation.
    • One to the “Nasionale Pers” and the “Voortrekkerpers” newspapers, namely the Burger, the Transvaler, the Volksblad and the Oosterlig.
    • One to newspapers of the Argus group, namely, the Cape Argus, the Star, the Natal Daily News, the Friend, the Pretoria News, Diamond Fields Advertiser, the Sunday Tribune and the Sunday Post.
    • One to the English morning newspapers, including the Cape Times, Rand Daily Mail, the Natal Mercury, Eastern Province Herald and to the Sunday Times and Sunday Express. This group of newspapers also had the use of a further copy, namely, the one which was entrusted to the care of the Natal Witness.
    • One to the Natal Witness. The East London Dispatch also had the use of this copy and it was also made available to the newspapers of the Bailey group, such as the Post in Cape Town.
    • One to the Newspaper Press Union of South Africa, who indicated that it intended making an extract from the Report for distribution among its members.
    • One to the newspapers of the “Afrikaanse Pers Beperk”, namely, the Vaderland and Sondagblad and to Dagbreek en Sondagnuus.
    • One to correspondents of foreign news agencies, radio corporations, etc.
  3. (c) The copies of the Report were distributed as set out above immediately after the Report was laid upon the Table in both Houses of Parliament on 19 February 1962.
Bantu Graduates *XX. Mrs. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

  1. (1) How many Bantu (a) obtained university degrees and (b) passed Std. VI and Std. VIII, respectively, in each year from 1950 to 1961; and
  2. (2) what is the total number of (a) Bantu graduates and (b) Bantu who have passed Std. VI and Std. VIII, respectively, in the Republic.
  1. (1)
    1. (a) My Department has no statistics at its disposal in respect of the examination results of the five South African universities which made provision for the training of Bantu students in the years 1950-61. An effort is already being made by the Department to collect the information, but the work is hampered by the fact that the examination lists of the universities concerned do not distinguish between Europeans and non-Europeans, and that staff cannot be made available to devote themselves on a full-time basis to such an analysis. Results cannot be expected within at least three months’ time.
    2. (b) In the years prior to 1954 the Std. VI and Std. VIII examinations were controlled by the various provincial education departments. The Department of Bantu Education took over after 1954, but as a transition measure the Std. VI examinations were conducted on a regional basis. Moreover, in the years to 1960 Bantu pupils also entered for the examinations of the Department of Education, Arts and Science.

      Compiled statistics in respect of Std. VI and Std. VIII examinations are therefore available only from 1958 and 1954 respectively, but these do not include the external examinations of the Department of Education, Arts and Science.

Std. VI






















  1. (2)
    1. (a) For reasons mentioned under (1) (a) and further because numerous Bantu persons have received degrees from foreign universities, the exact figures cannot be furnished.

      After consultation with various bodies and the most important employers of graduated Bantu, my Department is of the opinion that there are approximately 2,000 graduated Bantu in the Republic.

    2. (b)

Std. VI






Slaughter Stock Kept in Trucks *XXI. Mrs. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing—

  1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to a report in the Rand Daily Mail of 27 February 1962, that more than 10,000 sheep and cattle were kept in trucks near Newtown market for a day and a night without food or water; and
  2. (2) whether he will order an inquiry into the matter.
  1. (1) No, but I am aware that the pressure on the market usually increases at this time of the year and that animals are sometimes kept in trucks as a result of abnormal quantities of slaughter stock arriving at Newtown over week-ends, and that the animals can consequently not be off-loaded on the day of arrival.
  2. (2) My Department and the Meat Board is always fully informed on the supply position of slaughter stock to the controlled markets. Special inquiry is not considered necessary at this stage but the matter is receiving attention.

—Reply standing over.

For written reply

Tribal Levy for Educational Purposes at Mabieskraal I. Mrs. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

  1. (1) Whether a levy for the purpose of building a school was recently imposed upon members of Chief Mokgatle Mabe’s tribe at Mabieskraal; if so, (a) by whom, (b) what was the amount of the levy and (c) when was it announced;
  2. (2) whether the levy was paid by all the tribesmen; if not,
  3. (3) whether any action was taken to collect the levy; if so, what action;
  4. (4) whether any tribesmen were brought to court in connection with the matter; if so, (a) on what charges and (b) with what result;
  5. (5) whether the Bantu Commissioner gave any ruling on the validity of the levy; if so, what ruling;
  6. (6) whether any further action to collect the levy was taken after this ruling;
  7. (7) whether any representations in connection with the matter have been received by the Chief Bantu Commissioner at Potchefstroom; if so, what was the nature of the representations; and
  8. (8) whether any steps have been taken as a result of the representations; if so, what steps.
  1. (1) The Department is aware of the fact that a voluntary tribal levy for educational and other purposes was imposed by the tribe but in view of threatened legal proceedings against the acting chief in regard to matters arising from the collection or enforcement of the levy it is not considered in the interests of justice to furnish the desired information at this stage.
  2. (2) to (8) Fall away.

—Reply standing over.

Salary Scales of Permanent Force Officers II. Brig. BRONKHORST

asked the Minister of Defence:

What were the salary scales of Permanent Force officers on 1 February 1957.


Commandant-General: R5,400. Lieutenant-General: R4,800. Combat-General: R4,680. Brigadier (Medical Officer): R4,560. Brigadier: R4,200. Colonel (Medical Officer): R3,840. Colonel: R3,720. Commandant (Medical Officer): R3,360. Commandant (on staff): R3,240. Commandant: R3,000. Major (Medical Officer): R3,000. Major (on staff or Flying Instructor): R2,760. Major: R2,640. Captain (Medical Officer): R2,760. Captain (on staff or Flying Instructor): R1,620×84—2,040×120—2,400. Captain: R1,620×84—2,040×120—2,280. Field Cornet (Medical Officer): R2,040×120—2,400. Lieutenant (Flying Instructor): R1,260×60—1,620×84—1,872. Field Cornet: R1,260×60—1,620×84—1,788. Assistant Field Cornet (Medical Officer) (intern): R1,200. Second Lieutenant (Flying Instructor): Rl,080×60—1,200. Assistant Field Cornet: Rl,080×60—1,140.

The salary scales for the corresponding ranks in the S.A. Navy were the same.

Nursing Officers: Principal Matron: R1,580×60—1,820. Senior Matron: R 1,520×60— 1,760. Junior Matron: Rl,280×60—1,640. Sister Grade I: R1,170—1,220×60—1,640. Sister Grade II: Rl,020—1,120×50—1,220— 1,280.


I move—

That this House congratulates the Government on the establishment of a Department of Information and calls upon all South Africans to defend the good name of South Africa at all times.

Mr. Speaker, the discussion on this motion could very easily degenerate into a bitter party political quarrel and into mutual recriminations. It could very easily degenerate to the point where hon. members on the other side say that the bad reputation which South Africa has to-day is attributable entirely to the policy of this party and to the deeds of this Government. It would be just as easy to build up a case against them and to say that the bad reputation which South Africa has abroad to-day is due to their misrepresentations and to their continual blackening of South Africa. It would be a pity, however, if it developed into that kind of debate because the object of this motion is to invite an objective discussion on the question as to how all South Africans, to whichever party or language group they belong, or to whichever colour group they may belong, can be induced to throw in their weight behind the Minister of Information and his Department so that they can give the best possible services to South Africa in the difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves. I think, Mr. Speaker, that I am right in saying that this Minister of Information has perhaps the most difficult task of all the Ministers, and I think I am right in saying that the task of the Minister of Information of South Africa is perhaps more difficult than that of any Minister of Information in the whole world. I think that fact imposes a duty on all South Africans to help to defend the good name of South Africa and not to place obstacles in the Minister’s way but rather to remove those obstacles.

It is, of course, the duty of the Opposition to criticize the Minister, and it would be entirely unrealistic to expect the Opposition to shed crocodile tears if a Minister or his Department is not successful. After all, it is their duty to try to get into power, and in their case it is a very difficult task. One must therefore expect them to welcome it when Ministers make a mess of their Departments. But because this particular Department has to do with human relationships and because the success of this Department depends to such a very great extent on what is done by all South Africans, to whichever political party they may belong, I think it is their duty as far as this Department is concerned not to try to score political points against this side of the House or against the National Party. Because, Mr.. Speaker, when other Departments are a failure, the National Party is the victim but if the Department of Information is a failure, then South Africa is the victim. The political struggle in our country is a fairly bitter one, but nevertheless we have succeeded to a great extent to keep certain matters outside the party political arena. I have in mind matters such as Defence, to a large extent External Affairs, and other matters which have been kept outside the political sphere because those things have to do with the security of this country. I want to make an appeal to the Opposition to treat the Department of Information in the same way, because that Department has as much to do with the security of South Africa as the Department of Defence. Naturally, one does not expect the Opposition not to criticize the Minister of Information and his Department. But I do not think it is asking too much of them to say that in this case this criticism should be designed to help and not to destroy or to obstruct. Nobody would be so irresponsible in time of war as to criticize his Army and his Defence Force in such a way that it is going to help his country’s enemies. I think in all reasonableness we can expect that in this cold war in which we find ourselves for the survival of the White man, the Opposition, if they want to criticize, will not criticize in such a way that their criticism will help the enemies of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, it would have been the easiest thing in the world for me to-day to build up a case against the Opposition and to say that they and the English-language Press are largely responsible for South Africa’s bad reputation abroad. I shall be obliged to deal to a large extent with the role that they play in this connection, but I do not want to do so in a spirit of disparagement. The spirit in which I want to do so is to see what we can do on both sides, both language groups, to alleviate to some extent this difficult position in which South Africa finds herself. If we can succeed in inducing the Opposition and the mighty English-language Press to throw in their weight behind the Minister of Information then I think that not only can we win this cold war easily but that we can win it very convincingly.

Well, Mr. Speaker, in the first portion of my motion I congratulate the Government on the establishment of the Department of Information. I think all sides of the House would wish to endorse those congratulations. In our modern world which is becoming smaller and smaller and in which the interests of states are becoming more and more interlinked, a Department of Information is absolutely essential. With all the means of propaganda and publicity in this modern world, advertisement in some shape or form has become an inseparable part of our lives internally and externally. Just look at South Africa; there is hardly a city council of any importance which has not got its own information service. There is practically no reasonably large business which has not got its liaison officer, and so far we in South Africa have been in this position that certain large firms have been spending more on advertisements to sell their soap than South Africa has been spending on advertisements to sell our case abroad. I do not think it is necessary therefore to make out a case for the proposition that South Africa must have a Department of Information. But I want to link up my congratulations in this connection with the staff appointed by the Government to launch this Department. I think that in appointing Mr. Wennie du Plessis as Secretary of this Department, the Government made an excellent choice. I think Mr. du Plessis as an authority on Africa, with his years of experience as Ambassador in America and Canada—and I think he was also our permanent representative at UNO for some time—is probably the most suitable person that the Government could find for that work. Mr. du Plessis is assisted by Mr. Piet Meiring, and, Mr. Speaker, I think we can make use of this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Meiring and his Division of Information, as it has been known hitherto, on the brilliant work that they have done under very difficult circumstances.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

What are the Minister’s qualifications?


Because, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this here to-day that with little money and under very difficult circumstances Mr. Piet Meiring and his staff have done this work as well as anybody else could have done it. Then there is Mr. Chris Prinsloo with his years of experience in the Department of Information and the Department of Bantu Administration. I think no better appointment could have been made. And then I want to comply with the request of the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) and heartily congratulate the Prime Minister and the Government on their choice of the Minister of Information. Mr. Speaker, I have known him a long time and I have worked in very close association with him. What makes him the right person for this job is the fact, in the first place, that he has business sense, that he has a deep knowledge of human nature, together with the fact that he is such a balanced person. This is not a job for a muddle-head like the hon. member for Orange Grove, for example. It is a job for a balanced person, for a rational person. But the best qualification that the Minister of Information has for his job is his absolutely unimpeachable patriotism.


Hear, hear!


In this connection, before I come to what I regard as the duty of the Department of Information, I just want to say that we have entrusted an enormous task to these people and it would be a pity if they were restricted in their activities through shortage of funds. I would appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance therefore to be as sympathetic as possible when dealing with the requirements and the requests of this Department.

Mr. Speaker, as I see it, the Department of Information has two great tasks. In the first place, it has an internal task and in the second place an external task. This internal task is to do everything they can to place the relationships between White and non-White in South Africa on as harmonious a footing as possible. Their external task is to put over the best and the most sympathetic image of South Africa to the outside world. It is difficult for me to say which of these two tasks is going to be the most important. But I want to say that if they are able to accomplish their first task with success, namely to help to place the relationships between White and non-White on a better and more favourable footing, then their second task will be much easier. As far as their first task is concerned, the relationships between the White and non-White, I am going to confine myself mainly or almost exclusively to the relationship between the Whites and the Bantu, not because I regard the other relationships as being of lesser importance but because my time is short and because the same principles and factors which determine the relationships between the Whites and the Bantu also apply to other non-White relationships. As I see it, there are three important things that the Department of Information has to do in connection with this internal task. The first is to convince the Bantu that the White man of South Africa is his friend and not his enemy, his protector and not his oppressor. Its second task is to convince the Bantu that the traditional policy of South Africa is just as much in the interests of the Bantu as it is in the interests of the Whites. And, Mr. Speaker, when I talk about the traditional policy of South Africa, I refer to the traditional policy of separation which underlies both the policy of the National Party and that of the United Party. We have to convince the Bantu that the policy of separation means that he will be able to develop in an orderly fashion to full-fledged economic and political status without interfering with the White man’s economic and political status. I think we can settle the ultimate difference between ourselves and the United Party amongst us Whites without dragging in the Bantu. The third task of the Department of Information will be to convince the Bantu that there is no salvation for him in substituting a Bantu Government for the White Government, as so fervently desired by Luthuli and other agitators in South Africa. We have to convince the Bantu that such a thing would lead not only to the downfall of the White man but to the greatest misery for the Bantu himself. And, Mr. Speaker, it need not be difficult for us, enormous though this task may seem, to convince the Bantu of that, because all the facts are on our side. It should not be difficult for us to convince the Bantu that the White man is not his enemy. It ought to be easy for us to prove to him that the position of the Bantu amongst the Whites in this country is much more favourable than the position of the Bantu in any other part of the world; to prove to him that in this country he has a higher income, better medical services, better education, etc., and to prove to him that no State, no Government, no group of people, that does these things can be his enemy but that they are in fact his friends. It ought to be easy to convince the Bantu that there is no salvation to be found for him in overthrowing the White Government, as desired by Luthuli and others; we need only refer him to the Congo. It should not be difficult to convince the Bantu that he will be able to attain full-fledge political and economic status, particularly after the Prime Minister’s announcement of the Transkeian plan.

Why then does this task appear to us to be so enormous and sometimes almost impossible? It is not because the facts do not support us; it is not because we have not got the right case with which we can convince the Bantu but, Mr. Speaker, the difficulty is this. The reason why we apparently cannot succeed is because there is an overwhelming number of channels of information reaching the Bantu which are in the hands of persons who are absolutely hostile to this idea of separation and who are apparently not anxious to bring about harmony between White and Black in South Africa. What determines the way of thinking of the Bantu? I have done a little research into this matter and I find that the things which determine the Bantu’s way of thinking, in order of importance, are the following; the Press, the spoken word, the radio, the church, the schools, the universities and the cinema. For the purpose of this debate I am going to confine myself to the role of the Press and the radio. Mr. Speaker, in this connection the English-language Press and the Bantu Press play an overwhelming role. The vast majority of newspapers and magazines which determine the way of thinking of the Bantu are, as I have said, in the hands of persons who do not believe in the idea of separation and this constitutes the vast bulk of the propaganda that reaches the Bantu. I just want to give the House two figures so as to give hon. members some idea of the overwhelming nature of the propaganda that is hostile to the idea of separation and that reaches the Bantu as against the amount of propaganda that is favourably disposed to the idea of separation. Over a period of a month 4,200,000 newspapers and magazines which present the White man as an oppressor, which are hostile to the idea of separation and which give sympathetic publicity to those who wish to overthrow the Government of the Whites come into the hands of the Bantu. On the other hand, 261,000 documents—a few Bantu newspapers and all the publications of the Information Division of the Department of Bantu Administration—which are favourably disposed towards the idea of separation come into the hands of the Bantu over a period of a month. In other words, over a month we have 4,000,000 more documents which are hostile to the idea of separation than documents which are favourably disposed to the idea of separation, and the overwhelming factor in this whole situation is the English-language Press.

It is because of this that a tremendous responsibility rests on those who are responsible for this. Because of the fact that the English-language Press is such a mighty factor in determining the way of thinking of the Bantu, an enormous responsibility rests on the English-language newspapers and it will depend on them whether the Bantu regards the White man as a friend or as an oppressor. It will depend on them whether the Bantu wants to overthrow the White Government or whether he wants to develop together with us towards full status. I must say that the role which the English-language Press has played in this matter hitherto, to say the least of it, is very disturbing. The truth of the matter is that they have always unfairly presented the idea of separation, and particularly the policy of this Government, to the Bantu as a policy of oppression; I say that they have unfairly and unreasonably held it out as a policy of oppression under which the Bantu cannot expect salvation. Let me mention two examples. Take the question of influx control and the question of reference books. We all know, to whichever party we may belong, that it is absolutely essential for the effective maintenance of order in South Africa, that it is absolutely essential for the salvation of the White man, but that it is equally essential for the salvation of the Black man; we know that without this reference book system, without influx control, the Bantu will find himself in the greatest misery. And, Mr. Speaker, the English-language Press knows that, the Opposition knows it and everybody knows it. Why then present this system of influx control and reference books which can be interpreted so cruelly if one wants to do so, to the world and to the Bantu as an instrument to oppress him instead of what it is, an instrument for his salvation. The other example that I want to mention is this. We recall the debate which took place in this House some years ago on the removal of Sophia-town and the establishment of Meadowlands. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that step was held out as the most gross oppression of and the greatest cruelty towards the Bantu; that it was presented as a measure of oppression to such an extent that everybody expected that there would be bloodshed when these people were moved, and that on the day they were moved, British and numerous foreign correspondents—there were more than 200 of them—went there to see to what extent there would be bloodshed. Well, there was no bloodshed. All that happened was that Meadow-lands was established, a town which to-day is a model town and the best Bantu residential area in the whole of Africa and perhaps in the whole world. Mr. Speaker, what is the motive of these people, what is their philosophy and what is their object in presenting these things to the Bantu in this way? The English-language Press in South Africa has unfortunately manipulated itself into this position that it has become the mouthpiece of every agitator in South Africa, the mouthpiece of every agitator who seeks to overthrow the White Government. It has become the mouthpiece of Mandela, Subokwe, Luthuli, Michael Scott, Huddlestone, Alan Paton and all those people. And, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that if the English-language Press carries on in this fashion, they will make the task of the Minister and the Department of Information very difficult, if not impossible. The Press has now drawn up a code for itself. One article in that code reads as follows—

Comment should take due cognizance of the complex racial problems in South Africa and should take into account the general good and safety of the country and its peoples.

If this brings us to the eve of the day when this is in fact going to be done by the English-language Press with its enormous influence amongst the Bantu, then I visualize a very rosy future for South Africa, a very rosy future for the survival of the White man and harmonious relationships between White and Bantu.

Mr. Speaker, we have now arrived at the point where we should ask ourselves, or where the English-language Press should ask itself, whether the time has not come when it should reconsider the role played by it in this cold war in which South Africa finds herself engaged. Because, Mr. Speaker, it is no longer a question of ousting from power one political party or putting another political party into power. It has now become a question of the survival of the White man in South Africa. Enormous forces are being ranged against South Africa both internally and externally, and it is perfectly clear what they demand for South Africa; they want one thing only—that is what faces us and that is the crux of the matter—they want a system of “one man one vote” in South Africa. If there is any doubt in this regard, let me read out to the House what Nkomo, the nationalistic Black leader of Rhodesia, said—

Sir Edgar Whitehead expects Africans in Southern Rhodesia to shout hallaluya because he says he intends to repeal the Land Apportionment Act in December 1962. To us that is an empty statement of intention. What we want is one man, one vote. It is said that the colour bar is being removed in hotels, bars and swimming pools. We are not interested in swimming in pools. We want to swim in the Legislative Assembly. The human dignity of Africans cannot be bought by bridges, schools and hospitals.

We must realize and the English-language Press must realize precisely what the nature is of this cold war that is going on in South Africa and they must realize that we have reached a stage where South Africa’s most deadly enemy—and when I say “South Africa”, I refer not only to the White man but to all races—is the person who pleads for “one man one vote”. The English-language Press must realize that whether it be UNO or whether it be Luthuli, those people are South Africa’s enemies, that they are just as much South Africa’s enemies as people who want to attack South Africa by force of arms. Because we must realize that if this system of “one man one vote” is forced upon us, it will cause just as much destruction in South Africa as would be caused if we became involved in a hot war and if we lost that war. Is the English-language Press fighting those people? No, it gives them the most sympathetic publicity at all times. Look at the sympathetic publicity that it gave Luthuli’s book, which makes one of the most venomous and most unfair attacks on the position of the White man, which makes the most unjustified attack on the position of the White man in South Africa. But in the Cape Times, the Sunday Times and the Rand Daily Mail the book is praised as an outstanding work, and the most sympathetic publicity is given to it. I want to make an appeal to-day to the English-language Press; I want to make an appeal to owners of the English-language Press to side openly with South Africa in this cold war. I want them openly to declare as our enemies all those who plead for “one man one vote” in South Africa. I want them to throw in their weight openly behind the Minister of Information and the Department of Information. Nobody is asking them not to criticize; we only ask them to give the Bantu a fair image of the White man and to give the outside, world a fair image of South Africa.

I have dealt at length with the English-language Press, but I have done so because of their enormous influence. The English-language Press is the most powerful factor in this struggle to maintain harmonious relationships between White and non-White and to restore our good name abroad. I am inclined to say that they constitute 80 per cent of this factor. The means which the Minister has at his disposal, apart from that mighty channel for propaganda, are very meagre indeed. What means has the Minister at his disposal? In the first place, he has the Bantu Information Service with its publications and its Information Officers. But because of lack of funds and lack of staff it is very small, and all I can do here is to plead for a considerable expansion of that service. In this connection I also want to break a lance for those who have had the courage to establish Bantu newspapers and who are favourably disposed to the idea of separation. I have in mind the Dagbreekpers with its Bona, and a new organization which is trying to establish a Bantu daily. I think they deserve the support of all well-disposed people and of all Whites in South Africa. Then I want to express this opinion: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the time has not come when all the Afrikaans newspapers or publishers should get together to see what role they can play in establishing newspapers and magazines for the Bantu; because I think this is an enormous task, and we can no longer leave the shaping of Bantu opinion to the mercy of those people who are hostile to the idea of separation and to the mercy of those people who apparently would not mind if the White Government came to a fall. I feel therefore that the Afrikaans Press could play a very important role in this connection. But, Mr. Speaker, it would require a great deal of courage and ingenuity and it would cost a great deal of money. I do not think, however, that they lack either the funds, the courage or the ingenuity.

The other important weapon which the Minister has at his disposal, or which he will have in the future, is the radio. I understand that there will be a full-time Bantu radio service in the near future, and it is anticipated that shortly thereafter there will be four full-time Bantu radio services. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to use this powerful weapon, in co-operation with the S.A.B.C., as much as we can and as much as is necessary so as to make the Bantu realize that the policy we are following here is in his interests just as much as it is in the interests of the White man. I know there will be another row and that they will say the Minister misuses the radio to make propaganda, but he need not worry about that. In time of war the radio is used to support the war effort, and in this cold war the radio must be used to support South Africa, and morally there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it would be criminal negligence if the Minister did not do so, because in this cold war it is absolutely essential for us to get the Bantu on our side and to use all possible means to achieve that end. Because if we succeed in getting the Bantu on our side and get him also to tell the world to leave us alone, so that we can solve our own problems, half the battle will have been won.

I want to conclude my remarks in regard to this portion of the task the Minister of Information has in this country. It is a task which he cannot perform alone. It is a task which all South Africans must perform. It is a task which it is imperative for us to perform if we want the White man to survive in South Africa. I appeal to all bodies and sections to support the Minister.

The second task of the Minister of Information is to give the world the most sympathetic picture of South Africa. Now, it seems to me that before we can succeed in giving them the most sympathetic picture we must clearly understand what our problem actually is, and in the first place we must face the fact that South Africa to-day is a hated country and that we are almost without any friends at all. We must ascertain why that is so, as without knowing that it will be very difficult for us to tackle this task. The Opposition is always so quick to say that it is the policy of this Government which has landed South Africa in this position. Mr. Speaker, that is the most superficial analysis of the matter and is quite ridiculous. Irrespective of whatever Government were in power to-day. whether it be the United Party or even the Progressive Party, our position would be precisely the same. Because these people are not opposed to our policy of apartheid. They are opposed to all forms of racial discrimination, also against the discrimination which that party will apply if they come into power. They will be satisfied with one government only, and that is the government of Luthuli. History has shown that. The first attacks on South Africa were not made under this Government, but under General Smuts, one of the founders of UN, and who in those days was beloved by the whole Western world. It was at UN that India first launched its attacks on General Smuts and forced through resolutions despite his pleas.

But let us look at Rhodesia. They say it is our policy which has landed us in this difficult position, but Rhodesia is following precisely the opposite policy. They do not have apartheid, but a policy of partnership. They do not discriminate on the ground of colour. They try to eliminate all forms of discrimination. Has that stopped the Afro-Asian nations from passing a resolution at UN against Rhodesia with an overwhelming majority? We should not be so superficial as to say that it is the policy of the Government which is responsible for the South African position. All the facts are against it. The hard fact of the matter is that not only is the rest of the world against all forms of discrimination, but as far as the Afro-Asian countries are concerned their trouble is that they actually do not want the White man to be in any part of Africa. Therefore it seems to me to be an impossible task and one which we should not even attempt, and we should not waste even one cent in trying to convince the Afro-Asian countries, with laudable exceptions, and the leftists in America, Europe and England that our policy is right and in creating a better picture of South Africa in their minds, because we simply will not succeed. All those people are opposed to the presence of the White man in Africa. But in America, England and Europe there is a tremendous reservoir of goodwill towards South Africa and towards the White man here, and there are many people who want to see the position of the White man maintained here. We should not only try to retain their goodwill, but we should try to expand that reservoir. And I do not think that task will be so difficult, because increasingly more people in America, Europe and England are becoming increasingly disillusioned with affairs as they are developing in Africa and at UN.

But there is a serious duty resting on the Government, on the Opposition, on the Press and on all of us to do nothing which might poison that reservoir of goodwill towards South Africa. The Government has a bounden duty in that regard. Of course the Government cannot allow those people to tell it how to govern the country, but from time to time incidents occur which certainly do not facilitate the work of the Minister of Information. All of us, the Government, and all bodies and individuals have a duty as far as possible to prevent and eliminate such incidents. There are people in South Africa who will simply have to realize that more serious issues are at stake than their own personal feelings. But on the other hand it is not necessary to exaggerate every incident out of all proportion either, and it is not necessary to make a mountain out of a mole-hill. In passing I would just like to mention to those newspapers which recently so grossly exaggerated certain incidents, that they did not utter a word of protest when a number of Coloured agitators walked from café to café in Cape Town some time ago in trying to cause incidents. But that does still not relieve us of the duty of trying to prevent such incidents taking place.

In painting this picture of South Africa abroad, a tremendous responsibility rests upon the Government, but an even greater responsibility rests upon the Opposition and the English Press, for the simple reason that this is one sphere in which they have more influence than the Government. Everything that is said by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Information is regarded as disputable right from the start and is regarded as prejudiced and as the defence of an indefensible policy. But the Leader of the Opposition has a much more influential and a louder voice than the Government in the outside world, and particularly in Britain. I am afraid that the Opposition hitherto has played a very unpatriotic role in this regard. One does not blame the Opposition for criticizing and sharply censuring the Government, but what I do blame them for is that they always attach the most extreme and most malicious interpretations to every piece of legislation and every deed of omission or commission of the Government. Not only that, but I want to make the statement, and prove it, that matters are misinterpreted in a way which can only be done by an enemy of South Africa.

I want to mention a few examples. I want to mention the so-called “church clause”— a misnomer. Everybody in this country knows that this church clause was no more than a measure to regulate religious practices in an orderly and peaceful manner, without the risk of demonstrations being held and unpleasant incidents taking place. We all know for how long that Act has been on the Statute Book already, and not a single person has been wronged by it yet. We all know that it was merely an internal arrangement, but how did the Opposition represent it to the world? They misrepresented it as an interference with the church and religious freedom. And they know that there is no country in the world where there is more religious freedom than in South Africa. But they grasp at such an innocuous little thing in order to tell the world that it is interference with religious freedom, something which is abhorred right throughout the world.

Take the reaction of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) to the Transkei plan. Nobody blames him for not agreeing with it and for condemning it in no uncertain terms and saying that it cannot work and that it contains within it a great danger to South Africa. But what is his reaction? He says it is a deliberate bluff and a fraud in order to maintain White domination in South Africa. Can anything condemn us more in the eyes of the world than that?


That is not what he said.


Those are the exact words he used in a newspaper article, that it is a deliberate bluff and a fraud to maintain White domination. If such an influential member of the United Party says it, that is the picture the world must get of South Africa, not that this Transkeian policy is a foolish but sincere attempt to solve the problem, but a deliberate fraud to keep the White man the master and the Bantu in a state of subordination. It is not the truth, and I say only an enemy of South Africa could attach such an interpretation to it.

The other day we listened to a speech by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell). I just want to quote a few extracts from that speech. It is a pity the hon. member is not here now, because I think he himself will be ashamed to-day of what he said. I just want to quote this—

South Africa at best was a democracy for Whites only, and even for them liberty is rapidly becoming what Dr. Verwoerd permits us to do.

Of course he knows that is not true. Of course he knows he is just as free as any other White man in South Africa or anywhere else in the world. Why must he tell the world democracy is disappearing? Then he says, further—

The Nationalists naturally do not like this state of affairs. Their dogma is that people with white skins are inherently superior to those whose skins are brown or black.

Nothing can make us more contemptible in the eyes of the world than to say that we believe that the White man is inherently and in every other respect the superior of the Black man. There is, in fact, nobody in South Africa who believes that. Why paint this picture to the world? He also says—

They intended to remove all non-Whites from any continuity of contact with the superior White people, except in the capacity of servant and master.

We are trying our utmost to regulate this matter as well as possible so that we can get away from discrimination, but he has to tell the world that the only basis of contact we allow between White and non-White is as master and servant. Surely that is not the correct picture of South Africa or of what the Government is doing. It is a distorted picture. Therefore, I say that this is a picture which only an enemy of South Africa could paint for the outside world. He says—

Each person in this country had to be given the indelible badge of superiority or stamped with his particular stigma of inferiority.

That is not true, but now we come to the grossest one of all—

Just as Hitler classified and separated the Jews, so South Africa must separate and classify the various races.

Mr. Speaker, can one paint a worse picture of South Africa abroad than to say that we are treating the Bantu as Hitler treated the Jews, particularly now that the Eichmann trial is in progress? Is that not the inevitable impression which is created abroad, that we are not only oppressing the Bantu, but are also exterminating them, as was said at UN, that we are exterminating the Bantu in South West Africa? I ask the hon. member for Turffontein, who interjected a moment ago: What is the object of creating this picture of South Africa abroad? How do they think the Minister of Information can succeed in painting a more favourable picture if their frontbenchers say the Government is treating the Black people in the same way that Hitler treated the Jews? Thousands of people fought and sacrificed their lives because Hitler treated the Jews in that way. Is that the idea they want to create against South Africa in the mind of the world? Therefore, I say that the role they have played hitherto is at the very least a very unpatriotic role, and I want to make an appeal to the Opposition to stop doing this and to throw in their weight with the new Department of Information.

When I come to the English Press I can only say that the role played by them overseas in this connection is simply shocking. I immediately want to give a few examples. I want to quote from the Burger with reference to the announcement about the Transkei—

It now seems as if the Transkei plan can create a little more goodwill for South Africa abroad. British newspapers which have already commented on it have not really said anything against the plan, except to express some doubts as to the Government’s goodwill. It is again a South African correspondent of the local Press who, with his poisonous pen, tried to ruin everything. From Cape Town Mr. Stanley Uys told the readers of the Observer that independence for the Transkei was the biggest nonsense.

I do not mind if he thinks it is nonsense and that it will not work, but does he also think it is deliberate fraud on the part of the Government in order to oppress the Bantu? Is that the picture he wants the world to have? If he wants to paint a better picture of South Africa abroad, is that the sort of article he will write? But I want to quote from a leading article in the Cape Times published some days ago—

Our institutions of government are representative in name only and dangerously unstable because based on an artificially and arbitrarily defined electorate. Of 15,000,000 people to be governed, 12,000,000 are excluded from participation because of the manner of their birth. The fact of race, not of education, civilization, economic or social position, is the only test. On the one side boys and girls of 18 are admitted; on the other, matriculants, graduates, clergymen, university professors and 50,000 income tax payers are excluded … The total result is that 15,000,000 people are governed by the representatives of about 1,500,000 with—on the outside looking in—the Africans, educated as well as uncivilized, the Coloured people (clergyman as well as labourer), the Indians (income tax payer and crossing sweeper) and half the Whites (educated, economically advanced, intelligent and energetic). The immediate consequence is to violate every principle which the peoples of Western Europe have excogitated for the good government of men.

I am not going to react to it. I am going to give the reaction of the Burger to it, because it was stated so brilliantly—

The Cape Times makes matters easy for our bitterest enemies. If the representative of Ghana or of the Soviet Union at UNO forgets to do his homework when South Africa comes up for discussion there in the near future, he need only read yesterday’s leading article in this newspaper. His own propaganda department can hardly evolve a more venomous, more one-sided picture of our set-up here … Isolated facts, plucked from the body of the Truth in order to serve a hateful sectarian point of view, and tinged with fantastic, unfair comment, are no longer facts. It is pure Cape Times. That the Coloured population has parliamentary representation, and as far as their material needs are concerned, also more effective representation than ever before, is not a fact for the purpose of the Cape Times’ representation of our country … The picture of the non-White population of South Africa as a mass of voteless slaves is of course not only untrue but also ridiculous. The facts are that hardly anywhere else in the world are the needs, the grievances and the aims of a section of the population which is still largely backward stated so constantly, so loudly, and so effectively as are those of the non-White population of South Africa. The picture of dumb millions of oppressed people contains very little truth. Therefore also the allegations by this newspaper that through our political system we are “doing violence to every principle evolved by the nations of Western Europe for the good government of the people” is also a bit of anti-South African libel which is all the more serious because it emanates from South Africa itself. Because to pretend that the whole of the non-White masses are being governed without their consent is false.

I say those people do not try to give a correct picture of South Africa; they try to give the worst possible picture, and they distort everything in order to give that picture. I just want to read what Stanley Uys said—

The Nationalist Government has many ways of punishing its political opponents …
*Mr. G. F. H. BEKKER:

Is he still in this House?


I have the greatest contempt for the man, but unfortunately he has great influence through the mighty Press he serves and the wide contacts he has overseas—

The Nationalist Government has many ways of punishing its political opponents …

Note “its political opponents”—

… It bans them from organizations and gatherings; it restricts them to prescribed areas or excludes them from prescribed areas or banishes them to prescribed areas. It arrests them without proper cause and then later releases them; it arrests them and brings half-baked prosecutions against them which collapse ignominiously—but not before they have involved the accused persons in considerable hardship and expense. All this is in addition to constant police raids and the dozen-and-one little tricks calculated to cause opponents of apartheid inconvenience, anxiety, suffering and outright misery. Let us look at the punishment of banishment, possibly the most inhuman of the methods used by the Government to silence its opponents.

Mr. Speaker, can there be greater treason than this? I want the hon. member for Turffontein to tell me whether he agrees with this passage that political opponents of this Government are banned, as he said, “and there they must lie and rot”. Of course he knows it is not true. Of course he knows that this treatment is meted out to communists, people who want to disrupt the good order in the country, people who in any other country would be subjected to similar punishment.

I want to read what appeared in the Sunday Times last Sunday about the banning of Adv. Slovo. This is what they say—

It is very significant—and disturbing—that Mr. Slovo has had this order served on him following his appearance for the defence in a number of cases involving political offences and the loss of civil rights.

They do not say that he was banned because he is a communist. The picture is painted that Mr. Slovo was banned because he appeared for the defence in a few cases “involving political offences and loss of civil rights”. Therefore, if someone wants to prevent “loss of civil rights”, the Government bans him. So I can continue to give examples. There is the notorious case of the “miner aged 13”, where the world was told that this young Bantu of 13 worked underground for £4 a month, whereas the facts are that he is 18, has never worked underground and does not earn only £4 a month. I must, however, mention one other matter which appeared in the Sunday Times last Sunday or the week before. There is a certain Mr. Staal, who worked in the planetarium. Now the Sunday Times says, under large headlines: “Planetarium boss lashes out at South Africa”, and then they say Mr. Staal is the head of the planetarium; he is a very influential and highly educated man, and then they go on to use the most hateful language against the Afrikaner and against South Africa in order that the world should believe this story, and if they believe it I do not blame them for wanting to boycott us and refusing to trade with us or to sell weapons to us. If that is the picture they have of South Africa they must necessarily want to destroy us. Here Mr. Staal is described as a very influential man, but who is this Mr. Staal? Another newspaper investigated the matter and he is not the “boss” of the planetarium, but only worked there for a few months. Dr. Bleksley was compelled to say that they would be obliged to dismiss him if he did not stop being so obnoxious, and everybody knows that Dr. Bleksley is not a supporter of this Government. And Mr. Staal is not an astronomer with 20 years’ experience. Investigations were made in London. He has only 18 months’ experience. The Sunday Times could just as well have taken a man off the street, because there are thousands of people who will talk about South Africa in that way, but just because this man vilified South Africa they present him as a very learned man, merely in order to give greater weight to his untruths.

Then there is the well-known case of the young Bantu who told the story that, from the age of 12, he was for ten years a prisoner on a farm and was made to work like a slave, but then it was discovered that he was a fugitive from justice and that there was not a word of truth in his story, but the Star published it in big headlines and it was sent overseas. I ask in all seriousness how the Minister of Information can succeed in painting a better picture of South Africa when people who have more influence overseas than he has do such things? And I make no secret of the fact that the Star and the owners and editors of the English newspapers have much greater influence overseas than even the Minister and his Department or the Prime Minister and the whole of his Government. The news the outside world gets from us it gets through the English Press and, as the Press Commission said, the English language and the English Press is the window through which the outside world surveys us. That is the case 90 per cent of the time. If they paint these false pictures of South Africa, what chance has the Minister of Information? Mr. Speaker, one reaches a point where criticism stops and treason starts, and the English Press too often exceeds that point. Nobody objects if they want to change the Government in South Africa. Nobody will object if they want to change drivers, but what we object to is that they are prepared to send the car over the precipice in order to get rid of the driver. Then it is no longer criticism; then it is enmity towards South Africa, and treason.

Before I sit down it is my duty to pay tribute—the picture is not quite so black—to those thousands and tens of thousands of English-speaking people who go out of their way to defend South Africa’s good name abroad. I want to refer to men like Sir Francis de Guingand and Lord Fraser, influential people, who certainly do not agree with this Government, but who go out of their way to paint the correct picture of South Africa. I want to pay tribute to the S.A. Foundation, which spends thousands of pounds of their own money, not because they agree with the Government—I think 90 per cent of them oppose the Government—but they do this patriotic work and they do their best to paint the most favourable picture of our country overseas. I pay tribute to those people, and if the Opposition and the English Press can be imbued with the spirit of the S.A. Foundation, I say that within a year there will be quite a different picture of South Africa overseas, and I have not the least doubt that we will receive more sympathetic treatment from the world and at UNO. This Minister and his Department have a tremendous task to perform, and it is one which they cannot perform alone. They need the assistance of the Government, of the Opposition, of the English Press, of the Afrikaans Press, of English as well as Afrikaansspeaking people, of Nationalists and United Party supporters, of Whites and of non-Whites. It is not asking too much that, in this position in which South Africa finds itself, the whole of the White population should try in the first place to gain the goodwill of the non-Whites, and secondly to throw in their weight behind the Minister and his Department in order to display the best possible picture of South Africa in these difficult times. It is not only desirable and our duty to do so; it is the only thing which must happen if we want to save South Africa, and we will save her.

