House of Assembly: Vol23 - FRIDAY 5 APRIL 1968

FRIDAY, 5TH APRIL, 1968 Prayers—10.05 a.m. TAKING OF OATH BY NEW MEMBER

Mr. R. J. J. Pieterse, introduced by Mr. G. P. van den Berg and Mr. G. P. C. Bezuiden-hout, made, and subscribed to, the oath and took his seat.

QUESTIONS

For oral reply:

Exemptions from Work Reservation Determinations *1. Mr. S. J. M. STEYN

asked the Minister of Labour:

(a) What is the nature of the exemptions granted from each of the work reservation determinations which have been proclaimed since section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act came into effect, (b) how many workers have by reason of such exemption been permitted to do work reserved for other classes of persons and (c) what is the total number of workers of each race group employed in each of the undertakings or industries affected by each such determination.
The MINISTER OF LABOUR:
  1. (a) A general exemption from the work reservation determination applicable to certain sections of the Engineering Industry was granted at the request of all the employer organizations as well as the trade unions concerned subject to the observance of conditions laid down in a newly negotiated industrial council agreement. A general exemption was also granted from the determination applicable to the Building Industry, Transvaal, to the extent that persons who are not white persons may perform any work in the industry other than the work specified in the definition of artisan as contained in the industrial council agreement or the work of operating a power crane or the work of driving heavy mechanical vehicles. The exemption is subject to a condition that it shall cease to operate in respect of any employer immediately such employer replaces a white person employed by him on work in respect of which exemption has been granted, by a person who is not a white person.
    • In all other cases exemptions were granted to individual employers on the ground that they were unable to secure the services of workers of the race for which work had been reserved. The exemptions were granted for limited periods and subject to certain general conditions, for example that Whites were not to be allowed to work under the supervision of non-Whites, that any Whites who become available be engaged and that efforts be made to train or recruit Whites.
  2. (b) In the case of the general exemptions approximately 300 workers are involved while in the case of individual exemptions the present figure is 513.
  3. (c) The only figures at the Department’s disposal are those reflected in the Industrial Tribunal’s reports which are tabled in this House. As will be observed from the reports, employers frequently do not complete and return the questionnaires transmitted to them by the Tribunal with the result that exact figures are not available. In certain instances the Tribunal’s investigations were confined to specific occupations or work categories and therefore the investigation did not cover the whole industry. However, the total number of workers potentially affected by work reservation is estimated at 105,000.
Duration of Wage Board Investigations *2. Mr. S. J. M. STEYN

asked the Minister of Labour:

What was, in respect of each of the last five years, the average length of time taken, after a request for a wage board investigation had been made by a trade union to the Minister, (a) for the Minister to issue a reference to the wage board, (b) for the wage board to start the investigation, (c) for the wage board to complete the investigation and to report to the Minister, (d) for the Minister to approve a new wage determination and (e) for the new wage determination to be gazetted after approval by the Minister.
The MINISTER OF LABOUR:

During the past five years no references were issued to the Wage Board as a direct result of any request by a trade union or any other body. There is, therefore, no operative date in relation to which average figures can be given on the basis asked for by the hon. member. In general the position is as follows—

The programme of the Wage Board is planned yearly in advance by the Department in consultation with the Wage Board. Various factors are taken into account such as the period of operation of existing determinations, the peculiarities and special circumstances of each trade or industry and the representations received including those from trade unions. Should the need, however, arise for an urgent investigation into any particular trade or industry, a reference can be issued to the Wage Board at any time and the Board can be directed to give such investigation priority. The Board is invariably in possession of a number of references issued on various dates to permit of the collection of statistical data and other information required for the purpose of an investigation. Public sittings in pursuance of one or more references are so arranged as to obviate unnecessary expenses and delays. The starting dates of investigations vary considerably depending upon the number of investigations undertaken simultaneously. The time taken to complete an investigation and to report to the Minister depends upon the size of the industry and the conditions prevailing at the time of the investigation. The sequence of submitting reports to the Minister does not necessarily follow the order in which references are issued. The time taken by the Minister to approve of a new wage determination depends, inter alia, on the number and nature of the objections to the Board’s first recommendation and whether any amended recommendation has to be published for further objections. A new wage determination is usually gazetted approximately two weeks after the Minister’s approval of the Board’s recommendation and comes into operation four weeks after the date of publication.
Shortest and Longest Period taken for Wage Board Investigations *3. Mr. S. J. M. STEYN

asked the Minister of Labour:

What was, in respect of each of the last five years, (a) the shortest and (b) the longest period taken by the Wage Board, after a request to the Minister for an investigation, (i) to start the investigation and (ii) to complete the investigation and report to the Minister.
The MINISTER OF LABOUR:

The position is as outlined in the reply which I have just given to the hon. member’s question No. *2.

Works Committees under Bantu Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act *4. Mr. R. G. L. HOURQUEBIE

asked the Minister of Labour:

(a) How many works committees were (i) formed and (ii) discontinued under the Bantu Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act during 1954, 1956, 1958, 1960, 1962, 1964 and 1966, respectively, and (b) what was the total number of such committees in operation at the end of each of these years.
The MINISTER OF LABOUR

(Reply laid upon Table with leave of House):

  1. (a) (i).

Year

Number of Committees formed

1954

4

1956

3

1958

3

1960

12

1962

17

1964

2

1966

5

  1. (ii) This information is not available for each year as my Department is not advised regularly of the discontinuation of committees.
  1. (b)

Year

Number of Committees in existence at end of each year.

1954

4

1956

7

1958

8

1960

16

1962

40

1964

44

1966

50

Exemptions from Certain Provisions of Wage Determinations *5. Mr. G. S. EDEN

asked the Minister of Labour:

How many employees in each race group were granted exemptions during 1966 from the provisions of wage determinations in respect of (a) wages, (b) hours, (c) postponement of annual leave, (d) change in meal breaks and (e) deductions from wages for various purposes.
The MINISTER OF LABOUR: Statistics are not kept on a racial basis and detailed statistics are unfortunately also not available. However, the total number of exemptions granted was 561, namely 60 from wage provisions, 458 from hours of work, postponement of annual leave, change in meal breaks, etc., and 43 from all the provisions of certain wage determinations. *6. Mr. G. S. Eden

—Reply standing over.

Sea Cadet Training Unit *7. Mr. H. M. TIMONEY

asked the Minister of Defence:

Whether it is intended to disband the Sea Cadet training unit; if so, why.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE: There is no Sea Cadet training unit in existence. It is presumed that the question refers to the training of Sea Cadet Detachments of which there are three categories, namely:—
  1. (a) The Naval Cadet Detachments at schools.
  2. (b) The so-called “open” Sea Cadet Detachments which have no connection with schools.
  3. (c) The Sea Cadet Detachments of the Navy League of South Africa.

My Department has control over only the first mentioned two categories. It is not the intention to disband the Naval Cadet Detachments at schools. There are only seven “open” Sea Cadet Detachments. Because of their dwindling numerical strengths and the problems encountered in recruiting officers for them, mainly because they have no connection with schools, their continued existence is at present under consideration in consultation with the parties concerned. No decision has as yet been taken.

New Uniforms for S.A. Army *8. Mr. H. M. TIMONEY

asked the Minister of Defence:

  1. (1) Whether new uniforms are being designed for the South African Army; if so,
  2. (2) whether he will make a statement in regard to the matter.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:
  1. (1) Yes, only one.
  2. (2) The South African Defence Force had a need for a new combat uniform as the present combat uniform is unsuitable for field service under the varying climatic conditions of South Africa.
The development and design of a more suitable combat suit was entrusted to the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. Their research, which took 3½ years, included scientific laboratory tests and field trials with various materials and designs. In this they had the cooperation of other experts in the field of clothing such as the Human Sciences Laboratory of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State Chamber of Mines and the South African Bureau of Standards. The final recommendations of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research are at present under consideration.
Subsidizing of Butter and Cheese *9. Mr. W. T. WEBBER

asked the Minister of Agriculture:

What was the total expenditure during 1965-’66, 1966-’67 and the first half of 1967-’68, respectively, by way of subsidizing (a) the importation and (b) the local production of (i) butter and (ii) cheese.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

1965/66

1966/67

First half 1967/68

R

R

R

(a) Loss on import

(i) Butter

149,368

304,533

Nil

(ii) Cheese

76,839

98,546

Nil

(b) Subsidy on

(i) Butter

4,598,616

4,476,812

2,715,633

(ii) Cheese

Nil

Nil

Nil

For the information of the hon. member, it may be mentioned that the local production of cheese is not subsidized. The loss sustained on the importation of butter and cheese is, in fact, subsidized. The Dairy Board exports a certain quantity of butter and cheese annually in order to retain existing foreign markets, and any loss/profit on the quantity imported in order to compensate for the quantity exported, is for the account of the Dairy Board. Imports in excess of the required quantity are for the account of the Central Government. During 1967/68 a loss of R1,383 was sustained on the importation of cheese and a profit of R928,923 was made on the importation of butter. These amounts were only received/paid in November, 1967, and therefore they do not relate to the period covered by this Question.

The import duties paid by the Dairy Board on the transactions finalized during the relevant financial years were as follows:

1965/66

R427,500

1966/67

R710,900

1967/68

R762,600

These amounts accrued to the Central Government irrespective of the loss/profit on the importation of butter and cheese. Furthermore, there is an arrangement with the Treasury that in cases where butter or cheese is imported at a loss, the import duties on that quantity which is imported to compensate for the quantity exported by the Dairy Board, are refunded to the Board.
Butter and Cheese Imported and Produced *10 Mr. W. T. WEBBER

asked the Minister of Agriculture:

  1. (1) How many lbs. of (a) butter and (b) cheese were (i) imported and (ii) produced in the Republic during 1966, 1967 and the first quarter of 1968, respectively;
  2. (2) (a) from which countries was (i) butter and (ii) cheese imported and (b) what quantity was imported from each country.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

(Reply laid upon Table with leave of House):

  1. (1) (a) Butter (’000 lb.)

First quarter

1966

1967

1968

(i) Imported

24,643

9,037

336

(ii) Produced

85,711

105,114

30,258

  1. (b) Cheese (’000 lb.)

(i) Imported

6,157

552

Nil

(ii) Produced

31,727

43,038

10,498

  1. (2) (a) (i) and (b) (Butter imports)

New Zealand

20,160

3,360

Nil

Belgium

1,680

448

Nil

France

336

Nil

Nil

Australia

179

2,240

Nil

Adjoining territories

2,288

2,989

336

  1. (a) (ii) and 2 (b) (Cheese imports)

Holland

1,360

433

Nil

New Zealand

4,504

Nil

Nil

Belgium

226

98

Nil

Adjoining territories

27

21

Nil

Imitation Fluid Milk *11 Mr. W. T. WEBBER

asked the Minister of Agriculture:

  1. (1) Whether the selling of imitation fluid milk in the Republic has been brought to the notice of his Department;
  2. (2) whether the introduction of imitation fluid milk into the fresh milk market has been approved by his Department; if so, (a) where has it been introduced, (b) by whom has it been introduced and (c) at what retail price is it being sold; if not,
  3. (3) whether he will make a statement in regard to the matter.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:
  1. (1) No.
  2. (2) No.
  3. (3) No.
Application of Community Development Act, 1966 *12. Brig H. J. BRONKHORST (for Mr. L. G. Murray)

asked the Minister of Community Development:

  1. (1) (a) To which group areas, (b) when and (c) to what extent have the provisions of any section referred to in section 51 of the Community Development Act, 1966, been applied in terms of that section;
  2. (2) (a) which group areas have been designated by the Minister in terms of section 15 (1) of the Act and (b) when were they so designated.
The MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: To compile the information required by the hon. member will entail a considerable amount of work which cannot be completed in a few weeks time. My Department will, however, on his request, give the hon. member any information which he may require in regard to any particular area.
Condensation of Personal and Identification Documents *13. Mr. H. M. LEWIS

asked the Minister of the Interior:

  1. (1) When is it expected that the scheme to condense all personal and identification documents into a single document will be introduced;
  2. (2) whether the police are to administer the scheme or any part thereof; if so, what part;
  3. (3) whether legislation will be necessary to make provision for the implementation of the scheme; if so,
  4. (4) whether such legislation will be introduced during the current session.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:
  1. (1) 1st May, 1970.
  2. (2) No.
  3. (3) Yes.
  4. (4) No.
Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

Arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, I wonder if he has seen a statement published in Durban to the effect that a section of the Police were being trained to deal with this matter?

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

No, I have no knowledge of that.

*14. Mr. J. W. E. WILEY

—Reply standing over.

Crimes Committed and Police Establishment at Swellendam *15. Brig. H. J. BRONKHORST (for Mr. J. W. E. Wiley)

asked the Minister of Police:

  1. (1) (a) How many cases of burglary, house breaking and/or theft were reported in Swellendam on the night of 31st March/ 1st April, 1968 and (b) how many arrests have been made;
  2. (2) how many (a) white and (b) non-white policemen were on duty on the said night;
  3. (3) whether there is a shortage of staff at the Swellendam police station; if so, what is the (a) present and (b) full complement of white and non-white policemen at this station;
  4. (4) whether steps will be taken to fill the vacancies; if so, (a) what steps and (b) when.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE:
  1. (1)
    1. (a) 5, of which in two cases nothing was stolen.
    2. (b) Nil.
  2. (2)
    1. (a) 1 until 10 p.m.
    2. (b) 1 from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.
  3. (3) Yes.