*Mr. J. A. MARAIS:

I second and I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) on his good fortune in getting the opportunity to-day of introducing this motion, but I want to congratulate him even more on the subject which he has chosen for his motion. If there is one burning question in South Africa to-day, it is the question of the injury which South Africa is suffering as a result of incomplete and distorted information. We have reached the stage where it is the bounden duty of the Government to exert itself to the utmost in an attempt to remedy this position, and we will require the support of every South African in that attempt. That is why it is as well that we discuss this matter. I also want to congratulate the hon. member for Vereeniging on the way he has presented his case. For me to congratulate such an experienced and talented speaker as the hon. member for Vereeniging on his speech, is perhaps like Shakespeare who said “to gild refined gold, to paint the lily, to throw a perfume on the violet”. I want to congratulate him on the brilliant way in which he has presented his case.

At the outset I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Vereeniging in connection with the staff that has been recruited for this Department, from the Minister down to all the other persons he has mentioned. It cannot be otherwise but that the ability, experience and devotion to duty of these people must bring about a change for the better in the situation, and I want to associate myself heartily with him where he wished them success in their task.

In establishing a Department of Information the Government is creating a method by which it can govern more positively but the object is more particularly to create a method by which South Africa’s case can be stated correctly overseas. This step which the Government has taken, is a sign, an indication to the people of South Africa of the serious light in which the Government regards this matter. Many of the big nations of the world —America, Britain, Germany—do not have Departments of Information. They have extensive information services, but they have no departments of information, and the mere fact that we in South Africa as a smaller nation have found it necessary to establish a Department of Information, must indicate to everybody in this country in what a serious light the Government regards this matter. That is why it was a good thing that in the second part of his motion the mover made an appeal to all South Afrcians to be serious about this matter. We are dealing here with a national question in the fullest sense of the word, and we are entitled to appeal to every citizen of South Africa to give an account of the patriotic demands which South African citizenship places on him. That is why I feel called upon to touch upon the factors which have determined our attitude towards publicity in the past and the factors that have given rise to the present state of affairs. I do not think I am wrong when I say that until quite recently South Africa has been somewhat indifferent to the views and opinions of other nations with the result that we have not done a great deal to introduce ourselves overseas. This partial indifference on our part has often been attributed to an inclination towards isolationism, as though we were deliberately trying to isolate ourselves or as though isolation was our definite aim. That, of course, is a misconception. Had we shown signs of wanting to isolate ourselves or if we have—which I agree may be the position—that should perhaps be attributed to some extent to a long history of endeavours to get away from colonial government and the way in which we and our motives have been misunderstood in that process. I believe that to some extent we may have developed an acquired indifference as a result of the way in which our case has been treated abroad. But I believe there were other factors which weighed much more and which exercised a greater influence on this attitude of ours. We should much rather look for the reasons for any sign of indifference towards the opinion of other nations and towards developments abroad, in the peculiar way in which we have become established in this distant part of the world as a nation. Two-thirds of our country is surrounded by miles and miles of sea water separating us from those nations who are our kindred spirits, whereas physically we are on the doorstep of people from whom we are thousands of miles removed spiritually. This geographic—you can call it national— loneliness caused an Afrikaans poet, Van Wyk Louw, with poetic appreciation of South Africa, to call out: “wys en droewe land, alleen onder die groot suidersterre” (wide and sad country, alone under the big southern stars). This loneliness—call it isolation if you want to—is not simply a national characteristic of our nation, much less is it an attitude which we adopt deliberately, or a conscious desire. It is the result of our acceptance of this piece of Africa as our fatherland and in the past our strength has often been in that separateness. But there may be times, and I believe the present is such a time, when it is indeed also our weakness. Relatively speaking, the British in their geographical separateness, have displayed the same characteristics as far as those beyond their borders are concerned, at times to their own great detriment. When you read the debates which took place in the House of Commons in 1938, Sir, you will realize how concerned all political parties in Britain were about the position which obtained then. Till late in the first half of this century the Americans had still been known for their isolationist tendencies. As recently as 1947, 15 years ago, the House of Representatives wanted to delete the entire item for the foreign information programme of their State Department from their budget. They did not want to have anything to do with such a programme and it was with great difficulty that the item was not deleted. I maintain that this tendency towards indifference, towards the opinions of other nations and towards developments in other countries, is in normal circumstances, an inevitable characteristic of a nation which is as isolated as we are.

There is another factor which has contributed towards this attitude on our part, this partial indifference. One factor is the isolated position in which we found ourselves within the Commonwealth; throughout our membership of the Commonwealth our entire world was more or less limited to the older members of the Commonwealth. We concentrated mainly, practically exclusively on those older members of the Commonwealth as far as trade and communications were concerned. Our entire world was limited and in addition to that, even in that position where we had those associations with those older Commonwealth nations, no conscious attempt was made, not even in those countries, to give them an honest and clear picture of South Africa. Together with that we should also remember that in the past our contact with Africa and Asia was mainly via Britain and Europe, something which caused great disruption in our communication with those countries when the process of doing away with colonialism started after the last world war. All these factors have developed within us what you may call an indifferent attitude towards the opinions of and developments in countries abroad with the result that we made no serious attempts to introduce ourselves.

But the result of this indifference was that there was an open field for propaganda against South Africa, an open field for misrepresentation and fantastic distortions. People in general knew so little about South Africa that nothing that was said about South Africa in countries abroad was really doubted with any authority. Only the year before last there were a few Americans and a Canadian in Cape Town who often used to tell me that one of their biggest surprises when they arrived here was to find that the non-Whites did indeed wear clothes and did not only wear a chain round their necks with a number on their chest. There was a time when we would have smiled at anything like that, when we would have treated that as a joke which one person has played on another by misinforming him to that extent, but that time is past. The entire nation should realize that time is past. It is no longer possible to attribute the misconceptions which exist abroad about South Africa to innocent fun. All the misrepresentations which is spread and which exists overseas about South Africa form a neat pattern of malice to which there are all sorts of contributions. We must not underestimate the results that flow from this propaganda against South Africa, this misrepresentation of the situation. People get conditioned. They get conditioned to accept certain slogans, and once they have accepted them, the next stage is not very far removed where even the informed people and people of standing accept those slogans and propaganda and offer them as prevailing opinion. In this respect I want to mention Mr. Mennen Williams as an example, somebody who holds a high position in the American State Department, who came here and said “Africa for the Africans”, and in doing that coined a propaganda slogan which he offered as policy. I do not even want to say anything about that gentleman. I can mention the London Times as another example. Only the other day the London Times referred to the Whites of South Africa as “a little pocket of White men”, as though that statement reflected the true position, as though the White people of South Africa constituted a loose bundle which could be picked up and removed. When the stage is reached where an authoritative newspaper like the Times says anything like that without being taken to task by the people of that country, that a person like Mr. Mennen Williams says the things which he has said, we should realize how far the position has already developed. There are many examples to indicate the scale on which these things are taking place, but I do not want to weary the House with them. I just want to give you one example, Sir, but before doing so I want to say this: I do not believe that the British people hate the White people of South Africa. As a matter of fact there is a great measure of goodwill between the two White nations, as has been abundantly proved during the past year. But this is what a responsible and level-headed person said a year or so ago. I want to read from the Pretoria News of 1 July 1960—

The Minister of Lands, Mr. Sauer, who recently returned from a visit to South America and Europe, said in an interview here yesterday that during his recent tour of several countries overseas he had found much sympathetic interest in South Africa but also a “stream of poison” which has its origin in Britain… He said that on the European Continent he had found much sympathetic interest in South Africa and an earnest desire to understand the problem of the country. This was in sharp contrast to the “hymn of hate” in which the British Press and the B.B.C. persisted … The countries visited by Mr. Sauer after he left the Argentine, were Portugal, Spain, France, Italy and Greece. There, as in the Argentine, he had been struck by the “stream of poison” which had its origin in Britain. One was always aware of this, he said. Nearly all the countries had English newspapers and they all spread poison against South Africa. The same applied to the B.B.C.

That is very clear language, Sir. This is not the sort of thing one likes to quote, but it is necessary that these things are repeated here so that we will realize what the situation is in the world with which we have to contend, that is the situation which we have to analyse, that is the apparition that we have to fight. And when we do so—and when I say “we” I am talking about we on this side, of the Opposition, of every citizen in this country, of every association in this country, of every newspaper in this country—when we try to analyse this situation and to handle it, we must do so with a view to the situation which prevails in South Africa to-day, to the world political situation. I do not want to expound at length on that but I want to describe it briefly, and in order to do so I turn to what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), who is not here unfortunately, wrote the other day, because by referring to his attitude to the matter, I want to show that we look at this question in the same light and that we will have to act together against this threat. This is what the hon. member for Yeoville wrote in the Cape Argus on 22 February of last year. He said this—

It must be obvious to any objective observer that the Afro-Asian bloc of nations, backed by the communist bloc, is determined to destroy the White man’s political power in South Africa in the next few years … In order to eliminate the possibility of the great Western powers coming to the assistance of South Africa, the attack on political supremacy is carried on in the name of supreme democracy—one man one vote.

The hon. member for Yeoville says that the Afro-Asian bloc, backed by the communist bloc, is determined to destroy the White man’s political power in South Africa and they want to do so by trying to prevent the Western nations from coming to the assistance of South Africa. That is the one side of the matter. The other side is that, with the assistance of the British Press, the very situation is being created where the Western nations find it impossible to support South Africa. This statement by the hon. member for Yeoville and that of the hon. the Minister of Lands, reflect the essence of the problem which confronts our information service to-day; those are the things which determine the scope and the urgency of the task confronting our information service to-day. We have the Department of Information; we have the S.A. Foundation; we have many people who act individually, but the broad basis of any country’s information system is its Press. The broad basis of the information system of the world are the International Press agencies, and let me say this at once: I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Vereeniging: without the positive co-operation of the largest section of the Press in South Africa, any contribution by the Department of Information, any contribution by the S.A. Foundation, any contribution by any citizen of this country, will remain half a contribution.


What are you insinuating? Can you state it clearer?

*Mr. J. A. MARAIS:

It is not necessary for me to state it clearer to the hon. member. I can spend my time more beneficially than to teach him this morning.

I have referred to the statements of the hon. the Minister of Lands when he spoke about the stream of poison which had its origin in Britain. I have referred to the years when we had to communicate with the world via Britain. The sources which feed the British newspapers with news about South Africa are the newspapermen of the English-language Press in South Africa and the South African Press Association. Those are the two sources which are mainly responsible for the dissemination of news from South Africa in Britain. from where Reuter disseminates it further. I want to read a short extract from the first volume of the Press Commission Report. It says the following about Sapa and the dissemination of news to Reuter—

From an examination of Sapa’s cables to Reuter, it appears that a very high percentage of the news it sends to Reuter is news that it received from the English Press in South Africa. From these cables it also appears that extremely little news in Reuter’s service is obtained from the Afrikaans Press …

It says the following as far as the sending of news to other Press agencies is concerned—

From the cables it can be seen that Associated Press received 85.5 per cent and United Press 79 per cent of its news from stringers serving on the English Press.

That Report contains many more facts which lead one to an irresistible conclusion and that is that the world outside is dependent for its information about South Africa mainly on those connected with the English-language Press in South Africa. I believe that this situation places a responsibility on the English-language newspaper in South Africa and on Sapa which is as big a responsibility as any that can be placed on anybody—the responsibility of developing a feeling of goodwill and understanding amongst the people of the world towards the inhabitants of this country; the responsibility of acting in such a way in dangerous times that you will bring the greatest possible measure of safety and advantage to your country. Where that is the source of information about South Africa, and in the light of what the Minister of Lands has said, in the light of what the Press Commission says in its Report, the question is not only how little or how much the English-language newspapermen have done in South Africa to combat this situation in the world, but how much they themselves have contributed to this feeling of ill-will. That is a question, as the hon. member for Vereeniging has said, which is always lightly disposed of by putting the blame for the bad publicity we have overseas, on the shoulders of the Government and Government policy. But you cannot dispose of it in that way. We know that the Government cannot satisfy world opinion as reflected at UNO and ensure that there is security and order and prosperity in South Africa at the same time. It can only do one of those two things, and any Government in South Africa will be in the same position. It will have to decide whether it will satisfy UNO or whether it wants to have security and order and prosperity in South Africa. I say that we cannot do both and we have finally, and always, chosen to ensure security and order and prosperity in South Africa. That is why we will always be criticized and that is why we will always have a certain measure of bad publicity overseas. That is unavoidable: but what we cannot get away from is the fact that there is a stream of poison against South Africa from South Africa on the pretence that the Government is to blame. That is the matter about which the English-language Press and Sapa should worry in South Africa. When I talk about the English-language Press I mean literally the whole Press: those in control, those who manage, and the editorial staff of each one of those newspapers. Individual newspapermen who are also guilty of this sort of thing cannot get away from their responsibility and their liability towards the rest of South Africa, but what is more important is the liability of the directors of the newspaper companies concerned. According to the Report of the Press Commission there is a mere handful of them. Most of them are deeply concerned with the mining industry in South Africa. According to Mr. Morris Broughton, a former editor of the Cape Argus, there are less than ten people who determine the policy of the Press. I want to read to you, Sir, what he says in his book “Press—Politics in South Africa”. He says they are able to give specific instructions to those newspapers. He said the following on page 23—

Directoral predominance has placed this mighty instrument in the hands of a comparative handful of persons responsible not to the public but to their own shareholders. the primary authority over the 12 main daily newspapers in South Africa rests with less than ten men, and for six of them comes back finally and in effect to one man.

On page 83 he says further—

In the history of the Argus Printing and Publishing Company it is written that “the policy of the paper is that laid down by the directors” and they have the right, “when necessity arises”, of giving specific instructions. This is plain and honest. It makes clear where the final authority and power rests.

Where we have to accept that the position is, that a mere handful of people control the English language Press, people who have great influence with Sapa via the English language Press, you ask yourself this question, Sir: Why are they not prepared, for the sake of South Africa’s needs at a time such as the present, to do that which every right-minded person expects them to do. They were prepared in 1938 when, in their view, Mr. McCausland the editor of the Cape Argus, was not fair towards Britain, to get Mr. McCausland to resign as editor. Those same people, or their successors, are not prepared to-day, when justice is not being done to South Africa, to take similar steps. And it is not necessary to take similar steps, far less drastic measures will serve the purpose. How is it possible that this small group of people can succeed in ignoring national demands as consistently as they are doing; how is it possible that they can thwart the expectations of 90 per cent of the White population of South Africa? Morris Broughton says in that book of his that the Press has become what it did not want to become, namely a dividing factor. The position is that South Africa has a population which consists of two language groups, English being the language in which South Africa is depicted abroad, English being the language in which an honest picture has to be painted of South Africa overseas, but the most powerful method by which that can be done, the English language Press, refuses to do so. If ever there has been a way in which and if ever there has been an opportunity to promote good relations between the two language groups, it will be to place those who speak the English language in South Africa in the service of the entire nation; and to place the English language Press in the service of the Afrikaans-speaking section of this nation. If the English language Press and the directors of those companies co-operated in this cold war against South Africa and conveyed the genuine voice and true picture of South Africa to the world outside, the power and influence of this Department of Information will immediately be doubled. We are asking —and I believe we are entitled to do so— those people who control the English language Press in South Africa to think about the role they are playing and to think about the role which they can play in South Africa in the interests of national unity and in the interests of this country of ours. That is the first essential if we wish to increase the effectiveness of the Department of Information.

But we can also employ other methods, and I want to leave the question of the Press at that. I want to ask the Minister, in respect of a report which appeared in Dagbreek where the idea was expressed that members of Parliament should be used to state South Africa’s case overseas, whether he is perhaps prepared to entertain that idea. I think it is highly necessary that we think about such methods, perhaps not in the form suggested in that report. We must take it that with our withdrawal from the Commonwealth and with the severence of our ties with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, an important link with the people overseas has been lost to us and I think it is a very good idea that we in South Africa should make use of members of Parliament who are informed as to the politics of the country—on the Opposition side and on this side—people who are devoted to the cause of South Africa, and to place them in the employ of the Department in that way. I admit that there will have to be strict screening, but I think that is one of the respects in which we can beneficially use the services of people who can be used for this task.

I want to say something else in respect of which I am not sure whether the Minister will be prepared to tell us what his views are, and that is that I think we should integrate the Language Service Bureau which falls under the Department of Education to-day, with this Department of Information. Language is the basis of practically all communications. Most propaganda takes place by way of the manipulation of language, and a language division is indispensable to the Department of Information as one of its mainstays. But in addition to that we should keep count of the fact that the Department of Information should concentrate on countries abroad in many languages. This country of ours is a bilingual country, but we shall have to make use of many more languages in our Department of Information and I do believe that it is necessary, in the light of what I have already said in connection with our attitude towards those countries, that we considered encouraging the use of more languages when it comes to communicating with the world outside. We can promote that when a bureau such as the Language Service Bureau is integrated with the Department of Information. Perhaps it will be advantageous if a publication like “Panorama” were made available in more languages. I think we should even toy with the idea of having English and Afrikaans books by South African authors translated into other languages although they are not published by the Department of Information. In that way we can draw attention to the South African picture.

However, Mr. Speaker, it is not really my task to make suggestions to people who are far more capable than I am to handle this matter. I have given you these two suggestions, Sir, but I am sure that the entire Department is geared to making use of every opportunity that offers.

In conclusion I just want to say that we should regard this as a national matter. Let us regard the establishment of a Department of Information as an opportunity of handling the whole problem as a national problem. Last year when President Kennedy addressed the Press of America he used the following words—

No war has been declared, no borders have been crossed, no missiles have been fired. Yet no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions, by the Government, by the people, by every businessman, by every union leader, and newspaperman.

If it applies in the case of the greatest and the mightiest in the West that he feels himself so more gravely threatened by this cold war than by any other war in the past, that he calls upon every citizen to change his outlook and to change his mission, how much more is it not necessary that we should not only make the same appeal in South Africa for a change of outlook and a change of mission as far as this matter is concerned, but that we answer that plea. That, I believe, is the spirit in which we should approach the problem which confronts the Information Service.


The motion presented to the House by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) is in two parts. The hon. member in his motion asks this House to congratulate the Government on the establishment of a Ministry of Information, and then he goes on to say that he wishes this House to call upon all good South Africans to defend the good name of their country at all times.

I have listened most carefully to the speech of the hon. member for Vereeniging and that of his seconder, and I failed to find in anything that these two honourable gentlemen have said this morning any single word or argument for the present establishment of a Ministry of Information as opposed to the old system that existed where we had an information service operating under the control of an existing Department of State. Not one single argument has been presented this morning as a reason for that change. But what have we had? We heard the hon. member for Vereeniging attempting to give us a picture of how he envisages the functions of the Ministry of Information. He says it falls into two spheres, that aspect which deals with the internal aspect in enlightening the public of South Africa, whether White or non-White, in regard to the Government’s policy, and the second aspect is the external aspect, how to overcome the present volume of criticism overseas of our country. And what were the points made by the hon. member? I just want to summarize them. These are the points he made in justification of this change for the establishment of a Minister of Information to conduct our affairs internally. He says: The English Press is largely responsible for the misunderstandings that exist between White and non-White, therefore we must have a Ministry of Information to see if it can do anything about it; the English Press is the mouth-piece of every agitator, and therefore we must have a Ministry of Information to see if they can do anything about it; the English Press is the chief undermining influence for the White man’s position in South Africa; the English Press gives sympathetic treatment to Luthuli and any book that Luthuli might write. And then he concludes his argument for the justification for this Ministry of Information in regard to the internal aspect of our country’s propaganda that we are in a cold war, verging on military activities. The inference of all the arguments was that through a Ministry of Information there must be some measure of control on existing media that enlighten the public in order to ensure that what the public consume or what they get satisfies one authority in the country, namely the viewpoint or the policy or the authority of the Government, irrespective of what anybody else may think.

On the foreign aspect, this is the basis of the hon. gentleman’s argument; he comes with a very naïve argument. He says, it does not matter what policy is followed, the attacks will continue; therefore irrespective of what we may think, we must support the Minister and we must support Government policy in order to defend South Africa.


I never said that.


The whole inference of the hon. gentleman’s observations was that if you dare raise your voice against the point of view of the Government you are acting in an unpatriotic and traitor-like attitude.


He said exactly the opposite.


Why then did he accuse the Opposition and attempted to give examples to show that the Opposition has an unpatriotic standpoint most times and has to carry a large measure of responsibility for what has happened.


I challenge you to

analyse the examples I gave and to defend them.


In support of this contention that the attitude of the Opposition over a long period of time has been an unpatriotic attitude, that it acted almost in a traitorous manner towards the vital interests of our country, the hon. gentleman attempted to take one or two isolated examples of public utterances made by gentlemen on this side of the House in respect of what they sincerely think about the non-White policy of our country, and he said that was a traitorous attitude.


Do you think they were really serious? Then you are making it still worse for them.


I am only analysing the arguments of the hon. gentleman when justifying the Ministry of Information.

Then he comes with a third argument in respect of the activities of the Minister of Information vis-à-vis the outside world, and he says: The rest of the world rejects us, with the exception of the United Kingdom, the United States and Western Europe.

Mr. G. F. H. BEKKER:

He never said that.


The hon. gentleman said that it is no use worrying about the Afro-Asiatic states and about the communist countries. There are only three main areas that we must concentrate on, the United Kingdom, the United States and certain parts of Western Europe.

Mr. G. F. H. BEKKER:

Why don’t you go to Russia?


I want to ask the hon. member for Vereeniging whatever policy may be presented by the Minister of Information, is it likely to be accepted on the evidence of the past ten years, when we know that these very areas, the United States, the United Kingdom and Western Europe, are seeking the support of the Afro-Asiatic countries and of the East against communist aggression?

Mr. G. F. H. BEKKER:

You are a real hands-upper.


That sums up the main points made by the hon. member in coming with this motion, but I repeat there was not one single argument, not one single reason for the establishment of this Ministry of Information, and in the main the speech of the seconder of the motion was an enlargement, a further attack on the English Press. Now in view of the fact, and anticipation of again being accused because of what I am going to say in respect of this motion as a member of the Opposition of adopting an unpatriotic attitude in discussing this Ministry of Information, I want to preface everything I say by saying that I have the full support of the Minister of Information in respect of the attitude that I am going to adopt. You see, Mr. Speaker, on previous occasions, since I have sat in this House, the hon. the Minister has given arguments as to why we are entitled to adopt the attitude we adopt in respect of any matters that come before this House as we consider it to be in the public interest and in the interests of our country. Let me quote his words, and the hon. the Minister knows them well. But I want to preface it all, in anticipation of what the hon. the Minister may say in reply to this debate, by quoting his own words—

It is being demanded from us that we as an Opposition should obliterate ourselves in order to maintain peace. We are asked to pay the price of peace and co-operation, and the price we have to pay is that we are to stop doing what in our mind is in the interest of the country. No, if that is what is demanded of us, that is not going to be done. We are not going to pay that price. We are not only entitled as part of the Afrikaner people but under the democratic system we live under, to adopt the attitude we have adopted.

On no less than three occasions the hon. the Minister of Information has quoted those words in justification of the criticism that he at one time levelled against the policies of this Government, and those words were words quoted by the late Dr. Malan when he was accused during the war years of sabotaging the interests of our country. And to-day, as we have heard from the hon. member for Vereeniging and his seconder, we are told that we are acting in an unpatriotic fashion when we criticize the actions of this Government, even in respect of the establishment of a Ministry of Information.

May I deal with the first aspect that the hon. member dealt with, the internal aspect in regard to the establishment of this Ministry of Information? Some eight days after the appointment of the hon. the Minister of Information he made a statement to the Press, and in that statement he said this:

“Just as much as it is the job of the Ministry of Information to inform overseas countries about South Africa, it must keep South Africa at home well-informed. The true story of South Africa must be got across, primarily to South Africans.”

The operative word in this case was the word “primarily”. Sir, in the Government Gazette of 1 December 1961, we had the first indication of what was expected of this Minister in fulfilling his functions as the Minister of Information. There we read of all the operations that the hon. gentleman would have to carry out in presiding over this Ministry. This notice gave clear, unequivocal confirmation to the Minister’s statement that one of his chief functions, if not the major function, would be directed to the population, White and non-White of the Republic, and also that there was a clear intention to absorb within the orbit of the Department of Information all channels of information in regard to Government activities. The words of the Minister made it quite clear—

The true story of South Africa must be got across, primarily to South Africans.

May I ask what is the true story that the hon. the Minister is going to tell that is not told at the present time? That is the issue. What is the true story of which the people of South Africa presently are ignorant and which the Minister feel that they must know? What untrue story is presently being told to the people of South Africa, which the Minister says it is his duty to correct? The implication of this statement is that the only true story about our country is the one the Minister will tell the people through the medium of his Department. Therefore in our free parliamentary democracy everything else the public hears or reads through the vast range of media presently available to the public of South Africa, will be suspect. Mr. Speaker, in our country with a free and unfettered Press, with free access to the Departments of State, even up to ministerial level, with free debates in this House where every aspect of policy comes under public scrutiny, I say emphatcially that we in this House are completely opposed to such activities by the Department of Information, charged with propagating Government policy and presenting it as the only true story of our country, as is implied in the Minister’s statement. With this interpretation of the Minister’s functions as he has given them to us, what in fact will a Ministry of Information have to do internally? I say that it is a Ministry of propaganda and not a Ministry of Information And what is the difference between “information ”and “propaganda”? I have tried to look up a definition in that regard: “Information” is described as “the act or the process of communicating knowledge to enlighten”, and “propaganda” is described as “a plan for the propagation of a doctrine or a system of principles”. We have to-day in our country a democratic society and all the means of communicating knowledge, which brings every action, every statement of the Government under the public spotlights, and makes whatever attitude or statements the Government takes or makes universally known, whether internally or abroad. If any confirmation is wanted of that fact, a reference to the Press Commission Report will indicate that quite clearly. In every country of the West, Sir, which has a parliamentary democracy, a Ministry of Information has ceased to exist. Where they were established, they were established in times of national emergency, such as during the last war. In the United Kingdom they abolished their Ministry of Information and their major activities in regard to information work is conducted through individual departments, through responsible officers working under the control of the Departments concerned. In the United State there is an abhorrence of a Ministry of Information.


They have the biggest information service in the world.


Of course they have one of the biggest information services in the world, but it operates under a Department of State, the Foreign Affairs Department of the United States Government, and it falls under the control of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as our Information Department formerly did.


Can you compare the Government of the United States with our set-up?


I compare the functions. They are the same. Let me quote for the information of the hon. Minister from “Public Relations in American Democracy” by J. R. Pimlock, who studied this issue under special grant of the United States Government. I recommend the book to the hon. the Minister for study; he will find it of great interest. It states there very clearly—

It is generally accepted that the Press, the radio and the motion-picture industry, in descending importance, have a special responsibility for informing the public on matters of Government policy. Agencies of Government supported by taxation have a natural and strategic role to play in the conservation and distribution of information which aids communication between the Government and the citizens. Here then is a most important principle which has underlaid the development of official information activities in a Federal Government and has been implicitly accepted by Congress and the mass media. The first object should be to facilitate the dissemination of information by mass media, and the information services should inform the public direct only where the mass media fail to do so adequately.

And this traditional approach of a state information service in the United States goes back to 1787 when Thomas Jefferson, the then President, said—

It is to give them full information of their affairs through the channel of public papers and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The newspapermen, publishers, reporters are just as much public servants as the men in the government service itself.

It is a pity that is not the position in this country. That is exactly the difference. The mass media have failed completely in this country.


The hon. member for Vereeniging has been to the United States, and he knows that if he wants to see the gutter-type of reporting in the Press and most unbridled criticism of the government of the day, he will find it in the United States, and when you relate that and compare that to the responsible attitude adopted by the Press of South Africa, in particular the English Press in regard to these matters, then in fact there is no comparison whatsoever. But one is driven to the inevitable conclusion that the step taken by the Government when it established this Ministry of Information had as its main objective the propagation of Government policies, and that means purely and simply Nationalist Party policies. In other words, you may say it is a plan for the propagation of a political doctrine which the Government recognizes that the bulk of the mass media reaching the public in our country refuse to accept and to support. It is a plan, if we accept the Minister’s statement that he made at the time of his appointment, which will mean, in simple words, expenditure of the taxpayer’s money for the purpose of propagating Nationalist Party Policies. The question then arises, if that is so, how is the Minister going to make the Ministry of Information work, how is he going to carry out his functions if this tremendous opposition exists, which both the hon. members who have spoken this morning referred to, the tremendous opposition that exists to the Minister’s activities? How then is he going to make the Ministry of Information work? In Government Notice No. 1142 of 1 December, it is set out clearly that one of the functions of the hon. the Minister will be to co-ordinate all state publicity services. In other words, Mr. Speaker, every function of information, irrespective of any Department of State at the present time, will fall under the direct control and aegis of the Minister of Information. He has admitted it in public statements. Therefore it is clear that all Government pronouncements, ministerial statements will be channelled through this Minister. He will dress them up, he will colour them, he will present them, he will revise them before they are issued to the public. And the inevitable result of this attitude where all information and Government publicity is channelled through a Ministry of Information, will be that no free access to officialdom, or independent inquiry, will be possible by the free media in our country, which at present keep the public informed. All sources of Government information inevitably will then be closed to the rest of the public, unless issued through the Minister of Information. Because in the Minister’s own words, when he gave an interview to a representative of the London Times he said in describing the functions of his Ministry—

It is to establish as effective and authoritative a service as is possible to meet the challenge of distortion.

In other words, if one accepts the arguments of the hon. member for Vereeniging this morning that the English Press is distorting everything in our country, and the Minister has the power to channel all Government sources of information through his Department, then he is going to do so, because in his view he wants to see that it is not distorted, and then the hon. member for Vereeniging and his seconder will be satisfied.


Your whole speech is a distortion.


Let us take this a little bit further.


On a point of order, may an hon. member say that the hon. member’s speech is a distortion?


What did the hon. member say?


I said that his whole speech is a distortion.


The hon. member must withdraw that.


I withdraw those words.


Having taken this step of channelling everything through the Minister’s Department …


I never used the word “channel”, The word is “co-ordination”, not “channelling”. You used the word “channelling”. Is that not a distortion?


The hon. the Minister in his usual way is attempting again to try and cover up the statement that he has already issued to the Press. If he is going to co-ordinate, if he is going to the Department of Labour and the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Pensions saying: Look, if you issue a statement, it has to be co-ordinated through my Department, I have got to put it together, then what is he doing? He is channelling it before it is ever issued to the Press. But once we have got that reaction, there is a further inevitable result that the Minister must take the next step. Because even though he may control the dissemination of information, even though he may control the dissemination of news in respect of Government policy, even though he may control announcements made publicly in regard to actions that the Government contemplated, such as he did in respect of the recent Transkeian proposals, of which the Minister had foreknowledge before even this House was informed (and we know this from his own statement to the London Press), then, if he can’t get his way, if this English Press, this media refuses to accept his statements as authoritative and continues to distort, in the Minister’s opinion, then what is the next step so that the Minister can fulfil his functions as Minister of Information? It does not mean to say that because the Minister is going to co-ordinate all forms of publicity that the English Press is of necessity going to play ball with the hon. the Minister. We have had the threat again this morning, the intimidation reflected in the speech of the hon. member for Vereeniging, and particularly that of his seconder when I asked him across the floor of the House what he meant. He would not answer that, but if anything was clear, it was clear that this was an appeal to the hon. the Minister to act in this regard. Does it not mean that we know in advance the views that were formerly held by this hon. Minister and his Cabinet colleagues, particularly the Minister of Foreign Affairs when it comes to attacks on the English Press which are described as traitors.


You say that the English Press were described as traitors?


I say that the hon. member for Vereeniging described the Opposition and the Press as traitors.




The hon. member, without singling out one particular newspaper said that the whole English Press could be lumped together for the purposes of his argument.


I quoted specific examples which I considered as treacherous.


We know that the hon. Minister and his colleagues expressed those views of the English Press and they were endorsed by the hon. member for Vereeniging and his seconder. Therefore to emphasize what the hon. the Minister of Information really thinks, I am going to quote his words—

The South African English language newspapers have not lived up to their special duty of presenting balanced and fair-minded views, in both their news and editorial columns, and giving credit where credit was due.

The hon. the Minister made that statement and we know that those views are well-shared on the Treasury benches, particularly by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It therefore follows that if the free Press does not carry out what the Minister considers is their special duty of presenting Government policy in as favourable a light as possible, and all statements now emanating from the Minister’s control office, are not accepted as authoritative, then the hon. Minister will have to consider further steps.


He only wants to get at the truth.


To get the truth, what he considers is the truth, if the Press does not agree with the views of the Government or the authoritative sources of the Minister, if in the opinion of the Minister it distorts, then the Minister, in order that truth as he wants it, is presented, must take further steps to achieve his end. When the Minister takes that step he will say that he is doing it in the national interest, he is doing it to save South Africa. Because of the cold war and in order to protect South Africa’s interests, he must take these additional steps, as the hon. member for Vereeniging said this morning when he referred to the book published by the local English language Press in regard to Luthuli. The Minister will have to recommend further steps to his colleagues in the Cabinet. There can be one of two. He can either recommend further intimidation of the English language Press of South Africa …


What do you mean by “further” intimidation?


Yes, “further” intimidation. Because what statement has the hon. the Minister already made after having been in office for only two months? What statements have we had from other members in this House, from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister amongst others. Do those statements not amount to sheer intimidation? But if he wants to take further steps he will really have to intimidate. And if that fails, Mr. Speaker, what remains is the inevitable step—control of the Press. Let me remind you, Sir, that in our time there have been governments of other countries who have claimed what this Government claims— distortion of their policy, misrepresentation of their policy, slanting of their policy, unfair criticism of their policy on the home front and abroad by their political enemies. Those Governments then took exactly the steps that this Government has taken in establishing a Ministry of Information. And in every single case that step inevitably led to control of the Press, the results of which are well known to everyone of us in this House.


You are making a dangerous speech.


It is not dangerous, Sir, it is the truth. It is no good the Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party trying to contend that what happened in other countries cannot happen here as far as the establishment of a Ministry of Information is concerned. Mr. Speaker, if you doubt what I have just said, if you doubt my conclusion that this will inevitably lead to the control of the Press, let me remind you what motivates the thinking of the present Minister of Information. Because he once said in this House and I quote—

The point is that there are agents provocateur in this country who are trying to provoke rebellion and those agents are the newspapers. They are trying to trick people into doing unlawful things so that they can have a Reichstag fire.

That is the basic thinking on the part of the hon. the Minister in respect of the newspapers of our country. He considers the newspapers “Agents provocateur”—to provoke rebellion. Does the Minister deny that he used these words? The hon. the Minister remains silent because he knows that is his attitude towards the newspapers; he does not deny it.

Mr. Speaker, the free Press of our country can never be accused of not representing this Government’s views as enunciated by Ministers, word for word. I challenge any Government member to say that the free Press of South Africa has not given publicity to the statements of Ministers of this country.


They distorted it.


I can give many examples where this Government and political figures in this Government have received more publicity in the Press of our country than any other political figure in the history of the country. It is these very statements of policy, reported in extenso and verbatim, by the free Press of our country that the world has looked at. The administrative acts of this Government, truthfully and factually reported in the free Press of our country, are the things that the world has looked at and upon which our country has been judged, criticized, and condemned. Not the free Press has been responsible, but the statements of policy and the administrative acts of this Government have been responsible for that.


May I ask you a question?


No, please my time is limited. Sir, it is the Government’s policy and actions which are responsible. Do not let us run away from the issue. It is these statements of policy and actions that have brought our country into the position in which it is.

That brings me to the external aspect which the hon. member for Vereeniging has dealt with. When we come to the external aspect of the workings of this Ministry, the question arises whether the task of presenting a factual picture of our country abroad can best be presented by a separate Ministry of Information or by an actual division of an existing department, as has been the position before. It is quite obvious that on the question of foreign relations, the conduct of our foreign affairs is the function of a specialist division. It is the conduct of a specialist division staffed by men trained in the art of displomatic negotiation. They are our country’s ambassadors and our country’s representatives who talk for South Africa in the other countries of the world. It is not the information attache. The information attache, Sir, is merely there to supplement the work of our public representatives. The information attache does not work under his own brief; he is not a law unto himself when he is stationed in Paris or London or wherever it may be. He works under the direct aegis and control of the ambassador or the other representative. This principle is accepted by every other Western country. It is accepted by the United States and it is accepted by the United Kingdom. That is the reason why our information service, after the war, was placed under the control of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Now we have the incredible position that policy directives to our information attaches overseas will flow from a separate Minister, the present incumbent of the Depatrment of Information. I put it to you, Sir, that the position can well arise that this Minister may determine techniques and methods of operation which our country’s representatives, or the Department of Foreign Affairs, the ambassador on the spot, may consider as quite unsuitable, according to his wide experience, for the area concerned. It is quite possible, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that we shall have a conflict of interests between the Minister of Information and the Minister of Foregin Affairs. Just as you had a conflict of interest between a Goebbels and a Ribbentrop when they were both fighting for the favour of their leader.

We on this side of the House are of the opinion that if the Information Service is to operate with success, and if it is to represent a true and accurate picture of our country, it can best do so when it is not a separate Ministry, but when it is an information service supplementary to the Department of Foreign Affairs. One cannot contend this without also asking the question whether it is possible that this Ministry of Information can do a better job than the present State Information Service has done up to the present. We have certain evidence of the actions of the existing State Information Office. We have, for example, the statement made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs almost two years ago to the day, when he said in this House—

From reports which I receive, particularly from our ambassador in Washington, there is now not the least doubt that the positive policy in regard to the Bantu question is now being better understood and is gaining favourable attention.

That is what the Minister of Foreign Affairs said in this House on 2 February 1960. But precisely one month later, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs laid on the Table of the House the report of the State Information Office. And I want to quote from that report. The State Information Officer said this—

Exactly why the onslaughts on South Africa and its people were so fierce and emotional, and still are, for far, from abating they are increasing in virulence, is one of the problems which the South African Information Service is wrestling with.

This statement by the State Information Officer that the position was actually getting worse, was endorsed by the present Minister of Information whose opinion of the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ activities in the past, is not very high.


Do you agree with that point of view?


Certainly. You see, Sir, the Minister of Information once said about the Minister of Foreign Affairs: “He makes the same old speeches we hear so often from him in an attempt to boost his own courage. On every occasion he comes to this House he repeats the same old propaganda stuff.” Obviously when the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs says on 2 February 1960 that the position is improving and he is contradicted by officials of his own Department one month later, there seems justification for the statement made by the Minister of Information that when the Minister of Foreign Affairs speaks in this House he takes the same old line, he comes here and he repeats the same old propaganda stuff. Let me answer the question put by the State Information Officer why the onslaughts are increasing in virulence against our country. Why did the Minister of Foreign Affairs say two years ago that we stood completely alone in this world? Let me answer the question by referring the Minister of Information to a handbook which I highly commend to him. It is a handbook compiled by a renowned public relations expert, by the name of Lesly. He says this; he talks about good relations with the Government—

There is nothing mysterious about Government relations, either with the administrative or legislative branches. The process is practically identical with the technique which anyone uses in putting across a sale. Know your product. Know whom you are dealing with. Tell your story in a simple, straightforward manner.

And here comes the kernel—

If your product is good and you sell it properly you make a sale.

Obviously the reason why South Africa is in this position is because the product that has been sold by this Government internally and externally has been a bad product. It has been rejected and damned and slandered outside. That is why. Because the product is bad we sit as outcasts in the whole of the Western world. That is why, in the language of the Burger, we are named the polecats of the world.

I think it is appropriate that I move the following amendment at this stage—

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House, conscious of the fact that loyal and patriotic South Africans will not hesitate to defend the good name of this country at all times, is nevertheless of the opinion that the extent of world hostility to the Republic, owing to the racial policies pursued by the Government, makes the task of a Ministry of Information impossible”.

The plain fact of the matter, Sir, is that our country is involved at the present time in a cold war with the rest of the world, and the hon. member for Vereeniging has admitted it.