(a)

(b)

White

Non-White

White

Non-White

8

4

10

3

  1. (4) (a) and (b) Yes, steps have already been taken to transfer two white constables to Swellendam.
Valkenberg Hospital *16. Dr. E. L. FISHER

asked the Minister of Health:

  1. (1) (a) For how many patients was the Valkenberg Hospital built and (b) what is the total number of patients housed there at present;
  2. (2) (a) what extensions have been made to the hospital and (b) when were they made.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE

(for the Minister of Health):

  1. (1)
    1. (a) 1,832.
    2. (b) 2,102.
  2. (2) (a) and (b) In 1894 the hospital consisted of 7 wards but extensions were already commenced during that year and up to 1955 an additional 17 wards had been built. A further 4 wards were erected during 1956-’58 which brings the total number of wards at present available to 28.
Medical Officers at Valkenberg Hospital *17. Dr. E. L. FISHER

asked the Minister of Health:

(a) How many medical officers are employed at Valkenberg Hospital, (b) how many of them are specialist psychiatrists and (c) how many of these are employed (i) fulltime and (ii) part-time.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE

(for the Minister of Health):

  1. (a) 14.
  2. (b) 3.
  3. (c)
    1. (i) 7 full-time medical officers and 2 full-time specialist psychiatrists.
    2. (ii) 4 part-time medical officers and 1 part-time specialist psychiatrist.
School Books for Bantu Pupils *18. Mrs. H. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

  1. (1) What is the estimated cost of books required by Bantu pupils in each school standard;
  2. (2) whether consideration has been given to the supplying of all school books free to pupils; if not, why not.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:
  1. (1) A definite general reply cannot be given because in the case of secondary pupils, the cost of books depends mainly on the choice of subjects and the fluctuation of book prices. In the case of primary pupils, the essential text books are supplied free of charge and the pupils must only supplement this supply, especially in regard to stationery. The latter differs from school to school.
  2. (2) No. In principle a counter-performance is expected from the parents, which, alternatively, might take the form of a tax increase.
Bantu Convicted of Illegal Stay in Urban Areas *19. Mrs. H. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

How many Bantu men and women, respectively, were convicted of being illegally in the urban areas of (a) Johannesburg, (b) the rest of the Witwatersrand, (c) Pretoria, (d) Durban and (e) Port Elizabeth during 1967.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION: Statistics in this connection are not kept by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. *20. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

—Reply standing over.

Importation of Rattlesnakes *21. Dr. A. RADFORD

asked the Minister of Agriculture:

  1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to a report that rattlesnakes have been imported to East London from California;
  2. (2) whether his Department authorized the importation; if so, for what reason; if not,
  3. (3) whether he intends to take any steps to ensure that these reptiles do not multiply and spread throughout the Republic.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:
  1. (1) No.
  2. (2) No.
  3. (3) No, since it is not a function of my Department.
Dr. A. RADFORD:

Can the Minister tell me which Department’s it is?

The MINISTER:

No.

*22. Dr. A. RADFORD

—Reply standing over.

Photographs taken at Simonstown by Crew of Pakistani Submarine *23. Brig. H. J. BRONKHORST (for Mr. W. G. Kingwill)

asked the Minister of Defence:

  1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to a report that members of the crew of the visiting Pakistani submarine took photographs of defence and communication centres at Simonstown;
  2. (2) whether this report has been investigated; if so with what result;
  3. (3) whether he has taken or intends to take any action in the matter; if so, what action; if not,
  4. (4) whether he will make a statement in regard to the matter.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) Yes. The ship was under surveillance from arrival until departure and photographs were definitely not taken by members of her crew on her arrival at and entry into Simonstown. The officer commanding the Dockyard Police instructed the captain and the first lieutenant of the submarine that photographs were not to be taken of ships 0r naval establishments at Simonstown. It may be added that there are no communication centres in the dockyard and only the wireless masts of the communication centre at Klawer are visible from the dockyard.
  3. (3) No.
  4. (4) No. I regret that such a misrepresentation was published originally.
Special Supplementary Allowance for Civil Pensioners *24. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions:

  1. (1) Whether the special supplementary allowance paid to certain married civil pensioners over 70 years of age who performed military service is to be increased; if so, (a) from what date and (b) to what extent; if not, why not;
  2. (2) whether the proposed increase in the bonus paid to these pensioners will reduce the amount of the special supplementary allowances if so, what steps are contemplated to ensure that these pensioners will receive the benefit of the proposed increase in the bonus payable.
The MINISTER OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND PENSIONS:
  1. (1) No. (a) and (b) fall away.
These persons are undoubtedly the most privileged pensioners as far as the allowances payable in excess of their pensions are concerned. Since 1st October, 1965, no assets or income, except the relative pension benefits are taken into account, in determining the amount of the supplementary pensions in their cases. These pensions are already supplemented to such an extent that it may even amount to R149 per month and in no case less than R104 per month. For example, a person in receipt of basic pension of R30 per month, receives a temporary supplementary allowance of R91 per month. In many cases the supplemented pensions of these persons exceed their salaries on retirement.
  1. (2) Yes. No steps are contemplated as these pensioners are already in receipt of the minimum guaranteed pensions.

Reply standing over from Tuesday, 2nd April, 1968

Rail Petrol Tankers and Durban-Johannesburg Pipeline

The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS (for the Minister of Transport) replied to Question *8, by Mr. H. M. Timoney:

Question:

Whether any rail petrol tankers became redundant on the completion of the Durban-Johannesburg pipeline; if so, (a) how many and (b) where are they being used at present.

Reply:

No. When it was decided to build the pipeline no further orders for tank wagons were placed and the position was met in the interim by providing 100 improvised tank wagons. When the pipeline was commissioned these improvised tankers were dismantled and the tanks returned to the oil companies from whom they had been obtained.

(a) and (b) Fall away.

Products Conveyed Through Durban-Johannesburg Pipeline

The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS (for the Minister of Transport) replied to Question *10, by Mr. H. M. Timoney:

Question:
  1. (a) What types of product were conveyed through the Durban-Johannesburg pipeline during 1966 and 1967, (b) what respective quantities and value of each type of product were conveyed and (c) at what transport costs in each case.
Reply:
  1. (a) Premium and regular petrol, diesel-gas oil, naphtha, power paraffin, Sasol hydro-carbon blending stock and crude oil.
  2. (b) As the desired information is of strategic significance, it is not considered advisable to make it public.
  3. (c) The transport costs (rates) for petroleum products conveyed by pipeline are as detailed in clause 254 of the Official Railway Tariff Book.
Non-Utilization of Cable Linking S.A. and Europe

The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS replied to Question *13, by Mr. E. G. Malan:

Question:
  1. (1) On what date was the old cable linking South Africa and Europe taken out of use;
  2. (2) whether his Department (a) has paid out any funds to any other authority or body for the upkeep of the cable since that date and (b) will provide funds for its upkeep during the 1968-’69 financial year; if so, (i) to what authority or body, (ii) what are the amounts in each case and (iii) what are the reasons for continuing the upkeep of the cable.
Reply:
  1. (1) With effect from 1st June, 1967.
  2. (2)
    1. (a) Yes, but the relative moneys will be recovered from the British Post Office as final agreement about the cessation of South Africa’s contributions was only reached this year.
    2. (b) No.

For written reply:

1. Mr. L. F. WOOD

—Reply standing over.

Vitamin Tablets for Coloured School Children 2. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Coloured Affairs:

  1. (1) Whether the scheme to supply Coloured school children with vitamin tablets is still in operation; if so, (a) to what extent, (b) with what results and (c) what has been the annual cost of the scheme in each province;
  2. (2) (a) what is the formula of the vitamin tablets, (b) by whom are they manufactured and (c) what is the cost per 1,000 tablets.
The MINISTER OF COLOURED AFFAIRS:
  1. (1) Yes.
    1. (a) No restriction as regards indigent pupils.
    2. (b) No follow-up work has been undertaken because of the cost and work involved.
    3. (c) The expenditure in respect of the Republic for 1967 was R3,780. The scheme is not operated on a provincial basis.
  2. (2)
    1. (a) Vitamin A, several of the vitamin B-group, vitamin C, vitamin D, Calcium and Nicotinamide.
    2. (b) Various manufacturers—tenders for supply are obtained by the Central Medical Stores.
    3. (c) 82c per 1,000 tablets.
Certificates of Registration Issued in Respect of “Telegraph” and “Herald”. 3. Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER

asked the Minister of the Interior:

Whether certificates of registration have been issued in respect of newspapers published under the name of (a) Telegraph and (b) Herald: if so, when.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:
  1. (a) Yes—certificate dated 4th October, 1967.
  2. (b) Yes—certificate dated 15th June, 1963.
Bantu Students Enrolled for Teaching Courses 4. Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER

asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

  1. (1) How many Bantu students are enrolled for (a) the Lower Primary Teacher’s course, (b) the Higher Primary Teacher’s course, (c) the Secondary Teacher’s Diploma course, (d) the University Education Diploma (non-graduate) course and (e) the post-degree University Education Diploma course;
  2. (2) how many students qualified for each of these certificates at the end of 1967.
The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:
  1. (1)
    1. (a) 471
    2. (b) 3,912
    3. (c) 263
    4. (d) 14
    5. (e) 33.
  2. (2)
    1. (a) 126
    2. (b) 1,639
    3. (c) 64
    4. (d) 6
    5. (e) 24.

(Statistics in paragraph 1 as on the 1st Tuesday of June, 1967. Transkei excluded.)

Bantu Students at Batswana Training School 5. Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER

asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

  1. (1) How many Bantu students (a) are enrolled at the Batswana Training School and (b) qualified as trade instructors at the end of 1967;
  2. (2) how many students (a) are enrolled for training and (b) qualified at the end of 1967 as (i) surveying assistants, (ii) health inspector and (iii) medical orderlies.
The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:
  1. (1)
    1. (a) Batswana Training School: 134 Secondary, 174 teachers’ training.
      • Batswana Vocational School: 139 vocational training, 24 trade instructors.
    2. (b) 15.
  1. (2)

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(a)

2

23

44

(b)

1

15

21

(Statistics as on 6th December, 1967)

Bantu Students Enrolled at Departmental Technical Schools 6. Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER

asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

  1. (1) How many Bantu students are enrolled at departmental technical schools;
  2. (2) how many passed the (a) technical senior certificate, (b) technical junior certificate, (c) commercial senior certificate and (d) commercial junior certificate examinations at the end of 1967.
The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:
  1. (1) 455.
  2. (2)
    1. (a) none
    2. (b) 37
    3. (c) 57
    4. (d) 1,082.
Bantu Students Enrolled at Departmental Trade Schools 7. Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER

asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

  1. (1) How many Bantu students are enrolled at departmental trade schools;
  2. (2) how many qualified in each type of course offered at these schools at the end of 1967;
  3. (3) how many girls (a) are enrolled for post-Standard VI vocational courses and (b) passed such courses at the end of 1967;
  4. (4) how many boys are training as motor mechanics in departmental workshops.
The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:
  1. (1) 1,146.
  2. (2) Concrete, bricklaying and plastering: 89.
    • Carpentry, joinery and cabinet making: 77.
    • General and motor mechanics: 23.
    • Tailoring: 53.
    • Leatherwork and upholstery: 5.
    • Plumbing, drainage and sheet-metal work: 20.
    • Electrician: 8.
    • Housewifery: 13.
  3. (3) (a) 109. (b) 54.
  4. (4) 255.
Bantu Teachers 8. Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER

asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

  1. (1) How many Bantu teachers are employed in (a) Government, (b) State-aided and (c) private schools in the Republic, excluding the Transkei;
  2. (2) how many of these teachers are (a) paid by his Department and (b) privately paid;
  3. (3) how many of these teachers in (a) primary, (b) secondary, (c) high and (d) teacher training schools have (i) a degree without professional qualifications, (ii) a matriculation certificate without professional qualifications, (iii) a Standard VIII certificate without professional qualifications, (iv) a Standard VI certificate without professional qualifications, (v) a Lower Primary Teacher’s Certificate, (vi) a Higher Primary Teacher’s Certificate, (vii) a Secondary Teacher’s Diploma or Bantu Education Diploma, (viii) a degree and professional qualifications and (ix) other qualifications.
The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:
  1. (1)
    1. (a) 898
    2. (b) 29,038
    3. (c) 1.769.
  2. (2)
    1. (a) 25,332
    2. (b) 6,373.
  3. (3) Statistics are not processed by my Department of Bantu Education in the categories as required by the hon. member, consequently the information is given under the following categories:
    1. (a) primary schools,
    2. (b) secondary (forms I to V), technical secondary and teachers’ training schools,
    3. (c) vocational training schools.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(i)

5

101

none

(ii)

170

69

none

(iii) and (iv)

5,656

27

28

(v)

13,120

102

3

(vi)

9,896

810

5

(vii)

97

111

2

(viii)

21

383

none

(ix)

489

591

19

Statistics as on the 1st Tuesday of June, 1968.

Student Teachers and Natal Training Colleges 9. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Indian Affairs:

  1. (1) Whether O-level pass trainees are accepted at Natal training colleges;
  2. (2) whether Natal students who wished to take up teaching were instructed that they would have to undergo their training at the Johannesburg College; if so, (a) how many students were involved and (b) what compensation will be made to such students who become liable for extra board and lodging expenses.
The MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS:
  1. (1) Yes, but only if better qualified candidates are not available.
  2. (2) No. When it became apparent that the training institutions in Natal would be unable to cater for all prospective teacher trainees, those candidates who could not be accommodated in Natal were given the opportunity of applying if they wished to do so, for admission to the training college in Johannesburg where vacancies existed.
    1. (a) 50 of the applicants were selected
    2. (b) With Treasury approval the boarding bursaries available to these students were raised from R150 to R250 per annum.
Students/Staff Ratio at University College of the Western Cape 10. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Coloured Affairs:

  1. (1) What is the ratio of students to (a) teaching and (b) administrative staff at the University College of the Western Cape;
  2. (2) what is the number of (a) White, (b) Coloured and (c) other non-White persons on the teaching staff.
The MINISTER OF COLOURED AFFAIRS:
  1. (1)
    1. (a) 9 to 1
    2. (b) 14 to 1
  2. (2)
    1. (a) 69 Whites full-time and 14 part-time.
    2. (b) 2 Coloureds.
    3. (c) None.
Posts and Telegraphs: Value of Land and Capital Goods in Use 11. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

(a) What is the estimated total current value of (i) land and buildings and (ii) other capital goods being used by his Department and (b) what estimated portion of each has been paid out of (i) revenue funds and (ii) capital funds.
The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:
  1. (a) An estimate of the present values at current market prices of the land and buildings and of the other capital goods used by the Department, is not available and would require much time and labour to compile. Since 1910 the Post Office has, however, received a total of approximately R363,080,000 in respect of capital funds for telecommunications works and an estimated R34,397,000 for land and buildings—a grand total of about R397,477,000.
  2. (b) Such an estimate is not available.
12. Mrs. H. Suzman

—Reply standing over.

Tenders in Respect of Micro-Wave Tower, Johannesburg 13. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Public Works:

Whether tenders for the remainder of the work in connection with the erection of the micro-wave tower in Johannesburg will be called for; if so for what portions of the work; if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS:

Yes; basement and tower and finishes to basement and tower.

Transfer of Special Schools in Natal 14. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of National Education:

Whether special schools in Natal are to be transferred from the Natal Provincial Administration to his Department; if so, (a) when, (b) what are the names of the schools and (c) where are they situated.
The MINISTER OF NATIONAL EDUCATION:

No.

Transfer of Vocational Schools in Natal 15. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of National Education:

Whether vocational schools in Natal are to be transferred to the Natal Provincial Administration; if so, (a) when, (b) what are the names of the schools and (c) where are they situated.
The MINISTER OF NATIONAL EDUCATION:
  1. (a) Yes, on 1st April, 1968.
  2. (b) and (c)
    1. (i) Commercial High School, Ladysmith.
    2. (ii) Southern Natal Commercial High School, Port Shepstone.
    3. (iii) George Campbell Technical High School, Durban.
    4. (iv) Willie Maree Technical High School, Glencoe.
    5. (v) Commercial High School, Durban.
    6. (vi) Commercial High School and Technical High School, Pietermaritzburg.

Replies standing over from Tuesday, 2nd April, 1968:

5. Dr. G. F. Jacobs

—Since withdrawn.

6. Dr. G. F. Jacobs

—Since withdrawn.

Finance: Cost of Official Visit Overseas

The MINISTER OF FINANCE replied to Question 10, by Mr. L. F. Wood:

Question:

Whether the cost of the official visit paid by him and his officials to Portugal, the Argentine, Brazil, Britain, France, West Germany and Italy during 1967, has been determined; if so, what was the cost.

Reply:

Yes; R10,867.42.

PROMOTION OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF BANTU HOME-LANDS BILL (Senate Amendments)

Amendments in clause 10 put and agreed to.

DEVELOPMENT OF SELF-GOVERNMENT FOR NATIVE NATIONS IN SOUTH WEST AFRICA BILL

Bill read a First Time.

COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY AND WAYS AND MEANS—CENTRAL GOVERNMENT (Debate on motion to go into—resumed) *Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

Yesterday afternoon we listened here to what was probably the most unconvincing reply which we have ever heard from the hon. the Minister of Community Development. The hon. member for Yeoville asked the Minister to explain why the costs in regard to his journeys overseas were so high in comparison with the costs of journeys undertaken by other hon. Ministers. The hon. the Minister stated in his reply that the reason for that was that in many of the countries he had visited, he had not been able to travel by air, but had had to make use of taxis, and that he had, of course in cases where people had entertained him, to reciprocate their hospitality in a modest way. The question which immediately arises is: Does this not apply to other Ministers as well? I have the details here of a journey undertaken by the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs in 1967. He visited nine countries and there were four persons in his party. His journey lasted one month and five days, and it cost only R10,000. When the Minister of Economic Affairs goes overseas then surely he also pays visits to factories and installations, and is entertained by members of the public and prominent persons, and I take it that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs reciprocates their hospitality. One is quite justified therefore in saying to the hon. the Minister of Community Development that the reply he furnished us with yesterday afternoon was by no means convincing. There is a further conclusion one can arrive at from the hon. Minister’s reply, and I want to put it to him in the form of a question: He states that he had to entertain a great deal, and often had to journey by motor car but is he the only Minister who fulfills his duty when he travels overseas? Is he the only Minister who meets his obligations by entertaining? Are they being negligent when they go overseas? In 1963 when the hon. the Minister of Defence was Minister of Community Development he also travelled overseas, and he visited the following countries: Greece, Italy, Germany, Holland and England. It was also an extended visit and the costs amounted to R9,620. The present Minister of Defence was the hon. Minister’s predecessor. Admittedly the overseas journey of the Minister of Defence took place two years prior to that, and prices could have increased in the meantime.

*The MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

How long did the journey last?

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

From 23rd September to 29th October—one and a half months. The hon. Minister must explain to us why his expenditure was so high, in comparison with that of other Ministers.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

It is only three times as much.

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

Sir, we are all being asked to combat inflation, and to spend as little as possible, and I want to say to the Minister of Community Development, in the light of what his journey has cost, that the nation will take very careful note of this type of expenditure. If inflation is to be combated, everyone must lend a hand—not only the nation, but also those who are members of the Government. An hon. member on this side, in a lighter vein, composed the following jingle with reference to ministerial journeys overseas—

Billy is the boy who covers the miles. Suggest a journey, and he is full of smiles! He travels the globe on affairs of state, And lives it up at a colossal rate!

But there is another little matter I want to touch upon. The hon. member for Umbilo asked the Minister of Finance whether he thought the additional R1 which he was giving certain groups of pensioners, would be adequate, and why this increase would only be paid out acted 1st October? To that the hon. the Minister replied that the increase could only be paid out after 1st October, because it was only then that the computer would be able to cope with it. But that is not a satisfactory reply. Why should these people do without this R1 from April to October? If there is one section of our population that has to carry a heavy burden in this time of an increased cost of living, it is probably our old age pensioners, and others who are dependent upon their pensions. We want to urge the hon. the Minister to see to it that when these people are granted increases in future, they do not have to wait so long again before they get them. In the past such increases were always paid out sooner, and we cannot see why this cannot be done in this case as well. I am therefore making this appeal to the hon. the Minister.

I now want to touch upon a matter affecting agriculture. The Budget this year can be described as a maxi-Budget, because for the first time it has exceeded the R2,000 million mark. But when we come to provision which is being made in that Budget for agriculture, then I am afraid that this Budget has a real mini look about it. Provision for agriculture is negligible—almost nothing. It arouses people’s hopes, but it cannot provide satisfaction. As regards our agriculture in general, I can say that the situation has improved slightly in some respects. The wonderful mealie crop we had last season, and the improvement in the position of some other products, has resulted in the contribution of agriculture to our gross domestic product having increased somewhat. It is a good phenomenon that the tendency to decrease which was discernible in the contribution of agriculture to our gross domestic product has apparently been checked now. According to the report of the Secretary to the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, the contribution of agriculture has remained more or less constant since 1964. It varied from 8.8 to 8.6 to 8.9. It therefore appears that the tendency to decrease in the contribution of agriculture to our gross domestic product has at least been checked now.

But despite this there are more disturbing signs in agriculture than reassuring ones, Inter alia, the debts of farmers have increased from a total of R1,000 million to R1,200 million. For many farmers there is no chance any more of financial rehabilitation. They are burdened to-day by tremendous liabilities. One deputation after the other had to come and see the Minister—in fact, they even went so far as to see the Prime Minister. What about? The unfavourable financial position in which the agricultural industry has found itself. This Budget is the result of their unremitting labours. As I have said, they came to see the Ministers; the Agricultural Advisory Council was obliged to convene; the National Woolgrowers Association came to see the Minister, as did the Wool Board and representatives of the S.A. Agricultural Union. In fact, never before have there been so many deputations to see Ministers of State in regard to conditions in agriculture. Here we now have this Budget, as a result of those representations. What is the result for agriculture? R4 million is being appropriated for the exporters; R1 million for the promotion of the wool industry; R10 million will be made available to the Land Bank …

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

An additional R10 million.

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

R10 million is being made available to the Land Bank in the additional Estimates, and R3 million is being made available for further assistance. By the way, where is this appropriation in the Estimates? It seems to me that this R3 million has disappeared, even before the farmers could receive it. If the Minister looks at his Vote, he will see that this appropriation of R3 million was there last year as well. What “additional” assistance is he talking about? Another R150,000 is being appropriated for the promotion of the wattle bark industry. That gives us a total appropriation for agriculture of R15,150,000. This is a result of the labours and work of the farmer; this is the result of the representations of deputations. I say, without fear of contradiction, that the assistance which the farmers are being provided with in this Budget is a shock to them. It is a shock to them because the extent is totally inadequate. The greatest task resting upon us today, is to help our severely stricken agricultural industry to its feet again. They will say: Yes, but we have in fact made an additional concession now. Instead of the R20,000 which can be deducted for estate duty purposes, the amount is now being increased to R25,000. Of course we are grateful for that. But one does not only want to help the farmer when he dies one day. One would like to help him while he is still alive. That is precisely the difference between our approach, and that of the Government. We say that, despite what we are doing to-day, the costs involved in getting that industry back onto its feet will in future be far greater. Where did it suffer its greatest setback; the industry suffered its greatest setback on the economic front.

*An HON. MEMBER:

As a result of what?

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

Sir, I shall tell the hon. member what caused it. There are three reasons why it experienced its greatest setback. One of the major reasons originated a long time ago. I am glad the hon. member put that question. I want to refer him to what Mr. A. Paul said. He was the deputy chairman of the Wool Board.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Is he bankrupt?

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

No, of course he is not bankrupt. He stated the following (translation)—

The hardships being suffered by farmers to-day must be seen in perspective over a long period of time. He has for example paid a vast deal more to the State by way of taxation than the amount of assistance he has received.

What is that perspective? That perspective is nothing but the tremendous increase in production costs and the fact that the farmer has received unprofitable prices for his produce, and in the third instance the fact that he has been burdened by long drawn out and serious droughts. I think we are entitled to ask this question. Does the Government have the serious intention, and the courage to do what is being expected of them under the present-day circumstances, and not merely to provide a mere trickle of assistance which is nothing more than what they have done in the past? I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Agriculture a question, arising out of the statement he issued after the Minister of Finance had introduced his Budget. What more is there than what we have received in the past? That is why I say that hon. members on that side do not have the courage to place the agricultural industry on a sound basis.

*An HON. MEMBER:

How do you want to do that?

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

That information will also be supplied to the hon. member. This is the full statement issued by the hon. the Minister (translation)—

During recent representations addressed to the Prime Minister by the agricultural sector, the Government was requested to provide financial relief to farmers, who, as a result of increased rates of interest, and the serious prevailing drought conditions, have found themselves in financial difficulties. Inter alia it has been suggested that a direct State subsidy, or a decrease in rates of interest, should be introduced. The Cabinet has now had an opportunity of considering this matter. The Cabinet feels that any possible advantages implied by a general decrease of the burden of interest for agriculture will not be able to outweigh the disadvantages it entails for the economic system as a whole, agriculture included.

Apparently that is the only new idea which the Cabinet has considered, and that it has also refused. All the other proposals which were made, I may add, except the R4 million which will be made available as compensation if the export of certain products—I presume that the farmers are also included in this—is prejudiced as a result of devaluation, are nothing new. What else is there besides the old methods in regard to which it has become apparent that they are unable to keep the farmers on their feet? Why was the hon. the Minister not prepared to listen to anything else, to something new?

*Mr. M. W. DE WET:

Tell us how you would like to keep them on their feet?

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

This side of the House issued a statement even before the Budget was introduced. Hon. members are welcome to discuss it. But the United Party is not governing the country. It is a pity. [Interjections.] Hon. members on that side of the House are responsible for that. We ask whether the Minister of Agriculture is doing his duty in this respect, or is he losing the fight in the Cabinet? We know that hon. Minister of Agriculture. I do not think he bears any farmer in South Africa a grudge, because he is himself a farmer. He knows the farmers well. He ought to be sympathetically disposed towards the farmers of South Africa. But I want to maintain that he and other hon. members on that side of the House, who represent the rural areas, are losing the struggle in their own party. That is why this concession in the Budget comprises a few crumbs only, i.e. because those hon. members who represent the rural areas, and that hon. Minister of Agriculture, are simply incapable of winning the struggle within their own party.