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

Afternoon Sitting


Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended, I had concurred with the views expressed by the mover of the motion, the hon. member for Vereeniging, that our country was involved in a cold war with the rest of the world, a cold war which affected very drastically the vital interests of our country and also placed our country in great danger as far as our own security was concerned. The reason for this cold war is not the fact that there is distorting in the world Press of events in our country. I would be the first to admit that there are distorted reports and I am the first to condemn such distorted reporting of events that take place in our country. But the fact remains that we would delude ourselves if we should think that these distorted reports were the root causes of all our troubles. The fact remains that it is the racial policy first propounded by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, on behalf of this Government, at the forums of the world, that is the cause of this cold war. That policy was propounded by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1949 at the United Nations. There the Government took the first step of enunciating to the world a policy of apartheid. There was criticism before, Sir. I admit it; I was there, but there was never any talk of apartheid. The result has been that the word “apartheid” is known throughout the civilized world, and in the East, amongst the lowest of the low, as a word representing the worst that possibly can exist in a policy of racial oppression. It is also not only that, but it is the defence year by year before the forum of the world of this racial policy, that has been the root cause of all the troubles that we face in this year 1962. Continual restrictons are placed upon the population of this country; there is diminution of the non-White’s rights; there is deprivation of political rights; the removal of representatives of those people even from this honourable House; administrative actions which in their harshness have been condemned not only in our own country, but by other nations of the world. The arrest of 20 per cent of our entire White, Coloured and Bantu population of our country, year after year, is a thing that is not understood overseas; arrests which have resulted from the application of the harsh apartheid legislations. The fact of the race classification of the people with the accompanying stories of human misery and degradation; appear in the Press of the world year after year. Matters relating to the bitter political struggle in our own country, where those struggles have revolved around the rights, not only political rights but fundamental human rights, no matter the colour of the skin, have all led up to the position in which we find ourselves to-day.

In order to give logic to it all, in order to wipe out the past of the last 12 years, we have had the further step taken by the hon. the Prime Minister, the step of fragmenting our country in order that he may apply in those fragmented portions, the deceny which we on this side of the House have been struggling for for years, to have applied within the borders or our own country as a whole. That is the reason for the fragmentation of this country, the announcement of this so-called independent Bantustans, of which the Minister of Information had prior knowledge, more so than any other person in this country. The image of apartheid throughout the world represents the very essence of race oppression. No advertising campaign, nothing that this Minister can do, will erase the image that this Government has created during the past 12 or 13 years. To spend a mere 10,000 or 20,000 rand by buying advertising space in the major newspapers of New York, London and other capitals in Europe will not erase the image that millions of people have of our country. The very fact that the Government had to buy space in publications abroad to try to get the idea across that this was a new outlook, is an open admission of the suspicion with which the Government’s acts are viewed overseas. A simple issue of a marriage, a legal marriages between an Indian and a Dutch girl, commands more space in overseas publications than this Minister could possibly buy with the entire budget of the Ministry of Information. If he had spent the entire budget which he has at his disposal as Minister of Information, he could not have bought the space which this simple little issue acquired in the newspapers of the world.


Why do you sink so low?


It is not a question of sinking low, Sir. Here I have the evidence of the State Information Officer. Let me tell the House what he says about it. This is a private circular forwarded to selected persons in this country by the State Information Officer. What does he say about this simple little issue of a legal marriage between an Indian and a Dutch girl? This is what he says—

Just when the month looked to be a good one came the case of Mr. Singh, Indian and his (debated point) White wife. The Daily Express used this story in bold type. Photos in the Daily Mail and the Daily Herald. The Express followed with photographs and more evidence. So did the Daily Mail, larger photographs. The Daily Sketch who had got over the shock of our buying space from them, had a heavy headline “Crime to live with wife” with photos. The Daily Mirror and the Daily Herald had the same photographs. The Daily Telegraph featured the story at length and the three large provincials, the Scotchman, the Yorkshire Post, and the Birmingham Post all devoted considerable space in reporting on the heart-break law.

That, Sir, is the nature of a private report circulated by the State Information Office, even written with derision, and in whose hands does a circular of this nature fall? That is only in respect of one country. What about all the capitals in Europe and the millions of words that have been written about this case in the United States? Can the Minister cure it? It is a pertinent question to ask: What steps will the Minister take to break this kind of story? This is an absolute true story; this is not a distortion; it is not progaganda; it is a factual human story reported by the newspapers of the world. It is a human story, Sir, that flowed from one thing only and that is the policy of this Government and the administrative acts taken by this Government.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs has been described on many occasions in the overseas Press of the world, notably by such newspapers as the New York Times, as an apologist for apartheid. And the operation of the State Information Office, because of the racial policies of this Government, has been an absolute, complete and dismal failure. This is admitted by the Director of the Information Office. He asks in his latest report when can be done about the position. He admits that on a scientific survey there is more adverse reporting about South Africa than ever existed in regard to Hitler’s Germany or Mussolini’s Italy. The State Information Officer states that himself in his report. I do not want to quote it at length; it is there for any member to read. With the failure of the State Information Office under the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Prime Minister has now hit upon the idea of establishing a Ministry of Information to give a new look to the information activities of this Government.

As a concession he has placed it under a separate Minister who has described himself as and English-speaking South African and who, let me also say, the London Times has described as a blind apologist for apartheid. In other words, we have arrived at the position with the establishment of this Ministry that the Government has substituted one apologist for apartheid for another. We can ask therefore whether this Minister is likely to prove any more acceptable overseas or to have any more influence than the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and let me say right away I do not think so. Why should the Press overseas have any more belief in the sincerity of this Minister when he himself is largely responsible for the views that the Press overseas hold to-day of the Government’s actions and policies. He has been responsible, like any other member on this side of the House, for drawing attention to the crimes committed by the Government against human decencies in our country. He himself has accused the Minister of Foreign Affairs of digging in the garbage tin. He, the Minister of Information, has accused the Minister of Foreign Affairs of failing at his job. The Minister of information has accused the Minister of Foreign Affairs as being one who has completely lost his head in representing South Africa at UN. He was so convinced that on one occasion he said this—

I have been here in this House ten years and every time the hon. the Minister has been trying to run away. This Minister is responsible for more hardship to this country than any other Minister. He has been the biggest failure in the Cabinet.

So what does it help the hon. member for Vereeniging to say to-day that the Opposition has acted in an unpatriotic manner in dealing with the issues raised by the Government, when this same Minister for over ten years criticized the actions and the policies of this Government? Can it now be expected that after such strong opinions expressed by the Minister of Information over so long a period of time he will be able to form opinion overseas, except for publishing the propaganda of the Ministry of Information? It is obvious that his sincerity will be even less acceptable in the light of his past actions and utterances of the policies of this Government than that of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who was the head of the State Information Office.


You are worse than Cassandra.


I may have spoken in this debate with some feelings of bitterness and with some hard criticism, but I think it is justified because the mover of the motion calls upon us in this House to make an appeal to South Africans to defend the good name of their country. The mere fact that a member on the Government benches has to make an appeal of this nature to this House that we should call upon South Africans to defend the good name of the country is nothing less than offering an insult to the people of South Africa. [Interjections.] I accept that all South Africans will defend the good name of their country.




The fact that I use my democratic right to criticize the appointment of this Minister of Information as not in the true interests of my country does not make me unpatriotic. I think it is an insult to make this appeal to the people of South Africa, particularly after the manner in which this Government by its policies has dragged the good name of this country through the gutters of the world, because that is what has happened for as long as this Government has been in power. We should realize as a White race, and as White South Africans, that the prestige and the security of our country to-day are at stake. It is at stake on the scales of world opinion and the scales will remain weighted against our country, irrespective of what the Minister of Information may do as long as the image is retained beyond the borders of our country that we are a people who apply the race policies of this Government. The cure for the ill is to get rid of this Government and its race policies.

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I second the amendment. Mr. Speaker, the debate this morning has taken place in the shadow of the most virulent attacks on the English Press that I have ever seen. It was unfortunate, deplorable and unjust. Both the hon. members for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) and Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais) made the mistake of making a blanket accusation against a figment of their imagination, the so-called English Press, which they regard as one single body. They were hitting the innocent and the guilty alike. They used buckshot where they should have used arrows, and they used mud where they should have used darts. The strange, unnatural relationship which the Government is seeking with the English Press was never better exemplified than to-day. On the one hand the English Press was vilified for everything that was evil. On the other hand, the hon. member for Vereeniging made an abject appeal to the English Press to help the Government because the English Press was so much more powerful and is so much more believed than the Government itself. I wonder how the minds of the hon. members work when they call the English Press “lying and unreliable”. Why should the public overseas then believe that Press if it supports the Government?

The very speech of the hon. member for Vereeniging, I believe, will do us a great deal of harm abroad. He is attacking newspapers of the English Press, which has not succumbed, as has happened in many other countries, to sensationalism, like the gutter Press, and which has, with one or two exceptions, maintained a very clear balance in regard to news representation and comment, and which with great justice is regarded as one of the best presses in the world. A very serious accusation was made here by the hon. member for Vereeniging, who accused the English Press of crossing the border between criticism and treason. In other words, he accused the English Press, or sections of it, of having been guilty of treason. That is indeed a very weighty accusation. If that accusation is honest, all the hon. member for Vereeniging has to do is to repeat his allegation, and name the particular paper he had in mind, in public, on a public platform, where he is not protected by the privileges of this House, thereby giving him the chance to substantiate his claim and giving the Press, the accused, the opportunity to take him to court and proving his allegations unjust. If he refuses to do so, I can only say that the attack of the hon. member for Vereeniging was as stupid, as shallow, as puerile and as drivelling an act of folly as anything I have ever seen, and which he has neither the wit to defend nor the courage to substantiate.

Let me say that there are no more loyal and patriotic people, I believe, than people on this side of the House and their supporters. We stand back for no one in our love for our country and everything that it represents. We believe that our country should be great, that it should be free and united, and that it should be under enlightened White leadership. Ours is the only party which is not prepared to hand our country over to Black domination, whether in separate states or a single state. Our patriotism dare not be questioned by hon. members opposite. Let me say this, that few things would indeed give me greater joy than to know that this new Ministry of Information will succeed in winning friends for our country in the rest of the world, in painting a better picture of South Africa—not of the Nationalist Party or the Government—and of the country we love. If the Minister of Information succeeds in that, I can only wish him all the strength. But no greater harm can be done than by hon. members opposite doubting and casting aspersions on the patriotism of us on this side.

The Minister of Information was at one time a member on this side of the House. He then represented a much better party and a much more distinguished constituency than he does to-day, and he will remember very well how he felt about attacks such as those on the patriotism of our party. Indeed, I have here a quotation of the Minister of Information when he was sitting on this side and referred to this very fact, when he attacked the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He will find it in Hansard of 24 January 1952. The Minister said this—

I say that all this sabotage talk that the Opposition is sabotaging the country should stop. It is our democratic right to criticize the Government and we intend to do that.

What the Minister said then we still say to-day. We ask ourselves whether this new Ministry of Information will succeed. What is going to happen to it depends, I think, on three factors. It depends on the product it has to sell, the method of selling, and on who sells it. Let us look at each of these in turn and judge the future of this Ministry against that background.

Unfortunately the product could be better. It could be a thousand times better than it is to-day. The product can be divided into two separate parts, one good, but the other very much less so. If the product that the Minister of Information has to sell was the Republic of South Africa, I say it is the finest thing in the world. But if the product is to be the present Government and its policy, I fear very much for the future of this Ministry. They are so bad that even the Nationalist newspapers have admitted it and have called us “the polecat of the world”. Cannot the Government realize that when criticism comes from overseas much of it comes from enlightened public opinion? Admittedly, little incidents such as what happened to a Native boy are exaggerated out of all proportion abroad. I agree that, but your intelligent person abroad, when you go overseas and he talks to you, does not ask you about those incidents. They are the ordinary incidents of yellow journalism. He asks you what about job reservation in your country. He asks you why have the Native people no voice in Parliament, and what about the Immorality Act?


Was that not so in your time?

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Those are the questions one has to reply to.


Did they never ask you why the Opposition was so bad?

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

We are spending R1,500,000 on the Department of Information. I believe that we shall possibly spend much more when the Estimates come out on this new Ministry of Information. Is that money being spent in the best way? Let me take an example. If there were an attack in a periodical in the U.S.A. having a circulation of 4,000,000, if we were to reply to that attack by issuing a three or four-page illustrated pamphlet, and accepting that pamphlet would cost 5 cent for a single issue, then distributing 4,000,000 replies on the 4,000,000 attacks would take up the whole of the printing budget of the Department of Information of R200,000—just to reply to one single attack. Simply giving money to this Department on its own will never serve as a reply to attacks of that nature. We shall simply have to find other methods and we shall have to change our policies in this country. No wonder that a leading paper supporting the Government, the Burger, in despair started working out what each new indiscretion of the Government costs the country. I think they arrived at an amount of R5,000,000 in one case. They said that a certain further indiscretion cost the country R100,000,000. Will not the Government realize that the action of one stupid baboon in the Pretoria City Council can harm us more than all the good words and the apologies of the Government can make up for?


On a point of order, the Pretoria City Council is not represented here to defend itself. Is the hon. member allowed to attack it?


The hon. member may continue.

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I forgot that the hon. member was possibly a member of the Pretoria City Council. [Interjections.] Sir, if one travels by car from Johannesburg to Pretoria there is a sign about three miles outside Pretoria which is very appropriate. [Interjections.] It says: “Nasionale Dieretuin.”


And the image of a baboon on it is your picture.

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

One error of judgment has cost this country millions. I have here an extract from a newspaper saying that the Kennicott Corporation of America last year dropped R20,000,000 in selling its gold-mining interests in this country. Why was that? Simply on account of what happened at Sharpeville, on account of an error of judgment which occurred there.

Here is an example of the sort of thing one finds in the official papers of the Government. I have here a copy of a paper called the Jeugbonder, a paper incidentally to which I believe the hon. member for Vereeniging is quite a regular contributor. After the Union had left the Commonwealth and became a Republic, this paper had the following leading article. It referred to the other African countries of the Commonwealth in these words—

Dit het lankal duidelik geword dat Suid-Afrika een of ander tyd ernstig moes dink oor sy verbintenisse met ’n klomp baar komberskaffers.

Is that the type of language to use about other states in Africa, even if you do not agree with their opinions? Is that the type of thing that the Director of the Information Service will have to defend? But I am not the only one who says that. Let us again hear the Minister of Information on this. I have here a cutting of a speech he made at a United Party meeting in Orange Grove. Incidentally, he never goes there these days. Then he said this—

South Africa had a bad Press overseas largely because members of the present Government have not got out of the habit of making irresponsible statements. When a Cabinet Minister made a statement overseas, it was taken as news and blazoned in the Press. People in England did not hear the more rational views of the United Party.

I do not know whether the Minister still agrees with that. We hear that the actions of this side of the House are responsible for scaring capital away. But it is not. There is nothing that we would like to see more than to find capital flowing into our country. Here, again, I must ask the Minister of Information to forgive me if I quote him in support of my view. Speaking in this House on 24 January 1952, he said—

I want to say this, that it is the utterances that come from that side of the House (the Government side) that scared capital out of the country.

Does the Minister remember using those words? To-day we had the interesting spectacle of the hon. member for Vereeniging having to appeal to supporters on his own side not to be guilty of actions or words which might be used against our country overseas. I believe his words were something like this: “Laat ons versigtig wees om nie dinge te doen in verband waarmee ons gevoelens miskien met ons wegloop nie.” My conclusion is that the policies of this Government are indeed bad.

What then about the method and how they are applied? There is quite a lot to be said for streamlining and for greater efficiency. I believe that the Information Service has been doing its best and that, although it has some dead wood, it also has many dedicated members who really have been working hard to put our case across. I would say that the director, Mr. Piet Meiring, has carried out an almost superhuman task with a reasonable amount of talent and with a great deal of hard work. Indeed, one would like to hear from the Minister why the Director of the State Information Office was not made Secretary of this new Department. I cast no reflection on the present incumbent. Indeed, I regard him as someone who could attain high honours in another sphere, but I believe it was wrong to overlook Mr. Meiring when it came to the appointment of a Secretary for the Department.

The new scheme for the Department of Information was announced in the Government Gazette and was adumbrated in an article in the Burger, so I shall not go into details. It is clear, however, that the Department and possibly the Ministry of Information suffer from two great deficiencies. The first is that it does not and did not in the past clearly distinguish between what is information and what is propaganda. Secondly, it is being made an instrument for internal political purposes. That is the greatest accusation that I wish to make against this Department. Externally we realize that the Minister has a terrific job and we shall support him as far as our conscience allows us. We shall support our country, not necessarily the Government. I do not see why we should always follow the Louw line, the Louw line referred to some time ago by the Minister of Foreign Affairs when he said that he was not sure that honesty would be the best policy in our international affairs any more. He said—

Whether South Africa’s policy of consistency and honesty would pay dividends is open to serious doubt. I have given this matter considerable thought and I have come to the conclusion that at UNO the policy of consistency does not pay.

I pity the poor Minister who has to defend the policy of the Minister of External Affairs as adumbrated in that statement. Whilst referring to the Minister of External Affairs, I might refer to the troubles the Minister will have, and that he admitted in the past he probably would have, with the present line followed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Again speaking in this Parliament as a member of the Opposition, in 1952, he said this of the Minister of External Affairs—

The Minister started his speech, as he always does, by digging into the garbage tin. The Prime Minister must have been right in not sending Mr. Louw back to UN …. If ever the common people in this country had to carry a burden, it is under this Minister and he has done nothing whatever to alleviate that burden.

But what gives us the greatest cause for concern is the internal policy to be followed by this Department. To make it quite clear, I wish to read two quotations. The first is from the Burger, which reads—

Die doel van sy Departement is om inligting te verskaf aan mense in Suid-Afrika en aan die buiteland.

Expanding on it further, the Burger says—

Die verskaffing van inligting aan die Bantoe van die Republiek en van Suidwes-Afrika, en van inligting oor hulle en hulle ontwikkeling aan die inwoners van Suid-Afrika en ander lande….

Since when is it the task of the Department of Information to deal with the non-Whites of South Africa? Surely when it comes to explaining Government policy to Government officials and to Natives in the Department of Bantu Administration, it is the task of that Department and not the task of the Department of Information which can only give a one-sided view on the policies of the Government? Indeed, according to an interview the Minister gave to the Press, some quite exotic methods are going to be followed in trying to put this new policy across. In an interview with the Cape Times, the Minister said that the Bantu people still have their connection with their homelands; for instance, they have their tribal meetings and dances and he intended making the link more pronounced and more colourful. Sir, that invokes the rather exotic scene of the Minister of Information and the hon. Mr. Hans Abraham joining together in a Xhosa “vastrap” in the Langa Location, simply to tighten the bonds between the homelands and the people outside.

But I want to be more serious about this. I am afraid that this can be the beginning of a vast system of indoctrination and brainwashing of the Bantu people of South Africa under the control of the Minister of Information. It can become a huge propaganda machine with many more pamphlets being issued than at present, with regular periodicals and possibly a Bantu newspaper, and also with closer integration of the broadcast services. Why are we being given frequency modulation? Not because the reception is better, but because frequency modulation can only be heard within a limited area of about 50 miles and it would be possible to supply the Bantu people with receiving sets which can only catch up programmes within that limited area. That is why we are having it. The hon. member for Vereeniging made a very significant statement. I do not wish to misquote him and I would like to know what his words actually were, but I think he said: “Binnekort sal die Minister die radio in sy hande hê”, referring to the Minister of Information. I should like to know from the hon. member whether he was referring to the Bantu Services or to the whole of the S.A.B.C.? These were his words as I put them down, and as I read them out.


You are a worse shorthand-writer than a speaker. It is not true.

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

We do not want this system of enforced indoctrination of the Bantu people. We believe that this system will be used to give them a one-sided view, the view of only that side of the House. Will the Minister of Information allow this side of the House to put its policy of race federation to the Bantu people of South Africa, or is this to be solely a propaganda machine of the Government? I believe and I hope that the hon. the Minister in his new task will be guided by the good practices of journalism. Mostly these good practices were followed by the Director of Information. I am appalled, however, by some of the things I have seen and heard about this Minister since he has taken office and before. I trust that in his attitude there will be no truculence, that there will be no digging into the garbage can, which he accused the Minister of External Affairs of doing, that there will be no rejection of the honest approach as propounded by the hon. the Minister of External Affairs, and that he will not regard his task as one in which South Africa has to play a wild and woolly rugby game against the rest of the world.

This is not a struggle between two opposing forces on a playing field, as he seemed to indicate when he spoke at Maitland last year. There he told of an incident at Swansea in Wales, in which Mr. Boy Louw, who was then captain of the Springbok team, told his players, “Play fair and play clean,” but as they got down into the scrum he added, “But beat the b—’s up.” Is that going to be the policy of the hon. the Minister? Is he going to appear to play fair and to play clean, but is he, when he gets down into the scrums, beat the b—’s, whoever they may be? I trust that will not be his policy. May I commend to him the policy of the reasoned approach and not the Neanderthal policy of standing in the dark and baying at the moon, beating one’s breast and trying to impress and frighten the rest of the world. May I advise him not to make his attacks so wild and so wide that he attacks innocent people as well as guilty people. Attacks have been made on foreign correspondents and Press representatives.


But you do the same.

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Does he know that his own Director of Information once said that the Press correspondents in this country representing overseas newspapers are fair? I quote from the Cape Times of 5 June 1959, which reported an interview given by Mr. Piet Meiring in which he said—

Apart from visiting journalists there were in South Africa 12 full-time representatives of overseas newspapers in Britain, the United States, Germany, the Netherlands and France. They were members of the Foreign Correspondents’ Association with which his Department had close links. Generally these correspondents wrote very fairly about South Africa. At times they were critical but they knew the country and their criticism was fair.

Does the hon. the Minister subscribe to that? I trust he does and that in the same way he will therefore repudiate the unfair and the blanket attacks which are so often made by his side upon Press representatives in this country. I think when it comes to accuracy the Minister should really look to his own actions. Sir, you will remember a statement made by him in November last year in which he said that the Press Commission Report had been handed to him formally. The other day, when we saw this huge pile of books being brought into the House, we confidently expected that the hon. the Minister of Information would lay those books on the Table, but it was not he; it was another Minister to whom the buck had been passed.


Can the hon. member quote a single instance of a foreign correspondent who has made fair criticism of South Africa?

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I cannot understand that question. I have just read out an extract from a statement made by Mr. Piet Meiring in which he said that these foreign correspondents gave fair reports. Is the hon. member not repudiating the Director of State Information, who knows more about State Information and journalism than that hon. member will ever know?

Complaints have been made that newspapers overseas do not tell the good news about South Africa but only the bad news. Let us accept that is so. “No news” is “good news”. We do not really publish good news about other countries in our Press. We do not publish accounts of, say, the new development in the southern part of Italy, the Mezzogiorno, where millions and millions of lira are being spent to develop the country. We do not publish facts about the medical services in Britain and about the huge industrial development in France, because that is not news, but we do publish accounts of riots in Notting Hill and we do publish accounts of riots in Algiers. Those things are news. Let us accept that is unfortunately the case, so do not let us blame the overseas Press if they do not always publish all the good news about South Africa. I wish they would, but in the nature of things newspapers do not do so.

May I ask the hon. the Minister also in dealing with the newspapers to trust the Press. I think that a basic trust placed in the journalists of our country will pay rich dividends. Trust them first of all and you will find that they trust you. Let more opportunities be created for interviews to be granted to them by heads of Departments and by Ministers. Let there be less official hand-outs which bear the imprint of being propaganda coming from the Ministry of Information. Let there be more Press Conferences. Let us overhaul the whole system of publications—including Panorama and the South African Digest. Panorama is losing us close on R80,000 a year; that is about R2 per effective subscriber to that paper. I am quoting the figures of two years ago; I trust that the latest figures are better than that.

Finally, I hope that the hon. the Minister of Information will push and publicize South Africa and not this Government, for even he said not so long ago in the course of a speech—

Even a staunch Nationalist looks at the Government he put into power and he shakes his head. It has failed to do what it promised to do and it is now only a Government run by an ambitious, power-seeking, selfish clique of politicians.

I put it to him that he will have much great success if he publicizes and defends the Republic of South Africa, and not this selfish clique of power politicians. Finally, may I suggest to him that probably the most powerful and the best argument that he could use to the rest of the world would be to tell them that we still have a parliamentary system in our country, and that under that parliamentary system there can be a change of our Government with a great possibility in the near future of a more enlightened and forward-looking Government taking over the reins of office.


I think that the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) really helped to quieten the atmosphere in the House. I will say that his speech was a quiet and reasonable one under the circumstances. Of course, I do not know whether that is so because the hon. member inherited Orange Grove from me. He talked scathingly about my not visiting Orange Grove, but as hon. members will know he superseded me in Orange Grove and from that point of view I say “good luck to him”. But the hon. member then proceeded to quote me against the Minister of External Affairs and against the Nationalist Party, and I could not help feeling that the hon. member’s memory was very short. After all, it was not so very long ago that the hon. member, when I was sitting on that side of the House, was indulging in the most vicious attacks on the United Party and the most vicious attacks on General Smuts in person, so much so that at times they were even considering the question of suing him for libel. He was also making anti-Semetic attacks of the worst type, with which I would never have associated myself. And now the hon. member talked about the garbage can. I wonder whether the hon. member does not say to himself at times that the best thing for him to do is not to indulge in what he did this afternoon but just to keep very quiet because his past is not one which he would like the rest of the House to know. May I also say that when I fell out with Orange Grove as a Conservative, the hon. member rushed into Orange Grove with all the liberal elements of Orange Grove who kicked me out. He rushed in there and he was a great friend of Mr. Einstein’s, who eventually stood as a candidate for the Progressive Party in the Provincial Council election.


Millionaire’s corner.


At that time the hon. member found them to be a very convenient body to work with in the United Party. I never did; I fell out with them; I would not have anything more to do with them, but he did in those days. Now, of course, he has fallen out with them again and he is standing against the Progressive Party with the United Party.


Mighty honourable.


Political opportunism.


I think the hon. member should have kept quiet. He talks very much about how anxious he is—and I do not disbelieve him—to help South Africa in its efforts overseas. But I would point out to the hon. member that I have not been quoted at UNO by the enemies of South Africa, and I never will be, but the hon. member was. He was quoted at UNO by the Ethopian delegate, one of the most vicious enemies of South Africa in that organization.




And this is what the Ethiopian delegate said—

With regard to South Africa’s position in relation to the United Nations, the Minister of External Affairs has described it as difficult but in no way alarming. If Mr. Louw was to be believed, there was all the less reason for South Africa to yield to a feeling of despondency, since the United Nations itself was in serious difficulty. The parliamentary Opposition, however, seemed to have different views on the matter as was shown by Mr. Malan’s criticism of Mr. Louw’s statement. Mr. Malan …

who was a very close associate of Mr. Louw not so very long ago—

Mr. Malan had protested against the harm done to South Africa by the diplomacy of the Minister of External Affairs and said that it had been the cause of the two greatest diplomatic defeats in the country’s history, the defeat in the United Nations and the defeat in the Conference of Prime Ministers which had led South Africa to withdraw from the Commonwealth.

Sir, listen to that language—

Mr. Malan has taken up the Minister’s statement to the effect that in the United Nations he intended to abandon a policy based on consistency and honesty and return to the old diplomatic practice of reciprocity or even horse trading. Mr. Malan had described that as a statement worthy of Machiavelli.

That is what he said about our Minister of External Affairs, and that is what is quoted against our Minister of External Affairs in the United Nations. Sir, I entirely agree that there can be fair criticism of the Government in South Africa, of the governing party, but here the hon. member criticized in such a way that it gave the enemeis of South Africa overseas the right to say that our foreign policy is a Machiavellian policy. Sir, I do not think that the hon. member comes out of this very well at all. I think the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) who called on him to second his amendment should have thought very seriously about it before he did so.

Now I want to turn to the hon. member for Turffontein and I want to say immediately that his speech after lunch was much more fiery than his speech before lunch; he came here and showed himself in all his true colours.


All of them?


All of them.


There are a lot of them.


He was undoubtedly trying to impress the English Press. He was playing up to the English Press as hard as he could right throughout his speech. He knew what would get him the headlines and, Sir, you will have noticed that the hon. member’s eyes kept on moving up, away from hon. members on the floor of the House. Admittedly—I do not say it with any reservations—the hon. member for Vereeniging called on the House and on all sides of the House to get together and to appreciate that South Africa was facing a cold war. The hon. member for Turffontein seemed to think that because the hon. member for Vereeniging was doing this, we were looking for help from the Opposition. Sir, the hon. member was looking for help for South Africa and looking for a decent standard of conduct in this debate from the Opposition. You cannot tell me that the speeches made by the hon member for Vereeniging and his seconders were destructive speeches. The hon. member for Vereeniging made an appeal to the Opposition to support South Africa and to support this Department. The hon. member for Turffontein said that the hon. member for Vereeniging made an attack on the English Press. That, of course, was nonsense. That was a deliberate attempt to get the English Press to support them, because the hon. member for Vereeniging did not make an attack on any Press. It was an attack on certain writers for the English Press, on certain leading articles, and the hon. member then quoted certain portions of the English Press. In fact the hon. member made a point of saying that the English Press was a tremendous factor which could help South Africa and he called on the Opposition for help.


Did the hon. member for Vereeniging not spend at least ten minutes of his speech in accusing this side of unpatriotic, un-South African conduct?


No, let us get the facts correct. The hon. member quoted from a speech made by an hon. member and he said that speech was not the sort of speech that would do South Africa any good. Hon. members must realize that when speeches of that kind are made—and there have been such speeches made during this Session—they can do a great deal of harm to South Africa. That is the type of speech which is used against South Africa. It is this sort of attempt to belittle and to ridicule any effort by this side of the House to establish a basis on which Black and White can work out their destiny, that is going to drag South Africa down. That is why the hon. member made that appeal. I want to say that I was definitely most disappointed in the hon. member’s reaction to-day. He talked about decent standards and about being unable to erase an image, and he went to the extent of quoting the Singh case and throwing it up in the face of the Government.


But your office did that, not I.


He said that I was a blind apologist for apartheid. He tried in every way to descredit the basis of the Department of Information. His whole attack was designed to show that this was a propaganda department. The hon. member said that we were channelizing everything through the Department of Information, and when I said that we were co-ordinating the information, he said that was the same thing. He talked about Goebbels and Ribbentrop, and then he went on to talk about Mussolini and Hitler. May I ask the hon. member whether he found any reference to Mr. Goebbels and Mr. Ribbentrop in any documents of the Department of Information, or did he himself say it in this House? I should like the hon. member to answer that question. Did he refer to Goebbels and Ribbentrop?


I did and I mentioned Mussolini and Hitler but I quoted what your office said. May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?


No, I will not answer the hon member’s questions. The whole atmosphere that the hon. member wanted to create was that this Department of Information was a Goebbels propaganda department, and his whole object was to try to discredit the Department of Information and to associate it with Nazism and with Goebbels.


How is your Department going to bring about goodwill?


He even tried to give the impression that whereas formerly in Britain they had a Ministry of Information, they considered that was something which bore the characteristics of a dictatorship and that therefore it should be abandoned; that Britain abandoned its Ministry of Information and that the dissemination was now being undertaken by the various departments under the control of civil servants, but that there was no Minister of Information. Instead of following that course, what were we doing? The Prime Minister was setting up a Ministry of Information as a Ministry of propaganda, and the countries which had done that in the past had been ruined. Of course, that is not true. Let me quote to the House, what the position is, because this time the hon. member has not got all the information. The position is that there was a Ministry of Information in Britain up to the end of the war.


I said that.


It consisted of 7,500 people. The numbers had got completely out of hand. What happened after that? The hon. member said that there was no longer a Minister in charge of Information.


I never said that.


The hon. member did say it; I took his words down. He said that the Ministry was abolished, and he went on to say that there was no justification for the Ministry here. He said that in Britain the information services were run by the departments and not by a Minister. What is the true position? The true position is that every department has an information section. Let me quote from a document from the United Kingdom—

Each Minister in the United Kingdom is now responsible for the information policy of his own department.

That is exactly what I said.


No, that is not true. The hon. member tried to indicate that the idea of having a Minister responsible for information was the wrong system. He said that in Britain there was no responsibility to a Minister, but the true position is that every department has its information system and the Minister in charge of that department is responsible for its information section. There are 30 of these departments.


They have increased it from one to 30.


Yes, they have increased it from one to 30. The hon. member made a big issue out of this change-over to Information Offices. He tries to give the impression that there was no Minister responsible for these information sections; that they were run entirely by civil servants. He suggested that there was no Minister who could influence the policy, because that is what he was trying to indicate. He said that here we had a Nationalist Party Department of Information, a Nationalist Party Department of Propaganda, but do they say in Britain, where the different Ministers are in charge of the various information sections, that those departments are Tory or Conservative Departments of Information? The Foreign Office is run by a Minister and a Foreign Information Service is run through that office. Then you have the Commonwealth Relations Office, the Colonial Office, and even the Minister of the Board and Trade has information sections under him.

Mr. RAW:

Which countries have Ministers of Information?


The reason why the Information Service in Britain is run differently, is because there you have 30 departments, each with its own information section.


We have 14 now.


But each information section is run by a Conservative Cabinet Minister. Does it become a propaganda machine for that reason? Surely it is right for the Ministry of Information in South Africa to show a true and adequate picture of South African policy. Is that right or is it not right? Are we not entitled to show a true and adequate picture of South African policy?


They do not want that.


No. Because we want to put over a true and adequate picture of South African policy we are accused of being a propaganda machine. No, we must only put over United Party policy and then we will not be a propaganda machine.


Then we would be a nuisance.


You see, Sir, the hon. member does not know that in every democratic country to-day it is accepted that you have to have Departments of Information. Some of them are run by individual departments, of which Ministers are in charge.


You are saying all I said.


Sir, I studied very carefully what the hon. member said. He now finds that unfortunately I have a document in my hands which I can quote against him. I want to point out that when we in South Africa set up a Ministry of Information, then it is regarded as a Ministry of Propaganda. It is regarded as propaganda when we say that it is essential that the public should be adequately informed about the many matters in which Government action impinges directly on the daily lives of people; that it is essential that a true and adequate picture of South African policy and South African institutions and the South African way of life should be presented overseas. But that is the basis on which Britain has set up her information sections. In South Africa, however, it is considered propaganda.

Mr. G. F. H. BEKKER:

They are ashamed of being South Africans.


There is one big difference and that is that this terrible machine which we are erecting in South Africa and which is giving the hon. member sleepless nights, spends comparatively little. Its staff does not exceed 150. In Britain, the mother of democracies, the amount that they spend is £24,000,000 a year; in America they spend $147,000,000 on their Information Agency. They only spend $134,000,000 on foreign servants. They spend more on information than on foreign services. What is more, besides that, America spends more than a billion dollars on creating the right climate for America. But of course that nobody criticizes. Nobody casts nasty remarks about Goebbels, or anything like that.


Have they got a Minister of Information?


Of course Ministers are responsible, because in that way the spending money is controlled. You see, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes these wild accusations, he tries to create the atmosphere that in South Africa we are on a totalitarian road, but now he is squealing and not able to face up to the criticism of his statement. He cannot substantiate his statement. The hon. member has an unfortunate way of making accusations without being able to substantiate them. He read out of various books and suggested that I should read this book on public relations, and another book on public relations. I thank the hon. member. I will take an opportunity to do so. But what the hon. member said was, and he laughed: One thing they say in this book is, “If your product is a good one, you can make a sale”. Now the hon. member was the publicity chairman of the United Party on the Rand. I have not read these books, but the hon. member has. Now I want to ask him: Why did he not say to himself “The product is good, I can sell it ”. Why did he not sell it on the Rand?


I never occupied that position.


He only sold Hymie.


The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) was also connected with the United Party publicity campaign. If the United Party then has such a wonderful product to sell, why have they not sold it? Why could they not sell it to the country? Why did they have to come back election after election in smaller numbers?


You could not sell yourself to Maitland.


Order! What does the hon. member mean by that?


I said that the hon. member was not able to sell himself to Maitland.


It is true I did not win Maitland, but I did get the nomination in Vasco, and I might tell hon. members that there were a large number of people in Vasco that were very anxious to have a by-election there. There the United Party could have challenged the Minister of Information, there they could have given me a go, but for some reason or other they ran away from Vasco.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member then referred to the Times article. I want to tell the hon. member that I did not say anything about the English Press that I am not prepared to say openly. The hon. member referred to attacks I am supposed to have made on the English Press. The remark I made about the English Press was this: I pointed out that in South Africa the position was different to the position in other countries, and I said—

In British terms what opinion would a man have of a Tory administration if he could only read the Daily Herald, or of a socialist administration if he could read only the Daily Express?

I was referring to the fact that the English language Press in South Africa has a circulation among English-speaking people here, and I said, also referring to the fact that the English Press has a big circulation overseas—

This condition in South Africa imposes a quite unusual responsibility on newspapers published in English. I believe they have a special duty to be balanced and fair-minded in both their news and editorial columns, and to give credit where credit is due. In the past they have not lived up to this.

I went on further and said this—

I do subscribe to the view that there is a need for some form of discipline in the newspaper profession, as in other professions. The right to publish a falsehood with impunity is not necessarily part of the freedom of the Press I am sure all responsible newspapers accept this.



I said “responsible newspapers”, I did not say “all newspapers”.


Which are the irresponsible ones?


Very many, some of them helping to spread these distortions overseas. The hon. member seems to doubt that these distortions do exist. He seems to think that is a matter of our imagination.


No, I did not say that.


Even the responsible Press overseas admits that there are these distortions. Even they are prepared to admit the misrepresentation going on overseas. Even the Times, in which this article appeared to which I referred, admitted that there were distortions and that a wrong picture was given, even though it was prepared to write a leader which in my opinion was very much off the mark.


May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Would you say that it was a distortion on the part of the London Times that they called you a blind apologist of the Government’s policy?


I will say this that the writer of that leading article was undoubtedly a man who was suffering from frustration and irritation, and those are not my words; they are the words in which the English Press referred to him. Mr. Speaker, I feel we should really show this House the type of leaders appearing in a paper like the Times, written by a person who admittedly talks about “a blind apologist”, but who says—

It is really time that this little pocket of White men marching resolutely out of step with the rest of humanity to the certain destruction of their nation, should cease to protest that they are misunderstood.



The man who writes this sits in a chair, in the protection of his office. He has not got to fend for himself, for White survival in South Africa. He can talk disparagingly about a small White pocket of people, but that small White pocket of people, are the people we are determined to see survive in South Africa. He can talk disparagingly of our efforts, but it is this small pocket of White people that have managed to build up South Africa; it is this small White pocket of people who have created a much higher standard for the Bantu in this country than he has anywhere else in Africa. And they have not done it with the help of overseas, but on their own feet. They have carried on and have built up South Africa. And even on the political side we on this side of the House are making attempts at positive development We are trying to look after the problem, and this leader writer talks about a small pocket of White people. If one criticizes a leader writing in a newspaper, does that mean that one does not believe in the freedom of the Press? Is he so sacrosanct that he can write something scathingly about South Africa, but if you criticize him, you are criticizing the whole of the Press? Of course not. The man who writes in this fashion, who writes disparagingly of our people, who considers that they are expendable as far as he is concerned, is a foreigner, he does not belong to South Africa. There are many English-speaking people like myself who are anxious to create goodwill between our two countries, but an article, a leader of this nature, breaks down the ties that we have built up over the years. It is an irresponsible article. South Africa a friend of the United Kingdom, South Africa until recently a member of the Commonwealth, South Africa who has been a supporter of Britain through the bad and the good days, but a leader writer writes South Africa off as a small pocket of White people who are expendable.