*The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

What do the farmers of Bethlehem say?

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

I maintain that their influence within the ranks of the National Party is on the wane, and that is why they are unable to continue the fight.

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

You should be pleased about that.

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

Of course I am pleased. Let me inform the hon. the Minister that I am pleased; but I am sorry for the farmers of South Africa. That is the difference between the hon. the Minister and myself. I am sorry for the farmers of South Africa who are going under while those hon. members are losing the fight.

*Mr. G. DE K. MAREE:

Where are you going to stand?

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

This is the so-called Government that has the reply to every problem in South Africa, but this is their real test now, because there is a large section of the population of South Africa that has found itself in the most difficult circumstances. They were prepared to say in regard to other questions: It does not matter what it costs; we will find the money. This is a real test for this Government, and a real test for the rural members on that side of the House to show whether they are capable of saving the situation. They think they can save it by means of an additional R10 million or R3 million or R1 million or the promotion of the wool industry, but what is the true state of affairs? I want to quote a few items which appeared in the Press. In the Sunday Express of 3rd March this year there is a report of an interview with Mr. P. K. Landman, secretary of the Transvaal Agricultural Union. [Interjection.] It does not matter, but I presume he is fair. Here and there one finds a fair Nationalist. The report reads as follows—

Drought losses already R200 million. The drought has already cost South African farmers an estimated R200 million—R175 million of it alone made up of maize harvest losses—according to Mr. P. K. Landman, Secretary of the Transvaal Agricultural Union.

That is the position in the Transvaal. Listen to what The Star wrote on 2nd December last year in regard to the position in the Eastern Cape—

Prolonged droughts in sections of the Eastern Cape where grazing is withering has cost about 2,000 farmers in the regions of Steytlerville, Jansenville, Willowmore, Pearston, and parts of Uitenhage, Somerset East and Aberdeen, at least R3 million over the past 18 months. The drought cut production by 5,000 bales of Cape mohair alone, representing a loss to the farmers of R1½ million.

The point I want to make is this. We have a situation where we have lost R200 million, and in the Eastern Cape, in a few districts, the situation is such that farmers have lost R3 million there during the past 18 months, and now I want to ask the hon. the Minister the following question: What does he think he can achieve with his meagre additional R15 million—and I say that I do not know where that R3 million is, he must first show me …

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

Do you suggest that we spend the R200 million on the farmers?

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that if we had been sitting in those benches we would have seen fit to accept responsibility for the situation. I want to ask the hon. the Minister this: Does he think that with the R15 million extra which he is providing this year, he can rescue the situation outside?

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

Why are you only discussing the extra amount and not the total amount?

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

The hon. Minister is asking why I am not discussing the total amount. But the total amount has not in the past been able to save the situation.

Why has this situation arisen in our country? Because the Government has neglected all the appeals we have made in the past. We have the situation because, although we pointed out to them the increase in the costs of production and although we told them that they were not adjusting prices, and that the adjustments were not keeping pace with increasing costs of production, they paid no heed to what we told them. As a result of these factors the reserves of farmers in South Africa have diminished steadily. In spite of our appeals, and not only ours, but those of the South African Agricultural Union as well, to include the risk factor in the determination of prices, the Government failed to act. That is why we have a position where the reserves of our farmers to-day have reached a low-water mark. That is why most of our farmers have found themselves in the situation they are in to-day. I want to quote to the hon. the Minister a few extracts from a letter which I recently received from Beaufort West in order to demonstrate to him what the situation is. It reads as follows and deals with the so-called agricultural credit—

For us in the Karoo that legislation is a mere cypher, and not even worth the paper on which it is written.

The writer then goes on to mention a few cases which he has heard of, where assistance was given. He then refers to his own case and writes as follows (translation)—

Take my own case. I have been struggling for almost a year (to obtain assistance). My 4,162 morgen are without mortgage, but I owe approximately R2,000 for boreholes, camps, house and outbuildings. I am asking between R5 and R6 per morgen, while the last sworn evaluation was R13 per morgen. I have sold half of my land at R14 per morgen and it was sold again at R15 per morgen.

He states that he was unable to find assistance anywhere, and writes further—

They give as an excuse for not assisting me that I have no mortgage. My creditors do not want to declare me bankrupt, but they are going to sell all my assets in March and then lease the land. Then I have to go to town and, at the age of 56, go and look for work.

[Time expired.]

*Mr. P. H. TORLAGE:

Mr. Speaker, when I consider the actions of the hon. members of the Opposition since yesterday, then I must say that there is a vast difference if I compare it to their actions last week when they were debating other matters here. It is very clear that hon. members of the Opposition have been rendered helpless, and have during these two days in particular been rendered helpless by two things, i.e. the result in Pretoria (West) in the first instance, and the masterly Budget introduced by the hon. the Minister of Finance in the second. Just imagine, Sir, the biggest propagandist of the United Party, the hon. member for Yeoville, the man whose calling it is to encourage his party and provide the driving power here, stood up yesterday like a brash schoolboy and tried to make out a case, during the Budget debate, in regard to the travelling expenses of a Minister who had gone overseas. Just imagine that, Sir!

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Reply to his questions.

*Mr. P. H. TORLAGE:

I shall reply. I want to say to the hon. member for Transkei that each one of these matters can be vindicated. I also want to say the following. The hon. Ministers of this Government are very meticulous in regard to expenditure. I want to maintain that our hon. Ministers are doing everything in the interests of this country. Their journeys overseas are in the interests of South Africa. I do not blame the hon. members of the Opposition for looking to see whether too much has been spent. Do the hon. members know that costs in the U.S.A. and Canada are one and a half times greater than in Europe?

*Brig. H. J. BRONKHORST:

Other Ministers were also there.

*Mr. P. H. TORLAGE:

Do not talk about other Ministers. I am asking those hon. members a question. Do they know what those costs are? J shall come to other Ministers, and I shall come to the hon. Ministers who visited the U.S.A. and Canada, if that will satisfy hon. members. Now the hon. member is sitting back. The hon. member for Yeoville said here yesterday that a party of the hon. Minister of Education consisting of five persons paid a visit overseas. I have gone into the matter and have found that there were only four in that company. That makes a big difference if the average amount is calculated. For this party of four persons the average expenditure was R4,750 per person. That was the party of the hon. the Minister of Education. The hon. the Minister of Community Development had a party of six persons. Their average costs were R5,400 per person, in other words, an additional R650 per person. Is it necessary for the hon. member for Yeoville, a front-bencher, a person who sits in a bench next to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to stand up here and try and make a case of this matter? Perhaps one should expect this kind of conduct from a party which is bankrupt, a party which has been Pretoria West-ed. To within a few days the total travelling expenses were the same as they were in the cases of these other hon. Ministers with their parties. The hon. the Minister of Community Development and his party were in the U.S.A. and Canada for five weeks, whereas the hon. the Minister of Education and his party were only there for ten days. If the hon. Opposition wants to make up and make out a case, they should see to it that they have their facts straight, and that they use them correctly when they come and state their case here.

*Brig. H. J. BRONKHORST:

That was only the one journey. What about the other two?

*Mr. P. H. TORLAGE:

I referred to the one in order to indicate to you on which facts the hon. members tried to base their case.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Yeoville. Yesterday he replied to the hon. member for Prieska, who mentioned three things, i.e. the mingling of the various population groups on the buses, the beaches and the parks. Once again the chief propagandist of the United Party stood up and replied to only one of those three things, i.e. in regard to the buses. Now I want to put a straight question to the hon. member for Yeoville, and I take it that he is a statesman who will be prepared to reply to this question. Is the hon. member for Yeoville in favour of apartheid on buses, beaches and in parks? There he sits, the important man in the United Party is unable to reply to this question. I ask the hon. member for Port Natal, who has so much to say in regard to group areas. Is he in favour of apartheid on beaches, buses and in parks?

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

If you are, why do you not apply it?

*Mr. P. H. TORLAGE:

I am asking the hon. member for Port Natal whether he is in favour or opposed to it?

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

You make your speech and I shall make mine.

*Mr. P. H. TORLAGE:

That is what one gets from the United Party. They run as far away as they can. You know, Sir, there was a very effective placard in the election campaign of the hon. member for Port Natal. On it was stated: “Vote for Winchester, the man who can.” All that should have been added are these words, “the man who can run away”. [Interjections.] I am asking whether those hon. members opposite are in favour of apartheid or not?

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

Tell us how much you are spending on apartheid?

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

Tell us what the Administrator said about your commission.

*Mr. P. H. TORLAGE:

I want to state that the National Party is proud of the Budget of the hon. the Minister of Finance, and it redounds to the credit of the entire Government; but more than that, the people of South Africa are paying tribute and expressing their gratitude to the Government to-day, and in particular to the hon. the Minister of Finance. But more than that even, I know that for this achievement the hon. the Minister is also grateful to the people of the Republic of South Africa for their contribution, because they knew that in these times in which we are living they had to support the Minister and assist him in steering the ship of finance in these difficult days. This is a Government which has come forward to do these things for this country in this way.

But I want to come to the hon. member for Karoo, and I am sorry that he is not present here at the moment. The hon. member is continually discussing race relations in this House, and it is easy to understand—he represents the Coloured population in this House. But what worries me in regard to the hon. member for Karoo, and many hon. members opposite, is that when they come forward with demands in this House in respect of race relations, and particularly demands for the nonwhite population, whether it is in regard to the Coloureds or the Bantu or the Indians, then they never take into consideration what the needs of the white man in South Africa are. This is the problem we have in regard to hon. members opposite and the hon. member for Houghton. Of course the hon. member for Port Natal is their ringleader. He ought to sit next to the hon. member for Houghton.

In addition the hon. member for Orange Grove, and I want to associate him with the hon. member for Karoo because they belong to the same party, raised objections against the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration in respect of the implementation of our Bantu policy in general, and in particular the implementation of the Bantu homelands policy. He objected to the hon. the Minister having said that it did not matter what it would cost. In addition the hon. member referred derogatorily to the millions which are being wasted on our ideological policy, and the hon. member for Port Natal did the same. Now I want to pose this question. Do the hon. members for Orange Grove, Port Natal and Karoo not know what is involved in regard to these questions in South Africa? Do they and their party not realize what is at stake? Do they not realize the position the white man here at the southernmost point of the continent of Africa is in? Will they not arrive at the day when they are forced to realize and acknowledge that the only prescription for a political policy that one can follow in South Africa to ensure the survival of all population groups here is the policy of the National Party, and that policy alone? The hon. member for Port Natal has stated that we are spending a great deal of money on it. I want to tell him that we are prepared to pay all we possess if it is for the protection of the white man in Southern Africa. We would then be prepared to throw everything into the struggle, because what is involved cannot be bought with money, and once you have lost, that is the end. That is why I say that we will persevere, and that we will continue with this.

Let me conclude by saying to hon. members opposite that three things are necessary for survival here at the southernmost point of the continent of Africa. What is necessary in the first place is white unity. Secondly, economic power and strength; and thirdly, the peaceful coexistence of the various population groups in the Republic of South Africa.

*Mr. J. J. WENTZEL:

To start with, allow me to congratulate, on behalf of the agricultural sector, the hon. the Minister of Finance on this Budget. I am doing this deliberately in consequence of the speech made by the hon. member for Newton Park. In the first instance, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister, after the representations that were submitted for the two concessions which were made in regard to estate duties. We wish to convey our deep appreciation to the Minister for that. Particularly as far as the survivors are concerned we would have preferred to see that amount which has been granted passing to the children, because in reality this concession of R5,000, i.e. from R20,000 to R25,000 is an increase in the estate of the survivor. But in the circumstances we are grateful for that concession. So much for that.

The situation in which the farming community has found itself as a result of the prolonged drought and the conditions prevailing there is a tragic one, and assistance is needed. What representations did the hon. member for Newton Park make here? He came forward with a few generalities; he dithered about aimlessly and then mentioned figures in regard to which he ought to feel ashamed of himself. In the first instance he stated that it was not the United Party that is governing the country; it is the National Party which is governing the country and it should consequently accept responsibility as the governing party. Sir, we are prepared to accept that responsibility. The hon. member stated that the farming community has to be satisfied with crumbs which have fallen from the table. It is interesting to note that the hon. member for Newton Park made the same accusation the other day in regard to public servants, and he referred specifically to the assistance which was being given to the agricultural industry, but now the hon. member for Newton Park states that the agricultural industry has to be satisfied with the crumbs falling from the table and that a mere R15 million extra has been provided. Is he correct?

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

I am still looking for the R3 million of which you are boasting.

*Mr. J. J. WENTZEL:

Sir, I do not expect things like that from the hon. member. Hon. members on the opposite side also have a responsibility to the country. The Government has its responsibility, but they have an additional responsibility because they must convince the country that the United Party which is now sitting there is no longer the old United Party and that they have changed policies completely; that the policy of the old United Party has disappeared completely, and that they are a new United Party and that their actions will differ from those of the old United Party. They have a difficult task to fulfil. Under the circumstances in which the United Party is sitting there as an Opposition, one would at least expect that they would try to prove to the country that the plans they put forward can be implemented. In the second instance the United Party must realize that when the Government comes forward with proposals to give assistance to any part of the community, the money which is required for that purpose has to be collected from the taxpayers. The Government is merely the trustee of that money; it has no money-making machine at its disposal. That money has to be collected from the taxpayers and handed over to other concerns. It can be done in two ways. One can give out that money either in the form of subsidies or in the form of loans. If it is given in the form of loans, then it has to be paid back, but in the case of subsidies it is not paid back. I maintain that it is the responsibility of the United Party in the first instance to prove that they are no longer the old United Party and that they will not apply the policy which they announced when they were in power if they should ever come into power again. They must convince the nation that they will not adopt that course if they should one day return to power. I want to state a few of the United Party’s old policies. Sir, I have here the White Paper, issued from the office of the former Prime Minister in 1946, shortly before the United Party were lifted from their seats.

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

Is that the White Paper on the Soil Conservation Act?

*Mr. J. J. WENTZEL:

It is essential, particularly in the situation to which the hon. member for Newton Park referred to obtain clarity in regard to the question of the farmers’ burden of debt. As regards land values, by which means the cost of production was being increased, that White Paper stated that the farmers were overestimating the value of their land and consequently recommended—this was the policy of the United Party in 1946-’47 (translation)—

In order to put an effective stop to this ruinous practice, the Committee has recommended that the State should become the only mortgage creditor.

That is one of the matters the United Party will have to explain. They will have to convince the country that this new United Party which hopes to come into power is a responsible party and that they can implement their proposals. That was the policy of the United Party during the war years. Sir, this is not the first drought we have experienced, and this is not the first time we have had to cope with inflation. What did the United Party Government do in regard to meat prices during those years? For many years meat prices were deliberately kept down by the United Party Government in order to combat inflation. They wanted to keep the prices in check, and when they could no longer succeed in doing that, they imposed quotas on the outside butchers. In this same pamphlet in which the policy of the United Party during the war years was set out, they state (translation)—

The control boards have in fact, in accordance with the general policy of the Government to combat inflation, prevented prices from getting out of control here, even though there were various bad harvests and consequent shortages.

But they go further—and this is an important point in the present circumstances—

Whereas the Government therefore envisages offering the farming industry economic stability and maintaining a fair price ratio between agricultural and other products, this has to be accomplished within the natural limitations of our country, and there has to be a rational connection with world prices.

Mr. Speaker, we leave it at that. The United Party will in future have to convince the nation of South Africa that they are no longer following this policy if they ever hope to come into power again.

But let us come now to the figures to which the hon. member for Newton Park referred here. He said that a mere R15 million extra was being provided. Is he correct? Here I have the Loan Estimates, and here, too, the General Estimates. Take livestock, for example. The amount for the previous year was R900,000; this year it is R1,500,000. The assistance which is being given to farmers in general under the head “Livestock” is R3 million as against R2,902,000 during the previous year. The assistance which is being given under the head “Dairy Products” is R4,652,000. Under the head “Wheat” the amount this year is R27,788,000, as against R23,514,000. This is a non-recoverable amount. In addition provision is being made for a subsidy of R14,500,000 on fertilizer, and for an amount of R1 million as a subsidy in respect of rail tariffs on manure, etc., a total therefore of R15,150,000. These are amounts which are being spent in the direct interests of the farmers. Under the head “Fertilizer” there is an increase of R1,100,000 this year. Under the head “Maize” provision is being made here for R25,655,000, as against approximately R32 million last year. The latter amount is attributable to the loss on the importation of mealies last year. Under the head “Sorghum” provision is being made this year for R610,000, and under the head “Interest Equalization Contribution” provision is being made this year for R516,000, as against R187,400 last year. Mr. Speaker, I can continue in this vein, but time will not allow me to deal with the capital estimates. These are recoverable amounts.

There are all these auxiliary schemes, but the hon. member for Newton Park has stated that it is only the crumbs falling from the table. I am sorry about that, because I did not expect it from him. This, he maintains, is the crumbs which have fallen from the table—scarcely R15 million. Surely the hon. member must know that he is not correct. The Minister stated explicitly in his Budget Speech that these are difficult calculations, and that if these appropriations do not appear to be adequate enough, it is possible for additional amounts to be made available. It is in fact difficult to estimate at this stage what the assistance will cost. An amount of R3 million, over and above the other amounts, has been made available. This is merely a provisional amount. I will admit that we know that the situation is serious as regards the farming population. If we analyze the true state of affairs, we are confronted by three possible factors which could be responsible for this situation. To what are the problems in agriculture really attributable? is it to be found in the consumer pattern in South Africa? No, because our population is growing steadily and with it consumer standards and standards of living. As far as the future is concerned, we can therefore expect a further increase in the consumption of agricultural products. There is a second factor—prices. Does the difficulty lie here? Census figures indicate that production costs and production prices are very close together, and that the production prices are still higher than production costs. We realize of course that prices fluctuate. We must be careful not to create the impression that agriculture is a beggar or a pauper. But there is still a third factor which could be a possible cause of the problems in agriculture. We owe it to the taxpayer to present him with the true state of affairs. Let me state here that we owe the taxpayers a sincere vote of thanks for the way in which they have supported agriculture in all its vicissitudes and setbacks. Now the third factor, which is natural disasters. Here we find a fluctuation between droughts and rainy seasons. This is not the first nor the last time we will have to contend with drought. But we also experience good rainy seasons. On behalf of the farming population I want to testify here that all the figures prove that they appreciate any assistance they have received in the past, and they have met their obligations in that regard. The result is that the losses which have been suffered in that field where assistance was rendered are quite negligible.

The question now is what auxiliary measures we must apply in order to combat the fluctuations of natural conditions; this can be done in two ways—firstly, by loans; secondly, by subsidizing. But here we come face to face with a problem of a dual nature. If assistance has to be rendered, particularly by way of subsidies, it is essential that the entire farming population should be involved in this. But now we come up against the question, are all the farmers suffering setbacks? Let hon. members on the opposite side tell me whether things are really going badly with all the farmers. If the difficulty in regard to agriculture is to be found in prices, then things must be going badly with all the farmers. If assistance has to be rendered in order to combat drought conditions, that assistance must serve to bridge the drought curve and to help the farming population until they experience better years again. What has this Government now done in this respect? Over the past 20 years it has changed the situation completely. It is true that there were deputations to Ministers and that consultations were held. Here we have the result, but these are only provisional decisions which have been taken, provisional because, as the Minister said, the requirements of agriculture cannot always be calculated. But the Government created the necessary machinery a long time ago. Hon. members opposite must tell me whether better machinery can be created. In the first place the services of people from the agricultural union are utilized on the Advisory Council of the Minister. Compare that with what happened during the time of the United Party.

What advice, if any, did the Minister at that time receive from any agricultural organization? This Government has given the farmers an advisory council, a council which consists of people from the agricultural unions. And how are prices being determined to-day? There are the various control boards—19 of them. On these boards the farming population is itself represented—some are directly elected and others are appointed by the Minister. On the recommendation of the agricultural unions and consumers organizations. They determine the prices in consultation with the Minister. Let the hon. member for Newton Park tell me which prices are not sound. Is he prepared to-day to feed his sheep on mealies, at the prevailing mealie price, taking into consideration the subsidy on railage? If he is prepared to do that, he must not come and tell us that the mealie price is not sound. What prices are not sound? Which of them should be higher? The farmers themselves determine their prices, in consultation with the Minister. And if hon. members want to pretend that the prices are not sound, they must say which prices are not sound. The meat prices perhaps? As I said, the Government has created the necessary machinery to deal with these things. The farming population never had anything of that nature in the days of the United Party Government. I am therefore asking the hon. member who rises to speak after me to say which prices are not sound. If the present difficulties in regard to agriculture are attributable to drought conditions only, we must concentrate on bridging the drought curve. I have confidence in the farming population of South Africa and believe that they will be able to bridge these conditions and I have confidence in the Government that if the assistance which is being rendered is inadequate, additional provision will be made. In the past, it was also necessary to assist farmers with production loans in the case of bad harvests. The Government then guaranteed R10 million to the Land Bank, whereas the farmers were only R5 million short. Surely it is better to make, say, R10 million available, and if it does not appear to be adequate, I am convinced that the Government will make the necessary additional funds available either to the agricultural credit board or to the Land Bank. But in any case we have confidence in the Government and believe that it will be able to cope with a situation such as this.

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Klip River again mentioned Pretoria (West). As far as this side is concerned, I do not think we lost any ground. [Interjections.] As far as the National Party is concerned, they received 2.000 votes less than during the previous election. I think that is a very poor show on their part.

As regards the hon. member’s defence of the hon. the Minister of Community Development, that defence really was without any substance and nothing remains to be said about that. I believe that the question of the expenditure was settled yesterday. Money had been spent extravagantly, and what was said did not change that position at all.

I think I shall deal with most of the points raised by the hon. member for Christiana in regard to estate duty, etc., in the course of my speech. In spite of the fact that the agricultural industry is being neglected by this Government, it still remains the most important industry in South Africa. This is the industry which has to feed our nation; this is the industry which must make progress in order to keep abreast of the increase in the population, because at the end of this century the demand for foodstuffs will be twice as high as it is to-day. The agricultural industry is responsible for the production of the raw materials for our secondary industries, which provide employment to approximately 100,000 people in business concerns in the rural areas. This is the industry which is responsible through exports for approximately 50 per cent of our nett foreign earnings, excluding gold. The farmers are responsible for building up the conservative character of our nation, which is absolutely essential. I repeat that the agricultural industry is one of the most essential industries in our country. The Government which is destroying the agricultural industry, is the Government which is destroying the nation. What is the present position with regard to the agricultural industry?

The hon. member for Christiana said here to-day that the position of the farmer was not good.

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

What farmer are you talking about?

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

The same farmer about whom the hon. member spoke.

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

He did not say “all farmers”.

Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

Nor have I said “all farmers”.

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

You have been talking about “the farmer”. Who is “the farmer”?

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

There are exceptions to everything. I am speaking about the farmer in general. [Interjections.] I believe there are members opposite who are farmers and who also know that things are not going well with the farmer in general. I say exceptions are to be found in various agricultural sectors. Yet I do not believe that anyone would rise here and make out a case by pointing out instances where things are not going well and what should really be done in that regard.

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

Surely you can do so now.

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

The hon. the Minister says I am to do so. Of course we shall do so; it is only this side of the House that does so. The opposite side never does so. Hon. members on this side are the only ones who always keep the Government informed about the real position of the farmers in this country. As I have already said, one member after the other on the opposite side will get up and thank the Minister for the additional dribs and drabs and the additional crumbs—I am also using that word—granted to the farmers. The additional provision made for the farmer in this Budget, is not sufficient to save the farmer. According to a memorandum submitted by the South African Agricultural Union to the commission, the national income per capita has increased by 1.55 per cent, but that of the farmer has decreased by .67 per cent. This position is not attributable to the droughts only.

*Mr. J. J. WENTZEL:

Where do you get those figures?

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

Read the report.

*Mr. J. J. WENTZEL:

I have the report here. On what page are those figures?

Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

I do not know, but it does not make any difference. The recent droughts are not the only things which have caused the condition of the farmer to deteriorate. For many years things have not been going well with the farmer and his position has been deteriorating. Approximately five years ago Mr. Gerhard Bekker, the then member for Cradock, also said in this House that things were not going well with the farmer. He was the only person who said that. Six or seven years ago this side of the House introduced a private motion in which we requested the Government to appoint a commission of inquiry into the agricultural industry. The Minister refused our request and said that that was not necessary. Shortly afterwards members of the National Party took the hon. the Minister to task about this at a congress. The Government was then obliged to appoint that commission, which we had proposed.

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

Are you prepared to accept the recommendations of this commission?

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

I do not want to accept the recommendations blindly.

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

I am asking whether you will accept the recommendations of the commission?

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

I cannot simply say without having made a study of those recommendations that I shall accept them. That is an unreasonable question. Where has one ever come across a situation of having to say that one accepts the recommendations of a commission when one has not even seen the commission’s report!

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

What good does a commission serve if its recommendations are not accepted?

*HON. MEMBERS:

Why do you not accept the reports of your own commissions? What about the Tomlinson Commission?

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

What about the report which was published recently and of which parts were not accepted? Now the hon. the Minister asks, “Why appoint a commission if the report is not accepted?” Why did you appoint that commission? Do I have to accept therefore that the hon. the Minister will accept all the recommendations of that commission?

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

At least the basic principles.

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

If only the Government and the hon. the Minister would listen now and then to the guidance given to them by this side of the House, the farmer would not have found himself in this position to-day. Whenever South Africa has a Nationalist Government the farmers find themselves in serious difficulties. We know in what difficulties the farmers found themselves in 1932, partly as a result of their gold standard policy. The United Party was the Party which again placed the farmer on the road of prosperity in 1934 by means of efficient measures for rendering assistance. But with the present Nationalist Government in power the farmer again finds himself in exactly the same position. The United Party will again have to save the farmers.

What is the position of the farmers to-day? Last year this Government allocated an amount of R14 million for assistance to farmers. If my information is correct, this amount was distributed amongst the farmers within two months. Only one third of the farmers who applied for assistance received assistance. The rest of the applications were rejected.

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

Do you want us to assist all people who apply for assistance?

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

Now that is a question to ask, “should all farmers be assisted?” Of course everyone should not be assisted, and the hon. the Minister surely knows that.

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

But I am asking you now whether all farmers who apply for assistance should be assisted?