I want to come to the amendment of the Opposition. In his amendment the hon. member says that the Opposition is “nevertheless of the opinion that the extent of world hostility to the Republic owing to racial policies pursued by the Government makes the task of the Ministry of Information impossible”. The hon. member was asked whether such criticism was only levelled at the Government since the present Government has been in power, whether only now there is this criticism of racial policies, and to what extent are the hon. member and his party prepared to change the racial policies of South Africa? Are they prepared to change them so that they will fit into the international concept of human dignity: One man one vote? Are they prepared to change them so to be in accord with international opinion? Are they prepared so to change our racial policies that there will be no criticism of South Africa? Of course not. I say that this amendment does not reflect the position in any way whatsoever. Hostility against South Africa is there because South Africa is unfortunately being dragged into a cold war, it has got nothing to do with the merits of the case. South Africa’s case is far better than that of many of the countries that criticize us. They say that we are a threat to world peace. That is absolute nonsense. South Africa is not a threat to world peace, neither is South-West Africa, and everybody knows it. That is why the hon. member for Vereeniging hoped that his appeal at any rate would not fall on deaf ears, when he said “On this issue let us stand together and face the enemies of South Africa”. But the hon. member for Turffontein again tried to protest that side of the House would change the racial policies of South Africa so that they would meet with the approval of the world.

I now want to come again to the original motion and say that as far as the Government is concerned, I accept the motion on behalf of the Government. I would say to the hon. member for Vereeniging and the hon. member for Innesdale that the manner in which they addressed the House, the manner in which they put over their case with conviction, showed the feeling that lies behind this motion, the determination of this side of the House to look after the interests of South Africa against all-comers. There was not any levity, it was a serious discussion, and it was a discussion which I thought would lead to a far better debate than what it ended up in. I want to congratulate both hon. members, and I want to say to the hon. member for Innesdale that I realize that he is not an old member of this House, but that he spoke with sincerity and conviction and I want to say that I am proud to sit with him and with other members on this side of the House, and I am not interested in the sneers on the other side of the House. They can read as many speeches I made in the past as they like from Hansard. I am not interested. I regard South Africa as a country at the present moment in which we have got somehow to create a unity to meet the difficulties that may lie ahead.

I want to say to hon. members that I noted the points that were made. I consider that it is the duty of every department, every one of us, to improve the relationship between white and black, that the atmosphere should eventually be one as far as the Transkei is concerned, of good neighbourliness. There should be the greatest goodwill. And the true position is that there is this goodwill. You seldom hear of it. The other day a question was answered by the Minister of Justice. The question was: How many murders have been committed of Black against White, White against White, White against Black and Black against Black? I may tell you that it was something like three and four in the case of Black against White and White against Black, but Black against Black it was a question of some 300. It shows that the White man in this country is not the enemy of the Black man. The White man keeps law and order, he sees to it that the way of living in this country is a way whereby all sections of the people can live in peace and live in goodwill, one with the other. I would also like to thank the hon. member for Vereeniging for his tribute to Mr. du Plessis, the Secretary for the department. A good wine needs no bush. Mr. du Plessis has been High Commissioner in Canada, he has been ambassador in New York, and he is a man who, as far as I am concerned, I have complete confidence in. I noticed that there was an attempt by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) to indicate that Mr. Meiring should have been put in his place and that it was wrong to place Mr. du Plessis in the position of Secretary and Mr. Meiring as Deputy Secretary. That of course was an attempt to try and create an atmosphere of suspicion in the department. I can say with absolute authority for Mr. Meiring and Mr. du Plessis and myself that we are working in absolute harmony together and we are determined that we are not going to be undermined by little petty remarks or little jealousies which Opposition members try to create. [Time limit.]

Mr. RAW:

I can well understand the look of disappointment which was on the face of the hon. the Prime Minister while he listened to the Minister of Information. It was to be my task to reply to the hon. Minister of Information in regard to his proposals for this new Department which he is to run, the machinery for a Department of Information, and how he intended to serve South Africa in the interest of this country, but throughout his 40 minutes he did not refer once to what his Department was going to do. He did not refer once to his plans or intentions; he did not refer once to the objectives at which he was striving. What did we have from the hon. the Minister? We had an attack on the hon. member for Orange Gove (Mr. E. G. Malan) because a speech he had made here in South Africa had been quoted at the United Nations. Does the hon. Minister forget the speeches which were quoted by his present colleagues overseas against South Africa when they were conniving with the enemies of South Africa for a separate peace in time of war? Mr. Speaker, this country has had examples of this in the past, but now we are being accused of undermining South Africa because of our right to criticize. I do not want to quote the hon. Minister on what he thinks of his own Government, but on the basic principle of the right to criticize, I think the hon. the Minister should be reminded of what he believed in. This is not a political philosophy, this is a fundamental credo of the hon. the Minister regarding the right of freedom of speech. I want to quote from Hansard, Vol 55, Col. 1463. Mr. Waring said—

The hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter) classified me in his speech as a Communist.

Then there were some interjections, and Mr. Waring continued—

It is a sound organization, and if I remember rightly there was a Communist speaker on the platform, but his name was Potgieter, an Afrikaner. But I also felt that he had every right to his own political opinion, and to express his own political views.

When the hon. the Minister was appearing on the platform with a Communist he believed that a Communist had every right to his own political opinions and every right to express his views. But now that he is under the Whip of the Nationalist Government it is an offence against South Africa to criticize the Government.


What nonsense!

Mr. RAW:

No wonder that the hon. Minister when he sat on this side of the House, complained about the tactics on the other side of the House, when he said (on the same page, in the same speech)—

Mr. Waring: The hon. member said that the soldier called one of his donkeys Oubaas Smuts and the other Ouma Smuts.
Mr. Potgieter: That is true.
Mr. Sauer: He wants to call the other donkey Waring.

It was good enough for that hon. member when he was on this side of the House to be called a donkey by the hon. Leader of the House who sits there, but now that he is sitting there as Minister of Information, now anything that is said on this side of the House, our right to criticize, now suddenly becomes a scandal against South Africa.


Where did I say that?

Mr. RAW:

The hon. the Minister attacked the hon. member for Orange Grove because his political views had been quoted outside South Africa. But what is more, he accused my colleague here of stating that we were opposed to any information services, and he quoted at length from the British system. I want to quote the exact words used by my colleague—

It is our view that the information service is to operate with success and to present a true and accurate picture of our country to other people of other countries, but it can only do so with success under the Department of Foreign Affairs, not under a separate Ministry.

At 3.55 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 41 (3) and the debate was adjourned until Friday, 16th March.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Orders of the Day.


First Order read: Adjourned debate on motion for second reading,—University of the Orange Free State (Private) Act Amendment (Private) Bill, to be resumed.

[Debate adjourned on 7 April 1961 when the Question before the House was a motion by Mr. H. J. van Wyk: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which an amendment had been moved: To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House, whilst recognizing the autonomy of the University of the Orange Free State and its right to determine that the University shall be based on Protestant Christian principles, declines to pass the Second Reading of the University of the Orange Free State (Private) Act Amendment (Private) Bill, because it incorporates the principle of discrimination on religious grounds in the appointment of staff, and upon which amendment the following amendment had been moved: To omit all the words after “House” up to and including “principles” and to add at the end “in the constitution of the University and may prejudice certain students in obtaining bursaries and other benefits”.]

*Mr. H. J. VAN WYK:

When this Bill was discussed last year there were objections to certain of the clauses. I am not going to reply to those objections, because on the instructions of the promotors of the Bill I shall move in the Committee Stage that the relevant clauses be deleted. They are particularly Clauses 1 and 6. I then trust that the rest of the Bill will be accepted because, as hon. members know, it is non-contentious and refers more particularly to the administration of this institution. In order to refresh the minds of hon. members, I briefly refer to the fact that the amendment Bill provides for the representation in the Senate of members of the teaching staff who occupy pensionable posts and who are not professors, to make provision for the establishment of an agricultural faculty, to provide that the Council will nominate members of the teaching staff in consultation with the Senate, or a Committee of the Senate, and that honorary degrees will be granted only on the recommendation of the Senate.

Amendments put and negatived.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

Clause 1 of the Bill put and negatived.

Clause 6 of the Bill put and negatived.

On the Preamble,

Mr. H. J. VAN WYK:

I move—

To omit paragrphs (a), (b) and (h). Agreed to.
Preamble, as amended, put and agreed to.
Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

The omission of Clause 1, the amendment in Clause 5, the omission of Clause 6 and the amendments in the preamble put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill read a third time.


Second Order read: Adjourned debate on motion for second reading,—Chiropractors’ Bill, to be resumed.

[Debate on motion by Mr van der Walt, upon which an amendment had been moved by Dr. de Wet, adjourned on 16 February, resumed.]


Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned, I was making an attempt to show how the chiropractic claims were out of all reason and how they would finally, if brought into effect, change the whole face of the health services of the country.

I want the House to appreciate that this is not an effort made from prejudice or from self interest, difficult though that may seem. This is a matter which I have studied over many years, so much so that in June 1934 I read a Paper, subsequently published in the South African Medical Journal of that date …


A good Paper.


Thank you … discussing this very question. So that my interest goes back over a long time. In this Paper I said the following amongst other things—

One cannot help but be struck by the fact that quite a number of people go to the osteopath, the chiropractor, the bonesetters and at least a proportion of them return to chant the praises of these unqualified practitioners.

In other words, in speaking to my colleagues at a scientific meeting, I drew their attention to this fact. I went on to say—

It is as well that we should investigate their successes as far as we can and that we should not be too proud to learn from them.

This is rather a long Paper, Sir, and therefore I do not want to weary the House with technical details. But I just want to say how I concluded. I concluded by saying—

I trust that I have said enough to show you that manipulative surgery is a branch of the art which will repay study and which will bring back to the fold many of the lost sheep among our patients …

I concluded finally by saying—

In the words of the famous surgeon, Sir James Paget, “Learn, therefore, to imitate what is good and avoid what is bad in the practice of the bonesetters”.

I quote these words, Sir, to show you that I approach this subject with an open mind. I want to emphasize again that there is no question of competition for patients between the medical profession and the chiropractice. At the most chiropractors claim that there are 120 of them. There are 9,000 doctors in this country and we are training in the region of 350 doctors every year. There is no question of competition at all. But I want to say that the chiropractors and their allies, the osteopaths and the naturopaths, have for years, even before the 1920 Act, obstructed constructive health legislation in this country. I think it took eight years to get the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act through this House and most of the delay was due to obstruction by these unregistered practitioners. Ever since then when the Medical Council has come forward with legislation hoping to obtain some control over the supplementary health services, and control particularly over the educational qualifications of these services, those bills have been obstructed and finally prevented from becoming law by the actions of this group of unregistered practitioners. These people who follow a cult, a cult with no scientific foundation. I think it is time that this obstruction to constructive legislation and the building up of the health services of the country should be removed. Unfortunately this is not a suitable forum for a scientific investigation. Prejudices arise, prejudices which are not allayed by words and party strife etc. come into the picture. Therefore, Sir, I hope that the hon. the Minister will appoint a commission, not from members of this House, if possible, not from the medical profession, but from scientists. There are many scientists in this country. I hope the hon. the Minister will appoint a commission to investigate the question of unregistered practitioners in this country.


With the time at my disposal I shall not be able to do more than to take the hon. members for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) and Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) to task for the speeches they have made during the course of this debate. Unfortunately I shall have to quote extensively to rebut the evidence which they have adduced in the course of this debate. Before I proceed, Mr. Speaker, with the dissection of their arguments, I would like to state my own point of view in regard to this matter. We pray every day in this House to God Almighty and say—

Grant that we may as in Thy presence treat and consider all matters that shall come under our deliveration in so just and faithful a manner as to promote Thy honour and glory and to advance the good of those whose interests Thou hast committed to our charge.

It is in this spirit, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to address the House on this Bill that is before the House to-day.

We have to deal here with the interests of an ever-increasing number of citizens of the Republic of South Africa whose interests have been committed to our charge. But stripping this debate of all clever and so-called scientific arguments, what do we find? I am now asking this question pertinently to the hon. member for Durban (Central) and my colleague here, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. What do we find? We find that the accusers of the chiropractors would like to sit in judgment of the accused.


I just made a statement hoping that the medical profession would not be members of the commission.


Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the hon. member. They were the accusers of the chiropractors in this debate and they want to sit in judgment of the accused. And I shall prove that by reading from Hansard the speech that was made by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. I hope you will save me the time. I shall never vote for such gross injustice. I realize that as a layman, I am addressing this House now on a scientific subject, but I do not apologize for it for one moment because I can prove that the medical practitioners in this House who opposed this Bill and those who have supported them, have been inconsistent, illogical, self-seeking, grossly unfair and unjust. I shall now quote, Sir, from an article which appeared in the South African Medical Journal on 23 June 1934 and which came from the pen of a well-known and a very eminent South African surgeon. The article was titled “Manipulative Surgery”. It started with a quotation from Sir James Paget. I quote—

“Few of you are likely to practise without having a bonesetter for a rival, and if he can cure a case where you have failed his reputation will be made and yours will be marred”. These words were expressed by Sir James Paget in 1867.

Almost a century ago—

They are more true to-day than when they were uttered. And this article was written 27 years ago—

One cannot help but be struck by the fact that quite a number of people go to the osteopaths, chiropractors, bonesetters, etc. and at least a proportion of them return to chant the praises of these unqualified practitioners. Now these practitioners are not altruists, and my experience is that the public, when called upon to pay for services from which they have derived no benefit, do not burst forth into songs of praise. We have all met numerous cases where the unqualified practitioner has done harm, and in our superior knowledge, have pointed out the errors of their ways …

I skip a few words.


Don’t skip them; read them.


All right I shall read them—

Cases of diphtheria treated by manipulation of the neck, malignant diseases manipulated from an operable to an inoperable stage …

And now I want to stress these words—

… but we must all also have met patients who say they have benefited by their manipulations and sometimes benefited dramatically and rapidly, when regular practitioners have failed.

Then he goes on to say—

Wharton Hood first drew attention to the value of manipulative surgery.

Sir, this hon. gentleman goes further. Remember he is a surgeon in South Africa who has made a name for himself. He says—

Why should the spinal column be immune from primary lesions? Even in the woman with pelvic pathology and backache the removal of the pelvic condition will not always cure the backache; prolonged faulty posture in the effort to protect the pelvis from the super-incumbent abdominal viscera will lead to chronic strain on the anterior spinal ligaments, and will require manipulation and after-treatment for its cure.

Now this famous surgeon says—

I have met numerous cases of this nature. We therefore have the curious position of, on the one hand, the medical profession who regard backache as either neurasthenic or secondary, and, on the other hand, the unqualified practitioners, who regard backache as primary and treat it as such.

And then he says this—

Both sides are right—backache may be either primary or secondary—and I wish to draw the attention of the profession to the primary type, in order that this large group of cases may be prevented from drifting …

Now mark these words—

… from drifting to the unqualified.

Mr. Speaker, if you would like to have the underlying motive of the opposition to this Bill I can quote nothing better than the following paragraph. It is the penultimate paragraph. It is the penultimate paragraph to this article—

I trust that I have said enough to show you that manipulative surgery is a branch of the art which will repay study, and which will bring back to the fold many of the lost sheep among our patients.

I say that the people who accuse chiropractors in this House to-day also want to sit in judgment of them. And for that reason I shall not vote against this Bill. I nearly forgot to say, Mr. Speaker, that this eminent surgeon whom I have quoted now is the hon. member for Durban (Central). He wrote that Paper on 23 June 1934. I was fair enought to warn him the day before yesterday that I was going to quote from his article. And I told him that he had 17 minutes to try to wriggle out of it. He tried his best but he could not wriggle out of it.


There is nothing wrong with that article.


If there is nothing wrong with the article then there is everything wrong with the hon. member who wrote it, because he has just taken the contrary view of what he said in 1934. I would like to carry on. If I have time I shall return to the hon. member for Durban (Central). I now wish to deal with the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. Unfortunately I cannot show you the photographs which I have in my hand, but he said—

Why should the Trade Unions have such a large say in this matter?

My reply is that because the trade union members, together with their families, represent over a million people or one-third of the entire White population of the Republic. Their interests are (a) economic—that was outlined by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) when he introduced the Bill and (b) experience has taught them the value of chiropractic treatment, and they demand the right of obtaining those health services under the protection of proper statutory control. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark also said that—

If the Bill was agreed to, it would permit people who did not have even basic medical training to treat the human body.

I say that this statement is manifestly incorrect and not based on fact. The present-day doctor of Chiropractice is trained at one of the 16 accredited colleges in the United States of America and Canada. The courses offered consist of four years academic and clinical training, comprising an average of some 4,500 compulsory lecture hours. And that compares very favourably with the compulsory lecture hours at any medical school in the world.


Does the chiropractic student have any hospital training whatsoever?


They are not required to have hospital training because they do not operate, they do not prescribe medicine. They practise the preventive section of the healing practice. The students at these colleges are prepared for the following and I would like the hon. members for Durban (Central) and Vanderbijlpark to correct me if I am wrong. The students at these colleges are prepared for the following two external examinations, set and controlled by the various State authorities, not private colleges but State authorities: (a) the licensing examinations conducted by the various State Boards of Chiropractic Examiners; and (b) the Basic Science Examinations conducted by the State medical authorities where the basic science laws apply. This is an external examination common to both medical and—mark my words, Mr. Speaker— common to both medical and chiropractic students. The basic science subjects are: Anatomy, physiology, bacteriology, chemistry and public health, i.e. hygiene and sanitation. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark said—

Medical science gives full recognition to the value of manipulation and massage, but the medical profession preferred to have this done by specialists and physiotherapists.

I say without fear of contradiction that medical or physiotherapeutic manipulation is not chiropractic manipulation. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark agrees with me there. There is a vast difference in training, technique and approach.


Just as well.


The hon. member says “just as well”. I agree with him that it is just as well. But the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark also said—

The House of Assembly would be taking a backward step in passing this Bill; would be acting against the wonderful things that were being done by medical science.

May I ask him this very simple question: How can the protection of the public, through proper statutory control of the chiropractic profession, possibly be a “backward step”, when it is freely admitted that the existence of chiropractic health services in the Republic is an established fact? And not only in the Republic of South Africa, Sir, but in the whole of the world. And again, I ask you, Sir, how can statutory control of chiropractic act against the wonderful things that are being done by medical science? There is no evidence whatsoever that the advances of modem medical science have suffered one iota because of the fact that chiropractic is recognized in the United States of America, or because there are some 30,000 licensed chiropractors in that country. On the contrary, it is a fundamental law of economics that competition spurs to ever increased endeavours and attainments. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark went on to say—

While the history of chiropractic went back only 50 years …

He is wrong here—

… medical science went back 2,500 years. It is quite true that chiropractic, as an organized system of healing, dates back only 66 years; but the fundamanetal basic sciences upon which chiropractic is founded are identical to those of medicine, and chiropractic shares in this field the same historical background as medicine. Chiropractic did not have to start from scratch with anatomy and physiology 65 years ago. Those were established sciences and were accepted by chiropractic and medicine alike. The advent of antibiotics, barely 15 years ago, surely does not make them invalid. Modern medical science is poles apart from medical practice 50 years ago, but this fact does not make it invalid. Let me quote a few examples, and that is what I say as a layman, but what I have experienced in my own life. Until quite recently doctors kept a woman in bed for ten days after her confinement. They kept their patient in bed for at least seven days after a minor operation, and for two to three weeks after a major operation. A famous German surgeon kept me in bed for three weeks after a gastroenterostomy operation and that was as late as 1929. After 2,500 years, in 1929, they still did that to me. For many years it was almost an adage in the medical world that one must starve a fever and feed a cold, and for an ulcerated stomach they prescribed fluids. To-day these people who want to sit in judgment on the accused—and they are the accusers—what do they do? No woman is kept in bed for ten days after her confinement. No patient is kept in bed after a major operation for longer than about five days. His surgeon will tell him that he must get up and take exercise, even if it causes him excruciating pain. Patients suffering from enteric fever are no longer starved; they are fed, and they are given solid food to-day for ulcerated stomachs, and not fluids. To my mind, this is a tacit admission on the part of the medical practitioners in this House that in the years that have gone by they have often erred in their process of endeavouring to heal the human body. They must honestly admit that.


Those are the advances of science.


Yes, but there are no advances in the science of chiropractic.


There is no such thing.


I will give the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) five to one—not chiropractors but medical men— who disagree with him. I shall not have the time to do it now, but I will lay him any wager that I can quote him five to one. In this respect I have no axe to grind.

Mr. G. H. VAN WYK:

On a point of order, may the hon. member gamble in this House?


This is not a gamble; it is a certainty. I have no quarrel with the medical profession. My own son is a medical man. In fact, I would gladly admit in public, inside or outside this House, that I consider the medical profession as the noblest profession in the world, but what I detest is to see the clear evidence that this noble profession is now trying to lower its status to that of a closed shop trade union.

Before I proceed to the next point, I wish to refer to a fact which cannot be denied by the medical profession. I intend proving to this House that the medical profession is ultra conservative and has often been proved to be wrong. I fully realize that the medical profession should of necessity be conservative, for the public weal, but I do object to ultra conservatism and to rank prejudice. The fact to which I have referred is this. Hypnotism was practised by man for many thousands of years before the medical profession, which according to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, started 2,500 years ago, and with beneficial results to people who were suffering, but despite those millenniums, in the latter half of the last century, when an eminent member of the F.R.C.S., to which the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) also belongs challenged the Medical Council of Britain to put him to certain tests in regard to the healing value of hypnotism. He was ignored. To-day we have general practitioners all over the country and all over the world, and psychiatrists who make use of hypnotism to heal the human body and the human mind. But now it is not called hypnotism any longer; it has the enhanced name of “medical science”. But it took millenniums before the ultra conservative medical profession would acknowledge that this was really an art or science which could be used to promote the health of man. What I would like to hear from the hon. members for Durban (Central) and Vanderbijlpark is whether they can give the assurance to this House that the same things will not happen in regard to chiropractic. As I have told the hon. member on my left, I can quote five to one that for many years it was an accepted fact that the medical profession of necessity had to be conservative. I agree with that idea, but the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark said that the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) had not quoted a single scientist in support of his contention that the Bill should be passed, and he then quoted a number of medical scientists who said there was no scientific basis for the theory of chiropractic. My reply to this is that during the first reading debate on the Chiropractice Bill of 1961, in March last year, an eminent scientist in the Government Party, the hon. member for Hercules (Dr. A. I. Malan) fully supported the contention that the Bill should be passed. [Interjections.] Even if he is a veterinary surgeon, he is still a scientist and a biochemist. In the limited time allotted to the debate last year it was impossible for the hon. member for Pretoria (West) to quote the many medical authorities who either directly or indirectly endorsed chiropractic principles. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark also said chiropractic has been very closely studied by the medical profession, and the hon. member for Durban (Central) said, in an article, that he advised the medical profession to study it “if for no other reason than to determine whether aspects of it might not be taken over”. Now I ask whether that is an honest standpoint? The hon. member says of course it is, but is it honourable to damn a practice and then to study it to see whether you, for your own selfish ends, cannot use it?


Cannot you apply that to witchdoctors also?


Yes, but is it honest to say it should be closely studied by the medical profession if for no other reason than to determine whether aspects of it cannot be taken over? Taken over for what purposes?


For the good of the people.


No, for the good of the medical profession, because if there is any good in it the people could get it from the chiropractors to-day, and not from the medical profession. My reply to this is that it is quite contrary to the findings of a large group of doctors in Germany who have investigated the matter thoroughly and have acclaimed it as a major development in therapeutics. These doctors were eventually trained by chiropractors in the technique and are to-day practising chiropractic and they are calling it chiropractic.

Now I come to the hon. member for Durban (Central) again. We know that at least one medical specialist in South Africa who in effect is practising chiropractic although it is not called chiropractic, and that is the hon. gentleman there, and he has admitted it in his article which I quoted.


On a point of explanation …


Will the hon. member allow a point of explanation?


Yes, because the hon. member will find it very hard to explain it away.


Are chiropractors allowed to practise in Germany under the supervision of the State?


Yes, they are.


I am sorry, but I contradict that.


I want to continue. The hon. member for Vanderbijl Park said that chiropractors claimed that all disease was due to pressure on the nerves. I have been a member of the Select Committee on the Auxiliary Health Services, a few years ago. The chiropractors appeared before us, and also the Medical Association and the Medical Council, and all I can tell you, Sir, and I say that in honour bound, is that the chiropractors ran rings around the Medical Council and the Medical Association. It was said by the Medical Council, I think by Professor Oosthuizen, that their art is demonstrably false, and the reply was that it is demonstrably true, and they gave us a limelight lecture, and I tell you, Sir, as members of the Select Committee we were convinced that the chiropractors were right and that the others were wrong.


That is not true, because I was on that Committee.


The hon. member was not on that Committee, which is the injustice of the whole affair. He was a member of the subsequent Committee, because that first Committee did not suit the Minister of Health at the time.


What does the hon. member mean by saying that “it did not suit the Minister of Health”?


The Minister of Health at that time was opposed to it and we brought out a report and that Committee was dropped and a new one was appointed under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Mossel Bay. The hon. member said that chiropractors claimed that all disease is due to pressure on the nerves. My reply to that is that responsible, organized chiropractors— which is what we want with this Bill—have never made such claims. They are well trained to recognize conditions which are outside their scope and never hesitate to refer such cases to the physician or the surgeon. I could quote many cases. As a member of that Committee, I saw a huge record of case histories, where anatomists of fame in South Africa sent their own wives to chiropractors. I know of a case that happened just the day before yesterday. When I was phoning this chiropractor, this anatomist’s wife was in his office, being treated. I can give instances where medical practitioners have failed to give relief …


To wives?


No, to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, who seems to be under stress now. I have seen case histories and my friend on my right, who was the chairman, also saw those documents, where medical men who damned chiropractors in public and in Parliament personally go to chiropractors for treatment and also sent their wives. I think that to say the least of it, it is not honest. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark tried to belittle the hon. member for Pretoria (West) in regard to the evidence which he quoted, and he quoted a certain Palmer and the evidence in regard to him. He was not a scientific man. He quoted at length from the court record. My reply to that is simply this, and I defy anyone to deny that I am right, that the accidental discovery of a natural law is quite irrelevant to the subsequent scientific development of the principle discovered. Had not Newton observed an apple falling from a tree and thus discovered for the first time the principle of the force of gravity, which had been in existence since the beginning of time and not only for 2,500 years, there would not have been any astronauts in space to-day. That is my reply to that argument. It was said that three former Ministers of Health, Dr. Bremer, Dr. Stals and Dr. Gluckman, had all condemned chiropractic as something without any scientific basis. My reply to that is very simple. In the absence of proof that those three very worthy gentlemen conducted a scientific investigation into the merits of chiropractic, their opinions cannot be accepted as authoritative. Then it was said by the hon. member that the Medical Council was recognized by Parliament as the authority to be consulted on medical matters and it should not be abandoned. My reply to that is that the Chiropractors’ Bill does not seek to interfere with the authority of the Medical Council, or with the fact that it should be consulted on medical matters. [Time limit.]


Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my appreciation to all hon. members who participated in this debate for the succinct and sympathetic manner in which they approached and discussed the matter. It once again made one realize the importance of medical services to our country and our people, those services which each of us needs from the time we open our eyes until we finally close them. Now I have been approached from various quarters to appoint a commission of inquiry to investigate this very important matter I was requested to do so by the Medical Council and also by the Medical Association and the Association of Chiropractors, and also, as hon. members have heard to-day, by members of this House. After careful consideration the Government has come to the conclusion that the interests of our country will best be served by the appointment of such a commission of inquiry, and I hope within the near future to announce the terms of reference and also the members of that commission.


Mr. Speaker, I think that the decision taken by the Government in respect of this very important issue is a wise one. The trade union movement throughout South Africa has been agitating for many years to get a measure of recognition for chiropractic and for as many years there has been strong opposition from the medical profession. I think that the Bill which we are debating to-day is one which is not acceptable to all members and all parties in this House, but that there can be general acceptance of the proposal that the whole matter be referred to a commission of inquiry I have no doubt whatever. I feel that the decision the Minister has taken to refer the matter to a commission will be welcomed by everyone in the House, and I think the trade union movement will have the opportunity which they seek of putting their case forward so that their members, in turn, can be satisfied that the whole matter has stood up to a very searching inquiry.

In view of the fact that the Minister has made this announcement and that there is general agreement. I move—

That the debate be now adjourned.
Mr. GAY:

I second.

Agreed to; debate adjourned until 16 March.

The House adjourned at 4.55 p.m.

MONDAY, 5 MARCH 1962 Mr. SPEAKER took the Chair at 2.20 p.m. WAR SPECIAL PENSIONS BILL

Mr. S. L. MULLER (for the Chairman) brought up the Report of the Select Committee on the Legislative Effect of the War Special Pensions Bill, reporting the Bill without amendment.

Bill to be read a second time on 6 March.


First Order read: Third reading,—Additional Appropriation Bill.

Bill read a third time.


Second Order read: Adjourned debate on motion for second reading,—Group Areas Amendment Bill, to be resumed.

[Debate on motion by the Minister of Community Development, upon which amendments had been moved by Mr. D. E. Mitchell and by Mr. Bloomberg, adjourned on 1 March, resumed.]

*Dr. OTTO:

Mr. Speaker, it will be impossible for me to follow the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher), who spoke on Thursday night, in his flights of fancy and the roundabout ways he traversed before actually arriving at the Bill under discussion. In a theatrical manner the hon. member tried to creat the impression that he was speaking from conviction, but in the final result he only uttered generalities and proved that he, like most of his colleagues, had not studied the Bill and the clauses at all. The hon. member said that Clause 22 contained the kernel of the Bill and launched his attack mainly against that clause, as other of his colleagues also did. The hon. member alleged that in terms of this clause the Coloured voters who have the franchise at the moment will be deprived of it, that they will be disfranchised. But the Coloureds who have the vote will not be affected by this. Clause 32 contains no indication of any kind that the Coloured vote will be taken away, and nowhere else do I find any such indication. But the hon. member. and also some of his colleagues, criticized the Bill on the basis that the more developed Coloureds who had perhaps already served on a town council or city council would really feel insulted at having to serve on a consultative committee, or in other words, that a developed Coloured community would be insulted to have to begin at the first stage, the consultative committee. In that regard he was also assisted by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), who even said that the developed Coloureds would not be satisfied with political gains. These remarks and this criticism of hon. members proves to me that they have not studied the clause concerned. A non-White town need not necessarily start with a consultative committee. Allow me to read Clause 22, which contains the new Section 25bis. I refer here to sub-section (3), which reads as follows—

If after consultation with the Administrator concerned and consideration of the report of the Committee appointed in terms of sub-section (1), the Minister is of opinion that it is desirable that a local authority be established for the area in respect of which the investigation was made or for any area within it, he may in writing direct that a local authority of a type specified by him be established for such area within such period as he may determine …

I emphasize these words, for the information of the Opposition, that a local authority of a type specified by the Minister may be established. The hon. the Minister will surely use his discretion as judiciously as possible. If he finds that a community is already developed, it is perhaps necessary to start on the basis of a management committee. Hon. members must realize that the establishment of consultative committees wherever necessary, and of management committees wherever necessary, is the definite essential prerequisite for the establishment of a local authority or of an organized local authority. In their dislike and suspicion of the Bill, it seems to have escaped hon. members of the Opposition that they are really pleading only for a small section of developed Coloured people in the shadows of Table Mountain. Their pleas are only for the thin layer of the cream of the Coloured population in so far as development is concerned. This small percentage is not even properly representative of the Peninsula, and the further one goes into the interior of the Cape Province and the Free State with its Coloured population of 25,565, the further one penetrates into Natal with its Coloured population of 43,093, and the further one goes into the Transvaal with its Coloured population of 105,217, the more undeveloped the Coloured population is on the whole. An Act is surely not passed to cater for the interests of a small percentage of people; it must cover the whole group. Do hon. members no realize that there are still tens of thousands of Coloureds in other parts of the Cape Province, and tens of thousands of Coloureds in the other three provinces? Every town and city in the Republic has its Coloured population, and most of them are an urban population. The percentage of the Coloured population in the Cape Province who are urban is 60 per cent, in Transvaal it is 89 per cent, in Natal 85 per cent, and in the Free State 55 per cent. Near Durban three areas have been proclaimed for Coloureds, and 40,000 Coloureds live in the Johannesburg magisterial area. Pretoria, e.g., has a Coloured population, according to the 1960 census, of 7,805. Why did hon. members wax so lyrical about the injustice which will be done to the Coloureds, particularly in the Cape Peninsula, and why did they not also make a plea for the Coloureds in the other provinces? Why did Opposition speakers from Natal and the Transvaal deliberately avoid speaking about the municipal franchise for Coloureds and Indians in those provinces? Why did we have only a vague and negative argument from the official Opposition, instead of a tangible, practical or positive recommendation in regard to voting rights for Coloureds and also Indians in the three northern provinces? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who now represents a Transvaal constituency, this hon. member who is the leader of a “strong” party, with “strong” in inverted commas, did not plead at all for the non-Whites in the Transvaal. He did not tell us what he would do to extend the franchise in terms of this legislation. No, together with the official Opposition he complained about the injustice done to the really small group of Coloureds in the Western Cape. Sir, in a debate like this the large whole must surely be covered if one is to be reasonable. In so far as I have knowledge of the Coloured and Indian community in the Transvaal—and I refer particularly to Pretoria—in the past there has not even been an organized vigilance committee or an organized ratepayers’ association, or any organization which would serve as the mouthpiece of these communities. Self-appointed leaders sometimes try to cater for the interests of those communities, but with selfish motives. I am convinced that firstly, in a newly established town, particularly in the northern provinces, such bodies must first be established before the first statutory body, namely a consultative committee, can be established. In fact, that is the pattern of development of any White community before a health committee or a town council—I am referring to the Transvaal now—is established. That is also the step taken in the newly established Indian township Laudium near Pretoria, viz. the establishment of a ratepayers’ association which acted as the mouthpiece of the Indians when negotiations had to be conducted with the City Council of Pretoria.

I want to refer in pasisng to the amendment of the Opposition, the vagueness, negativeness and hollowness of which have already been exposed by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller). I just want to add that the hon. member obviously just made a plea for the maintenance of the status quo here in the Cape Province, which actually is nothing more than a gesture of token representation. The Opposition is actually pleading that this unsatisfactory situation should continue. And they were unable to offer any alternative or make any practical and constructive recommendations.

I should like to refer briefly to the speech of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). We know the policy of her party, and we know that it is progressively liberal. During this debate she stated her standpoint in regard to this matter as follows—

Instead of racial grouping and discrimination, there should simply be regional planning.

We, on this side of the House, of course, differ drastically and diametrically from the standpoint of her party, seeing that we believe in parallel development, but we at least admit frankly that she has a standpoint. Despite the events in Africa and the present developments in Northern Rhodesia, that party still remains blind. Also in its attitude towards this legislation this party is on the broad road, as I see it, the broad road leading down hill, not only for the Whites, but also for the moderate Coloured groups, which include the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians, the people who realize that the policy of this party will lead to the domination of a Black proletariat under the leadership of some dictator or other, of which we already have various examples in Africa. No, I think this party should rather change its name from “Progressive Party” to “Precipice Party”, because it wants to lead South Africa over the precipice.

I should like to refer also to another accusation made by hon. members opposite, and here I refer to what was said by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), an hon. member to whom I like to listen, because he always tries to adopt an objective standpoint. But in this case I cannot agree that his standpoint was objective. He said this—

This Bill places the Minister in the position of a complete dictator regarding questions of where local authorities are to be established.

He repeatedly said—

It gives the Minister full power to sweep all over the provisions of the Bill.

Various other speakers joined him in this attack and used this argument against the Bill and the Minister. The hon. member for Houghton also spoke about “government by regulation”. This slogan in regard to dictatorial powers which a Minister and his officials are alleged to take was observed by me when I came here as a comparative stranger last year in connection with proposed legislation. The hon. member for Ceres has already proved conclusively that the hon. members’ fear is unfounded, seeing that the Administrator of the Province concerned will be consulted in everything. It is unnecessary in this regard to repeat the sub-sections concerned. The new Section 25bis repeatedly refers to the function of the Administrator in regard to investigation which has to be instituted as to the desirability of establishing a certain type of local government. The power of a Minister to make regulations is an old and firmly established practice, and if hon. members study the legislation of this Government and that of the United Party they will find several examples of ministerial powers which were even more far-reaching than those being granted here. Despite the fact that the Opposition is so concerned about these wide ministerial powers, it is also a fact that the task and the powers entrusted to the Minister here are quite different. There are so many bodies which have to be consulted that in practice it is really impossible for the Minister as such to act really autocratically.

An important aspect which the Opposition has evidently missed is that the Minister only takes powers—and he does so in consultation with the Administrator—for the establishment of the preparatory stages, i.e. the consultative and management committees. In other words, the Minister’s task and his powers are merely of an administrative and executive nature. The Minister definitely assumes no powers to make regulations or by-laws for local authorities. In this regard the local authority falls under the jurisdiction of the Administrator of the province concerned, as is the ordinary practice in the case of White communities. I should like to point out, and it is important to do so, that the Group Areas Board, which handles the planning, and the Development Board, which deals with the development, although they are now organs of the Department of Community Development, still remain independent boards. The statutory independence in the exercise of discretion by these boards in matters in which they have to advise the Minister is not affected. The composition of the Development Board will also be more balanced, and persons who are experts in particular spheres will be appointed to it. In this regard I should also like to suggest to the Minister appointing a person who has experience and knowledge of the practical working of local authorities, particularly with a view to the establishment of such local authorities.

In regard to the allegation by various members of the Opposition that various of these clauses are unjust and will lead to hardship for the persons affected, because their properties are or will be affected, I want to prove the opposite. Clause 29 (h) briefly amounts to this: that properties which are affected merely because of occupation after the coming into operation of the Act, will not be dealt with as affected property if the owner within the prescribed period requests the Board in writing that it should not be dealt with as such. Apart from the fact that this measure will eliminate unnecessary, cumbersome administration, it will also eliminate possible dissatisfaction and litigation. I allege that this clause is particularly conciliatory. I want to refer also to Clause 39 (b). This clause empowers the Board, with the approval of the Minister of Finance, to make ex gratia payments—donations, repayments—and also under certain circumstances to grant certain rebates. That this clause is particularly conciliatory and that it is in the public interest requires no further demonstration.

I also regard Clauses 47 (a) and 47 (b) as clauses which are conciliatory. The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell), if I remember correctly, said that these clauses would harm the affected people. I just want to say generally that the principle of reasonableness definitely applies in these clauses and all the other clauses, and that those principles are not affected. In Clause 49 (d), which deals with fruitless expenditure incurred by an owner on his affected property, and also in Clause 50, which refers to compensation for expropriation, I notice definite conciliations and also elements of protection. Those hon. members do not want to recognize this conciliation. Nor do they want to acknowledge the fact that, right throughout this legislation, the principle of fairness applies. In fact, they do not want to recognize the merits of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, there are also clauses which make concessions to local authorities. I refer in this regard to Clause 42. This clause provides that where a local authority is given delegated powers by the Development Board, or formerly by the Group Areas Development Board, for specific areas, such area or areas may by proclamation be regarded for purposes of the exercise of these delegated powers as an integral portion of the jurisdiction of such local authority. Such an area can then also be developed more rapidly, because money from the general fund may be used for its development. The City of Pretoria will be grateful for this amendment and for this concession made in the Bill. Also the area of Eersterus, where a Coloured township is being built in Pretoria, will become an integral portion of the jurisdiction of Pretoria. That is a difficulty which the City Council of Pretoria experienced in the past. The City Council of Pretoria has already taken over the delegated powers of the Group Areas Development Board, and I just want to say in passing that it is the only city to have done so. There are in fact also two towns in the Transvaal which have taken over these powers, viz. Rustenburg and Ventersdorp. As the result of the taking over of delegated power, the building of those houses for the Coloureds is proceeding very fast in Pretoria. The City Council handles that machinery and we have the co-operation of well-disposed Coloureds. I want to say that agitators originally tried to influence the Coloureds to their detriment in respect of gradual removal, but those people have already realized that their residential areas are too small and unhygienic, and they wish to leave those slum areas.