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

But I have said no. I do say, however, that the figure should be higher than one third. Fodder loans are extremely high and cannot be repaid to the Government under present circumstances. The anti-inflationary measures of this Government have further aggravated their financial position. By and large the farmers are not the cause of inflation, because they do not have the money to spend wildly. The capital they have built up over the years they have re-invested in their farms and they have incurred further debts where credit was still available to them. At present their debts amount to far more than R1,200 million, as the hon. member for Newton Park said. To the wool-brokers alone they owe approximately R12 million. On this burden of debt the farmer at present has to pay interest at a rate of between 8½ and 10 per cent, and in many cases at a much higher rate. The farmer simply cannot afford to pay that and therefore their position is deteriorating all the time.

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

Do they have to pay that interest on that amount of R1,200 million?

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

That is what they owe and they have to pay interest on their debts.

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

Do they have to pay interest on the entire amount of R1,200 million at the rates you mentioned?

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

Approximately four years ago the hon. the Minister said in the Other Place that the farmers were not making 3 per cent on their capital. He said they were not even making 3 per cent. How on earth is he to survive when he has to pay interest at a rate of between 8½ and 10 per cent, which is from 3 to 4 per cent higher than before. He simply cannot pay that.

Many of the farmers are no longer able to obtain credit at the present time. Their financial positions are such that they are no longer credit-worthy. As a result of the way in which their position has deteriorated, their assets and their farms are worth less under the present system of credit restrictions. The increased rate of interest means that their additional burden of interest has become more than R20 million per annum, quite possible R30 million. Their wool clip for 1966-’67 decreased by R18 million and their production costs are much higher. How on earth are they to exist? I think their debts to the wool-brokers represent the maximum amount of credit obtainable from the wool-brokers. The ordinary farmer cannot get more credit than he already has. On account of the wool prices and the smaller clip, it will be virtually impossible for them to pay off those amounts.

According to Mr. Frans van Wyk, Chairman of the National Wool Growers’ Association, as reported in Die Burger of 28th September—and now I do not know whether I should quote from Die Burger after the affair of the hon. the Minister of Justice the day before yesterday, but J am nevertheless going to quote from Die Burger—approximately 30 per cent of the wool farmers were experiencing very hard times, while a further 30 per cent were living on capital they had built up during better times. According to the publication Organized Agriculture of October last year, the following statement was made at the congress of the C.P.A.U. (translation)—

There is insufficient realization of the seriousness of the condition of the wool industry. It is as serious as it was in 1933.

In The Woolgrower, the organ of the Wool Board, we find the following—

If the Government does not give serious attention to early assistance to our wool-growers, it will soon be too late for many of our woolgrowers and the entire industry would have received a setback from which it will not be able to recover.
*Mr. N. C. VAN R. SADIE:

What affair did the hon. the Minister have with Die Burger?

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

If the hon. member was present in this House more often, he would have known what I speaking about. We also find the following in the said article—

The time has arrived for the Government of the country to prove whether it regards the wool industry as of sufficient national importance. Only the Government can now take the measures which can alleviate the woolgrower’s position. The woolgrowers have been self-supporting, and they have been throughout the years, but it will be unfair to expect them to continue fighting the factors beyond their control.

The article also points out that the Governments of Australia and New Zealand have taken the necessary steps for safeguarding the position of the woolgrower.

In the latest edition of Wolnuus en Opvoeding we read that Dr. Van der Wath, the chairman of the Wool Board said the following (translation)—

Two Eastern Cape members of Parliament informed me that 60 per cent of the woolgrowers in their constituencies were on the brink of bankruptcy.

According to them they are on the brink of bankruptcy. Dr. Van der Wath emphasized the fact that the position of the woolgrowers were not attributable to grand cars and a luxurious way of life. Many factors, such as the protracted drought, large purchases of fodder, clips of a poorer quality and low wool-prices are responsible for that. I can quote many other publications. I shall quote one more. We find the following in the said publication—

The situation is critical in the Karoo, Eastern Cape. Southern Free State, Western Transvaal and the Western Free State.

Not one of the hon. members for Prieska, Beaufort West, Graaff-Reinet, De Aar, Calvinia, Colesberg, and the two Eastern Cape members to whom Dr. Van der Wath referred, would rise in this House and say that 60 per cent of the farmers in their constituencies are on the brink of bankruptcy. No, they speak here about segregation on buses and things of that nature. But that their voters in large parts of our country are finding themselves in a miserable position, that we do not hear about.

*Mr. H. J. BOTHA:

May I please put a question to the hon. member? I want to ask the hon. member, “Is the Government responsible for the low wool prices?”

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

Why should I reply to a question like that? The hon. member knows as well as anybody in the world does that the Government is not responsible for that. But that does not mean that something should not be done to save the position of the farmer. That is an entirely different matter. These high rates of interest and the Government’s methods of credit restriction applied by them, are taking more farmers from their farms and are bringing more and more farmers to the brink of bankruptcy, a position from which it is considerably more difficult to get them to rehabilitate themselves. The Minister of Finance said that the monetary banks would as far as possible give more sympathetic consideration to the provision of credit to full-time farmers for their absolutely essential farming requirements.

What has become of this instruction? Was it ever a direct instruction to the banks? Because believe you me, Sir, the credit of the farmers is as restricted as the credit of anybody else. These credit restrictions which are undermining the ability of the farmer to finance his industry, this high rate of interest, these droughts, and on top of all those things, the increasing production costs, are the cause of the position in which the farmer finds himself. Mr. Frans van Wyk of the S.A. Agricultural Union recently said that the increasing production costs and the fact that prices were not always keeping abreast of those costs, formed one of the most important reasons why things could not be going well with the farmer. He also said that the high rate of interest, in some cases 10 per cent or more on capital, was having an arresting effect. As a result of the bad position in which the farmer finds himself, he is obliged to overstock his land to-day. [Interjections.] The farmer has to keep more stock in an attempt to derive a bigger income with the result that there is overgrazing. He cannot implement the scheme of withdrawing certain land from grazing on any part of his farm, because he cannot afford to withdraw that land as he cannot make ends meet without the income derived from that land. That is why this scheme, which is a good one in principle, has become a failure. During the first year which commenced on 1st September, 1966, there were 1,000 withdrawals and in the second year approximately 200 withdrawals, and the Minister should not tell us that the smaller number of withdrawals resulted from the fact that it had rained, because once it has rained, it is the right time for doing these things.

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

After the rains those who had withdrawn land, again utilized that land for grazing purposes.

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

Many want to utilize such land for grazing purposes when it has not rained, because then one badly needs that grazing. The farmer who has had rain does not want to utilize withdrawn land for grazing purposes, because in that case he is able to manage in some way. If we want to restore our veld, we must see to it that the farmer will be able to make a living and that he will not be struggling as he is doing now. I have already said that there are farmers who are no longer credit-worthy at the present time. In September last year a farm was sold by auction in the district of Carnarvon. It had to be sold in order to pay estate duty from the proceeds. This farm is approximately 7,000 morgen in extent. I think my friend over there knows this farm, and at the auction the farm went for R6 per morgen. After the auction an offer of R50,000, or approximately R7 per morgen, was made for the farm. Drought conditions did not prevail last year; the price was not that low as a result of drought conditions, but as a result of circumstances, namely the fact that credit restrictions are so severe that farmers cannot obtain money.

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

Prices depend on the wool price.

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

Yes, partially they do, but over the last three years wool prices have not decreased that rapidly, and three years ago that farm was worth R18 per morgen, whereas it went for R6 per morgen at a recent sale. The Government itself purchased a farm of 12,000 morgen in the district of Carnarvon from the chairman of the National Party, and they paid R22 per morgen for that farm.

*HON. MEMBERS:

For what purpose?

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

It does not matter for what purpose. It was not necessary for them to pay those prices; they could have purchased a cheaper farm, but they must surely have believed that to be the market value. Surely they will not pay an exorbitant price for land for this or that purpose. They thought that to be the value of the farm. [Interjections.]

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order!

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

I want to mention another case which is important. Approximately 14 days ago I attended an auction in Marydale of a form 27,000 morgen in extent. It belonged to a young man, a neighbour of mine in that area, a hard-working man I know well. He is a good farmer. Approximately 10 or 12 years ago he inherited 19,000 morgen of that farm from his father unencumbered by mortgages, but under this Nationalist Government he started going down hill. He had to pay an amount of R20,000 to his two sisters. [Interjections.] In addition he had to pay an amount of R23,000 in estate duty. He subsequently purchased a piece of land of 8,000 morgen. Three years ago this farm was worth at least R15 per morgen. This young man made application to the Agricultural Credit Board. I think that his case was a deserving one and that he ought to have been helped, and I believe that the hon. member for Prieska is of the same opinion, because he took this young man to Pretoria to obtain a loan for him either from the Minister or the Agricultural Credit Board.

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

To me it seems obvious. He already had too much land and then wanted to buy more. Do you want the State to use the taxpayer’s money for buying extensions for farmers who have sufficient land?

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

He did not buy that land recently but long ago, nine or ten years ago. Those were good years, but as a result of the Government’s policy, he came to grief and to-day he finds himself in Johannesburg.

*An HON. MEMBER:

That is a hard case.

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

That land was put up on auction and was sold in four portions so as to afford smaller men an opportunity of buying. One portion of 3,340 morgen went at R6.20 per morgen. One portion of 1,400 morgen went at R6.30 per morgen. One portion of 14,000 morgen went at R5.50 per morgen and one portion of 8,000 morgen went at R2 per morgen. This was a well-cultivated farm on which there were 50 camps, all of which had been provided with watering-places.

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

What was the total amount for which the land went at the auction?

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

I do not know.

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

By what amount did it fall short of his application to the Agricultural Credit Board?

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

I cannot tell you, because I have not made those calculations. But that was a well-cultivated farm which could be bought for R7.50 per morgen at that auction; in other words, his liabilities did not exceed that. Not long ago that farm could easily have fetched R15 per morgen. That was the market value of land at that time.

*An HON. MEMBER:

But what was its economic value?

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

I repeat that the farmers are no longer credit-worthy; as a result of these credit restrictions they can no longer obtain more loans, nor can they sell pieces of their land. Farmers will drop out one after the other if proper means of financing are not introduced to save the position. We shall have a total collapse of the agricultural industry. What are the causes of that? The one is drought. One is high production costs. One is that the margins of profit are too small. Credit facilities are inadequate. Here in the Cane Province one has divisional council taxes. Extension services to farmers are insufficient and there is too little research; there is a shortage of skilled labour, and above all, there is estate duty.

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

And over-capitalized land.

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

It is strange that the hon. the Minister speaks about overcapitalized land just like that. If my information is correct he himself made a bid of R200 per morgen for a piece of land the other day.

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

But I shall not go to the Agricultural Credit Board if I cannot pay for that land. [Interjections.] I stopped bidding at R160 and then the Leader of the Opposition went to R250.

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

Estate duty is one of the causes contributing to the downfall of young farmers in this country. They cannot pay that, and it is an absolutely unfair duty. It only brings in a small amount of approximately R19 million. The Minister of Finance has “tucked away”, as the hon. member for Parktown called it, a small surplus of approximately R18 million, and consequently this is one of the duties which has to be abolished if we want to save the young farmers from being ruined. And I believe the time has arrived when the Government has to subsidize interests on loans.

*Mr. J. J. WENTZEL:

How are we to apply that in practice?

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

As it was applied in 1934. When the hon. member was a member of the United Party, he knew how that was to be applied, and we shall apply that as it was applied in that time. We shall have to pay a subsidy on wool. Hon. members should not ask me how that is to be done. That should be done as it was done before when the United Party saved the farmers. [Time expired.]

*Mr. A. L. SCHLEBUSCH:

I do not want to quarrel with the hon. member for Newton Park and the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) in so far as they brought up special problems of special classes of farmers here. It is most certainly our duty as representatives to do this, but inasmuch as they have painted this sombre picture of agriculture in general in the Republic, I want to cross swords with them quite plainly and definitely, and I also take exception to their snide remarks about this Budget. The hon. member for Newton Park referred to a “mini” Budget in so far as it concerns agriculture. He referred to the debts of the farmers having increased. As far as I know, if the turnover of any industry is increased, and its expenditure is increased, it usually borrows more money. I take for example the latest report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing, which states that in 1956-’57 just over R525 million was spent by farmers at agricultural and special farmers’ co-operatives. In the year 1965-’66 just over R900 million was spent at these co-operatives, virtually double the amount. This being so, surely it is reasonable to expect their debts to have increased as a result of the fact that the turnover of the farmers has increased under reasonably favourable conditions.

But let us take other figures to show what progress agriculture has made under this Government, especially during the past few years under this energetic Minister of Agriculture of ours. Let us take agronomy, for example, one of the sectors most subject to natural fluctuations. In 1947-’48 the gross value of agronomical products was R157.7 million. In 1966-’67 it was R637.1 million, an index increase from 106 to 427, which is almost a four-fold increase. Let us take the contribution of agriculture to the domestic product. In 1958-’59 the contribution to the net domestic product was R448.1 million. In 1966-’67 it was R717.9 million.

But let us take another indication—the index of land prices in respect of the maize areas mentioned in the Secretary’s report. The basic years were 1947-’48 to 1949-’50, with a figure of 100. The average figure for all four areas for the years 1962-’63 and 1964-’65 was 284, which means an increase of 184 per cent. I do not want to suggest that there is a 100 per cent correlation among agricultural land prices, production and yield potential, but there is a large measure of correlation, and this is also an indicator of progress and prosperity. Sir, two of the most stringent requirements imposed upon a Government to-day are firstly whether that Government is capable of bringing the means of production within reach of all who are entitled to them within reason, and secondly, whether that Government succeeds in keeping down the cost of those means of production to such an extent that they compare reasonably with producers’ prices. As regards the first requirement, the Government meets this 100 per cent by means of credit provision, subsidization and control, where necessary. To tell the truth, the only sin of this Government is that its continuous schemes of credit provision are so comprehensive today that it is not necessary, whenever a budget is introduced, to mention each specific class of credit provision or each specific class of farmer who is being assisted. This is exploited by saying: This farmer’s name is not mentioned in the Budget and that farmer’s name is not mentioned. Sir, both previous speakers on the Opposition side spoke of crumbs. Let us see what their definition of “crumbs” is. Under Loan Vote D, “Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure”, alone, R18 million is being provided for assistance to farmers, which represents an increase of R3,400,000 over the figure for the previous year, over and above the considerable additional assistance which the hon. the Minister of Finance has just announced in his Budget. Let me say here at once as a maize farmer that if it were not for the crop loans to hundreds of farmers in my area, they would not have been able to produce this huge record crop last year.

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

But surely that scheme has been in existence for years.

*Mr. A. L. SCHLEBUSCH:

The scheme was not as comprehensive as the scheme recently announced by the hon. the Minister when the amounts were increased.

Then we come to the subsidization in respect of artificial fertilizers and other materials. The amount for this year is R15½ million, which represents an increase of more than one million over the amount for the previous year, and this is what hon. members on that side call crumbs. If they call this crumbs, I would like to know what the loaf looks like.

The second requirement I mentioned is whether the Government establishes a reasonable ratio between the cost of the means of production and the producers’ prices. From 1963-’64 to November, 1967, the cost of the means of production increased at a slower rate than producers’ prices. The basic years are 1947-’48 and 1948-’49, with a figure of 100. In 1963-’64 the figure for the producers’ prices of agricultural products was 155.3; in November, 1967, it was 177.7. Over the same period the figure for the prices of agricultural requirements, implements and means was 158.1, as against 172.0 in November, 1967, which is a very clear indication that the producers’ prices of agricultural products increased at a higher rate.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is also my duty as a representative of the maize farmers to mention here the special problems with which my production area, the North-Western Free State, and I think a large part of Western Transvaal as well, are faced. These people have once again experienced a devastating drought which has cancelled out the recovery made last year to a considerable extent. Sir, when speaking of maize farmers in my area, we must not conjure up pictures of land barons. My people are mostly middle class and small farmers. I have here the pattern of the maize supplies of the Central Western Co-operative Company over the past three years. This is a representative company, one of the largest maize-receiving co-operatives. The figures are for the years 1965, 1966 and 1967. They receive maize mainly in intensive crop-farming areas. The average number of white producers per year who supplied maize to this co-operative over the three years was 9,655, and the percentage of white producers, members and non-members, who supplied up to 5,000 bags of maize, was 90. I would say that this percentage of 90 was made up of lower middle class and small maize farmers only. It is these people who as a result of the drought are again faced with special problems. I want to plead to-day for special loans to be made available to these farmers at Agricultural Credit interest, namely 5 per cent, for the purchase of stock to be fed on dried-up mealies. This type of assistance, for example, can only be granted to farmers who would normally qualify for crop loans in the next year. And then I want to ask whether the time has not come for us to reconsider the whole question of the basis on which maize prices are determined. I want to refer to certain specific matters in this regard. The position is that maize prices are increasingly being determined on an ad hoc basis, and the two main determining factors in recent times have been the foreign price and the price which the consumer is able to pay for maize. We have a heterogeneous population, and the buying power of the majority of our population is small. They are the people who are to a large extent making use of maize and maize products. I politely want to ask the authorities concerned whether an investigation into the subsidization of consumers’ prices is not necessary, because I regard increased subsidization as one of the best solutions in closing the gap between the price the consumer has to pay and the price the producer has to receive.

Then, Mr. Speaker, there is another matter. As a result of the very favourable export figure as far as the 1967 maize crop is concerned, the Stabilization Fund will be virtually done away with, and instead of the Government again demanding heavy sacrifices of the maize farmer in any particular year in order to build up the Stabilization Fund, I want to ask politely whether the Government cannot grant a loan to the Stabilization Fund at a reasonable rate of interest in order to ensure stable prices to the maize farmers in the following few years.

The hon. the Minister of Finance has rendered considerable assistance to farmers and maize farmers in respect of income tax by means of the system of tax equalization, and this year they will benefit greatly from this when they have to pay tax on the good crops of last year. The hon. the Minister has also made this concession of R3.5 million in respect of estate duty which, inter alia, is also a generous concession to many farmers. In conclusion I want to plead very strongly with the hon. the Minister of Finance for consideration to be given to granting further assistance in respect of estate duty in future, but that in this regard he should concentrate on a rebate per child and that that rebate should be granted on a progressively increasing scale as the number of children in the family increases. I think that if the Minister does this, it will serve as a tremendous encouragement for Whites in the rural areas to have larger families.

*Mr. J. J. RALL:

I should like to follow up a few statements which the Opposition made in the course of this Budget debate. It is very clear that the hon. member for Newton Park, who always introduces the agriculture debate on behalf of the Opposition, has cultivated the habit of waiting until the debate is in its last throes before coming forward with his attack on the National Party Government and the Minister. I am beginning to conclude that the Opposition really consider the interests of agriculture as being of secondary importance, and therefore they first discuss what they regard as important matters before they eventually come to agriculture. We could of course change this picture by attacking them on the first, second and third day of the debate, but we are not going to let them see our ammunition in advance by always speaking before they do. It is more convenient and very much more practical for us to reply to the statements which they make here.

I refer, for example, to a statement which was made here to the effect that the fact that the risk factor had not been taken into account in the determination of prices in the past, was one of the reasons why agriculture had deteriorated to a large extent. It is wrong to make the general statement here that the farmers as a whole have slipped back, because statistics will prove that this is not the case. I want to ask the hon. member how he would determine the risk factor from year to year in determining the prices of any of these commodities which contribute towards keeping the farmer solvent. I asked him by way of interjection to say something in this connection, and he omitted to do so. I am glad of the admission, after so many years, by the Opposition in this debate that the hon. the Minister does not adopt an unsympathetic attitude towards the farmers. I am glad that the hon. member said here that he did not believe that the Minister of Agriculture was really unsympathetically disposed towards the farmers. But when they go to the country districts, they tell quite another story. I am glad that it is now on record that the main Opposition speaker on this matter does not regard it in this light. I am glad that the air has been cleared in this connection.

In his amendment the hon. member for Pinetown charged the Government with having failed to provide for more adequate measures to rehabilitate the stricken farming industry. That such a statement could have been made testifies to extreme ignorance. The position is in fact quite different. Under those circumstances the measures were adequate, and they were also adequate in the past maize season, since a record maize crop was produced when there were favourable circumstances. They were adequate for the dairy industry, where the production increased tremendously when we had favourable years. They will also be made effective in the future for the purpose and the time in which we live. I think that the proof is there and that no one can deny that they have been adequate up to this moment. But at a later stage, when I have the time, perhaps at the end of my speech, I shall say a few words about this allegation made by the Opposition about the tremendous burden of debt resting on agriculture.

Before I come to that point, however, I do want to give a brief survey, without too much duplication, because the hon. members for Christiana and Kroonstad have already mentioned statistics in connection with these matters. Surely it is very clear from the report of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing that under this Government the prices of agricultural products increased by 3.5 per cent during the past year of report, as compared with 3 per cent in the previous year. Whatever the percentage may be, if there is an increase in the producers’ prices, it shows one that even price determinations as a whole are not the responsibility of the National Party Government as such—I have already intimated this here before, and I am repeating it. Hon. members know the procedure which is followed, and because there is consultation, this Government cannot be blamed for this. Take the case mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) in connection with the wool prices. This Government has never fixed wool prices as yet. Wool is an international commodity. The fact that there are wool farmers in South Africa who are struggling is used as an argument here, and then the statement is made that this Government should have subsidized those wool farmers. On what basis must this Government subsidize the wool farmers? Is it possible to determine in advance what the wool prices are going to be? Not one of those hon. members could in any year have determined in advance what the wool prices would be.

I find it particularly noticeable that the people in the areas which have had severe droughts are the ones who are financially worse off than for example those in my constituency. I may tell you to-day, Sir, that my district, Harrismith, is, as you know, the largest producer district in the Republic of South Africa. There are also a few individuals in that district who are not too well off financially. But one cannot generalize. The hon. member suggests here that the price structures as they applied from time to time were exclusively the result of the actions of this Government, and that they are the cause of the present burden of R1,200 million resting upon the farmers. If hon. members look at reports on this matter, also that of the Controller and Auditor-General, they will see that loans made available by this Government were repaid to the extent of up to 33 per cent in one year, and 32 per cent in a previous year. If that 33 per cent and also the 32 per cent of the farmers were in a position to make the repayments under these price structures and these circumstances, the hon. the Opposition may not generalize this position. The Opposition cannot blame it on price structures either. If this position is the result of price structures, I want to agree with the hon. member for Christiana that the same tendency should have been descernible everywhere.

My time is nearly up, but I again want to refer to this amount of R1,200 million owed by the farmers. In the White Paper we have a review of the position of the Agricultural Bank of South Africa. One sees there that there still are tremendous liabilities, namely sums paid out to farmers for production. However, the fact remains that large sums are owing, which must be paid. I want to make further reference to this report. In 1964 arrear interest amounted to R3,600,000; in 1965, R4,100,000; and in 1966, R4,600,000. In 1966 the capital instalments were in arrears by an amount of R2.900,000. My purpose in mentioning these figures is not to say that farming as a whole is in a bad way. A fact which we may not deny, and which has already been mentioned by previous speakers, is that there is indeed a group of farmers who are carrying heavy burdens. These farmers cannot meet their commitments. This is not only as a result of price structures, but in most cases it is as a result of droughts and other damage, such as flood damage.

I want to plead to-day for something for which I have already pleaded on a previous occasion. Before coming to that, I should like to express my appreciation for the R10 million which has been made available in this Budget. I also want to express my appreciation for the R77 million made available for agriculture under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. Without these amounts the farmers will not be able to achieve full production. I also want to express my appreciation for the enormous amounts made available for cooperatives. I do not want to repeat the statements made about subsidization, but do I want to express my appreciation for this R10 million. It will not remain at these amounts of R3 million, R10 million and R150,000 if the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet find it necessary to increase the amount. More and more funds were allocated from time to time during drought conditions. I want to suggest that were it not for the numerous measures taken by this sympathetic Government in regard to agriculture, our livestock would have been wiped out to a large extent. Then wool production would have decreased greatly, and we would not have been in the favourable position of virtually producing enough to-day to meet our domestic needs as far as dairy products are concerned.

I now want to mention one final fact. In the light of all these facts, and especially in view of these large amounts, I believe, notwithstanding the fact that 33 per cent is being repaid, that the fundamental cause of this problem is that we have hitherto involuntarily allowed so much production capital to be utilized for agricultural production without it being protected by some or other system of insurance. We know that the hon. Ministers are sympathetically disposed as far as this matter is concerned. We also know that a start has been made and that discussions have been held on this matter.

America realizes that where one could previously invest about one dollar in agriculture to get a return of one dollar, the position today is that one has to invest more than four dollars, which is risk capital, to get a return of one dollar. Because of the fact that so much risk capital—and I have indicated that a large portion of it has been made available by this Government and by the commercial banks out of their own resources—is being invested to enable farmers to produce, I want on this occasion to urge very strongly that the hon. the Minister should make some kind of insurance available to agriculture as soon as possible. My own lay opinion is that production cost insurance would mean a great deal to the farmer, and the sooner we have a system of production cost insurance, the better. Please note that I am not asking for crop insurance. I am only pleading that production costs should be insured in such a way that if the farmer should experience some set-back or other, he should receive some compensation. It would also have affected this Budget to a large extent. From time to time some of that risk capital is lost, as was the case this year. In large areas of the Free State and Transvaal large amounts are lost as a result of drought. If they are covered by an insurance scheme, it will not be necessary for the farmer to try and find capital for production purposes in some way or other during the following year.

My time is up, and I conclude by saying that I make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister to give his full attention to this production cost insurance scheme

*Dr. J. H. MOOLMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I wondered whether the hon. member for Harrismith would be able to conclude his speech without saying “Thank you” three times in succession. But he could not.

The hon. member for Harrismith said that so little priority was given by this side of the House to agricultural matters in this debate, and this probably showed how much value we attached to the agricultural industry. It seems to me the hon. member has forgotten that when the Vote of the Prime Minister was discussed two or three years ago, we gave priority to agricultural matters and that we began to discuss those matters early in the Session. At that time we were severely criticized for having regarded agriculture as such an important matter that we dealt with it so early in the debate. The former Prime Minister said so himself.