It was very significant in this debate that few speakers, if any, made any mention of the fact that this Bill will also apply to Indians. This Bill contains no suggestion that it refers only to the development of Coloureds and Coloured areas. At Lenasia near Johannesburg there is a large project in progress in regard to the removal of Indians and the provision of housing. The Department of Community Development is itself handling this development and bearing responsibility but it is making use of the machinery of a sister department, the Department of Housing. In Pretoria, where the City Council took over these delegated powers, the development made very rapid progress. Approximately half the Indian population of 7,227, according to the 1960 census, have already been settled at Laudium. The greater majority of the Indian population are in needy circumstances. That is what we found in Pretoria, and I think that is the pattern right throughout the Republic; they are in need and they are tenants and they are being exploited by the well-to-do Indians who lease hovels to them at a high price. In Pretoria the position was that the rich Indians practically owned the poor Indians body and soul. Some of these capitalists and exploiters were agitators who with the assistance of White agitators and inciters bitterly opposed the removal of the Indians to more spacious and more hygienic residential areas. Just as the Opposition wants to maintain the status quo, so the rich Indian and the agitator also want to maintain the status quo for the sake of the economic and political gain they hope to derive from it. Is it not for these very people, or these groups, that the Opposition is actually pleading by opposing this legislation? The Indians in Pretoria. with the assistance of a few well-disposed leaders and a sympathetic City Council, have escaped from the stranglehold of the prosperous exploiters, and as fast as houses have become available in that new area they have occupied them. They are now living happily where they have been resettled, and they are no longer dependent on the slum bosses. They have already established a ratepayers’ association which acts as their spokesman. I want to mention that they themselves requested that every Indian should be given only one building site and one house, so that rich Indians would not again be able to harm them through speculation and exploitation. I also want to say that the agitator type of Indian has lost his hold on the Indian community of Pretoria, and I also take it that the Indian National Congress, which is definitely leftist, will no longer receive much support from the resettled Indians. As I have said, the Indian community in Laudium is very happy, and any person who doubts that can go and investigate for himself. I take it that is also the case in Lenasia.

In Durban there is also a housing scheme in progress comprising 20,000 houses. Durban has an Indian population of 231,385, according to the 1960 Census. I want to predict— and with that I wish to conclude—that to the extent that separate townships for Indians are established there and elsewhere, to the same extent will the influence of agitators and inciters and of the Indian National Congress diminish, and the Indian will appreciate the well-meant attempts of the Government and will also recognize in this Bill a means of obtaining a well-organized local government which will be able to serve those communities in a positive way, and will not be the instrument of exploiters and agitators.


This legislation which we are considering is the counterpart to the old Senate Act of unlamented and unpleasant memories. Whereas the old Senate Act was brought into being and designed to remove the parliamentary voters from the Common Roll, this Bill is designed to separate the municipal voters and to create separate rolls for Europeans and Coloureds. This is therefore a counterpart to the old Senate Act.

Sir, I hope you will permit me to deal with the allegations which were made against the City Council of Cape Town and also to prove that the underlying reason for the introduction of this Bill is nothing but fear of control of White municipalities by the Coloureds. That is the basic reason for the introduction of this legislation, and I say therefore that it is nothing but political hypocrisy for the Government to tell the people that the Government now offers them some Utopia, some municipal magna charta of municipal government.


Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “hypocrisy”.


I withdraw it. May I say “political deceitfulness”?




Very well, I will bow to your ruling, Sir. But I say that it is unfair to let the Coloured people believe that they are receiving something from this Government as a gesture of goodwill and that it is the intention to uplift them.

Mr. G. F. H. BEKKER:

But that is so.


You are only sowing suspicion.


I say it is unfair to give them the impression that it is the Government’s intention to uplift them in municipal administration. The only reason for this legislation is fear of domination.




The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) who now says “nonsense” was the speaker who actually blew the Government’s case sky-high in this House. He should be complimented upon at least being honest and telling this House the reason for this legislation.


He let the cat out of the bag.


The hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) in his unwise manner first started to let a small cat out of the bag but the hon. member for Moorreesburg let the whole tiger out of the bag; he gave us the whole history, and if there is any doubt whatsoever in the minds of the hon. members, particularly those from the north, what the basic reason is for this legislation, let me quote to them what a very good Nationalist and a very good Administrator, the late Dr. du Plessis, said about this question. Let me quote what a very good Nationalist, and I believe a good Administrator, the late Dr. Otto du Plessis, said about this question. I quote from an article which appeared in the Cape Times on 12 May 1959, and I would like hon. members to listen very carefully, because this is confirmation of what I am saying—

Du Plessis Fears Coloured Control of City.

He was addressing the annual congress of the Cape Provincial Municipal Association at Port Elizabeth, and this is what the late Dr. du Plessis said—

Coloured ratepayers would eventually govern Cape Town and also gain predominance in some other municipalities unless separate councils were established.

Please note “unless separate municipalities are established”. That is the reason for this legistion. Dr. du Plessis said—

The only possible solution was to give the Coloured people their own local authorities where in the course of time they would have their own town councils and be able to administer their own affairs.

There is another point I will deal with later, namely where Dr. du Plessis perpetuates an untruth about the City Council of Cape Town—

Tens of thousands of Coloured people were denied the municipal franchise to-day because the municipalities levied weekly instead of monthly rent for the council-built homes they inhabited.

Completely untrue of course.


But you were there yourself and you know that it is true.


I will prove that it is completely untrue, and I hope the hon. the Minister will then accept that it is an untruth. But Dr. du Plessis continued—

This was done for two reasons: Financial control, and as a means of preventing Coloured people from gaining more control in large city councils for fear of the friction it would entail. Do not let us be dishonest. It is no secret. I know of cases where non-White city councillors have actually been unseated in this way.

I don’t believe that to be so at all. We know of no case of that kind—

But I have to warn you this entrenched position will not exist for ever. Financially the Coloured people are growing stronger and they will not tolerate this position for ever.

Tell us the story about Rondebosch and Athlone?


Dr. du Plessis continued—

The only positive solution is to give the Coloured people their own local authorities where in the course of time they will have their own town councils and be able to administer their own affairs.
He said there were 200,000 Coloured people in the Athlone complex of residential areas, near Cape Town. Within two generations, with the gradual application of the Group Areas Act, about 500,000 Coloured people would reside in this area.

If there is still any doubt about the reason for this legislation let us listen to what he said further—

The choice with which we shall be faced is either this Coloured city will eventually govern the European City of Cape Town, or each will govern itself, without any friction and in a spirit of co-operation.
Common sense dictates that there should eventually be separate municipalities for Europeans and Coloured people in the Cape Peninsula. This development in Cape Town was in a lesser degree also taking place in other large cities and towns of the Cape Province.

In other words, here is confirmation that we cannot allow (according to the Nationalist Party) the Coloured people to remain on the same roll with the Whites in the municipalities as it is to-day, because they will gain control of these councils. Therefore we must separate them. I say that is the basic reason.

I would like to deal with this question, because it has been stated by the hon. members for Malmesbury, Moorreesburg and Parow and others, and it has been said throughout the length and breadth of South Africa, and it has infiltrated into every Nationalist constituency throughout South Africa to the detriment of the Municipality of Cape Town that the City Council of Cape Town changed the tenancy of their tenants from a monthly to a weekly basis, in order to disqualify them.

*Mr. G. F. H. BEKKER:

Is that not true?

Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

They did so right from the start.


It is completely untrue and, Sir, I want you to give me the opportunity of once and for all, in fairness to the City of Cape Town, to nail this untruth. Mr. Speaker, about 40 years ago, the first housing scheme was started in Cape Town. Many have been completed since, and many of the tenants paid rent by the week. They always had the franchise. Those who paid rent by the week always had the municipal franchise, and I want to ask these clever young gentlemen and the hon. the Minister to tell us the reason why they lost their vote. I challenge anybody here to give me the reason why they lost their vote. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, when these people who paid by the week lost their vote. and under what circumstances? I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he knows. These people lost their franchise as a result of a judgment of the Supreme Court.


So what?


The allegation was that we disfranchised these people by changing the rental from a monthly basis to a weekly basis and that in that way we as the City Council of Cape Town deprived them of their franchise. But that is not correct. They had the franchise while they paid by the week.

Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

You people first changed the ordinance.


I am reading now from a memorandum in the case of Kramer v. The Revision Court of Port Elizabeth (1945 C.T.D.). The memorandum says here—

It will be recollected that the effect of the judgment in the case of Kramer v. the Revision Court of Port Elizabeth was that— apart from other considerations—those occupiers of immovable property vested in or belonging to any municipality who do not have the right to continue in occupation of such property for a month, cannot be the occupiers of immovable property “liable to be rated” within the meaning of Ordinance No. 22 of 1925 and consequently cannot qualify as municipal voters in terms of that ordinance.

The City Council of Cape Town at no time disfranchised its voters. They had nothing to do with it. It was a court judgment. But this untruth is spread that we deliberately disgranchised the Coloured people by changing the basis of their tenancy. Far from the City Council of Cape Town wanting these people to lose their vote, they immediately took steps to try and have them restored to the roll.

Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

Tell us who changed the ordinance?


A sub-committee was then appointed of the Housing Committee of the City Council of Cape Town …


How many members of the City Council of Cape Town were provincial councillors in 1951?


I will deal with the hon. member very effectively just now. A sub-committee of the Housing Committee had been appointed to report upon the proposal. Hon. members who really want to know the true position and who have been misled up to now by these untruths, must listen to this—

A sub-committee of the Housing Committee was appointed to consider and report upon the proposal that the present agreements of lease in operation in respect of the council’s sub-economic housing schemes, should be converted from weekly tenancy to monthly tenancy to enable the tenants of these houses to qualify as municipal voters.

In 1946, immediately after that judgment I have referred to, the City Council of Cape Town’s Housing Committee took steps to try and get them back on the roll and to get their votes restored by trying to comply with the ordinance and making them monthly tenants. Then they referred the matter to the Finance Committee who at least had the decency to refer the whole question to the Cape Municipal Congress, and this was the resolution adopted by the City Council of Cape Town—

That this council’s delegates to the forthcoming meeting of the Cape Province Municipal Association be instructed by way of mandate to support the restoration of the status quo in regard to the enjoyment of the municipal franchise by occupiers of municipal houses and buildings as existed prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kramer v. Glendinning and Others (Port Elizabeth Municipal Revision Court).

In other words, we as the City Council of Cape Town took immediate steps to try and have the status quo restored, the status quo which existed prior to that decision in the Supreme Court. They referred it to the Congress of the Cape Provincial Municipal Association and there the motion was rejected. The Cape Municipal Congress rejected the motion. And, if I remember correctly, in 1946 the majority of delegates to that congress were already Nationalists. All attempts by the City Council of Cape Town to rectify the position created, as a result of that judgment, were frustrated by the Cape Municipal Congress. The City Council of Cape Town left no stone unturned. They went to the Administrator, and the Administrator then gave them certain advice.


A Sap.


That does not matter, the facts speak for themselves. They went year after year, as far as I know, but in 1947 the matter was again brought up at the congress. They did not leave the question alone for one moment. They wanted to have these people restored to the roll, and in 1947, two years after the judgment, they again went to the congress, and this is the memorandum—

The Cape Provincial Municipal Association, at its congress held recently in Kimberley, at the request of the Administration, considered the question whether the law should be amended so as to provide that the tenants of municipal houses should have the right to vote. The congress by 71 votes to 36 decided to reply in the negative.

The majority of the delegates, being Nationalists, rejected the motion.


What right have you to say that the majority were Nationalists? You are making wild statements.


Listen to this—

One of the points made by the delegates in the debate on this matter was that if a change were made in the present law relating to the right of the occupants of municipal houses to vote, there was every possibility that it would cause certain municipalities to reconsider whether they would proceed with the erection of any further national housing scheme.

That was what was decided.


Just tell me, who had the majority in the Provincial Council at that time?


As far as I know, the United Party.


And you were there?


Yes, the United Party had the right to alter it, and the City Council wept through the recognized channel, the Cape Congress.


What power have they got?


You could have changed it in the Provincial Council?


Sir, the City Council of Cape Town left no stone unturned to try and have the status quo restored. And I say now that hon. members who henceforth say that the City Council of Cape Town deliberately changed the tenancy from monthly to weekly in order to disfranchise these people, are telling the greatest lie ever told.

It is quite true that the question can be asked why the United Party, who were in power in the Provincial Council, did not change the ordinance. But why did not the Nationalists since 1954 change the ordinance, because since 1954 they have been in power in the Provincial Council? In 1954, instead of trying to change the ordinance, the Nationalists did not change the ordinance as they should have. No, what they did was this: They started by every political trick, every political chicanery they could think of, to get rid of the Coloured voters from the Common Roll. They did not want to restore the vote, although they had the power. What they did was, they deliberately tried to disfranchise every Coloured person, every Coloured man and every Coloured woman, and the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden), whom I tell publicly that he is regarded by the Coloured people as their arch enemy in the Cape Province, came forward with a motion to disfranchise the majority of the Coloured people by moving—

That this council requests the Administrator to introduce an ordinance which will provide for the introduction in the Cape Province, as has been done in the other provinces, of the parliamentary voters’ roll for the election of councils’ board of local authorities.

The effect of this would be that instead of restoring the status quo, as the City Council of Cape Town desired to do, to further disfranchise all the Coloured women on the roll and 80 per cent …


May I ask the hon. member a question? He tells us what the members of the Nationalist Party did in the Provincial Council when they were in the majority. Will the hon. member please tell us what the United Party did in 1946 when they were in the majority and when the hon. member himself was a member of the Provincial Council? What did they do to put the Coloured man back on the roll?


The United Party, correctly in my view, were guided to a great extent by the decision of the congress of the Municipal Association. (Laughter.) I will prove to the hon. the Minister, who now laughs, that every Nationalist Administrator since 1954 when the Nationalist Party came into power in the Provincial Council, was guided by the decisions of the Cape Municipal Congress in all matters of importance. Hon. members need not laugh, that was the procedure. But this hon. member who now talks about the Coloured people brought in this motion which had the effect of disfranchising every Coloured woman who was on the municipal roll, and 80 per cent of the Coloured males. The then Administrator, the late Mr. Olivier, actually brought in an ordinance to give effect to this and the ordinance was put forward in 1956, two years later, but the hon. the Administrator found it impossible to make that ordinance workable and so he withdrew it, and that is what is going to happen to this Bill because it is completely unworkable, it is not wanted. I want to ask hon. members who are impartial in regard to this question to say whether they now accept the position as I have indicated it.


You have so spoiled your own case that nobody can accept it.


The hon. the Minister is so tied up with his own importance in regard to this Bill, he is so completely devoid of any other way of thinking than that he must get this Bill through, that as a matter of fact I heard a rumour that the hon. Minister will get the first decoration since the establishment of the Republic for piloting this Bill.


You certainly will get the first decoration for talking nonsense!


The hon. member will get a V.C. Of course nothing so English as the Victoria Cross. He will get the Verwoerd Citation for piloting this Bill through. No one has earned for himself the complete lack of confidence than this hon. Minister as far as the Coloured people are concerned. They never believed that this Minister, a Cape Minister, would be a party to disfranchising the Coloured people and depriving them of the municipal franchise by this type of legislation. I do not want to talk about the Group Areas Act.


No, that is not under discussion.


No, Sir, we are dealing with the amendment of the Act. I want to say as a representative of the Coloured people, that we reject for the reasons which I have given, and because we know the basis upon which this legislation has been framed and introduced, namely, not to give the Coloured people any further rights in their own areas, not to give them municipalities where they can rule over themselves, but to give them lesser rights in the municipalities in which they live. Mr. Speaker, this whole legislation which deals with franchise is unworkable. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has in mind that Coloured people will in future not be able to vote for divisional councils, because the divisional councils in the Cape are elected on the municipal rolls? Will he allow Coloured people to vote for divisional councils? And what about the school boards? Today’s school boards are elected on the basis of municipal rolls. I want the hon. the Minister not to funk this question: Is he going to lay down that no Coloured man shall serve on a school board?


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


Sir, with respect, that forms part of this Bill. It envisages special Coloured municipalities, and if the municipal rolls in those Coloured areas will not be available to vote for school boards, the hon. the Minister must say so. To-day, we have very excellent Coloured men serving on the Cape School Board and they are elected by the free vote in all the municipal areas. Is the hon. the Minister going to tell the Coloured people that they cannot serve on school boards and they will not be able to vote for school boards?




Mr. Speaker, I finally want to deal with this Section 25bis, under Clause 22. In that section the hon. the Minister is creating a dictatorship. The hon. the Minister is sweeping aside all known rules in regard to municipal administration. For the first time in the history of South Africa, the Administrator will be subject to the dictates of the Minister, and from what we see now, rather a little perky and cheeky Minister.


Order! The hon. member must not be so personal.


I withdraw that Mr. Speaker. This clause says—

The Minister (only after consultation with the Administrator) if he is of opinion that it is desirable that a local authority be established for the area in respect of which the investigation was made …

Then he, one man, can decide. We are asked to pass a law giving one man the right to say that there shall be a local authority or there shall not be a local authority, and further that it shall be of the type that he says it must be. It does not matter what anybody else says. He will specify the type, and (listen to this)—

The Administrator concerned shall thereupon, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law contained, take or caused to be taken all steps which are necessary for the proper establishment for that area of a local authority …

How can any government expect any House of Parliament to pass a law giving one man the complete authority to establish a local authority or municipality on his own initiative and upon his own terms and in the way he wants it done? It cuts across all known concepts of municipal administration.

Then there is the question of the money which the City Council of Cape Town has spent in those areas. Is the hon. the Minister going to refund to the City of Cape Town all the money it has spent in the area of Athlone, for instance? Is he going to tell the City of Cape Town: “I am cutting Athlone off from your municipality. I shall create my own municipality”? In that case is the Minister going to refund to the Cape Town Municipality all the money it has spend on roads, water, electricity and other facilities? Is the City Council of Cape Town to lose all that money? We have no evidence that there will be any financial relations between the area cut off and the mother municipality. The Minister should tell us; the City Council would like to know whether they are going to get a refund of the money they have spent. It may be millions of rand. I wonder whether the Minister of Finance realizes the financial implications which can flow from this Bill. I think, Sir, that we need far more information. I think the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) will deal with the other matters and I will merely say to the Minister in conclusion that he must not be surprised, nor must any member of this House be surprised, to hear that we reject this Bill. We reject it because it is a diminution of rights. It is a severence of the Common Roll. We say there is no justification for it. We say that it won’t work. There has been excellent co-operation on the City Council of Cape Town between the Coloureds and the Whites, so much so that for 12 long years the Chairman of the Pensions Fund of the City Council has been a Coloured man. Coloured Councillors have served as chairmen of the Market Committee and of the Health Committee with distinction. There are fine people who have learned municipal administration in the City Council of Cape Town. I want to pay tribute to the manner in which the Cape Coloured people have co-operated and worked with the Europeans in the City Council of Cape Town for the benefit of the City of Cape Town and for the advancement of the City of Cape Town. I reject this Bill.

*Mr. G. P. KOTZE:

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) was for so long a member of the City Council of Cape Town, from what I can infer from his speech, and he has regaled this House at such length with the merits or demerits of the City Council of Cape Town that I will now by-pass it and deal with it later.

Now, if one thing has become clear to me in this debate it is the conflicting standpoints adopted by the parties on both sides of the House. From it has crystallized the actual trend of thought of hon. members opposite, and also the significance of the Bill before the House. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on having succeeded in bringing a Bill before this House which has such a wide scope and which in practice will point to a new direction.

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on having succeeded in disposing of such a great task in such a small time. I also want to congratulate him on having laid down in this Bill, within the framework of our Government policy, the principle which offers the Coloureds the opportunity for developing towards local government and the opportunity of gaining experience of organization, so that he can develop in the sphere of administration, which will be the initial stage of the later development for which he will later be responsible within the limits of our policy, a policy which has already been set in operation by the hon. the Prime Minister in the form of the Union Council for Coloured Affairs and with its proposed development into a Coloured Cabinet. In the same way the White man started in 1836 with municipal councils and eventually ended as members of a Cabinet, namely those who were fortunate enough to reach that stage because they had the talents —and I say that in the same way this Bill is now providing that the Coloured can follow the same road as the Whites did. It is not a case of being afraid of the Coloureds. This Bill falls within the pattern of the policy of this Government. This Bill brings the opportunity and the encouragement to Coloureds who aspire to become leaders. Now one knows that amongst the broad masses it is not everyone who is interested in the government of the country, or in the organizational side of the community. That applies to the Whites and to any race in the world. There are only a few who have such interests, and this Bill not only offers the opportunity but also serves as a stimulus to the talents of leadership which are lying dormant in our Coloured community. It is a Bill which opens the way to the Coloured masses, and I am of course speaking relatively. In the past this opportunity was offered only to the chosen few. The hon. member for Boland had much to say about the City Council of Cape Town, and there we have an example. For how long have the Coloured voters been qualified and been in the position to be put on the voters’ roll, and what was the position this year still? What is the percentage of Coloureds who got so far, not even to mention the percentage of Coloureds who are on the municipal voters’ roll—it is only a small number compared with the mass of the Coloureds.

This Bill deals with various aspects of the stages of development of the Coloured, just as there were stages in the development of the White man. It will be put into operation to assist the Coloured and to bring him into touch with local government, and give him the opportunity to attain his ambitions on his own level under the guidance of the White people —I repeat, with the guidance of the White people, by consultation with the Whites and with people in his own community. I shall come back to this in a moment in regard to Clause 3. We have a practical example in Clause 3 where the activities of the Department of Community Development are described. Under the previous law these same functions were fulfilled by the development boards—the Coloured Group Areas Board. This task is now being taken over by regional officers of the Department of Community Development. And in this long process of selection, of determining the borders of areas which must be zoned in group areas, there is quite a lot of administrative work, and in this long process of sifting the Coloured receives the opportunity to prove that he has talents, and to come to the fore. That is so. it was so in the past and it will be so under this Bill. We cannot get away from that. All this administrative work is now being given to the Coloureds so that they can develop gradually and the man who has qualities of leadership will come to the fore in this way. Who are the people who will come to the fore? They will be the people coming from the Coloured schools and the Coloured churches, who have had enough education to he able to show what they are capable of in the organizational field, as well as in the management of their own affairs. It was so in the past, that when we pushed the Coloured to one side he achieved most. We had it in our education system, which to-day is in the hands of the Coloureds. At first only a few of them were principals of schools but to-day we find that in almost all the big schools Coloureds are at the head. In their spiritual life we had the same thing. We still do not have enough Coloured clergymen because they could not be trained. Where we segregated the Coloured, he showed what he was capable of. Compare that with instances where he had to work together with the White man as, e.g., in the municipal councils. What is the position there? Now we are doing the same under this Bill; we are pushing the Coloured to one side and giving him an opportunity for training by commencing with the local authorities. We give him the opportunity to develop and to be trained on this long road and eventually to have the prospect of becoming a member of the Cabinet.

In the course of the arguments here it has often been said that the Coloureds are frustrated. The hon. member for Boland also spoke about frustration. When one now comes with a Bill like this to give it to people and you offer a person an opportunity to participate in the organization of his own area, as will be the case here, and he is given the opportunity to show what he is capable of, then one is surely granting an opportunity to such a person to express himself so that he need no longer feel frustrated. In this long process we are creating an opportunity for the Coloured to be able to work. Hon. members opposite had much to say about opportunities for work for the Coloureds last year. The hon. member who mentioned it particularly is not here now and I leave it there. But in this development of the separate communities posts must be created; there must be post offices and police stations and if there are people who qualify for it they will be appointed in their own areas to work amongst their own people. That surely provides employment. This is a Bill which appeals to the self-activity of the human being. That is one of the basic principles of the education system. Here the Coloured receives the opportunity to serve, to get rid of his inferiority complex. We as Whites know that a small child, if he has achieved something by himself, feels very proud and it stimulates him to do greater things. It creates self-confidence. That is precisely what this Bill does in the case of the Coloured. It gives him an opportunity to develop his creative powers for his own benefit, for the benefit of the community he serves and of the country in general. Surely it is not the task of the White man in South Africa to carry these people with us for ever? Surely they must learn to help to carry the burden, or else what was our function towards these people in the past? If we have to drag them with us for ever, and if they cannot develop and grow, and if they cannot become independent enough to bear the burdens the White man has always borne for them, then we have not trained them properly.

Great emphasis was laid here on the dictatorial powers the Minister is alleged to be given, but I just want to show that the powers the Minister has are not so dictgatorial. Section 25 and Section 25bis indicate the continued close co-operation between the Provincial Administrations and the Central Government, between the Minister and the Administrator, each with his own respective staff. There will be consultations on every detail and it will be very unfortunate if ill-feeling should arise between the Department with the Minister at its head and the Provincial Administration under the Administrator. Then the position will become untenable, because success depends on cooperation between the two. And that is provided for in Clauses 25 and 25bis.

But now I want to come to the so-called dictatorial powers the Minister is alleged to be given. What are those powers really? It is the appointment of certain people to certain posts. But is it not the case that in the present school boards people are nominated by the Administrator? Is it not a fact that in the Divisional Councils there is still someone who is nominated? Is it not the case that in connection with hospital boards the same principle applies? Does not the secretary have various powers in our State Departments? It appears in our legislation almost ad nauseam. [Interjections.] Hon. members do not think of that, that one may even be prohibited from drinking water, but they surely have never needed water. But this principle is embodied in various Acts of the White people; it runs throughout the local authorities for more than a century. I want to appeal to the Minister to retain that example in the case of the Coloureds. Even though they attain independence, there must always be representatives nominated by the Minister or the Government. It is the same principle which is embodied in the local governments of the Whites. These are supposed to be the tremendously dictatorial powers given to the Minister!

But, Sir, I want to deal with a few of the remarks made in the course of the debate. It is unfortunate that I have to refer to it because I do not like doing so. But in such an important body as this one cannot allow such things to pass unnoticed. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) said here, “They will lose their self-respect”. That is a very serious accusation. What is the norm by which the hon. member measures self-respect? Is it the same state of affairs that we had in the City Council of Cape Town? Was that clothed with so much respect that people who for decades had had the franchise constituted such a low percentage of the voters on the voters’ roll, and that an ordinance was violated to such an extent that one did not want to have anything to do with it? Is that the norm by which the hon. member measures self-respect? This is a Bill which does nothing else but give the Coloured the opportunity to grow and to develop along with the White man, and how can the hon. member describe it as so inferior that the Coloured will lose his self-respect if he takes part in it? It is suggesting to the Coloured that he should be afraid of participating in the application of this Bill. The hon. member also spoke about frustration. I have already dealt with that.

Then the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) complained terribly and carried on and, as we say, he called on rag-tag and bobtail to witness that the Minister did not mean what he said, that he was deceiving the people. He said the Coloureds do not want this Bill and will not accept it. I almost asked where the hon. member got the right to say that, because that same member on 18 January 1961, in Col. 7759 of Hansard, said: “Every time somebody approaches a matter practically he is called an agitator in this House.” Where can one find a Bill which is more practical than this one, and one better designed to serve the object with which it was introduced? I would have expected the hon. member—I am sorry he is not here now—to have welcomed this Bill and to have defended it, but he complains. But it is not difficult to follow the hon. member in his contortions. I have here a report dated 1953, when he still belonged to the United Party, which shows that at a meeting in Parow, together with Mr. Mushet, he behaved very peculiarly. He was asked about these very voting qualifications—this matter in regard to which he complains so much to-day and which is so much abused in the municipal system. When the people questioned him he said—

Of course you know what generally happens if a Coloured on the platteland were to enter a police station to be registered as a voter. He would more likely get a smack in the face than anything else.

That is now a thing of the past and he need no longer object to it. The United Party then published a pamphlet in its propaganda campaign, on which appeared the words—

Vote U.P. and guarantee a White South Africa.

What was the hon. member’s remark to the Coloureds about that? He said: “Guarantee a White South Africa”, how foolish, mean and unfortunate. The position is that the hon. member is opposed to any guarantee of a White South Africa. That is the underlying reason. I want to read what a White person said in this regard, and then I want to ask hon. members opposite what their alternative is. They got up one after another without giving an alternative. Must we close all the Coloured schools; must we close all the Coloured churches? Why do the English-speaking people not allow Coloureds in their schools? The private schools have the opportunity, but why do they not do it? But every measure introduced by this Government to train these people is regarded as subversive and oppressive. I want to suggest the alternative to those hon. members. When in all the years during which they were in power they had the opportunity to lay down the principles of this Bill, they did not do so. It was left to this Government to give the Coloureds all the facilities. Those hon. members complain because a thing is not there, and as soon as the Government provides for it, they attack it. They create a problem and then they attack it.

But last year a significant request came from the hon. members opposite. It is recorded in Hansard, Col. 6715, that it emanated from an hon. member of the Progressive Party. He said—

Nothing under the sun which we can do will satisfy the Coloureds before we go so far as to put them into the position where they can do things for themselves which will make them realize their human dignity.

And then later—

But he insisted that he himself should have a say in what is being done for him.

This is precisely what this Bill does. It complies with their request, but nevertheless they are not satisfied. Hon. members must therefore understand that one does not always know where one is with the arguments emanating from that side of the House. With the pattern being followed in Central Africa, with the note being heard there, not from Afrikaans-speaking people but as experienced by English-speaking people, I want to quote here from an article in the Cape Argus

The lights are going out all over Africa, but the Republic of South Africa does offer hope to those Europeans who wish to preserve the way of life which has been built up by the White man in Africa.

Now I ask those hon. members: What is your share in this picture painted by an English-speaking person from Rhodesia? What do they want as compared with what is happening in Central Africa to-day? Surely the road is no longer obscure; surely the choice is easy. We can see how matters are developing. I am very serious, Sir, when I say that the road must be just as clear to hon. members opposite as it is to me. Now we ask: Has it not become time for the hon. members opposite to stop talking at cross purposes; must they not stop it when the writing is already on the wall? They are surely South Africans just as much as I am. They should also share in the constructive thinking and building which we are doing on this side of the House. We expect hon. members opposite not to shirk their share. Whether they talk, or whether they criticize, the course has been chosen, and we shall continue, as the poet says—

Wie laak, mag laak.
Wie prys, mag prys,
Daars net te swyg
En aan te stryk
Daars werk!

I want to appeal to hon. members that in these times in which we live they will not say bend and burst in connection with legislation, but say bend and modify. We are modifying, and when we get to the Committee Stage they can help modifying and make a positive contribution for the sake of our happy co-existence in this country. As the poet expresses it—

Kom lê jou hand in myne, vriend,
Dan word ons skouer die ysterklip
Wat ru en bankig
Stuk op stuk gestapel
Die hegte skans wat trou bewaar
Die oog, die hand, wat brandwag staan
Oor een beminde naam,
Een eer, een trou, Suid-Afrika.

It has become obvious from this debate that the hon. the Minister is using his junior team. He introduced the Bill himself and he was immediately followed by three party, or ex-party, organizers. Since then we have not had one of the old guard of the Government party coming into this debate. I have turned over in my mind why this should have happened. I think there are two very definite reasons for it, Sir. I think the first reason is that this Bill was thrown upon his own people in the same manner in which it was thrown upon us. with little or no time to consider a measure of such importance. I believe that his own people have been in the same difficulty that we have been in, in considering it. It is a very complicated measure, as the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has already said. It is not easy, Sir, to come along and study a Bill of this nature in less than seven days when the Minister himself has had some seven months in which to consider it. I think that legislation of this nature should be before us for a longer period of time before it comes up for discussion in this House. But I think there is another reason why some of the old guard have not come into the debate. I think the reason is that the very nature of this Bill is an affront to the democratic principles to which they and we are accustomed. They have definitely refrained from coming in, Sir. [Laughter.] The Government side might well laugh at this, but the fact remains that we have not had one of the older members of that party take part in this debate. I am very pleased to see that because …


You are not the last one to speak.


I do not think that enters into it; this debate has already been going on for a long time. Surely to goodness some of the more senior members of that party would have come into this debate had they been interested. It is very gratifying to see that they still have ingrained in them some of the feelings for democracy which their forefathers taught them. I take that as a very good sign for the future, but I think it is shocking that this particular debate should be conducted entirely by what I call the Minister’s junior team.

I am not going to comment on those speakers who have spoken before me one by one, excepting for one. I want to come to him in particular, and I am very sorry that the hon. member is not here at the moment. I refer to the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller). Because, apart from party organizers, he was the only member outside that particular sphere who came into this debate as one of the first five speakers from the Government side. It was rather interesting to notice that he had to resort to quite a fantastic misquotation to try to make a point. His point was this, that in 1950 the hon. member for South Coast, amongst others, actually supported the Group Areas Act. He quoted from Hansard to prove his case. But of course he misquoted very badly and when he was challenged by the hon. member for South Coast, to read the following line, he made all sorts of excuses and wriggled out of doing so. I am going to read that line and then I am going to give you the set-up. I think the House owes this to the hon. member for South Coast, just to clear up the position. The debate from which he quoted was a debate which took place in 1950 on the Group Areas Bill when the present Minister of Finance was Minister of the Interior. The member for South Coast was referring to a Commission of which he was the chairman which was appointed to go into this very subject in so far as Natal was concerned. Let me quote his words—

I hope the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) will give me the courtesy of allowing me to make my speech in my own way. I am not opposed to the principle and so there can be no misunderstanding on that point. Let me say at once that as far as the principle is concerned we in Natal have accepted this principle. I refer again to this document.

The words in the last sentence are the words which the hon. member for Ceres particularly left out, and I am very surprised that a member of his standing and his training as a lawyer should have resorted to this kind of trick to try to make a point. I think it is a very poor show that in a debate of this nature such methods have to be resorted to to try to make a point in favour of the introduction of this Bill.

I have tried to make a study of the Bill, to try to see exactly what it will do and what it is all about. I do not intend to touch on the question of franchise in regard to the Coloureds, because I think that has been reasonably dealt with and it will be dealt with again in the Committee Stage. I have tried to follow in my thoughts what will come as the result of the Minister having these powers granted to him and imposing them on existing local authorities, because I think basically that is the mechanical problem with which we are faced at the moment. In thinking this over, I have tried to take it point by point and I would like to put some of those points to you, Sir, as they occur to me.

The first thing is that by the introduction of this Bill it becomes obvious that the door has been closed to discussions of any alternative methods of bringing about what the hon. the Minister is trying to achieve now; in other words, he, in consultation with the Government, has decided this will be the method by which the Indians and the Coloureds will be handled in our community, and for good or for evil that is the method to be applied. In the first place I think that is a very bad point at which to start. Then I would like to come to how this whole thing started. I cannot get it quite clear in my mind, because in 1960 the hon. the Prime Minister made a statement to the Coloured people in which he said that the Coloured urban areas must be developed as soon as possible “by a positive housing programme” and must be converted into self-sufficient committees under their own local government, controlled exclusively and elected by Coloured persons. I think that is the basis on which this whole thing started, with that statement by the Prime Minister. This particular statement, made in December 1960, does not envisage, as I see it, any transitional period. In other words, the statement is one of haste in which the Prime Minister obviously envisaged, at the time, setting up local authorities, and having done with the whole matter. But here we have this Bill that is before us now, and the Minister’s approach seems to be quite different. He seems to want to tackle this problem in stages. For example, he envisages a period of development and transition and the creation of advisory boards as an instrument by which autonomy will be reached in the initial stages, and eventually management committees, and later on local authorities. In other words, what the Prime Minister originally held out to the Coloured people is not being implemented in this Bill. I think the reason for that is this, that the Prime Minister spoke of his ideological views without first considering whether the method was practical or not. I think that is borne out by the statement he made a year later, in December 1961, after the Departmental Committee had sat on this matter and had, I suppose, to some extent consulted with certain local authorities, if you can call it consultation. In this statement the Prime Minister was quite blunt in what he said. He said—

Die Kommissie wat ondersoek instel na plaaslike besture vir die Kleurlinge neem as basis die standpunt dat dit moet groei. Dit kan nie sonder ervaring begin nie. Spreker is egter haastig en kan nie sien waarom die eerste Kleurlingdorpe nie binne ’n jaar tot stand kan kom nie.

In other words, a year after his original statement the Prime Minister more or less accepted that fate had decreed that you cannot bring these things to bear in five minutes, but he was still impatient and could not see why they should not be established within a year. So I think in their efforts to get something done, in view of the Prime Minister’s statement, the Departmental Committee and the Minister have had to look for a method to implement it. I think that is where they went wrong to start with, because it appears to me, on studying this Bill, that they have tried to adapt largely the precedent of the urban Bantu Councils set up, to be adapted for the Coloureds and the Indians. I think. Sir, that if you follow this through you will see that is largely the case. I want to go into it to see what snags we will run into, and what the possibilities are of setting these bodies up in the proper manner.

First of all, the mere creation of advisory boards as a means of progress towards autonomy, as far as this is attainable—I do not know how far it will be—and the idea to delegate increasing powers to these advisory boards in time, and entrusting to them the functions of being the elected representative of the people and to delegate to them plenary powers as time goes by, and as they become more able to discharge these duties. Eventually the Minister considers, obviously, that this will lead these people to a stage where they can become an independent local authority. Let us have a look first at some of the dangers of advisory boards. First of all, advisory boards have proved, as we have seen them in this country, to provide first of all, platforms for agitators and discontented people. I think the Minister will accept that. I believe he will accept that this is inevitable when bodies with official status but little authority and responsibility are set up. Then you get the snag that they refuse to support unpopular measures that are brought before them, such as increasing taxation. Why should they support these unpopular measures when they themselves do not have to raise the taxation? Then there is no curb on their criticism of the higher body in which the real authority is vested, the local authority. There is no way of limiting their criticism because they have none of the responsibilities. I think, fourthly, the progress towards autonomy will never be fast enough, at whatever pace the Minister likes to set. I have already indicated that I think these bodies are based on the precedent of the Urban Bantu Council and I would suggest at this stage that there is doubt whether this is a good precedent, or whether the urban Bantu councils themselves establish a valid precedent for establishing similar bodies for either the Coloureds or the Indians. I would like to put to the Minister a few points I have thought out in regard to this matter.

The first is that an elected body entrusted with the conduct of public affairs and the spending of public money should first of all be made responsible for raising that money. I think that is one of the first essentials the Minister will have to face. If this is not done, as happens with an advisory board which does not raise the money, it is too easy to make extravagant proposals to woo popular favour. You run no attendant risks. I think that is another aspect the Minister will have to face. This is an inherent risk in the gradual approach to autonomy and the increasing delegation of plenary powers, especially when the cost is borne by the parent local authority, and I think the Minister will have to keep this in mind, too. I believe that this risk is inherently greater if the people do not approve of the system you are applying, as I think is the case here.

I would also like to remind the Minister that in the case of the urban Bantu councils the funds—and I say this particularly because I believe they have used the urban Bantu councils as the basis for this set-up—are derived from the Native Revenue Account and not from a common rate fund. I think if we begin at that point we can show the Minister that he is in for a lot of headaches and he will traverse a very rough and thorny path in establishing these advisory boards, etc. It is impossible to create a similar position for either the Coloureds or the Indians. In other words, all the funds necessary for the development of their urban areas will have to come from the rate fund which they provide, unless the Minister has some other source from which he hopes to provide it, and I do not know what it can be, because they are the people who will have to provide their own rate fund. There are always economic difficulties in the way of creating self-sufficient, autonomous urban authorities. The Indian and Coloured groups will not have highly rated properties. They will not have a large proportion of commercial and industrial undertakings situated in their areas, and it has been proved time and time again that the larger part of the rate income of a local authority comes from exactly this type of property and building. Without those, these people will have quite a job in raising rates on a sufficient scale to finance the undertakings which they will have to finance. This suggestion I have made is confirmed by the Prime Minister’s proposal that these areas are to be developed by a “housing programme”. I think it is very important in considering these matters, to realize that these areas for the Coloureds and the Indians will not be created necessarily by the excision of a large part of an existing industrial area or commercial area. They will be developed anew, according to the Prime Minister, by a “housing programme”. That rather confirms what I have said, that the properties to be rated will be of comparatively low value. I think it will also be accepted that the Coloureds and Indians for a long time, anyway, cannot hope to achieve the economic development of which the White people are capable. In other words, these people are going to find it very difficult to finance their own development in separate areas, and that will be one of the most difficult problems the Minister will have to face in carrying out this scheme. Let me give just one or two figures to illustrate what I am trying to get at. I take Durban as an example, and the latest figures I have been able to get. I cannot tell the Minister what year they are for, but I can assure him they are the latest figures. I am referring to the per capita income of the various groups. The average per capita income for Whites in Durban is R562. That is seven times that of the average per capita income for the Indian group, which is R80 per annum, and it is 4½ times that of the Coloured, which is R128. I believe that these figures will be reflected in the value of their properties and also in the rate income from those properties. After all, it is obvious that they can only afford to pay for a house which is within the means of this income, and they can only pay rates in proportion to this income. For instance, if an Indian with an average income of R80 has to pay R20 a year in rates on a property, that means he has R60 a year left on which to live and keep his family. I leave it to the Minister to work that one out for himself. The same applies to the Coloured group. On the basis that the Indian and Coloured areas are to be developed by means of a positive housing programme, as was indicated, and assuming that this will be an economic basis and not sub-economic—because I do not believe the Minister can embark upon a huge sub-economic housing scheme for these people —valuations and rate yield will be much lower than the average norm existing in local authorities as they are to-day. In other words, your over-all average income from rates must be very much lower than it is in a city like Cape Town or Durban where the population groups are mixed. I think the Minister must accept this, because it seems obvious to me. And if they are going to be self-sufficient in their own areas, it follows, too, that their rates will have to be substantially higher than in White communities. The fact that they will have to meet the capital burden of developing the areas means that they will have to meet it from the lower average valuation of the properties, and this in turn leads to higher rates. I think also that the Minister must realize that these areas will be developed by the local authority, not on the basis of their end point, but on the basis of what these people can afford to pay by way of rates, taken according to the existing rates in the parent local authority. That of course will have an effect at the end, which will increase considerably the amount that these people will have to pay. If the Minister is not careful, he will end up with a number of townships or local authorities for Indian and Coloured people which will have been developed by an existing local authority, and irrespective of the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé), who throws his hands in the air and tells us that this place has a rateable value of R1,500,000 and that has a rateable value of R2,250,000, and another one R10,000,000 that does not mean a thing incapable of existing economically. You have to get down to the basis of the working of a local authority. Unless you get down to the basis of the rates that are necessary to develop an area and the ability of the people to pay, I can assure the Minister now that he is in trouble with this scheme before he starts, because these people cannot afford to pay, at to-day’s costs, for the development of the services required. They cannot afford to meet the rates on their existing incomes. I have given the incomes in Durban, and obviously the position in the rest of the country will be fairly near that. With those incomes these people cannot afford to pay the rates not only to develop the new areas—I know in some cases parts of the area already exist, but they have to be developed and enlarged to accommodate all the people the Minister is going to put there. These people will have to pay not only the capital cost of developing the area and the services required, but they will also have to pay the rates to maintain it. In addition, there are interest charges which are considerable on the capital required to develop these areas. Let the Minister add all that up and see what kind of picture he finds. He will get more and more astounded as he goes into it. I have only just scratched the surface. I do not pretend to have gone into it thoroughly. If I had, I could give him a much more gruesome picture than I am giving now. But from what I see on the surface, having been connected with the administration of local authority, it is bad enough, and as the Minister goes into it more and more I think he will find more and more snags. It is for the very reasons I am advancing here, I think, that the Prime Minister has had to adapt his statement to meet the case presented by the Departmental Committee, because I am sure that the Departmental Committee of officials, who have to deal with the practical aspects of these things, must have found a lot of the snags that I have told the Minister about now. They must have found quite a number, to make the Prime Minister modify his original statement of 1960.

But of course that is not all. How is the Minister going to cope with this? He has only one way of doing it, as I see it. I may be wrong, but I believe that he will seek his answer through lower standards. And then I think he will be in more trouble still, because first of all in these schemes the Housing Board, over which he is also the Minister, lays down the standards for the accommodation for these people and if the Minister is going to try to trim those standards to meet the economic level under the self-sufficiency that is demanded of these people, he will be in trouble. If he does that, of course the difference at the end point between White local authorities and the Coloured and Indian areas will be so marked and there will be such a difference in the quality and type of the facilities and everything else, that the Minister will create another problem, namely, that the inhabitants of those areas will complain of discrimination, and he will create two groups of discontended people, the Indians and the Coloureds, who are already discontended but when they get housing of the type he can afford to give them, they will really be disappointed. I would like to remind him, too, that when considering whether he should lower his standards there are some standards which cannot be lowered, which cannot be whittled down to meet the shrunken purse that he has to build them with. I have in mind public health. You cannot have a lower type of public health in these new areas than you have in the White areas, so that you can save money. On the contrary, I should say that you will need a very much higher standard of public health in these new areas, with the under-nourishment and the health problems you will face there, than you would in the White area. So the Minister must not lean too much on being able to solve his problems by lowering standards for these people. The economics of self-sufficiency are going to pose a very considerable problem for the Minister in the development of these areas. Just in case the Minister uses the achievements of their urban Bantu council, the things which have been achieved in Natal, for example—we know that Kwa Mashu has been built and Umlazi is in the process of being built. The Minister might have the idea that he can throw these things at us as examples of achievements under the urban councils, the idea which is followed in this Bill, but let us consider some of the differences. First of all, in Kwa Mashu the Minister must remember that a third of the total cost of developing this township—and that applies to other Native townships throughout South Africa—was met by grants from the Native Services Levy Fund. In the case of the Indians and Coloureds there is no such fund to draw on, and so you will have to find some of the money from elsewhere, and that is going to be quite an undertaking. Secondly, coming from that fund, there was no payment of interest and the capital did not have to be repaid. So that made the establishment of these places much easier, and it considerably lightened the burden on the local authority and on the Government. The second point is that the cost of the houses in those areas was considerably reduced because it was insisted that they should be built by Native labour, at wages which could not possibly pertain in any other area of South Africa. In other words, I do not believe that it is going to be possible to apply the wage rates that were paid to the Natives in building their own townships to the Coloureds and the Indians in the development of theirs, so your wage cost structure is going to be very much higher indeed in the Coloured and Indian townships than it was in the Bantu townships, and in addition to that you will probably want a very much better type of house to house these people than you put in the Bantu townships, so those are two extra factors. We estimated in Durban that on just these three factors— a third of the total cost coming out of the Native Services Levy, not taking into account the payment of interest on capital, and the reduced wages for the Natives building them, —we reduced the cost of establishing these houses by 25 per cent, and in a big housing scheme that is an awful lot of money.

There is another factor that I think the hon. the Minister must take into account and that is in the urban Bantu areas, the whole of their transport is subsidized too from the Native Services Levy Fund. This is going to be a very important and a very big problem that this hon. Minister will have to face in the development of these Coloured areas. We dealt this morning with an item of R2,000,000 more for the provision of railways from Kwa Mashu to Durban, a comparatively short distance. If the hon. the Minister is going to be faced with these transport troubles in all these separate areas that he is going to establish, remembering that they are no longer the baby of the local authority to whom they at present belong, he cannot just offload the transport problems on to these local authorities, he has to see that these people get proper and efficient transport services to meet their needs. As I have pointed out, they are already overburdened with the cost of their houses and the rates they have to pay; in addition they will have to find money to transport themselves to their work. So I suggest to the hon. the Minister that transport is going to be another big snag in the efficient working out of this problem.

I would like to bring one other point into this, just while we are on the subject, and that is that the urban Bantu areas have another source of revenue which is peculiar to them, as the hon. the Minister will know, and that is the income from kaffirbeer sales, and now probably from hard liquor as well which will be sold to them, and which is a very considerable source of income indeed. Where does that go, Sir? A third of that goes to their welfare. recreation, etc. Two-thirds of the income from that goes to provide sub-economic houses; in other words two-thirds of the income from kaffirbeer goes to subsidize housing. I have not got the exact amount involved; I could have guessed but I would rather not because the hon. the Minister can find out the figures for himself. But this is a very big factor indeed and one which I think has made the difference between perhaps the success or failure of Native housing, and I would like to remind the Minister that he has not got this income to bolster up the establishment of Coloured and Indian areas under this particular Bill. [Time limit.]

*Mr. J. A. F. NEL:

If one has to listen to the speech of the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis), then South Africa will not develop, because the picture he paints is a very dark one. But people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. In the first place the hon. member said that no senior member on the Government side took part in this debate. However, only one front-bencher of the United Party entered the debate, namely the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell).

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

Just for ten minutes.

*Mr. J. A. F. NEL:

I shall deal with his speech later. Where were the hon. members for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk), Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) and Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw)? Why did they not participate in this debate? But I go further. There were only three Natal members on the side of the United Party who participated in the debate, namely the hon. members for Umlazi, South Coast and Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell).


The debate is not over yet.

*Mr. J. A. F. NEL:

The hon. member says the debate is not over yet. I know that the next figure to get up on their side, the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) will be the last speaker on that side. It was therefore only those three United Party members who took part in the debate, and it was only the hon. member for Umlazi who said something in regard to the Indians. None of the other members from Natal had a word to say about the Indians. Why not? Because they are afraid. They know that the voters of Natal want this legislation. This Bill has come as the result of a promise made by the Prime Minister in 1961, and that promise is now embodied in this Bill. The Prime Minister said that this was merely the first step and that it must lead to further development, and he said that Coloured councils should be established. I say this is a promise which was made by the Prime Minister and that promise is now being implemented.

But I want to come to the speech of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), because that was the only really worth-while speech which came from the side of the Opposition. The hon. member voiced criticism which was not always justifiable, but in any case she made a speech of high-standing calibre. She referred to the Cape Town Municipality and said that she was going to quote three experts, namely the Town Clerk, the City Engineeer and the Medical Officer of Health in order to indicate that it was impossible to have group areas development and governmental bodies. She called them three experts, but I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister has experts in his Department equally as good as the three experts mentioned by the hon. member. For example, the designing of the houses was done by Government experts; the sanitary amenities in those areas were planned by Government experts; the pleasant residential areas which were laid out were planned by Government experts. The hon. member now calls these three persons experts, and one of those experts, the City Engineer of Cape Town, says that care should be taken that typhus and enteric fever and all kinds of other diseases do not break out. That is all he could say in regard to these areas, and then he mentioned Croydon and Chicago and Minneapolis, and I do not know how many other places, where in the past there were epidemics. Is that now the argument of an expert? It is the very layout of these areas which will ensure that these epidemics do not occur there. Is that not the case in our Native residential areas also? Did we not there try to make conditions as hygienic as possible? But the City Engineer of Cape Town goes further and says—

The proposals to establish separate local government control for Coloured group areas are in conflict with the present world trend towards a combination of smaller local authority units into larger bodies in order to obtain greater administrative efficiency.

Mr. Speaker, that may be true of other portions of the world where one has a homogeneous population, but here in our country we have a policy of separate residential areas, and the only way to obtain that is the way in which the Government is tackling it. Then he says that Athlone can never become a separate residential area and that it will never be able to get separate local government. But let us compare that with the attitude adopted by the Municipality of Bellville. This expert of the Cape Town City Council says that Athlone cannot be developed, but the experts of Bellville say that Bellville South can be developed. That is what the report says, and why cannot it be said? And what is the attitude of Parow? Parow certainly has just as sound experts as the Cape Town City Council. Parow submitted a report to the Rossouw Commission and on page 64 of the report of the Rossouw Commission the memorandum submitted by Parow is set out—

The Council is of the opinion that the time has in fact arrived for the establishment of separate local control for Coloured group areas and in principle is in favour of it.

But listen to the sympathetic attitude adopted by Parow—

The City Council of Parow adopts the standpoint that if the Coloured area which is at present within the Parow municipal area has to become a separate local government area, it will be prepared in the beginning to assist it and to advise it in order to give the new local government the opportunity to stand on its own feet.

That is the sympathetic attitude adopted by Parow, and even Goodwood mentions the advantages connected to territorial segregation, and they mention four of five reasons in this regard.

So much for the experts mentioned by the hon. member for Houghton. But the hon. member also says that in places where the Common Voters’ Roll has been removed the tension has increased. That is true; she says that the tension increased where the Common Voters’ Roll was abolished, but let us see whether that happened in South Africa where the Coloureds are now on a separate voters’ roll. Is there more tension amongst the Coloureds now than before? Let us look at Rhodesia and Nyasaland. There the Bantu is on the Common Voters’ Roll. Is the tension there less than in South Africa? And then the hon. member says—

For every single case where a White citizen had to move, hundreds of Indians and Coloureds have been moved.

Of course many more Indians and Coloureds had to move than Whites because they were living in hovels, and now they have been provided with decent housing.

But I want to go further and make this allegation against the United Party, that they are not opposed to the group areas but they are against total separate development of areas, and they do not want separate residential areas. Whether those residential areas are established in terms of compulsive measures, as under the Group Areas Act, or whether they are established voluntarily, the United Party does not want separate residential areas. They talk about the hon. member for Moorreesburg, who is alleged to have let the cat out of the bag, but let us see what the hon. member for South Coast said. The hon. member for South Coast said that where two such groups live together, “the one will spill over to the other”, and he said that would cause friction and that one group would swamp the other. Surely that is also the case where separate residential areas came into being on a voluntary basis; then the one will also swamp the other group and friction will also arise. The difference under the Group Areas Act is simply that this Act ensures that swamping cannot take place, and therefore I think I am entitled to say that hon. members opposite do not want separate areas but that they still want to have this intermingling in South Africa. That follows from the speech of the hon. member for South Coast. But the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) also referred in this amendment to fragmentation. But if separate residential areas are established on a voluntary basis, surely that is also fragmentation? What is therefore the actual difference?

I now come to Section 25 of the Act, and I just want to deal with the last sub-section of that section. The sub-section provides—

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this section or any law contained, the State President may by proclamation in the Gazette at any time repeal, alter, amend or modify any law.

But this section must be read in conjunction with a following section, viz. Section 28, which provides for the franchise. It is quite clear to me why the Minister did this. There are certain areas which will already be fairly highly developed, and other areas which are less developed. Possibly in the course of time there will have to be a change in regard to the franchise qualifications. But now the Minister must first wait until Parliament meets. It is also provided here that “different regulations may be made in terms of this sub-section in respect of different areas”. Now the Minister will have to come to Parliament every time in regard to such an area. Why cannot he do it immediately by way of regulation?

Hon. members of the Opposition stated that there was no consultation. The hon. the Minister stated that he had informed the municipalities and the Municipal Association. I just want to say here that the Rossouw Commission issued a questionnaire to the various municipalities, and there was very little reaction to it from the Municipal Association of the Cape Province. On the contrary—and this is what the Rossouw Commission says—the Municipal Association of the Cape and the Association of Divisional Councils and several of the larger local authorities which have an appreciable Coloured population were also invited to submit memoranda to the Committee on the subject, but unfortunately no evidence and no memoranda have hitherto been received from these municipal associations and divisional councils, although a fruitful discussion took place with a deputation from the Association of Divisional Councils. That is what the Rossouw Committee says. The Minister states that in fact he did notify the divisional councils, and I wonder what their reaction was. This legislation is nothing new. Years ago it was already said that the Government would come forward with a form of local government for these areas, and now that it has done so, hon. members opposite condemn it without having studied the legislation properly. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) stated that the time available was too short to study the Bill properly. But they had a whole week in which to study the Bill, and in any case it is not as complicated as those hon. members aver. They discussed one thing only, and that is the possibility that Coloureds will no longer be able to vote in the White municipalities. The whole debate was concerned with that only.


The Bill was placed in their hands exactly a fortnight ago.

*Mr. J. A. F. NEL:

Yes, they have already had a fortnight to study the Bill, but now they say they did not have enough time, but, as I have said, they concentrated only on this one point the whole time.

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) tried to defend the Cape Town City Council here to-day and he advanced all kinds of arguments, but when this ordinance was amended in 1951 he himself was a member of the City Council of Cape Town and at the same time he was also a member of the Provincial Council of the Cape Province. He was one of the members who helped to get that ordinance passed, and after the Rossouw report was submitted in 1959 saying that the municipalities were making themselves guilty of manipulation, not one of these city councils reacted to it. Here a serious accusation was made against them, but not a single one of them appeared to defend themselves, nor did the hon. member for Boland defend them. Hon. members of the Opposition now intimate that this Bill is being introduced only as the result of fear. If that is so, why has Cape Town never had a Coloured Mayor? Would they be willing to accept a Coloured Mayor in Cape Town? Would Port Elizabeth be prepared to have a Coloured Mayor? Of course not. They will go to any lengths, but a Coloured will never become mayor in any city in South Africa. He may possibly become chairman of a subordinate committee of the city council, but he will never fill the highest position in the city council. He will, for example, never become chairman of the Municipal Association of the Cape Province, or of South Africa either. The Rossouw Commission deals with this very point and says—

At this stage the Committee must mention the fact that even those councils and councillors who in discussions stigmatize the whole idea of separate government as impracticable and even abhorrent, made it appear clearly that they would not tolerate non-White domination of their towns and cities.

This is the reply to that. The whole attitude of the United Party is of course negative, as they always are in connection with any Bill which is introduced. During this debate we have had absolutely no positive criticism from hon. members opposite. We only hope that when we reach the Committee Stage hon. members will abandon that negative attitude of theirs and adopt a more positive attitude.

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

During the past week I have listened attentively to both sides of the House. I listened attentively to the Minister when he explained the Bill and after that I listened to various of his supporters who tried to give further explanations of the Bill and I got the impression that these people were really sincerely trying to improve the position of the Coloureds. But I was disappointed when hon. members got up at a later stage and said that one of the reasons why this Bill was being introduced was that the White voters were frightened of the Coloureds. I immediately asked myself what the Coloured voter must think about that.


Who said that?

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

The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais)—and he cannot get away from that.


No, the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) said it.

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

What must the Coloured person think about that? The Minister who is responsible for this legislation says that the Bill is being introduced in the interests of the Coloureds and then his supporters come forward and they say that the real reason is that they are scared that the Coloureds will get the majority on the town councils. The one thing which I found pleasing and striking was the fact that so many hon. members opposite tried to boost the Minister sky-high. I could see that the hon. the Minister enjoyed it—had I been in his place I would have enjoyed it too—and then we had the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) who, in a wonderful speech, told us what a good and wonderful person the Minister was; but then he added that this Minister knew all the answers and I noted the Minister shrivelling up because he realized that the hon. member was now going too far because he did not know all the answers. Mr. Speaker, the person who knows all the answers as far as this matter is concerned has yet to be born.

But to return to the Bill itself, I personally led a deputation of Coloureds in October 1958 to the then Administrator, the late Dr. Otto du Plessis, to inquire what could be held out in prospect to them as far as their own Coloured areas and local bodies were concerned.


Hear, hear.

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

Yes, I did that because I am not one of the people who say that it is wrong merely because this Minister is in charge of this Bill, because a great deal can be said for this Bill. There are many good reasons why we should give our Coloured people their own local bodies. Had any member of this House represented the Karoo constituency, he would have known of all the reserves which we have there, and we have our local managements in those reserves which are more or less along the same lines as the bodies provided for in this Bill.


Are you going to vote for the Bill?

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

There are people who feel that there should not be any nominated members on those bodies. We have elected members on those local managements which have served their purpose well, and they are in the majority and there are nominated members as well, and they work quite well. I am not saying that they function perfectly because there is no local authority which functions perfectly, there are always difficulties.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Take Pretoria for example.

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

There is a reason, however, why I shall not vote for this Bill and I want hon. members to understand that very clearly. I want to view this Bill in the light in which the Coloured person views it. The Coloured person is the one, in the long run, who will be most affected by this legislation. The Indians of Natal are indeed affected by it and a small number of Indians in the Cape Province, but the first objection of the Coloureds and the Indians will be that these new bodies which it is proposed to establish for them will fall under the Group Areas Act. Whether we want to admit it or not the Coloured is against the Group Areas Act.


It will come under the Department of Community Development.

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

Whether it falls under the Department of Community Development or not, the fact remains that these amendments are being brought about under the Group Areas Act. That type of excuse that the bodies will be established under Community Development, will not be accepted by the Coloureds. I am sorry that this step is being taken under the Group Areas Act.


Why are they so anxious then to move into the group areas which we have developed for them?

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

Strangely enough it is easy to answer that question. Had we not dawdled for years with the proclamation of group areas, those people would long since have been in their own areas. Small and big municipalities who wanted to construct housing for their Coloureds and other less privileged sections have had to wait for group areas to be proclaimed. Those things could long since have been disposed of.


Do you merely want the law to be applied with greater expedition?

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

I am sorry, therefore, that this development is linked with the Group Areas Act. It would have been much better if separate legislation had been introduced to provide for these bodies. It would have given greater satisfaction to the people who are concerned in it.


But the principle remains the same.

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

Fortunately this Bill does not make provision for every person who gets up to speak for 40 minutes. I want to deal with a few specific points as I see the position and as the people whom I represent see it. If the same ideas which are embodied in this Bill, were put into effect more in the light of the Rossouw Committee’s recommendations, it would have given much greater satisfaction. What pleases me is the fact that in the introductory part of their report the Rossouw Committee says that the following persons, inter alia, came together in 1959. The then Minister of the Interior, Mr. Naude, the then Deputy Minister of the Interior, who was charged with Coloured Affairs, and our present Minister. They started with the work. Amongst others the present Administrator of the Cape Province was also present. Those people decided that they were going to appoint a committee and I think that Committee submitted a very, very fine report. That report, has been quoted at length, but the one thing that we are not told is the reason why the recommendations in that report have not been carried out, if the report is good and we are satisfied, the Coloured would definitely have been more satisfied had it been done naturally by the Administrator who has the power to-day to establish separate municipalities or urban areas or local boards.

I also want to raise a point in respect of which the Coloureds will not be satisfied, and that is the question of those rights that are being taken away from them. That is partly denied and I may be too stupid; I may be misreading Clause 28 (b) or misinterpreting it, but I take it that the object of that clause is that when a local board has been nominated or appointed or elected for a certain area, (that too is not clear at all, and if the Minister would give us more clarity as to how these bodies are to be appointed it would assist us greatly in getting the confidence of these people), as I read the clause, the position will be that when such an area has been declared and such a body has been established, a voter who is qualified to be a registered voter, but who lives in that area, will be deleted from the municipal roll of that municipality and his name will then appear on the Voters’ Roll of that local body. I think my interpretation is correct. You will have the case, Sir, of a person living in Athlone, for example. It may be that whole area will get one urban authority. The person in Athlone will be able to vote for the management board there, but as a taxpayer living in Cape Town, and as someone who is still exercising control over the money and the way it is spent, he will have no further say in the Municipality of Cape Town. That is not what worries me most, however. What worries me most is the fact that according to this Bill a place like Schotsche Kloof will be incorporated with Athlone—that is the natural conclusion to which you must come, Sir—the same as Walmer Estate. That means that the people who live in those areas will be able to vote for an advisory body which has no power in Athlone; they do not live there but they must continue to pay their taxes to the City Council of Cape Town. I think I am interpreting it correctly. I am also afraid that these bodies with which they are starting, these advisory bodies or management committees, bodies with certain powers and bodies which can make certain recommendations will merely be advisory, and the parent municipality may listen to them or it may not listen to them. What will the result be? You see, Sir, the tendency of this Bill and its object is that this body must produce the people who will at a later stage guide the full-fledged municipality. What happens now? Within a few years those people will be discouraged. They feel that they are worthless, that they cannot achieve anything, and then we shall have greater resistence to these bodies from those people, and I am afraid that because of that we shall not attain our purpose. As I have already said one can talk at length on this, but something which I find hard to reconcile myself with, and something which, in my opinion, is difficult to reconcile with the idea of democratic rights, is the position to which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. F. A. F. Nel) has referred, namely the powers which the State President will have. You see, Sir, you are placing the Coloured voter, the potential voter, before this difficulty that he does not know where he stands. There is a person the State President, who has certain powers and who will be able to say what his qualifications should be. He will be able to tell the one person that his qualifications are not high enough, different qualifications will be required in different places. I am afraid that although I do not think that is the intention, that will be the position in effect. I think the object of this Bill is really to try to help these people. But unfortunately there is a hitch when it comes to applying it. The Coloured man is a peculiar person. Had the hon. the Minister waited a little longer and had he been somewhat old-fashioned, the Coloureds would have approached him and said to him: “Mr. Minister give us these local authorities” and he would immediately have had a different spirit. They would have accepted them. But now the Minister comes along and hands it to them from above. I am sure that will cause resistance and that is not what I should like to see.


I do not wish to reply to the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down, because he agrees with this measure to such an extent that I want to be merciful towards him. If I reply to his leader and his colleague who spoke just before him, I shall, of course, also be dealing with him. You would have expected hon. members opposite who are opposing this measure, to have tried to refute the facts that we on this side of the House have produced and you would have expected them to have told this House what losses the Coloured had suffered or what losses they would suffer if this Bill were passed in comparison with the position in which they were when those gentlemen opposite were in power. We thought they would compare the position in which they were with the position in which they are to-day and the position in which they will be if this Bill is passed and in full operation. You would have thought that hon. gentlemen opposite would have discharged that onus, but all we had from them were generalities which are well known to us already, generalities which shy away from the truth. The last speaker once again proved that everything would have been fine, everything would have been all right, it only came from the wrong quarter. The Minister should not have done it, the Coloureds should have done it and then it would have been all right. Everything will be all right if it comes from the right quarter. That has been the trend of the speeches from that side. I would have liked to have taken them to task on every point raised, but I think it is right that I first point out where this Bill comes from, why it is before us today, and what its purpose is.

We have already felt the winds of change. It is not only the Prime Minister of England who has felt it. But unfortunately we are not Black. Had we been Black we would have welcomed the winds of change because that was something which was very welcome to the Black man. But unfortunately we belong to one of the three minority groups in this country and the winds of change have created a problem which we as the governing party must solve, a problem which, if solved, will guarantee and maintain the safety of all minority groups and that is why we cannot only take into account that democratic right to which hon. members so often refer and to which I shall return in a minute. We should also take into account the human rights of every group and of every race. Because we had to take that into account, because we were responsible for the safety of those people, it was necessary to evolve a scheme according to which we would be able to do so and according to which we would be setting an example to the world to prove that we were indeed capable of governing a country which was as multi-racial as ours without friction. We had to evolve a scheme and the scheme which we have and which we had when the British Prime Minister made his speech here, could not be used as a basis to continue to build upon, because had we continued to build on that scheme, the three groups, the three minority groups, would have been hopelessly endangered; they would have been hopelessly endangered had we applied the democratic system which all of us would like to see applied. That was why the Government put it this way: We are going to give these groups the right to develop themselves. Not an invective, as is hurled at us so often, but the right of every group to be itself and to development itself, a right to exist. We admit that and we agree with that. We thought that if we did not grant this right we would have to grant the other thing, namely the democratic right according to which the majority vote would have prevailed without considering the minority groups.

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Pelser):

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


Oh, Mr. Speaker, I would like you to give me a chance so that I can explain the points which have led up to this Bill. You see, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put it this way that the Government has evolved a scheme which fits into this Bill. Had that scheme not been evolved, this Bill would not have been before us to-day. What I want to do is to show how it fits into this Bill.


The hon. member must be quick in doing that.


It is difficult to be quick when you think of the speeches which we have had from the other side. But I shall abide by what you have said, Sir. Then we started to prove that we wanted to maintain those human rights. We started by placing Coloured affairs under the Department of Coloured Affairs. We established a Department of Coloured Affairs and that was the forerunner to this Bill. We established the Department of Coloured Affairs and it was strenuously opposed by hon. members opposite. We went from Coloured Affairs to a Deputy Minister of Coloured Affairs. We felt that the affairs of this separate group should be in the hands of a Department, a Department which could do their thinking for them and a Department which would not be obliged to think of other things. After the appointment of a Deputy Minister of Coloured Affairs, the Government went further and appointed a full-fledged Minister of Community Development, all forming part of the process of developing that scheme, the scheme of doing justice to every inhabitant of South Africa. Hence this Bill. Because it had become very clear that we could not apply democratic rights alone, without giving every group the right of self-development. The Minister has now introduced a Bill which gives the Coloureds the right of self-development. But hon. members opposite have not said a single word about that right of self-development. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis)—and I am referring to him at this stage because I shall not be doing so at a later stage—must be somebody who is very scared to go to bed, because many people had died in it before him, and the danger which he has outlined to us, the danger which awaits us, is the same kind of danger which you expect when you are scared to go to bed because many people had died in it before you. Surely we should not paint this blackest of black pictures when dealing with this problem, this problem of the three minority groups, namely the Whites, the Asiatics and the Coloureds. The Government has tried to evolve the scheme in such a way that justice will be done to each group, as far as their human rights are concerned, and according to this Bill the human rights of the Coloureds are recognized. But what have we had from the other side of the House? We had the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). I hold him in high esteem. I have been with him on tours; he is a great Englishman and a good Englishman, but when the hon. member had to defend his case and when he had to reply to the figures given by the hon. member for Parow (Mr. F. S. Kotzé), he looked in this direction with a pair of eyes that were intended to devour the hon. member for Parow, and he said that the figures of the hon. member for Parow were wrong. The hon. member for Simonstown then gave the correct figures. The hon. member for Parow had spoken about 1958 and he added that those were not the latest figures. The hon. member for Simonstown then looked daggers in this direction and said they were not true, the figures were wrong. What counted were not the figures but the facts. The facts were that only 7 per cent of the Coloureds were entitled to vote according to the figures. He drew attention to the low percentage. When we listened to the hon. member for Piketberg (Mr. Treurnicht) the following day it appeared that according to the hon. member for Simonstown himself the figure was 6 per cent and not 7 per cent. Is that an argument to be advanced by a grownup person, a front bencher and leader in order to state his case? I regard it as to insignificant that I would not have mentioned it. But immediately after having said that, the hon. member announced that they had unanimously appointed a Coloured person to the Town Council of Simonstown. I understand that. But that does not change the 6 per cent and the fact remains that they only sent one person. However, that remark was not intended for this House; the fact that a United Party constituency had sent a Coloured unopposed to the City Council was intended as news overseas. Is that the humanity which the United Party pleads for so fervently? Is that the humanity which prompts them to return to the Commonwealth? Is that humanity only 7 per cent or even 6 per cent? If you grant human rights to 6 per cent only, I hope I will not be a human being in that world where those people live, because I shall not even be taken into account. In that case, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) has said the 94 per cent will constitute the caste. And then the United Party boasts about human rights! In every speech that we get from the other side we are told about the misery which we will be causing the Coloured, the “hardships”. We have had numerous speeches since the hon. member for Simonstown has spoken, speeches to which it is not really necessary to reply. However, I should like to deal for a moment with the speech of the leader of the Coloured group, the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). He has, as it were, sung the swan song of the Coloureds, those people whom he represents in this House, those people who are treated so unjustly. What we are doing in this Bill is to step into the breach for those very people and the hon. member is going to be hard hit by it. Because at the moment it is only 6 per cent, and he is only fighting for 6 per cent. We are fighting for the whole community, this side is fighting for the entire Coloured community. By way of this Bill this side of the House wants to give every member of the Coloured community, a say in his own affairs and to recognize his right as a human being to exist, and to vote for his own people. But the hon. member and his town council give that right to 6 per cent only. There is no law, as the hon. member for Boland has said, but he has to be a taxpayer in order to vote. If there is no law, surely you make a law. And if you do not make that law you should not talk so much about human rights. You should not shield behind the 6 per cent and preach on human rights in this House. If you do that you are floundering in muddy waters. That is not fair, that is not honest. If those hon. members of the city council, members opposite, had risen to their feet once and said: “Look, the Coloureds of the Cape Province, or those in the vicinity of Cape Town, live in an urban area and fall under the by-laws of the city council, and we are now demanding human rights for those Coloureds, full human rights” I would have understood them. Had they demanded the vote for every person, I would have respected their speeches. But what do you think of the speeches which we have had from those hon. gentlemen, Sir? They reminded me of a beautiful white cloth hiding a black heart. A beautiful white cloth that is held up so that you cannot see behind it. 94 per cent of the Coloureds are being hidden behind that white cloth, and only 6 per cent are in front of that cloth. That is the attitude which hon. members opposite adopt. Then they come here and plead for the interests of the Coloureds! May I refer to hypocrisy? Or let me put it more euphemistically, we cannot be as unjust as all that. I do not want to be insulting, Sir, but surely we cannot be so unfair, merely because we are fighting the National Party Government, as to say one thing to-day and another thing to-morrow, merely to save our own skins. To-morrow 94 per cent of the Coloureds will be forgotten, those so-called sadly neglected people. Because they will be voting for a city council, will they not? I challenge those hon. gentleman to get up in a city council meeting or anywhere else and to demand human rights for the Coloureds in the urban area of the Peninsula, the United Party area. Let them get up and plead that should be granted to every Coloured person. I challenge those hon. gentlemen to do that. Not that I agree with that. I say it cannot be done. That is why we come with an alternative; that is why the Government says that if it cannot be done the Coloureds must be given rights in their own areas. Hon. members, however, want to blow hot and cold at the same time. They say that they want to give the right to elect a town council to 6 per cent only, because if they give it to more, they may be outvoted. I agree. That is why we say they should be kept separate in their own group, and each group should be given its own rights, and its rights and its freedom should not destroy the freedom of others. Everyone of us wants to be a free individual, and we are free. Hon. gentlemen opposite also say that we are only giving them a subordinate position. But every one of us is in a subordinate position. We are free in our homes, that is true, but because we are free in our homes we are not entitled to deprive anybody else of his freedom. We may be free to drive down the street, but another person is also free to cross that street. That is why we have to stop when the light turns red. We cannot do what we want. We have to bow to the authority that has been placed over us in the interests of the community in which we live. If we give the Coloureds their own area with their own boards, with their own vote, it will do away with that feeling of frustration, that feeling of humiliation and that feeling of being a caste which 94 per cent of them harbour. I take it that in the United Party city councils the vote will not be given to every Coloured person.


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


Mr. Speaker, I am there already. My challenge stands. When we talk about just treatment of the Coloureds in connection with this Bill, the right of the Coloured to be himself, I want to know from hon. members opposite, seeing that they are opposing our attempts to give those rights to the Coloureds as vehemently, with their whole being, whether if they do not agree with us, they will be honest and give full rights to the Coloureds in those spheres where they are in control. Is it wrong of me to say that?


The hon. member has already said it and he must return to the Bill.


I want to return to the hon. member for Houghton. It was not my intention to fight with her, nor is she present here to-night. But I really enjoyed it the other afternoon when she spoke and lashed her whip over the United Party. It was really so enjoyable that the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) was eventually lying flat on his back—he could no longer take the hiding she was giving him.


Order! The hon. member is again deviating from the Bill.


I am returning to it Mr. Speaker. But surely you cannot take everything away from me, Sir. I want to bow and bow deeply, but I want to agree with what the hon. member for Houghton said, although I also want to take her to task for the injustice which she is perpetrating. She talks against the Bill and she votes against the Bill. But have we ever noticed one grain of sympathy in the hon. member for the Coloureds in that she wants to give them the vote 100 per cent? If the hon. member is against us, if she talks against us and works against us, if she herself enjoys the human rights which she pleads for so fervently, and she would like to see other people enjoy those rights as well, she would be a true progressive. But anybody who opposes this Bill in this House to-day, but who is willing to allow the Coloureds to continue to live in the hovels which we see along the road to Bellville, she must forgive me if we do not attach much value to her speech. The hon. member for Peninsula said that they were not asking for much, they merely wanted to be left alone; and they merely wanted a higher wage. During the referendum campaign we were told that the people who supported the monarchy were the rich people the manufacturers, and the people who voted for the Republic were the poor people and the farmers. I do not admit that the rich people were on that side.


Order! The hon. member has again strayed away from the Bill.


I am returning to the wages to which the hon. member has referred.


Yes, but the hon. member is making a very wide turn.


I find it very difficult to travel in this House with only two horses, Sir. I have a big herd in front of me and I have to make a wide turn. I want to ask the hon. member, in brief, to ask those rich people those factory owners, whom he represents, to increase the wages of the Coloureds and that he should not blame the Government for it. He himself must make a start and increase the wages of his own Coloured employees. He says: Give a few more human rights; increase the wages and leave the Coloureds alone. Does the hon. member realize that means that they will have to continue to live in the hovels which we see around us? He, however, says that because he wants to oppose the Minister’s Bill. Perhaps the hon. member and the group to which he belongs can bring about an improvement in the wages of the Coloureds. If they cannot do that they should support this Bill. I challenge them to give full human rights to the Coloureds. This Bill as introduced by the Minister gives more human rights to the Coloureds, as I have explained. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I have covered a somewhat wide field but I am grateful to you for having given me the opportunity.


I am sorry to interrupt the proceedings; the House will resume at … [Laughter.]


Mr. Speaker, I can quite understand your slipping into a momentary error. Having enjoyed the anecdotes of the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Bootha) and having followed him on the road with his cattle I can quite understand that you momentarily got mixed up with the time.

At the beginning of the hon. member’s speech he said that he thought in this debate one should weigh the pros and cons that were being placed before the House and should decide on those pros and cons. I suggest, Sir, that has been done and that the onus in this matter is most definitely upon the Minister and the Government side, and that they have not discharged it. I would say that applies not only to the words that have been spoken in this House. They are important just as evidence is important, but what is often much more important than verbal evidence is the circumstantial evidence which surrounds a problem. And I suggest that the circumstantial evidence affecting this problem leads to a decision very much against this Bill. I shall touch upon one or two elements of this circumstantial evidence during the course of my speech.

I think it is true to say that there are some very involved clauses in this Bill. And notwithstanding what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) has said, nobody that I know of, has in fact attempted to unravel them to the satisfaction of us on these benches. I will touch upon that later.

I think the hon. the Minister’s handling of this measure throughout, shows his great nervousness in regard to its reception, not only here in South Africa but generally. I think it showed him nervous of its affects upon the interests of South Africa as a whole. I am thinking here of the fact that it seemed to me that he felt he must screw up his courage and get this measure brought before us rapidly and go through with it. In that connection I think the fact that the White Paper was not of very great assistance, the fact that we had relatively very little time to go into the complicated nature of many of the proposals, and indeed the Minister’s speech, reveal his nervousness. Because in the Minister’s speech, while he did throw some light on many aspects, as far as the most important ones were concerned, he rather seemed to leave it to us to feel out the thorny spots. I will come back to that slightly in due course. I think he realized that in this Bill the Government was treading very hard on the corns, not only of the Coloured people, but of the provincial authorities, of the municipal authorities and of others. I think he was endeavouring in his handling to tread as lightly as possible. I cannot say the same of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais). Whether intentionally or not, he did not hesitate to tread most heavily on the corns of many people. It has been said that he let the cat out of the bag. I think that is so, although that may have been the intention. But I think the cat certainly had to come out of the bag, because the whole purpose of this measure is to deal with the cat. In fact, I think the existence of a cat was foreshadowed quite some time ago in the Rossouw Committee report, because in that report, in paragraph 36, they say this—

“Although Section 25 of the Group Areas Act, No. 77 of 1957 …”

That is the Act as it is to-day before its amendment, apart from the 1961 amendments—

“… makes provision for the Minister of the Interior to establish separate governing bodies for proclaimed group areas and for the transfer to them of some of the powers and functions of the existing local authority, action in terms of this provision will in no way assist the position in the Cape Province.”

And Paragraph 37—

“Although this provision may perhaps be applied with advantage in the other provinces where the municipal franchise is limited to Europeans, any similar action in the Cape would not affect the present position of the Coloured in relation to his voting right and will also leave unanswered the question of the Divisional Council franchise.”

That, Mr. Speaker, was undoubtedly the cat, and that was the cat which had to be dealt with here in this Bill. And I think that is essentially a Cape cat. That is why we have had from the other side of the House speakers almost exclusively from the Cape addressing themselves to it, and I think that is why from this side of the House we have had the whole concentration directed upon the position of the Cape Coloured man.

In this matter I would like to remind hon. members opposite of a metaphor that they are very well acquainted with, the metaphor in the poem relating to the ox wagon and the thorn bush. Because I think in this matter we are seeing the remorseless march of the ox wagon towards a state within a state. Hon. members opposite will know that the poem goes something like this: “En eendag kom daarlangs ’n ossewa verby wat met sy sware wiele dwarsoor die boompie ry”. I am well aware how much that has meant to hon. members opposite; how they have felt it; how they have said it. I want to say that I think, though they may not appreciate it, there is quite something of that situation here in regard not to “een boompie” but in regard to quite a few. I think it applies not only to the position of the Coloured man in regard to his municipal franchise, but it applies also to the position of provincial government, provincial powers and municipal powers. Each of those objects can be likened to a small tree and this wagon is undoubtedly damaging them in a considerable degree. Though I do not doubt it, it is not the intention of the driver to do so. A careful examination of this measure shows that each one of those trees is in fact being damaged appreciably by the passage of the ox wagon in this case.


What about the orange tree?


The little orange tree will doubtless like the thorn tree grow great again and bring forth increased fruit. To deal with these trees, Sir First of all, we have had the tree of co-operative government here in the Cape in many municipalities in the sense that we have had the municipal councils under the leadership of the Whites, with the Coloured people having an important say in affairs. That has brought about a most happy situation and I do not think anybody denies that it has worked well. That activity of co-operation is to be injured by this.

Particuarly—and I come immediately to it —there is the thorn tree, which can be said to be the Coloureds, that will be injured in this. I think that the Minister and hon. members opposite have a fear that may be so. I think particularly Clause 28, by introducing Section 43bis (1) (d) will definitely disenfranchise future Coloured voters for municipalities. It is true that will not happen immediately but that it will happen once the management committees are set up and once that has occurred many voters will have their municipal franchise relegated to some vote in a management committee.

Now Mr. Speaker, I come to one of the points of circumstantial evidence which I suggest weighs strongly against this measure. I want to mention that nobody from the other side of the House has produced any evidence to show that the Coloured people want this measure or are even neutral about this measure. The hon. the Minister in his speech did not mention one word—I read his speech again—as to the attitude of the Coloured people towards this measure. As far as I know no attempt prior to that was made to consult them. We have not had a single word on the attitude of the Council for Coloured Affairs. That body, I would have thought, would have given us the benefit of its views and would have shown us what its attitude was. I can only conclude, in the absence of any reference to their attitude, since it is so material, that the probability is that they were against this measure. I regard that as a serious condemnation of it. Not only have we not had from that body, which has the blessing of the Government, but not all Coloured people, but we have not had any letters to the Press or in any other way, any indication that they support this measure. Indeed, I think it is clear that this measure has been introduced against the wishes of the Coloured people. That is a most serious condemnation of a measure which has been said by many hon. members opposite, including the last hon. member who spoke the hon. member for Rustenburg, to have been introduced in their interests. He said “ons veg vir die kleurling” —I think those were his words. The fact that this measure quite clearly at this stage is introduced against their interests, is a very serious criticism of it.

We know moreover, that very single member of the Coloured group representatives here is against this measure. Of course members opposite sought to neutralize that important fact by various arguments, but they are in fact unanimously against it. It cannot possibly be said by any stretch of imagination that they have any self-interest in being against it. You will remember, Sir, that earlier during this Session those same members earned the plaudits of the opposite side when they supported the Government in the establishment of a Coloured Development Corporation. At that time their opinions were magnified and praised; it was said—I think I am right in saying this—how sound they were in taking up this attitude. Now those same gentlemen are ranged quite unanimously against this measure and that, I suggest, is a serious condemnation of it. Then again we have had it said that the Coloured councillors of various municipalities feel their position and will in fact bless the Government if they were saved, as it were, from that situation. But there is no evidence that is so. Not a single Coloured councillor has come forward to say that and indeed the evidence is all to the contrary, namely that they are against it. Because when the City Council of Cape Town considered similar legislation they were unanimous against such a measure and undoubtedly all the Coloured members on that Council voted against it.

The justification that has been advanced by hon. members opposite, in so far as I have not covered it, can, I think, be said to have been limited to the following. Firstly, it was said that new opportunities would be created for the Coloured man. Doubtless that is the intention, but the impression which members opposite sought to create was that opportunities would be created which these people did not have to-day. It was said, I think by the hon. member for Gordonia, that there would be post offices and how they could become postmasters in charge of those post offices. Other members pointed out how there would be various municipal employees that could be Coloureds, and doctors and perhaps traffic cops and so forth. But I want to stress that position is very much the case to-day. There is nothing to prevent the Government from deciding to appoint a Coloured postmaster in Athlone if they wish to. I do not think there is anything to prevent a Coloured doctor being appointed to the Coloured hospital to be established in Athlone for Coloureds in due course, whether this Bill goes through or not. It is well known that there are opportunities in Cape Town now for Coloured traffic policemen, and they have done their work extremely well. So it is quite incorrect, I suggest, to say that this legislation will in fact create opportunities which do not exist to-day. Then it has been said that this legislation will create opportunities for experience in local government which, it is implied, is not there at the present time. Again I suggest that is wrong. Instead of opportunities for local government and experience in local government side by side with the much more experienced European, remaining open to the Coloured people, their experience is to be only among their own people and I suggest that it will therefore be far less valuable to them.


How many of them can get on to the Cape Town City Council?


Well, it is not to say that will not increase; that in the course of time there may not perhaps be a Coloured member on some Council or other. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) mentioned that they have a Coloured councillor at Simonstown. I know it is not very great, but it nonetheless means that there is a person there who is known to the Coloured community and who can act as a channel between the municipality and the Coloured community. It has worked and that is very significant.

It has been suggested that this is very largely being done to avoid friction. Well, of course, one does not want friction; one wants to avoid it. But I do not think, when one considers the history of local Government in the Cape and the peacefulness of affairs in those communities where the Coloured people are represented on councils and are ratepayers, that past history has been so unfortunate. I will later make a reference to that. It was said by members opposite that we over here are able in some way to prevent contact. I don’t quite know what that has to do with the question of this measure, but let me assure hon. members opposite that is not the case. During the first 18 years of my life I lived with Coloureds on two sides of me. I found that everything worked perfectly well. I got on with my business and they got on with theirs. I think in that connection it is well to bear in mind the adage of “live and let live”. I think my own experience is multiplied many times on this side of the House. There are probably far more mixed areas in the Cape Peninsula than in the farming areas from which many hon. members opposite come. Well, certainly there are no farms that I am aware of, or very few, which are farmed by Coloureds so that they will represent neighbours of hon. gentlemen opposite. But in a place like the Cape Peninsula we have Coloureds in many places, as is known. I am not making a plea for the continuation of that. I am merely saying that in fact it does not lead to anything like the friction which has been suggested, and in fact much more patience can be shown in these matters.

It is also suggested that the friction may be of the kind caused either by the presence of these Coloured people as members on the council or by all people (Coloureds and Whites) voting together for the same council. There again I say that the attitude of the largest city council in this sort of situation, the Cape Town City Council, is a very important answer to the suggestion of friction. They have in fact had Coloured people serving on their council much more than hon. members opposite have in relation to their local councils. The experience of the Cape Town City Council has been that it has worked well. They have had difficulties, but they have coped with those difficulties. In fact they wish to retain the present system in the interests of harmony and good government in their area. While I do not doubt that hon. members opposite believe that there will be friction, they cannot in fact speak and give examples of where friction has occurred. Because as I have said, it is more a fear that there will be friction.

Hon. members opposite made a lot of the fact that the numbers of the Coloured voters registered in municipalities where they had the right to be registered, were few. I would suggest that those figures in no way prove their point. Before I get on to that let me say this. Those figures are low throughout the country; they are not confined by any means to the areas where the United Party hold the Parliamentary seats. Those figures are common right through the Cape Province. I suggest that the proper deduction to make from that is that the Coloured people have been prepared to accept the leadership of the White man in civic affairs. That is a most important fact. It is one that we should be proud of, grateful for, and which we should preserve. I have no doubt that anything that does injury to that will be most unfortunate.

While I am dealing with the various points of justification that have been raised, I would like just to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Rustenburg in his speech a moment ago. He said they were fighting for the “selfbeskikkingsreg”—I think—the right of self determination for the Coloureds.




Well, if it was not he, various other members have spoken about “selfbeskikking”. I think the motive behind it is the right of self determination. That is very fine. But I ask them, if they are bearing that so very much in mind, to remember that the Coloured men and their womenfolk are 1,500,000. When they are pleading so strongly for him to have every right in that direction in civic affairs, are they also considering giving him a proportionate say in the affairs, at national level—that his population of 1,500,000 warrants, as against a total White population of 3,000,000? Because if they are not thinking of that at all, it seems to me that there is a certain hollowness in their pleas, however eloquent, for this right of self-determination.

I have mentioned two thorn trees which I believe are being damaged by this measure and I would like to touch upon a third, that is the powers of the provinces. It is generally accepted in South Africa that local Government is the sphere in which the provinces are supreme. The Rossouw Committee, upon which I have no doubt the hon. the Minister has relied to quite an extent in framing this legislation, have this to say in so far as the position of local Government is concerned—

38. The whole problem …

And I should have said in advance that what is being dealt with in this chapter of the report is the franchise—“the present participation of the Coloured community in local Government”. And in the last paragraph of that section this appears—

The whole problem is in any event exclusively one affecting local Government which should fall under the control of the province, and the Committee is convinced that action in terms of these provisions will only cause confusion and duplication in the Cape Province. The problem can and should be solved by the Provincial Council.

The Minister’s approach and that of the Government is entirely the opposite. Its approach is that the matter is the affair of the Minister and I suggest that thereby it is doing injury to that tree.

I think it was the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) who referred to the fact that the Cape Municipal Association had not forwarded a memorandum of its views to the Minister when he called for it. Let me tell the hon. member what in fact is the attitude of that Association towards this measure. I read from a memorandum dated 24 November 1961. On page 7 it says this—

Representatives of the Cape Provice Municipal Association are unanimous in urging that control should be vested in the Provincial Administration as is the case of all local authorities at present. To divest control of some areas of the province from the Provincail Administration will be the surest means of destroying the co-ordination and orderly development of the province as a whole and will lead to all manner of complications in local Government.

So that their view is very, very clearly stated in this regard.

I think it is not incorrect to say that the effect of this measure in relation to these particular aspects with which the Administrator is asked to deal, is to reduce the Administrator to the role of a departmental official. And I think that is a very unfortunate fact. I think it is damaging to the provincial system. Then there is the fact, which we gleaned from the one sharp outburst of the Minister, that Natal is apparently to be coerced into accepting this pattern of local Government. I think that too is most unfortunate and I sincerely hope that greater reliance will be placed on leadership than on force in the handling of our various peoples.

Then there is a fourth thorn tree which I suggest is affected adversely by this measure: and that is the powers and rights of municipal councils themselves. We have seen how in 1913 the various municipalities near Cape Town were co-ordinated and consolidated into one larger unit. This was not done lightly. You can imagine that in any undertaking of that kind it is only after great consideration and in order to increase efficiency that they do anything like that. The whole trend today, I think, is towards larger units. Above all there is an economic advantage in having these larger units. I think this is an aspect which the hon. the Minister and that side of the House must give very careful attention to. The whole question of the economic harm to the country which is being engendered by this measure must be borne in mind by them. Not only will administration be less efficient and many problems, above all financial problems, be raised, but there is a great uncertainty introduced into affairs by it. It is well known that where there is uncertainty in regard to the future development of a particular area, you get an end to all property transactions and that is bad for the economy; you get stagnation. This you will find introduced in this measure, Sir, not only by the very uncertainty that will prevail in regard to these areas, but in regard to the position which is created by the Act, namely a further new and additional change in the method of awarding compensation to the affected people. I think that can be seen particularly in Clauses 47 and 49. We seem to get a new addition every year to the method of assessing compensation which must tend to lead people to become suspicious of the operation of the Act. I particularly want to say to the Government that in this country of ours, with its rapidly increasing population, they have a very special duty to ensure full employment for all the people and that this measure, among others, is showing real signs of slowing that down and creating a serious position.

I said that the Coloureds had accepted the policy of White leadership, and I think it has been seen that this policy has been in operation for many years and it has led to good relations that have existed all this time and it has led to the Coloured community standing by us in war and in peace. One hon. member suggested that this side of the House was not in favour of residential segregation. Well, that is so elementary that one need hardly answer it. We have always made our position quite clear in this regard, that we do stand for it. We point to the achievements in securing residential separation before the war when areas like Athlone and other racial areas were created, which had the amenities which drew to them the various non-White peoples. So that in fact and slowly we did create residential segregation and we were moving in that direction and intended to do much more. We are against the establishment of these separate Coloured municipalities, but we would not object in special cases where there are viable units existing quite separately from other municipalities. But we say that this is a matter for the Provincial Council concerned and it is essentially one concerning the municipal franchise and so falling under local government. This, although she is not there, serves to answer the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) where she suggested that it would be our intention to create a separate local authority for an area such as Athlone. It certainly was not our intention to do so. I am sorry she is not here, and perhaps therefore I should just say that it would have been very diverting to have heard her attempting to reconcile the various contradictory statements made by her own people in the recent election in regard to the question of residential areas. We have often heard from them that their policy is one of no discrimination.


Order! The hon. member is drifting away from the Bill.


I am only drifting in the direction of Houghton for a short moment.


Order! The hon. member should not drift after the hon. member for Houghton.


Then I will move away. Sir, there were a couple of things which were not clear which I said I would mention to the Minister and I shall do so in the time left to me. I should like to ask the Minister what happens under this measure after the local authority for Coloureds has actually been established, because as I read Clause 28 introducing as it does this new Section 43bis (1) (d), it seems that the position is very uncertain. It says there that the Coloured person who qualifies as a voter for the management committee will in effect lose his existing voting rights, but what happens after that management committee has been converted into a local authority? The other thing I should like him to tell me is what happens in regard to Section 25bis (5) as it is introduced. I find it difficult to understand that provision and I shall be glad if he would elucidate it, because in his introductory speech he linked that clause with the franchise and I do not see the link at all.

In conclusion, I wish to say that I am satisfied, regrettably so, that this measure on balance will do the interests of South Africa in general, and of the Cape Coloureds in particular, considerable harm. I think the Coloured people had reason to expect better from the Government, particularly in view of the attitude of the Government as expressed by the Minister of the Interior on 12 April 1960, in Vol. 104 of Hansard, Col. 5371, where a very fine tribute was paid to the Coloured people which I might read—

Before the Coloured Affairs Vote comes under discussion, I should like to make the following brief statement. I wish to make use of this opportunity, on behalf of the Government and myself, and I am sure I also speak on behalf of responsible sections of all groups of the population, to express our sincere appreciation for the way in which the Coloured community calmly and loyally stood on the side of law and order during the recent disturbances which were caused by law-breakers and agitators.
I fully realize that many members of the Coloured community went through a difficult period as the result of intimidation. They refused to submit to this pressure, however, and once again, in time of crisis, upheld the unblemished reputation of the Coloured community. In this connection attention is drawn with appreciation to the lead given by a number of esteemed leaders of this community.
South Africa has taken note of this attitude and I personally am convinced that it has made an important contribution to the promotion of good relations. In this difficult days the Coloured community has stood loyally by the White population, as we expected they would do, and I want to assure them that they will not find us unappreciative of their courage and loyal attitude.

I do not believe that this was the type of appreciation that the Government had in mind at that time when those words were used. We face a very difficult situation in the world and I believe that this measure will unfortunately damage our name abroad. We need friends abroad, but above all, we need friends in South Africa. We need goodwill and solidarity here, and I think this Bill inflicts a further serious hurt upon the Coloureds. I want to remind hon. members opposite that to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I will not say when such reaction will take place. I do not believe that Government members intend to hurt the Coloureds and the other institutions of government I have mentioned, but I have no doubt that the Coloured people will so regard it, as will those other institutions of government. I think it was Adam Small, a Coloured man, who, writing of the position of the Coloureds, said quite recently that they should show their love of their fellow-being by accepting the various humiliations they were enduring. I only hope that spirit will continue to permeate the Coloured people. They have shown it for a long time.


Mr. Speaker, I shall probably reply to the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) in the course of my remarks in this debate. He has not raised many new points in any event. I do not know why he was chosen as the last speaker. He is apparently very concerned at the prospect that this measure will harm us in the outside world. I too am concerned at the prospect that the misrepresentations which have come from some members on the other side will have that effect, as they certainly will, because every positive measure that has been accepted in this country has always been grossly misrepresented by them abroad. If ever speeches were made which were devoid of all truth, they were made in the course of this debate by certain members on the other side, and I propose to prove it, and then I hope that the hon. member, with the high moral standards which he propounded here this afternoon, will call his own colleagues to order. Failing that, his speech will simply be another of those mealiemouthed speeches to which we have become so accustomed from that side.

The hon. member, unknowingly perhaps, has made himself guilty, of course, of the sort of misinterpretation that we get, by quoting an Afrikaans poem here, which he quoted wrongly in any event, about the thorn bush whereby he sought to suggest that what we were really doing here to the Coloureds was to bring about the same thing to which reference is made in that poem.


I only said that it had something in common.


Yes, there is something in common. In other words, what the hon. member wanted to suggest was that we were attempting to trample upon the Coloured in the same way that the ox-wagon trampled the little thorn bush. But the hon. member started off on a completely false note. I would remind him of his renowned forefather and advise him to follow the example of his renowned forefather rather than to follow the wrong course that he is following to-day.

Mr. Speaker, in my introductory speech I mentioned four practical results which this Bill will make it possible to achieve much sooner. In the first place I said that it would more rapidly bring about the establishment and the maintenance of occupation and property rights for the various racial groups. Secondly, I said that it would more rapidly bring about individual and community development, and thirdly I said that the sooner this measure and the principle of group areas could be implemented, the sooner it would be possible to provide new avenues of employment for these groups which have hitherto not had those opportunities of employment. I advanced these three propositions at the outset of my speech, and in the whole of this debate hon. members on that side of the House have given those three propositions a wide berth. Not one of them could adduce proof, or even try to adduce proof, to refute those three propositions, and this evening, after a debate lasting a few days, those three propositions still remain unchallenged, namely, that this Bill is going to help to expedite the creation of circumstances under which occupation and property rights can be assured for every race. That is the basis on which the Group Areas Act rests; the second is individual community development and thirdly the creation of new avenues of employment. Those three propositions stand unchallenged after this debate.

But there is a second thing which has emerged from this debate. The question has occurred to every person who has carefully followed this debate, “What does the official Opposition really stand for?”


It is no longer standing; it is lying down.


In spite of the fact that I said in the course of my speech that I was not going to discuss the principle of group areas, and in spite of the fact that it was not permissible either, hon. members on the other side all made an indirect attempt to attack the principle of the group areas legislation. Read their amendment. But in spite of the amendment, in which the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) began by referring to the hardships resulting from the group areas legislation, he did not produce a shred of evidence to support that. They did not dare to attack that principle openly because the official Opposition always have to hunt with the hounds and run with the hare. They have to make on section of the public believe that they stand for the principal of this Act, and at the same time they have to satisfy the followers of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) that they rather sympathize with her cause too, as the hon. member for Pinelands did a moment ago; he could not help himself.

Clauses 3 and 1, 2, 7, 29, 36, 37, 43 and 47 of this Bill deal with the establishment of the department. These clauses introduce an entirely new set-up to cope with this special problem which faces us in South Africa, whether we want to admit it or not. With the experience that we have gained, experience which we could not gain earlier because we had no example elsewhere in the world of this sort of problem with which we are struggling, we have now introduced new measures, and not a single hon. member on the other side saw his way clear to attack the departmental organization which this Bill proposes or to attack in principle the steps which are set out in Clause 3. They avoided any reference to it because they were unable to make out a case against it. They are not interested in it either. Of course not. They are not interested in the smooth working of this Act. They are interested in one thing only and that is to what extent they can slander us abroad. Because that party cannot get into power again in a constitutional way. They will have to make use of foreign powers to get this Government out of power. [Interjections.] I am replying to a debate. The hon. member for South Coast need not be concerned. I shall come to him later on and he will have to answer quite a few questions. I only hope that he will not tell me again to “go and be damned”. He can go and prepare himself during the dinner adjournment to reply to a few questions this evening.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of every population group in this Republic, whether White or non-White—I am talking now about the groups with whom we are concerned in this legislation—would prefer to be able to occupy their own residential areas as soon as possible.


Why do they not say so?


That is why there is an explanation for the attitude of the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux), because the attitude of the hon. member for Karoo is determined by his constituents, and in his constituency the implementation of this Government’s policy has made considerable progress already, and the hon. member dare not adopt another attitude, otherwise his constituents will deal with him. He does not adopt this attitude willingly. He follows this course because he is afraid of his constituents, to whom the Department of Coloured Affairs has already extended a helping hand. That is the reason.

Before I deal point for point with the matters which have been raised here, I want to make this one general observation, and that is that we in South Africa are witnessing a very strange thing in respect of this legislation. Attempts are continually made to create The impression is continually created, as the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) also tried to do—and I shall also come to him later on—that there is no proper planning under the Group Areas Act; that no measures exist whereby we can achieve our object on a fair basis. I want to advance these three propositions here this evening. The first is that even those people who are opposed to the Government politically and even certain people who are well-known liberals, desire in their heart of hearts that this legislation should be implemented. I propose to prove that statement here this evening. I held out this prospect earlier this Session and I propose to do so this evening. The second is that people who are prepared to curse this Government publicly and who are prepared to represent the Nationalist as a scoundrel because he stands for this legislation, stand for the very same thing as soon as it affects them personally. I have in my possession a document which was submitted to the Committee by a firm of attorneys and which deals with separate facilities which are established in terms of this legislation, that is to say, that where separate residential areas are established, and particularly in the coastal towns, separate beach facilities must also be established; and the more quickly this legislation can be applied, the more quickly those opportunities will also have to be created for the non-Whites. In the Cape Province we had a committee which investigated this matter. At Knysna there is a coastal resort which is owned by well-known United Party supporters. I have no quarrel with the attitude of these people, because I know that they feel about these matters as I do. That is why the candidate of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) fared so badly that area that he lost his deposit. The point is that in their heart of hearts members of the United Party feel just as we do. At that particular coastal resort, Noetsi, there is a property which is owned by a very well-known person in Southern Africa who has used very hard words in the past about South Africa’s parallel development, namely, Mr. Garfield Todd, a well-known liberal. When this committee came to Knysna and investigated what was to become of Noetsi, whether provision should be made for separate beach facilities for Whites and Coloureds, or whether the beach should be set aside for the Coloureds only or whether nothing should be done there, the owners of Noetsi—I do not propose to mention the other names because they are good United Party supporters in my constituency and I know what their attitude is; they want apartheid—a firm of attorneys in Knysna received instructions to appear before that committee. And what were their instructions? The instructions were that this firm should object most strongly on behalf of the owners at Noetsi firstly to the fact that it was to become a Coloured beach; and the reasons that they advanced were that this would cause property values to drop and that it would prejudicially affect tourism there. Garfield Todd did not do it himself. Mrs. J. C. I. Todd did it for him, but he spends his holiday there every December. They asked this question: “What then is the solution? It is obvious that the Coloured people resident in this area are entitled by natural rights to have access to the sea at a suitable beach or beaches.” Then they go on to say—

We are not, therefore, instructed to request that Noetsi be retained as a beach for the exclusive use of the White population.

They say that the custom always was that the Coloureds swam on one side and the Whites on the other—

We can see no logical reason why this state of affairs should not be preserved and given the force of law by proclamation.

In other words, separate beach facilities, and then they go on to suggest how to bring this about. They suggest that the other side of the river be reserved for the Coloureds and this side of the river for Whites. That is the sort of thing that is done by great friends of hon. members over there. I just want to make the point here that in my Department I have the names of people within South Africa who do this sort of thing, and here I want to issue a warning. I am not going to disclose the names of these people unnecessarily here this evening. I have simply used this as a precious example to show how much political hypocrisy there is in South Africa on the part of so-called liberals. There are people in this country who curse this Government and describe it as un-Christian and who address organizations and lead organizations against this Government’s legislation, but who behind the scenes bring pressure to bear on my Department to clear up the areas in which they live. And I want to issue this warning this evening that if these people continue with this abuse and continually represent this Government as scoundrels and grasp every opportunity to blacken South Africa’s name abroad, I will mention the names of each and every one of them in this House and I shall also mention their methods—how they make use of second and third parties to bring pressure to bear on me to remove the Coloured slums surrounding their big houses. And I want the hon. member for Pinelands to listen now.

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

Evening Sitting


Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended I was pointing out the very peculiar approach that we get from certain people in this country to any measure dealing with group areas. It amazes one that people who co-operate behind the scenes, who bring pressure to bear on us behind the scenes, adopt this attitude in public. I want to leave this point now, but I just want to add this: I had an opportunity during the weekend to conduct negotiations with city councils, city councils on which there are representatives of the party on the other side, and who, in spite of the hullabaloo they raise, have offered me their enthusiastic co-operation in tackling this matter. I want to go further. There are members of the Progressive Party in this, country who occupy official positions and who have offered their assistance to the Department to make possible the implementation of what is embodied in legislation.

In the second place I want to say that it is peculiar that in this whole approach to this Bill hon. members opposite have carefully avoided any reference to the good features which are undeniably contained in this Bill. Not a single word has been said in the whole of this debate about the proposal contained in this Bill to facilitate the administration in so far as affected properties are concerned. We hear a great deal from hon. members about the hardships resulting from the Group Areas Act. We often hear about “hard cases”. But when we come forward with a practical proposal such as that contained in Clause 29 (h) of the Bill, which is designed to facilitate administration and to reduce the points of friction, we do not hear a single word of welcome from hon. members on the other side. They condemn this whole measure. I made the promise here last year that I would inquire into the possibility to bring certain properties in Section 16bis areas under the clauses dealing with affected properties, and I have carried out my promise. That is contained in this measure. But we have not heard a word about it from the other side. That is a further point. This is the fourth point that I have mentioned this evening in regard to which hon. members of the Opposition have not been able to raise a single word of criticism. But listening to the hullabaloo that they raise outside, one would think that we are again placing a new cruel measure on the Statute Book of this country. Whose interests are they serving? Are they serving South Africa’s interests in this way? In the third place this Bill provides that, under given circumstances, ex gratia payments can be made. Not a word from the other side to welcome this provision.


We did not condemn it.


The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) must exercise a little patience. He will still discover that one needs a great deal of patience in this House. We did not hear a single word from the other side welcoming that provision, because they have to hide it from the public. They have to conceal from the public the fact that a reorganization has taken place which will cause the machinery to function more efficiently. They have to conceal from the public the provision of Clause 3, which really make it impossible for the Group Areas Board to be accused of being prejudiced. They have to hide from the public the fact that this Bill facilitates administration in respect of affected properties. These last two points that I have mentioned must also be concealed from the public under a smokescreen of protests.

Look at their amendment, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has moved an amendment in which he starts off with a proposition like this—

To omit all the words after “That” because, inter alia, it will not eliminate the injustices, hardships and losses suffered by members of all races.

The hon. member for Pinelands then followed the bad example of the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) by saying that hitherto this legislation has been absolutely unnecessary because everything that we want to achieve secretly can be achieved by means of housing; that we can hide our policy of apartheid under housing measures. Let us test that in the light of the facts. He held up the City Council of Cape Town, for whom he apparently has a great prediliection, just as the hon. members for Boland (Mr. Barnett) and Peninsula have, as a model city council which has allegedly brought about these things without this cruel legislation. I have here the figures in respect of housing schemes for Coloureds as from 1920 to 1948—before the Group Areas legislation. These are the wonderful schemes which hon. members have praised so highly; this is the fair way in which these things can be accomplished. I find that during this period of 28 years 2,845 subeconomic housing units were erected in the Cape Peninsula under these sub-economic schemes. In 28 years, Mr. Speaker, 2,845 subeconomic housing units were erected! And 524 were erected under selling schemes. That is what was done by the Cape Town Municipality. I want to compare these figures now with these “hardships, deprivations and losses” which are being suffered under this Government. I have already mentioned these figures, but I am going to mention them again. This is what I said in my introductory speech—

A total of 500 houses are being erected at Athlone, Duinefontein, departmentally, and the City Council of Cape Town is also constructing 8,000 houses from funds provided by the Department of Housing in the Cape, of which one-fifth is allotted to persons who have to be resettled.

Already in the case of only one scheme, Bonteheuwel, under this Government’s regime, under this Government’s cruel provisions, the Cape Town Municipality has accomplished more than they did previously over a period of 28 years. [Interjections.] After all, these are the atrocities to which their amendment refers; that is how cruel we are. We are taking these people out of the bushes at Windermere, and we are taking them out of the bushes at Akkers. These are the atrocities. I also said—

Other institutions are also erecting 3,000 dwellings at Bellville….

Around the University College of Bellville a garden township is being laid out on the initiative of my Department. Sir, they do not want to listen now….


Order! Hon. members cannot hold their caucus here.


Now they have to hold a caucus. I went on to say—

Of 3,300 Coloured families at Goodwood who need housing, provision is made for the housing of 1,900 families at Bishop Lavis. The other 1,400 families will be provided for within the next few years.

These are schemes which are already coming into being.




It has everything to do with it. It has this to do with it that this Government which is being slandered and accused of being so cruel to the Coloureds, is producing ten times better results than these so-called fair people on the other side.


What about the franchise?


I am going to come to the franchise. I want to refute the statement here this evening that is constantly being made that we are dealing here with an inflexible law which only causes trouble. I think that the time has come when we should refute that statement throughout the country. The Group Areas legislation deals with a complex problem which arose over the years during which slums came into being, years during which the poor sections of the non-White population who were crowded together in those slums were subjected to the greatest exploitation—and I shall come to another point later on in that connection. This Bill makes provision for proper consultation, and hon. members cannot deny it. Before these so-called atrocities are committed there is an opportunity for consultation not only with local authorities but there is an opportunity for consultation with the public if they want to give evidence. This is one law which has its beginnings in public. In the second place, it makes provision for proper representations at public hearings where people are affected. In the third place, it provides for permit control whereby an exception can be made to every rule that is laid down in the Act when dealing with hard cases. And which law in this world does not bring hard cases with it? Under the permit system it is possible to reduce those cases to a minimum. In the fourth place, the Minister is not in a position to take these important decisions except on the advice of these two Boards. I think the time has come when we should say these things and put an end to the lies which are being spread over South Africa about the so-called atrocities of this measure.

There are four hon. members on the other side who have made themselves guilty of using extravagant language. I have been wondering what one should really do with these four members. I have decided that in the case of two of them it is not necessary to reply to them. I refer to the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). I do not think it is necessary to react to their remarks. I think we should leave them alone, because I do not think this House or any undertaking or any association of people outside this House would take very much notice of their attitude—except that I want to say this about the hon. member for Outeniqua: The hon. member for Outeniqua always makes a great fuss in this House but he is one of those hon. members who wants to take up most of my time, for hours, with a long face and with pious talk about his desire to cooperate. I am tired of his troublesomeness.

I want to deal with two specific hon. members. The first hon. member with whom I want to deal specifically is the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross). The hon. member for Benoni talked about “the absolute power of the Minister who is shifting thousands of people on the East Rand”. He had a great deal to say about this Minister coming forward with a measure which proves that he is obsessed with Hitlerism. The newspapers gave banner headlines to this abusive language of his. What are the facts, Sir, in connection with the hon. member’s allegations about the East Rand? The fact of the matter is that a deputation from the Town Council of Benoni, together with well-meaning residents of Benoni, shortly after I had become Minister, asked to come and see me. Their M.P.C. (Mr. Taurog) was a member of that deputation. Our discussions lasted some considerable time in Pretoria and the upshot was that the Town Council invited me to pay a visit. I went to Benoni, where the cruel officials of the Department of Community Development, according to hon. members on the other side, and I were received in the most courteous and friendly way by the Town Council and their Mayor and their M.P.C. and other residents. Not only did they have discussions with me but they took me on a trip through Benoni and pointed out all their problems to me. After I had seen their problems they took me back to the Town Hall and again gave me a reception. But the hon. member over there was not present on one of those two occasions. Apparently his municipality thinks just as much of him as I think of him.


Why do you not come and stand against me then if that is what you think of me?


What are the further facts? I told Benoni, and they agreed with me, that although there was a large measure of agreement between them and myself and my Department as to what should be done in Benoni, I could not give them a definite undertaking at that stage because I was awaiting the recommendation of the Group Areas Board.


And now you have taken away their powers.


The hon. member was talking nonsense when he said that. I shall come to him in a moment. I cannot take a final decision with regard to Benoni because I am awaiting the recommendations of the Group Areas Board. But I did take a decision with regard to one portion of the East Rand and that is Boksburg, because in that case the recommendation of the Group Areas Board was at my disposal. What has happened at Boksburg? Boksburg is making provision on a large scale for the more developed and the more privileged Coloureds on the East Rand by way of a huge scheme under which approximately 1,500 Coloureds will be housed.

*Mr. ROSS:



You hear the hon. member for Benoni muttering, Mr. Speaker. He does not know what the facts are but he wants to continue with his gossip. I say that the Town Council of Boksburg is making provision for 1,500 of the more privileged and developed Coloureds. In that case I have the interest and the co-operation of the Member of Parliament for Boksburg. There is an enthusiastic Town Council there. Moreover, Sir, at Sturtonville and the neighbouring area provision is being made for approximately 3,000 Coloured families to be settled there. The Germiston City Council—and the hon. member for Germiston can testify to this—is anxious that we should make faster progress than we are doing with a view to making this provision, because they too want to settle their Coloureds there. They are enthusiastic about it. I have the co-operation of those town councils. But the hon. member for Benoni prefers not to be present on one of these occasions when negotiations take place with town councils. He then attends to his other interests and thereafter he comes into this Parliament of South Africa and calumniates this Government and slanders officials who perform their work enthusiastically. What is the position further, Sir? The position is that we have the co-operation of the Johannesburg City Council as far as Boksburg is concerned. The Union Festival Committee made available an amount of R 10,000 for the development of the lake at Boksburg as a recreational resort for these Coloureds. The Johannesburg City Council contributed twice as much as the Union Festival Committee to develop that lake as a recreational resort. We have the co-operation of the city councils; we have the friendship of the Town Council of Benoni; we are taking these people out of these slums and resettling them in an efficient and positive way. But all the hon. member for Benoni does here is to engage in gossip and slander. I say that in the light of these facts we know what to think of any opinion expressed in this House by the member for Benoni.

Then there is the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). I have asked for a Hansard report of the speech of the hon. member for Durban (North). I want to make this statement at the outset: the speech of the hon. member for Durban (North) is a pack of untruths. What is more, I cannot believe that the hon. member did this in ignorance. Let me deal for a moment with a few of his statements. Let us hear what he says—

The Minister is now to exercise the powers and the Board is going to be abolished.


In effect.


No, not “in effect”. Here I have the hon. member’s exact words. The hon. member must not run away now. I have become accustomed to it that people who cannot stand by what they said run away and sometimes hide behind the skirts of women— people like Mr. Garfield Todd. He says—

The Minister is now to exercise the powers and the Board is going to be abolished.

What are the facts? The discretionary powers of the Group Areas Board are laid down in Section 5 of the principal Act. This Bill does not change that position. But he says that I am abolishing the Board. What we are now doing in this Bill is to prevent the Board from advertising proposals in the future, because the complaint hitherto has been that the Board has to sit in judgment on its own proposals. We are now using a different body to advertise and to prepare those proposals. The Board then comes along as an impartial body and it retains its discretionary powers. But the hon. member says that we are abolishing it. Let me take his second statement—

Persons owning houses or businesses in the affected areas will not be allowed any more to have any notice of decisions.

Where does he get hold of that? He has sucked it out of his thumb because there is nothing of that kind anywhere in this Bill. The procedure that is followed when property is affected is laid down in Section 17 of the Development Act, and there it is stated that the moment an affected property is placed on the list, the person concerned must be given notice without delay by the Board. The regulations go on to prescribe how soon the Board has to do so and how it should do so. But the hon. member says that they will no longer be given notice. That is untruth number two. His third statement was this—

Under this Bill he can provide that no notice be given at all of pending decisions to proclaim a group area.

Where does he get hold of that? The facts are that the principal Act prescribes the procedure to be followed before a group area can be declared; the proposals have to be advertised; counter-proposals have to be invited and a hearing has to take place. And those provisions are not being changed in this Bill. That is untruth number three.


Read on.


If I were the hon. member I would hide my head under my bench unless I was completely shameless. But apparently the hon. member is shameless. He goes on to say—

The hon. the Minister cannot, however, pretend that there is a Group Areas Development Board or a Valuation Board any more. The Minister will, therefore, have another wide power because we find that his nominees will determine in secret how much a person is to get for his land and what the basic value of his property is going to be. They will also determine what compensation such a person is going to get.

What are the facts, Mr. Speaker? The fact of the matter is that this Bill does not change these provisions at all. The Board is an interested party when it comes to the determination of values, and it is not the Board therefore which determines the value of property. An Act that was passed by this Parliament provides that the Minister shall appoint valuators, and whom does he appoint? He appoints valuators from the list of sworn valuators given to him and if an objection is lodged to the valuation of a sworn valuator and the person concerned hands in his objection, a revision court is constituted and the Act provides that a magistrate or a retired magistrate shall be the chairman of that revision court. But in the past we have always appointed magistrates with two assessors. The Minister has no say about the determination of values. That is untruth number five. Then he goes on to say—

If somehow or other through bad luck or some outside cause like town planning or a zoning scheme, property suddenly increases in value or decreases in value, then it is possible for the board to revalue the property and that is dirty.

That is the only point that is contained in this Bill, but what are the facts? The fact of the matter is that you get a position such as we had recently where a place is zoned by a City Council as a residential area and where there are business premises in that area. And because that area has been zoned as a residential area, they can no longer use those premises for the purpose for which they were erected. As a result of the experience we have gained, we are now introducing a concession in this measure. We are meeting those people by saying that although there has been a valuation, we will cause a revaluation to be made if they are badly hit by the re-zoning—not by our zoning but by the zoning of outside bodies. But the hon. member says that is an example of cruelty. Mr. Speaker, you will see what invalid arguments the Opposition have used and how they have misused this Bill to slander and to blacken South Africa’s name. [Interjections.] Hon. members must not moan now; their sins are finding them out. That is why they find themselves in this tragic position as a party. I have not yet finished with the hon. member for Durban (North). Sir, do you know what the Indians of Northern Cross tell us; do you know what the Indians of Lenasia tell us; do you know what the Indians of Rustenburg tell us—the poor Indians throughout this country? They are flocking to our offices asking us to save them because they are in the hands of unscrupulous landlords who not only require them to pay impossible rents but before they can get the key to a room, they first have to pay “key money”. This “key money” is sometimes as high as £45, just to get a key to be able to unlock that room.

When I was listening to the hon. member for Durban (North), it became clear to me that he was championing the cause of those who make “key money” out of these poor people. Let him work out for himself why he champions the cause of those people: I do not know. Sir, that is why we are successful in declaring these group areas; that is why we have success in those areas where our housing schemes are beginning to take shape; that is why we are justified in saying that at Pretoria Lake 50 per cent of the Indian population have already been settled happily in their own area. Another objection of hon. members on file other side—this is really their main objection—is to Clauses 22 and 28. The hon. members for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) and South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) in particular dealt with these two clauses. Two hon. members in this House unequivocally rejected the principles contained in Clauses 22 and 28. I refer to the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) and the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). There is one point in respect of which I agree with the hon. member for Houghton, and that is her statement that this Bill exposes the incomplete, the imperfect, the unsatisfactory and confused situation in respect of local government rights as far as the Coloureds and Indians are concerned. There I agree with her. This Bill does reveal those things. The fact of the matter is that it is in the Cape Province only that there can be a growing number of non-Whites exercising the vote in local government—not in the other provinces. But the Transvaal is not hypocritical about it and the Free State is not hypocritical about it. And when I dealt with this matter in my introductory speech, the hon. member for South Coast attacked me with great gusto and said, Do you not know that there are non-Whites on the municipal voters’ rolls in Natal?” Of course I knew it, but it is not a growing vote; it is a static vote, and the hon. member knows that perfectly well because he was co-responsible for it.


That is not what you said.


Hon. members opposite are co-responsible for the position which exists in Natal. I said that briefly the position was that in Natal you could get the municipal franchise in two ways; in the first place you could get it if you were a parliamentary voter. If hon. members were so enthusiastic about giving some form of common franchise, either on property qualifications or on any other basis to the Indians and Coloureds who can no longer get the franchise through the parliamentary voters’ roll because of the action taken by this Government in providing for separate representation, why did they do nothing about it in all these years?


How childish you can be!


There the hon. member is beginning to run away again. He is supposed to be so anxious to confer human rights upon the people there, but the fact of the matter is that the 1942 ordinance has never been amended since 1942 under United Party rule in Natal. A further point is that under that ordinance there is a second group of persons who could be given the vote in Natal but it was frozen, namely those who had the municipal franchise on 1 July 1924; they were to retain it, irrespective of race or colour. The result is that in consequence of this parliamentary corridor to the municipal roll, there are about 509 people in Natal who have the franchise. In Pietermaritzburg where there are 18,000 voters, 50 Indians have the vote under that hero of South Coast! Let me put a few questions to him now. Why has Natal not brought about a change since 1942? Why did they not bring about this change after the introduction of this thing behind which they are shielding to-day, namely separate representation? If this was their desire, why did they not do so? Then I also want to put this to the hon. member: If he is not in favour of the system that we now suggest, will he tell this House this evening—after all, he is a man—that he as leader of the United Party in Natal wants the introduction of a common municipal voters’ roll for Natal, that is to say, for Coloureds, Indians and Whites? If the hon. member does not answer, then he lacks the courage to reply. Because, Sir, there is another small matter that I want to take up with him this evening; and he knows about it because he is informed by his Executive Committee members in Natal. Last year the leader of the National Party in the Provincial Council of Natal introduced a motion dealing with this matter of Coloured and Indian franchise in that province, and he attacked them about their attitude there and he was then called by the members of the Executive Committee who said to him, “Do not proceed with your motion; you are making things difficult for the Central Government because the Minister is giving his attention to these things and we must wait


Clause 65 of this Bill?


No, what I am doing is to expose the pomposity of the hon. member for South Coast. His whole attitude, as he sits there, testifies to a guilty conscience. He is receiving a beating to-night and he knows that his attitude is on a par with that of the Garfield Todds.


And I suppose you are Roy Welensky?


Now I want to put a further question to the hon. member. I want to make an offer to him. I am prepared to appoint a joint committee, together with his province, to inquire into and report upon the question of municipal franchise under the Natal Ordinance. Will he accept that? Now he remains silent. He wants to have the opportunity to criticize whenever he likes, but he himself wants to do nothing to help his province out of its critical position. Do you know, Sir, what will happen to him in connection with this matter? The same thing that happened in connection with another matter. He will eventually want to stand on his head and kick his legs together in the air.


Order! The hon. the Minister must not be so personal.


The last accusation was that the Minister was acting in a cavalier fashion, in a self-righteous way, and that he wanted to sweep away the laws of the provinces. It was the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) in particular who came with this accusation. He was only following in the footsteps of the hon. member for South Coast. What are the facts? The fact of the matter is that in the past year—last year—there have been discussions on two occasions between myself and the four Administrators. The first one led to the drafting of a memorandum for their consideration, and after they had considered the memorandum—and I am convinced that the hon. member for South Coast saw the memorandum, because he was informed—there was a second discussion between the Administrators and myself, and on that occasion all four Administrators agreed to co-operate with me on an inter-departmental committee to investigate this matter and to come forward with proposals. How was that inter-departmental committee composed? On the Government side I appointed two officials, two from Community Development, and one from the Department of Coloured Affairs; the Transvaal Administrator appointed the director of local government in the Transvaal, one of the greatest authorities in the field of local government in the Republic (I do not want to mention his name; I mention his position only); the Administrator of the Free State appointed the head of the local government division of the Orange Free State; the Cape Province appointed the undersecretary for local government in the Cape, and Natal appointed the first administrative officer (local government). And the Executive Committees knew about this. In other words, on this inter-departmental committee the four Administrators had a majority. It is important to remember that. We had three representatives there. Sir, this committee consulted with various bodies and I should like to refer to a few of them. They consulted with and took evidence separately from the representatives of the offices of the four provincial administrations. That is where they started. Furthermore, they consulted with and took evidence from the local Health Commission of Natal, the Executive Committee of the Divisional Councils. Cape Province; the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board, Transvaal; the deputy-secretary and other senior officers of the Department of Coloured Affairs; the Executive Committee of the Union Coloured Advisory Council; the Executive Committees, separately, of the four provincial municipal associations in the Republic; the general business committee of the Durban City Council; the Tonga Township Board; the town clerk of Johannesburg and his staff board; the secretary and the oldest member of the Management Board of Mamre; and the head of the Indian Affairs Division. They conducted negotiations and exchanged ideas with them, and this committee, on which the Administrators had the majority, came to the Government with a unanimous report, and as portion of the report the committee suggested the proposed new Section 25 and Section 43bis. The new Section 25bis was not part of their report—that I admit. But the new Sections 25 and 43bis formed part of their report. Section 25bis was inserted by the Government on its own responsibility.

What happened when this committee instituted investigations? Amongst other things, they had this evidence, from which I shall read out a few extracts just briefly. The president of the Executive Committee of the Divisional Councils of the Cape said—

The Coloureds have not yet had the opportunity to be trained.

In spite of this wonderful system which existed all these years! —

In church affairs the Coloured is already showing a certain amount of organizational ability.

But not in the sphere of local government.

Then I quote the chairman of the Divisional Council of the Cape—

The Coloured has an inherent weakness, namely jealousy. Preference must be given to education to eliminate that weakness.

The vice-president of the United Municipal Executive of the Republic said—

The Coloured to-day needs sympathetic training and guidance so that he will be able to act independently in due course.

A Johannesburg city councillor—

Envisages very great difficulties with the establishment of independent local authorities for Coloureds. There must first be a period of training to teach them responsibility.

The deputy-secretary of the Local Government Division, Cape Province said—

There will always have to be a teacher. A Coloured person does not listen to another Coloured person, but he listens to a White person. They have a master-servant complex. One must not, however, underrate the potential of the Coloureds. It is there and should be developed.

So it goes on. What follows from this?


May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Will the hon. the Minister lay the report on the Table before we come to the Committee Stage so that we can study it?


My reply is “No”. This is an inter-departmental report.


Why are you quoting from it then?


It has always been the practice not to table an inter-departmental report. But what I am prepared to do is to allow the hon. member to peruse the report. He can come to my office and peruse the report there. Say “Thank you”.


What a business!


I shall allow the hon. member to Deruse the report. Is he prepared to accept that offer?


You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Lay it on the Table!


You see, Sir, he refuses to accept this offer. This is a dodge on his part. He does not want to know what is stated in the report. He knows that no inter-departmental report is laid on the Table of this House. The hon. member does not want to peruse the report. He wants something to shield behind, a fig-leaf to cover his nakedness in Natal.

Then I come to the next point in connection with this Committee’s report, and that is that in order to ripen the Coloureds for local government, it is necessary to make a start at a stage prior to the stage for which the Ordinance in the Cape Province makes provision. In other words, we must follow the system which has already been followed fruitfully in the urban areas for Coloureds, where they are at first represented by consultative committees, and once the consultative committees have taught them a sense of responsibility, a management committee is established; this management committee is then given certain powers, and after having established the area for the management committee, which falls under the jurisdiction of a particular local authority, and having found that it works well, the process can be carried further. It is for that reason that the Government has inserted Section 25bis. What does that section say? It says that before a full-fledged municipal authority is established, whether it be a town council or a municipality, in other words, before we make use of the process of the existing Ordinance in the Cape Province, the Minister will appoint an ad hoc committee of five people on which the Administrator of the province concerned will have at least one representative, and that ad hoc committee will inquire into and report upon that particular management area for which the local authority is contemplated.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) and the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) are the only two members on the other side who came forward with tangible points, and I want to thank them for it. I want to thank them for the dignified way in which they took part in this debate. Both of them have a knowledge of these matters, and they did deal with the merits of this matter at any rate. My reply to them is this: We must not, when dealing with a poorer section of the population, shrink back from the duty of placing them on the road towards development. This ad hoc committee will in fact be able, in consultation with the Provincial Administration of the province concerned, in consultation with the local authority which exercises supervision over the management area that is established, to examine the relationships between the existing local authority and the new Coloured authority which is to be established; the ad hoc committee will report on all these points and will be able to go into the possibilities and determine to what extent and within what period these things should take place. That is why we find that a municipality such as Bellville is already openly declaring its enthusiasm to take this step and that it gladly offers its co-operation in respect of Bellville South. That is my reply to these hon. members. We are aware of the fact that there are problems, but they will be tackled in the closest co-operation with the Provincial Administration concerned as well as the local authority concerned.


And if they do not agree?


Then we shall have to convince them, just as we are convincing one city council after another that they have to co-operate with Community Development to establish separate residential areas. Any sensible person who has to deal with these problems would co-operate. It is only the Opposition who refuse to co-operate.

I want to conclude by saying that I have from the outset taken into account the fact that there must be the closest co-operation between myself and the provinces, the Administrators and the provincial administrations; that we must establish these bodies on a pattern which conforms as closely as possible to the existing order and to the provisions of the existing ordinances, and that we must try to obtain the blessing of the provincial administrations. I want to quote a few letters now that I have received from the Administrators, because this legislation and this report were submitted to them. The hon. member for South Coast should have received this report through his Natal Executive Committee members. These are the comments that we received: The Transvaal Provincial Administration informed us that in principle they had no objection to this proposal. The Administration of the Orange Free State supports the recommendations of the commission of inquiry and this amended legislation, but they ask that the difinition of “Administrator” in the old Act be retained. And in fact it is being retained. “Administrator” means the Administrator-in-Executive Committee. The Cape Province informed us that in principle they supported this. They did raise the question of one minor provision. We met them in that regard and they informed us that they were satisfied. After they had first informed us that they were studying this Bill, we received the following letter from Natal—

The Administrator and the Executive Committee have studied the report of the committee of inquiry into the development of local authority control for Coloureds and Indians. I have been directed to state that while the Administrator and the Executive have noted the contents thereof, it does not feel itself called upon to indicate that the Bill should be proceeded with. The Executive Committee offers the following comments …

They then recommend, amongst other things, that if we want to proceed with this Bill. “Administrator” should be the Administrator-in-Executive Committee. That is the same thing for which the other provinces asked. These are the replies from the provincial administrators. Sir, does the account which I have given here this evening not give the lie to the accusations from the other side that we acted in a cavalier fashion? Furthermore, does it not give the lie to the accusation that we want to establish inferior local authorities? If we had stopped at the establishment of management committees, then it certainly would have been passible to raise the objection that we want to establish inferior bodies. But in Section 25bis we go further and say that we want to have consultations—in the Cape Province too where there is an ordinance —but we want to enable the other three provinces to adapt their ordinances along these lines, and it will now be possible to do so. If the hon. member for South Coast is really interested in this matter, I want to ask him to influence his province to come forward with an ordinance which fits into this system. Let us gradually establish these full-fledge municipal units, and let us guide the Coloured to realize his aspirations in his own residential areas, in his own towns and cities, and let us give him the opportunity to increase his self-respect in that way, and at the same time let us put the self-respect and protection of our own people first on the list.

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

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—79: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.): Frank, S.; Grey-ling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoe-man, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Treur-nicht, N. F.; Van den Berg, G. P.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Ahee, H. H.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Spuy, J. P.; Van der Walt, B. J.; Van der Wath, J. G. H.; Van Eeden, F. J.; Van Niekerk, G. L. H.; Van Nierop, P. J.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Wyk, G. H.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Vorster, B. J.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

NOES—37: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bas-son, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Holland, M. W.; Le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Van der Byl, P.; Van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. C. de Kock and N. G. Eaton.

Question affirmed and the amendments dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time.

Order of the day No. III to stand over.


Fourth Order read: Second Reading,—Registration of Pedigree Livestock Amendment Bill.


I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

I have pleasure in moving the second reading of the Bill. The amendments are not far-reaching, although they are nevertheless very important, for they concern a very important matter, and the intention is really to facilitate the activities of the South African Pedigree Livestock Association. The quality of our livestock is important to every farmer, and I think it is also important to every patriot, for cattle farming in South Africa plays a great and important part in our agricultural economy. That is why it is necessary for the building up of this branch of farming on an economic basis that we should constantly improve the quality of our livestock. I do not want to make a long speech. I may perhaps just mention that the South African Pedigree Livestock Association was established as far back as 1905 and that the Registration of Pedigree Livestock Act, Act No. 22, was passed by this House in 1920, which made possible the incorporation of a South African Pedigree Livestock Association and the registration and publication of the records of the pedigree of stud animals by the association and its affiliated societies. Mr. Speaker, this Act was amended in 1951, inter alia, for the purpose of placing greater emphasis on inspection services, so that the registration service could be based not only on office records but also on actual inspections. A further amendment was designed to make the establishment possible of autonomous societies under specified conditions. This Act was consolidated in 1957. No further amendments have been made since that date. The standards of our pedigree livestock compares favourably with those of other countries, so much so that consideration has already been given to the export of thoroughbred pedigree livestock to other countries. We have available to-day herds of outstanding quality, which can be regarded as a national asset. Fortunately for South Africa there is no breed worth mentioning as far as we know that cannot adapt itself in this country and of which no animals have been imported and which is not strongly represented here.

I now want to mention a few of the more important amendments. The first is the definition of “pure-bred livestock” which is being inserted here because it is not contained in the principal Act. As I have said, the South African Pedigree Livestock Association has always maintained a very high standard and the new definition which lays down that pure-bred livestock shall be farm livestock which belongs to and possesses the phenotypical characteristics of a particular breed, will strengthen the Association’s hands in cases of doubt. The Pedigree Livestock Advisory Board, whose function I have already explained, supports this amendment. For the information of the House I just want to mention that on one occasion the Pedigree Livestock Association was almost placed in an embarrassing position by the fact that a farmer imported crossbred pigs into South Africa and then applied for the registration of those pigs. The application was refused, but it is likely that the Pedigree Livestock Association would have found itself greatly embarrassed, in view of the vagueness of the Act as it now reads, if that case had been tested in court. A further object in defining “pure-bred” livestock is to provide a basis for the upgrading of livestock, for example animals registered in sub-pedigree books and newly-bred breeds. By means of a process of upgrading by making use of pure-bred sires over the years we can make that breed so pure that I think it would be unwise to exclude them from sub-pedigree books and registration. The proposed amendment also makes it possible for our newly-bred breeds, with the approval of the Minister, to be recognized by the Pedigree Livestock Association, when these breeds have been continuously bred as a closed group for at least six generations. So much with regard to the proposed amendments in Clause 1.

I now come to the next amendment. In terms of the principal Act it is illegal for a society to take options on livestock on behalf of distant buyers or foreign buyers. This amendment is now being introduced to give the Pedigree Livestock Association or a registered society the right to act as agents for such buyers, on payment of commission, except in the capacity of auctioneers. They cannot therefore at the same time also be auctioneers of the livestock in question. Transactions will be facilitated by this concession. The principal Act already provides that officials of the association may not in their personal capacities undertake services of this nature. This provision stays. In order to ensure that only pure-bred livestock may be registered and not all farm livestock, Section 8 of the Act is also being amended. Formerly the appellation was in fact incorrect, for the reference was not to “rasegte vee” but to “rasvee”. I do not think there are any linguists to-day who can tell what was meant by this term A second amendment to be introduced in Section 8 concerns the reference in the principal Act to our neighbouring states as Southern and Northern Rhodesia. In fact those countries are no longer called Southern and Northern Rhodesia, they are known as the Federation of the Rhodesias. We now propose that they be described as territories adjoining the Republic or South West Africa.

These are all the amendments contained in this Bill. All of them were initially asked for by the South African Pedigree Livestock Association as well as by the South African Pedigree Livestock Advisory Board. The purpose of the amendments is merely to facilitate the activities of the association. My Department concerns itself only indirectly with the activities of the association. The association has made its name in South Africa and is known for conducting its affairs in a most orderly and praiseworthy manner in the interests of the livestock industry of South Africa.

*Mr. G. F. H. BEKKER:

I think we are taking a step forward with this Bill as far as the breeding of stud-book cattle is concerned. The stud-book was started in 1906. In those years very few sheep and cattle were registered. An auxiliary stud-book was added to the stud-book but was subsequently closed because doubt existed as to whether the animals’ ancestry could be traced back for six generations. To-day we have three divisions. We have what we call the “advanced registry” cattle, that is to say cattle who qualify in the various respects such as blood-strain, butter-fat, milk etc. The standard of our imports into South Africa is the highest in the world and I want to congratulate our stock breeders on having set such a high standard. The stud cattle of this country compare favourably with cattle anywhere in the world. Cattle from South Africa have already competed in the highest circles as far as milk, butter-fat and pedigree is concerned. We have the Friesland division, the Ayreshire division, the Jersey division, the Afrikaner division etc. as sub-divisions of the SA. Stud-Book Association. Every one of these divisions is served by its own board. Afrikaner cattle, which are exclusively bred in South Africa to-day, are to-day successfully exported to other parts of the world. We should congratulate the breeders on the fact that they have produced a thoroughbred an animal which is such an improvement on the old one that we are even exporting them to Mexico and other parts of the world to-day. We have already exported stud-stock to India and parts of North Africa as well. I think the stud-breeders of South Africa have reason to be proud of their achievements, not only in this country but in other countries as well, when it comes to the milk yield and butter-fat yield test. We should also congratulate the Minister on the introduction of this Bill which he has done in co-operation with the Stud-Book Association, a Bill which enables us to adapt ourselves to the times in which we are living.


We on this side of the House will support the Bill and vote for it. We know that the amendments in this Bill have been asked for by the Stud-Book Association in order to assist them to streamline the administrative side of the running of a stud-book. There has not been any opposition from any of the breed societies to the proposed amendments, but they unamimously support them. In the circumstances, we will support the Bill.


There is so much unanimity as to the acceptability of the provisions of this Bill that not much remains to be said, The provision in regard to pedigree animals is very important. The first amendment remedies a few inaccuracies in the principal Act which worried one. Hitherto we have referred to “racehorses” and it is now being substituted by the term “thoroughbreds”. This is a significant amendment because the term “racehorse” could never be an indication of pedigree or good breeding. If people ordinarily spoke about a thoroughbred, they thought of the English thoroughbred and not of a “thoroughbred horse”, the term wrongly used in the English translation of the Act, but a specific type of thoroughbred. There are also other pedigree horses which are thoroughbreds, like Flemish horses, Arabs and Hackneys, etc. If this amendment is not made it will never have the right meaning to the stud breeder. The same applies to the amendment of “farm livestock” and “pure-bred livestock”. That was of little significance to the stud breeder because these two terms could apply to hundreds of thousands of a specific breed without indicating that it is pure-bred pedigree animals, animals which possess the phenotypical racial characteristics to such a marked degree that they are able to carry it over to their progeny. That is why it is so important, in my opinion, that these amendments should be made, so that there can never be any doubt as to what is meant by purebred livestock as compared with farm livestock. Where animals have to be graded up, it is now required that a closed group must be bred for at least six years. That is a horse of a different colour as compared with the use merely of a pedigree sire with ordinary grade or farm stock.

The point I really want to come to lies in this provision of what is pedigree. To my mind, there is still a large field lying fallow in regard to the grading up in a closed group of new strains and new pedigree types of stock. We know that there is a great diversity of pure-bred livestock amongst the foreign dairy breeds and meat breeds, with years of pure breeding behind them. When, however, we come to the indigenous breeds of cattle which are adaptable to our particular climatic conditions, it seems to me that our farmers are still concentrating too little on breeding up new strains. In this regard I think of the Afrikaner breed which is the only indigenous breed to be included in the stud-book in 1912 —barely 50 years ago. I have noticed that the society concerned is going to celebrate this occasion in a proper manner this year. I believe that the Afrikaner breed can be used as mother stock to serve as a basis for the breeding of new strains. Last year the Minister introduced a Bill to deal with mother seed, its cultivation and what could be done to provide new varieties which will suit our climatic and soil conditions. What applies there also applies to the Afrikaner as a mother breed. It has been proved over and over that the Afrikaner cattle form the best basis for crossing with other foreign types. The best results are achieved in that way. The Afrikaner is an outstanding animal. It has a good carcase covered with meat of the finest texture and it is adapted to our conditions in so far as hardiness and conformation are concerned; it has a beautiful, velvety loose skin, a strong mouth and legs and a beautiful head. I could describe it even further, but perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, will call me to order.


Order! The hon. member can conclude by saying that the Afrikander constitutes a good basis for crossbreeding.


Then I shall not continue. I merely thought that if I wanted to recommend it as a basis I should do so convincingly. I think for example, of one strain which can be taken from the Afrikander breed, namely the “poenskop” or hornless Afrikander, and animal which was known to our forefathers and which was not obtained by crossbreeding with another hornless breed, but which was bred naturally and taken out of the herd because it was difficult to inspan the ox and because the young cow was bad-tempered and difficult to tie to the cow-pen. I maintain that the breeder in South Africa who is the first to succeed in building up a pure-bred hornless Afrikander herd, can call himself Rich John, because if such a breed can be bred we shall have a slaughter ox with characteristics that cannot be outclassed. Then you have the various groups according to colour. We know that the association only recognizes light red and dark red. Older people will remember, however, that there were black Afrikanders which were known in Natal as the “tintern blacks”. They are still there to-day. I have seen them at Cedara agricultural college—it is a hard type of Afrikander beast. We have the “rooiwitpens” and “rinkhals” groups. These colours should again be bred as strains of the Afrikander breed. I also think of the yellow Afrikander beast. I was one of the first who asked that they too should be included in the stud-book, but for some reason or other that has always been voted down. In the meantime the yellow Afrikander is gaining more and more ground and we shall see him at the Jubilee Show at Johannesburg. He is being exhibited more and more to-day. I have good reasons for talking about him, because his yellow colouring is the best suited to his surroundings in the southern hemisphere. When you study wild life in the southern hemisphere, Sir, you find various shades of yellow …

*The Acting-SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the facilities for registration as provided for in this Bill.


Mr. Speaker, what I have said can be related with the provisions of this Bill, namely, that if you can breed for six generations in a closed group, you will be able to produce a new breed. All I am doing is to refer to a type of animal which can be bred in terms of these provisions and I contend, with respect, that I am in order. By doing so I am not departing from the provisions of the Bill. I want to conclude by giving the reasons why I think this is one of the breeds which should be developed and for whom a new stud-book should be opened. The colouring of the animals in the southern hemisphere is known to be wonderfully resistant to the ultra violet rays of the sun. Amongst these colours the following predominate: grey-brown, yellow, red grey, etc. These are all shades in which yellow dominates. The wild animals in the warm tropical areas do not have this colouring, they are darker. As compared with that, you have the yellow hair colour in Australia, in the Argentine and in Southern Africa, a colour which has developed naturally in order to adapt the animal. Consequently animals with that colour are best suited to our climatic conditions. Apart from that it is very attractive to look at and the old transport riders confirmed that the hide of the yellow Afrikander beast was the most suitable for rimes and strops. If you walk amongst herds in the Northern Transvaal which are not dipped regularly you immediately recognize the yellow Afrikander because of the absence of ticks, probably because they become discouraged in having to bite into his thick hide. I maintain that if you want to breed this and other strains from the Afrikander breed, an interesting field lies open before you. All that is necessary is to breed for six generations in a closed group in terms of these provisions.


I want to express my gratitude to hon. members on both sides of the House for the support they have given this Bill. I just want to say to the last speaker that if all his suggestions in regard to the breeding of various branches of the Afrikander breed were put into practice, there is nothing to prevent those breeders concerned from applying for registration. This Bill makes that possible and I am pleased that the hon. member appreciates that.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.


Fifth Order read: Second reading,—Native Laws Amendment Bill.


I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, this is really an omnibus Bill. Hon. members have had a great deal of work to do recently and I am aware of the fact that it is difficult to see a Bill such as this in its true perspective and that it requires a great deal of time to study all its implications. No less than six different Acts are affected by this Bill, for example the Native Taxation and Development Act of 1925; The Native Administration Act of 1927; The Native Trust and Land Act of 1936; The Bantu Authorities Act of 1951; the South West Africa Native Affairs Administration Act of 1954; and the Bantu Investment Corporation Act of 1959. Because I know the time that is required to make a study of all the implications of such an amending Bill, I have had a White Paper prepared which has been made available to hon. members. Hon. members would have noticed from the White Paper that this Bill has few provisions which are of a contentious nature and that most of the provisions are of an administrative nature where certain things are being put right. I want to deal briefly with a few of the proposed amendments.

We intend, in the first place, to amend the Native Taxation and Development Act of 1925. The most important amendment is that in future it will be legal for an employer to keep back some part of his employee’s wage in order to pay his tax, provided the employee asks him to do so. It is a well known fact that in many cases Bantu employees have already asked that part of their earnings be kept back so that their taxes may be paid. It really amounts to a kind of “pay as you earn” system. Many employers and employees are greatly in favour of such a system and have asked me whether it is possible to legalize it. Although that is already being done in many cases hon. members are probably aware of the fact that it is not strictly in accordance with the law. We intend making this practice legal by means of this Bill. Where the Bantu have been consulted in this matter they have expressed themselves in favour of this concession. They are grateful for it. There is a second amendment to this particular Act. If a person cannot pay his taxes he can, of course, be prosecuted. The law however, requires that those summonses should be signed by the magistrate of the district concerned whereas the person who is responsible for the collection of the taxes is the Bantu Commissioner. He is also the person who, for all practical purposes, prosecutes. As the law stands at the moment however, he must first get the magistrate concerned to sign those summonses before he prosecutes. That is really senseless and that position is being put right by providing that the Commissioner himself may sign the summons. A further amendment is in connection with the three councils namely the general councils which previously existed for the Transkei Witzieshoek and Thaba’Nchu. Certain local taxes must always be paid to these councils. With the advent of Bantu authorities, however, these names have changed and the objection of this amendment is to bring the existing position into line with the changed circumstances. We also provide what form the receipts for taxes received should assume. It will now be possible to paste that receipt in the reference book of the Native. That will be to his advantage. It is further provided that any Bantu authority who collects taxes may be compensated for it. I have personally seen how this system works in other parts of Africa. These authorities collect the taxes from the Natives and they do so more efficiently than an official of the Department could do it. A certain percentage of the taxes thus collected is then refunded to that authority as remuneration for its work. Hon. members should note that it is not refunded to an individual, but to the authorities as such. We are all convinced that such a system will assist greatly in South Africa in making the collection of taxes more satisfactory. At the same time it can serve as a training school for the Bantu while the authorities are compensated for the taxes which they have collected. In the second place we are changing the Native Administration Act of 1927. We have met a difficulty there as the result of a Supreme Court judgment. It has been the practice in the past since 1927 that when a chief dies and his successor is not yet able to take over because he is too young, or for any other reason, to nominate an acting chief until he is able to take over, and that also applied in the case of a headman. In other words the administration must go on. That has been the custom since 1927, but unfortunately the courts have expressed their doubt on this matter. They were not sure whether the Section was sufficiently clear and that such an acting chief could be appointed and dismissed. We are now simply amending the Section in order to bring it into line with what has really been the practice all the years, a practice which is welcomed by the Bantu. I want to say at once that there are many factors that have to be considered. In the first place, it must be clearly determined who the heir is. Hon. members who know the Bantu will know that on those occasions there are quite a few people who lay claim to the chieftaincy. Our expert must then go into the question and determine who the lawful successor is. Not only must he go into the historical aspect of the matter, but he has to consult the tribe itself, because they are really the people who say who should succeed. It often happens that the person who appears to be the likely successor is mental in which case somebody else must immediately be appointed in his stead to take over the administration. When the successor is able to take over, the acting chief must be dismissed. Another important fact which makes it essential to interfere here is this. In the case of many tribes you have the position that they do not want to talk about the chief’s successor, particularly when he has died, during the first year of his death. In other words, during that period of mourning nothing must be said about his successor, with the result that the administration of the tribe suffers. That is why it is necessary to have an acting chief or headman. My policy, however, is, and I firmly believe in this, that we should not act on our own in these cases, but that there should be proper consultation with the tribe. This is merely to remove a doubt which has existed on the part of the Appeal Court.

There is a second section which deals with the Native Administration Act, and that is the registration of customary marriages amongst the Bantu. As you know, Sir, only one Province, namely Natal has this custom. I think it is a very good system and I want to extend this Natal custom to the other provinces as well. There are practical reasons for it. The first is that my colleague the hon. Minister of Transport, follows the practice on the Railways of paying the married person a higher wage than the unmarried person, but in order to prove that he is married, the Bantu Commissioner has to submit a certificate. The result is that the Bantu Commissioner is involved in a great amount of work. When you find a person in the urban areas and he says he is married, he must hand in a sworn statement to the effect that he is indeed married before he is entitled to a house. It often happens that a person says he is married, he makes a false declaration and he is given a house. Within a short while he takes another wife or a number of wives. Strong representations have been made to me from various quarters in this connection that unless we extend this custom to the other provinces as soon as possible, there will be a great number of illegitimate children. Welfare organizations, Bantu ministers of religion and non-White administrative officials have made strong representations to me that this custom should be extended to the other provinces. All we are doing here is to extend it, but we are not making it compulsory. We are acting very carefully and with great circumspection. I hope it will be possible to make it compulsory eventually because this question as to who is the wife of the man who was not married according to Christian rites often causes great difficulty. It will remove a great many difficulties and facilitate administration.

Now I come to the Native Trust and Land Act and the amendments we are effecting to it; there are two things in particular. Provision is made in one of the sections that in future we will have the right under that legislation to purchase a commonage or a portion of a commonage which the city council concerned wishes to sell. This is also to remove a doubt which the legal profession has had as to whether this was 100 per cent in conformity with the 1913 Act. The opinion is that in terms of the 1913 legislation it is not possible to purchase such a commonage. I can only say that such commonages have already been purchased and many town councils are prepared to sell portions of their commonages to us, but under the existing legislation we do not really have the power to buy. All we are doing here is to make it legally possible for us to buy the commonage in cases where city councils wish to sell to us.

The second point is this that at East London we are now joining a portion of the Mdanzani area on to the Native area by proclaiming it a released area. It consists of the Mdanzani outspan and farms Nos. 100, 106 and 107 which border on the Matjolo location. What we are doing is to proclaim it a released area. The reason why we are doing this is to develop a Bantu town in that area. As hon. members know many fairly extensive schemes are afoot in the King William’s Town/East London area as far as industrial development is concerned. Various committees have worked on them the prospects are very good and various industrialists are interested. We have this difficulty at East London that its location is far too small and it cannot be expanded. The only solution is to transfer the location to the Mdanzani area which borders on the Native area and to develop a Bantu town there as was done in the case of Umlazi near Durban to-day. The Natives will have property rights etc. in this town which actually forms part of the Native area. I may say that generally speaking our experience has been that towns which border on a Native reserve and which are properly controlled by the Native administrative officers there, have produced very good results indeed as far as labour is concerned. A good example of that is the Bantu town at King William’s Town. Wonderful results have been obtained there as far as the development of industries is concerned. All we are doing here is to include this area. We have Area 34 nearby, which is really a Native area, but it does not serve its purposes and in addition to that various representations have been made to me that Area 34 should be cut off and consolidated with the Bantu area. I want to admit at once that the area which we are taking is not the same morgenage as Area 34. The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) shakes his head. He is the brake when it comes to acquiring land for the Natives; he does not want them to get too much land, but the Cape Province still owes the Native Trust thousands of morgen of land, and this is merely a drop in the ocean. But the important point is that this is an important step as far as the development of the King William’s Town/East London industrial complex is concerned. It is therefore in the interests of the entire White community there. I think that the hon. member will support us in this case. East London has another problem as well. It barely has room for the establishment of its own urban Natives, but it is also faced with this difficulty that it lacks funds. We are now developing this Bantu town and all the workers from East London will be housed in this town and it will not cost the City Council and the taxpayers of East London one penny. It will also benefit the Bantu greatly. I may just add that I have had many letters of appreciation, not only from White inhabitants of East London but also from the Bantu, people who welcome this as an important step forward as far as their housing is concerned.

We are also amending the Bantu Authorities Act. All that is happening is that every taxpayer must pay his money into the local coffers. When he is punished for non-payment of tax, we provide that money should also be paid into those coffers. It is really to the benefit of the Bantu himself.

Then we have an amendment to the South West Africa Native Affairs Administration Act. As hon. members know, a formula was laid down a few years ago, in 1954 or in 1955 in respect of the South West Administration’s contribution to the development of the Bantu areas there. The contribution of the Administration amounts to approximately R100,000 per annum, but this formula can only be changed after ten years. In the meantime it has become necessary for us to start developing many of those places. I announced a three year plan a few years ago in terms of which we embarked upon certain developmental works and we have achieved wonderful results. Some places did not have any water at all; at one place where there was only one borehole we sank 17 boreholes, each of which was successful. The whole area is now provided with water. Likewise we embarked upon other developmental works with very good results. I want to give you one example, Sir. You have the Omaramba. It looks very much like a river but there is no water in it. We have constructed a canal scheme there so that when it rains the water is trapped in the canal and led into the various dams which have been constructed. I may add that had I not done that a few years ago, some of the Bantu people in the Ovamboland would have died of thirst last year. But fortunately we constructed it timeously and it was not necessary to cart water to those people. I can mention a couple of schemes where we have attained wonderful success. We find, however, that we cannot carry out all these undertakings with R100,000. The law does not permit us to add anything to it. All we are asking here is to be allowed to use R100.000 at least, and then to exceed that amount albeit in the form of loans or in the form of contributions voted by this House. Everything will, of course, be laid before this House. I think hon. members will welcome this.

Then finally we have an amendment to a section of the Bantu Investment Corporation Act. The Act provides that assistance can only be given to Bantu in Bantu areas. It cannot be given in locations. The position unfortunately is that we cannot give assistance in the existing locations in the Transkei, which is a totally different complex from other locations. I want to give an example. A person may apply for permission to run a bus service between the Bantu area and the location, for instance. We cannot assist him. A group of Bantu who formed a company, a very sound proposition, in Umtata wanted assistance with their company, but because they were situated in the Umtata location they could not be assisted under the law. All we are doing here is to provide that in areas such as the Transkei where the White towns are surrounded by Bantu areas, we shall have the right to assist those Bantu. Take another example. A Bantu may want to erect a building which may be of great value to the Bantu community in Umtata, but because he wants to erect it in the location we cannot assist him because the existing legislation forbids although we realize how essential it is. We are creating an opening in the case of the Transkei so that this can be done. There is a rumour that there are 30 persons who want assistance which we cannot give, but they will be able to get it now. These are areas which are surrounded by Bantu areas but I want to make it clear that it will not apply in the case of locations surrounded by White areas in the rest of the country, or in the case of border areas. Those, briefly, are the amendments contained in this Bill.


Mr. Speaker, this Bill amends six Acts and the Minister has given us an explanation of the various provisions of the Bill and I want to say at once that there will be other speakers on this side who will deal particularly with certain aspects of the Bill. The Minister has commented already on the particular interest shown by the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) in certain sections of the Bill. In the main, the provisions of this Bill deal with administrative matters so we do not propose to deal with any aspect of separate development for Bantu areas with a view to their becoming independent or things of that sort. We propose to deal with the Bill on the basis of its administrative amendments. I want to deal only with some of the provisions of the Bill. I am not going to follow the Minister from clause to clause.

The first thing I want to deal with is Clause 1, which inserts 5bis in the original Act. This is the clause which permits the employer of a Native to collect the tax or the rate which the Native has to pay and to pay it on his behalf. The White Paper in that regard says the law prohibits an employer from deducting any amounts from the wages of his employee for the purpose of paying taxes, even if he is requested to do so; many employers are, however, prepared to assist in this regard and provision is accordingly made to authorize such deductions. Sir, the truth is of course that very many employers do deduct it because they are pestered by their employees to do so. That is recognized in the White Paper, but they do not say that those employers are breaking the law. Many employers pay the tax themselves. We are all getting rather hard up now so that not so many of us do it as used to, but in the main it is a good provision to put on a legal basis this practice which has been observed in the breach as far as the law is concerned. It does not harm anyone, but it does a great deal of good as far as both the taxpayer and the Receiver of Revenue are concerned, who now gets his money with the minimum of trouble.

The next clause I want to deal with is something I raised here before and I make no apology for coming back to it again. It is Clause 8 and I want to draw the Minister’s attention to Section 9, and particularly Section 16. Clause 8 (a), dealing with an amendment to Section 19 of the principal Act, says that “Bantu” has the same meaning as “Native”; and in Clause 16 there is a whole row of changes of definition from the word “Native” to “Bantu”. I am going to make another appeal to the Minister in this regard because he comes now with another Act which will make this change throughout virtually the mass of legislation dealing with our Bantu people, and I want to appeal to the Minister to deal with this matter as he would wish it to be dealt with if the shoe was on the other foot. If we are to deal with a fundamental word such as the nomenclature to be used in connection with the Bantu people, then let us at any rate use their language correctly when we use it in our legislation. In the way of ordinary conversation, if people make mistakes, if their grammar is poor, and if when talking to one another, use the wrong word now and again, and even if it becomes a colloquialism, fair enough, but when we come to putting it in our law let us put the right thing into the law when we know what the right thing is.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

It is like calling an Afrikaner an African.


Anyone can make a mistake in ignorance, but when we know the right word dealing with the matter, why not use the right thing? We know that the Bantu want the matter dealt with in the right way. Then why do we persist in entrenching it in our law? Surely the least the Bantu can expect is that when we, the White Parliament of South Africa, pass legislation by which we describe them and give them a name, seeing that we are using their own word, let us use it correctly. Let us not take their word and use it incorrectly. This is not our word; it is theirs. Recently when the matter was raised I was told that this had become through general usage the word “used”. I am sorry, but that still does not justify us in putting it into our Statutes. There are some of the people concerned who in any case do not look upon themselves as Abantu. The Minister knows that. This is one of those cases where we should not say that “Bantu” has the same meaning as “Native”. It has not. “Bantu” has not got the same meaning as “Native”. If you say a man is a Bantu you are wronging him by misusing his own language against him. It is so easy to put the thing right. Why does not the Minister grasp the nettle? He grasps the nettle with great courage in regard to things far more difficult than this, but the Minister would be surprised at the number of members of the Bantu people who are upset about this form of nomenclature used in our legislation. Sir, they do not like it. The Minister surely must know that one of these days when they start to deal with their own education, one of the first things they will put right will be this matter of calling themselves, in terms of their own language, by a name which is acceptable to themselves. They will not agree that “Bantu” has the same meaning as “Native”.


What must they be called?


If we are going to use the word at all, then we should call him what he is, umutu. Bantu is the plural. Why do we use the plural to denote the singular? AbaNtu is the plural form. Ntu is the root word, and Ntu is a person. abaNtu is a person.


But we are speaking in the plural.


Yes, abaNtu is the plural form, people. umuNtu is the singular. If we are going to say something is the same as “Native”, we should say “umuNtu”. [Interjections.] I am not going to move amendments in the Committee Stage. I am appealing to the Minister to put the thing right. Hon members opposite may laugh, but they would not go to a big tribal gathering in Pondoland or Zululand and meet the Banza and laugh at what they are saying here, because they will find that they are dealing with extremely dignified people who would not dream of laughing at such a thing. This is an important matter to them. It is the same as enshrining in our legislation the plural form when we mean the singular. So I appeal to the Minister not to give offence unnecessarily and when we know what the right word to use is. Let us not give them these pin-pricks, although this is more than a pin-prick. But I leave that and go on to the next point.

I come to Clause 9 (1) (d) (ii). This clause deals with the appointment of an acting chief or headman. The Minister says quite rightly that provision has not been made for the appointment of an acting chief or headman and for his retirement at a later stage when the heir becomes of an age to take over the chieftainship. This, in terms of Native administration, is a very important matter indeed. I would like to suggest to the Minister that in regard to these acting appointments a special ceremony should be adopted. In a tribe where the heir is a child and an acting appointment has to be made, often called a regent, once again taking over the European term and applying it to the Bantu, complete and absolute certainty should be registered regarding that acting appointment so that the tribe will have no doubt whatever not only as to who has been appointed but that he has the authority of the Government behind him. This question of young boys, near-children in some cases, getting the chieftainship of a tribe and then having an acting chief appointed creates extreme difficulty every time it occurs. It was traditional in the old days, even after the White man came, for a Native child in such a case to be spirited away very often for 100 miles so as to have him right out of the way of temptation, so that he was not poisoned by the regent who was going to take his place or by someone else who hoped to get the chieftainship of the tribe. There is still a tradition, a system, which lingers to the present day. Many chiefs’ sons are sent a long way away to school so as to get them away from the temptation of older people to “do them in”. The Princess in the Tower is a very fine story which we all learnt at school, and that is the way they had of dealing with such little children there, but in Africa they deal with them in a more direct fashion, although the result is the same.

At 10.25 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned until 6 March.

The House adjourned at 10.26 p.m.