As regards the question as to whether the assistance given to farmers is sufficient or not, it simply remains a fact from which we cannot get away—whether we want to talk about the burden of debt of the farmers or not—that this burden of debt increased by R200 million during the past two years—and this was said by the director of the South African Agricultural Union. Irrespective of the manner in which the farmers try to wipe out this debt, the amount of this debt has not been reduced yet. I am glad that on this occasion we did not hear only the old story again of how prosperous the agricultural sector was from hon. members opposite who discussed agricultural matters. The hon. member for Christiana started off by saying that agriculture required active assistance and every speaker who followed him was prepared to say the same. Every hon. member in this House who discusses agriculture and who is not prepared to admit that the agricultural sector requires active assistance, is at odds with organized agriculture. Now let me say something about the Budget. Various quarters praised the Budget as a fine and a standstill Budget. It has even been described as a wait-and-see budget, a budget of “Let us see how the situation develops, because there is confusion in the world and monetary and fiscal methods throughout the world are in disorder”. I have not heard very many agriculturalists outside this House say that as far as the agricultural industry is concerned, the hon. the Minister has given as much assistance as he could, even for the purpose of rehabilitating the agricultural industry only partly. I do not want to enlarge on existing means of aid. We all know what they are. Here is a long list dealing with subsidies and means of aid which the Government uses to assist agriculture. We are grateful for that because without it the position would have been much worse than it is at present. Of course, we are grateful for that. But there is something that is being said from all quarters, also by the director of the South African Agricultural Union and the chairman of the Wool Board, yes, by every responsible agricultural leader—and let me not mention the crumbs that fall from the table of the rich man—namely that the assistance that was given was not sufficient to help agriculture to rehabilitate.

*Mr. J. J. RALL:

How much is sufficient?

*Dr. J. H. MOOLMAN:

We are being asked: How much is sufficient? Do not let me tell you, Sir; we will have it from the report of this commission one of these days. It may probably be said that it will cost R350 million to rehabilitate the agricultural sector.

*Mr. J. J. RALL:

You should already know at this stage how much it will cost before you make such a statement.

*Dr. J. H. MOOLMAN:

It is almost on art with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture asking the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) a moment ago whether he will accept the report when it is submitted. Why should one do it? Who will commit himself before he has seen a report? Not even the hon. the Minister will do it. The hon. member for Harrismith also said that this side of the House is repeatedly criticizing the price structure of agricultural products. Surely, that accusation is untrue. Hon. members on this side of the House get up here year after year and we not only criticize the price structure of producers’ prices, but we also criticize other agricultural matters. As far as producers’ prices are concerned, we all know how these prices are fixed and we all know that the Government exercises great influence in the fixing of those prices, apart from the recommendations made by the boards in this connection. Apart from that, year after year we on this side of the House discussed other factors, for example increased production costs, about which the ordinary farmer is unable to do anything. He merely has to accept the production costs as they are. We have asked so many times for relief to be granted in respect of the fuel used by the farmers, spare parts and the customs duties payable in respect thereof and so forth. We have asked that the farmer be assisted in that respect so that his production costs may be reduced somewhat because he is getting more and more into difficulties. He is in such difficulties already that it will be no small wonder if we succeed in getting him out of it.

The hon. member for Kroonstad dealt with increased production in the agricultural field during the last couple of years under this Government. I wish hon. members would stop telling us that story. Anybody who knows something about agriculture throughout the whole world will be able to refute that story completely. I can tell him that the production potential and the actual production of Australia, a country which has a much smaller population than we have and which does not have the vast non-white labour potential which we have, increased to such an extent over the same period—probably they have a government which is as good as this one—that they produce five times as much wool as we do. Previously they produced only two and a half times as much. I may also mention their wheat, meat and hide exports and everything that goes with it. I can give that hon. member for Kroonstad figures which will shock him when he sees to what extent production increased in that community.

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

Afternoon Sitting

*Dr. J. H. MOOLMAN:

Mr. Speaker, when the House was adjourned for lunch I was replying to certain statements made by the hon. member for Kroonstad. I said it was time that that side of the House should stop boasting about what the Government had done for agriculture and the extent to which agricultural production increased during the past years. If one compares this increase with that of other countries in the Southern hemisphere, some of which have black governments, then we have made but a poor attempt to increase our agricultural production. I want to pay the hon. member for Kroonstad this compliment however. He pleaded for his maize farmers and he said that when their levy funds were exhausted as a result of exports and subsidizing, the Government should grant them long-term loans at low rates of interest. He made a constructive contribution to the debate, just as this side of the House always tries to do. We try to get things moving and to stimulate the thoughts of those dealing with agriculture.

When speaking of the importance of agriculture in this country, it may be repeated once again that agriculture in this country produces food and offers a way of live to a large section of our white population as well as to a vast number of Bantu. Mention was made of three and a half to four million Bantu who are living on the farms and who have to make a livelihood out of agriculture. The farmers have to look after them and there are not so many farmers when they have to be divided among the large Bantu population. Mr. Speaker, am I the one to say how important the farming community is to the economy of this country? I leave that to our State President-elect. The State President-elect opened the East London Agricultural Show two weeks ago and said that the provision of food was not the only function agriculture had. He said further—

It has made other significant contributions to our economy. Since the Second World War, for example, the farming industry has over a period of years, contributed 40 per cent to our total export trade (gold excluded) while it is itself to-day largely independent of import. In other words, while agriculture is a very important earner of foreign exchange it uses very little of this for its own purposes. The bulk of these earnings are therefore available for the import of other essential materials such as clothing, industrial machinery, defence equipment and the like. If we then add the 45 per cent of our total population which is directly dependent upon agriculture for a livelihood, the indispensable role of agriculture for a livelihood, the indispensable role of agriculture in our national economy becomes abundantly clear.

The State President-elect did not fabricate these figures. If the contribution of agriculture is entitled to receive more consideration than it receives in this Budget. I do not have the time to go into all the facets of agriculture. I want to make a special appeal in respect of the sheep and wool industry. An hon. member asked this morning whether the Government fixed the wool price. No, the Government does not fix the wool price. Wool is unique in so far as it is dependent on the world price and since the Government came into power it has done absolutely nothing to stabilize the wool price. As I say, wool falls in quite a different category then other agricultural products and as such it does not enjoy any protection on the part of the Government as far as prices are concerned. Wool should therefore have been accorded particularly favourable treatment in this Budget.

*Mr. J. J. WENTZEL:

What about the rebates during the drought?

*Dr. J. H. MOOLMAN:

I shall deal with that later. If an amount of R4,000 million were invested in agriculture as a whole, I would suggest that approximately R2,000 million to R2,500 million was invested in the sheep and wool industry alone. These are not my figures, but it is a calculation made by the Agricultural Union. I want to quote certain their figures and then hon. members will be able to make their own calculations. Farming operations are being carried on on more than half of the surface area of the Republic, while the sheep and wool industry is being practised on more than a third of the surface area of the Republic. The revenue derived from the money invested in these two industries can be ascertained by means of a simple calculation. I said that R2,500 million was invested in the sheep and wool industry, but what does the farmer get out of that? Last year their wool cheque amounted to R98 million. Their income from slaughter animals inside and outside the controlled area was R51 million. I take it that the amount they derived from the increase of their stock through breeding last year was not less than R50 million and I therefore add another R50 million. That brings me to a gross amount of R200 million, being their income from an investment of R2,500 million. This is a meagre gross return of 8 per cent. But I want to go further with my calculations. Since 1967 the wool cheque was reduced by R20 million. Until the end of January of this year the wool cheque was reduced by a further R3 million. The increase in the rates of interest costs the farmer approximately R25 million per year. I should rather not finish these calculations. I suggest that the sheep and wool farmers are farming at a loss and I challenge any hon. member on that side of the House to prove that this is not so. When a farmer farms at a loss and one wants to keep him on the land, one should make a special attempt to that effect otherwise the impression is created that he is not being regarded as important enough—let him leave the land. Speaking of the burden of debt of the farmer, I should like to know to what extent this burden increased during the past few years. Two years ago farmers obtained R7 million from brokers in respect of advances. These advances now amount to between R14 million and R15 million. We accept that these advances were obtained by those farmers who find it difficult to get money from any other organization because they pay the brokers a much higher rate of interest than what they pay the banks. I shall deal with that later. I am showing to what extent the position of the sheep and wool farmers has deteriorated in recent times. I want to go further and I want to discuss the representations made by the National Woolgrowers in this connection. This is what they have declared in this connection in a resolution adopted at their congress (translation)—

High rates of interest and credit control

Since the farmers of South Africa made the smallest contribution towards the inflationary tendency which had caused credit control, the congress expresses its profound concern about the high rates of interest charged by financial institutions and about the effect of the manner in which credit control is applied to the industry and the fact that an increasing number of sheep farmers are reduced to category three farmers.

The congress therefore urgently requests the Minister of Finance to provide special financing to rehabilitate and maintain the sheep and wool industry, because wool is sold at the same price internally as externally and in this respect it is at a disadvantage as compared with all other agricultural products. I have already discussed the latter part thereof, but I want to go further. Before discussing the assistance which should be given the wool industry, I want to say something further about the situation in the Karoo and I want to make a particular plea with the Minister of Finance as far as the Karoo is concerned. I shall appreciate it if the hon. the Minister of Justice will give him a chance to listen to me.

When speaking of the Karoo and the particular attention I want the Minister to give the Karoo, I am speaking of an area which extends from Venterstad via Hofmeyr down to Cradock and further south to Springbok and Garies, and I am speaking of an area from Philippolis to Uitenhage and from Kenhardt to the Langeberg, an area covering 500 miles by 300 miles, an area covering almost 150,000 square miles and an area in which no other farming activities, except sheep farming whether farming with karakul sheep or even goats, is being carried on. If the Government is in earnest to preserve this area for sheep farming so that the area is not lost altogether, I now want to tell the hon. the Minister that if methods are not applied to make this area an emergency grazing area, I want to suggest that the whole of the Karoo will never recover again. On the other side of the House we have hon. members like the hon. member for Somerset East and the hon. member for Prieska. I want to ask any one of them whether they think the carrying capacity of the Karoo is still the same as if was a few years ago. There are considerably fewer sheep in that area. The area produces the same number of bales of wool, since we now get 2 lbs. of wool per sheep more than we used to get 10 years ago. We have more wool in those areas with a high rainfall, more wool in Bredasdorp and Caledon, and less wool in the Karoo. It is no use arguing about it. That is so. If we want to reclaim the Karoo for the sheep and wool industry, I want to suggest that, if that area is declared an emergency area and if it is allowed to carry only half the number of sheep so that the other half may be preserved by whatever methods are decided upon—the Minister must help us to do this—or if four or six summers are allowed to pass on a basis of one-third of the grazing being used and that one-third of the area is preserved for two years while the remaining third is preserved for the following two years, and it will take six years to rehabilitate the area, it will still be worth the trouble.

Don’t ask me where the money will come from. I know the money will have to come from the Treasury. It should not be done by means of a subsidy. I do not want to say that the R10 the Government is paying for eight sheep under the present system is so small an amount that we do not even want to look at it. It is a help to the farmer when he wants to rehabilitate his grazing. It is of significance to me that I should be making this speech here to-day when the Festival of the Soil is being celebrated in Cape Town. We are talking of that area which is deteriorating to such an extent that it will be unable later to provide those hundreds of thousands of people who are living there at the moment with grazing and accommodation. Dr. F. J. du Plessis says in this publication Landhounuus, that every appreciative parent should be proud to hand his farm or his land over to his child in a better condition than that in which he received it, and that is how we all feel about it. But I want to make a plea with the Minister of Finance.

I do not know whether this matter is brought to his attention when he prepares his Budget and submits it to the Cabinet; and if the matter is actually brought to his attention, I do not know whether it is brought to his attention in a sufficiently urgent manner. But nobody can dispute the fact that the Karoo has deteriorated to such an extent in recent times as a result of caterpillars and droughts and other factors, even bad government, that it is hard to believe it. The Karoo cannot be rehabilitated unless it is preserved. Also, it is no use blaming the Karoo farmers for over-grazing. They do not practise over-grazing; they cannot practise over-grazing. They are feeding those animals which are left on their farms. The stock do not even graze any longer; hundreds of thousands of animals are being fed with pellets at a cost which the State has to subsidize. If we do not do something to rehabilitate that veld, an area of 150,000 square miles or one-third of the soil of the republic, farming operations in that area will come to a standstill and the people will have to leave the area and the Karoo will throw off its farmers.

I want to come back to the wool position as such. I do not want to pass derogatory remarks about the assistance of R14 million or R15 million that was given, but I want to discuss a statement made by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture the day after the Budget. He was referring to the assistance already mentioned in the Budget and he said (translation)—

Apart from this assistance, arrangements are being made to make funds available through the Land Bank to the brokers for the re-financing of outstanding advances and for the financing of new production loans to wool and mohair producers at the same rate of interest at which loans are at present being granted to agricultural cooperative societies by the Land Bank; even after the addition of a margin …

This is to the brokers—

… to cover their administrative costs and risks, the rate of interest for the producer should even be lower than the rate of interest at which he is able to obtain credit at present. In addition to this, consideration will be given to extending the period of the granting of assistance, according to circumstances, in cases where the producer finds it impossible to pay back the production credit within one season owing to circumstances beyond his control.

We are aware of the representations the National Woolgrowers’ Association, the Wool Board and the S.A. Agricultural Union made to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture over a period of months and we know how he called his old advisory council together. But now I would like to tell the Minister of Agriculture as well as the Minister of Finance that when funds are made available by the Land Bank to the brokers in respect of overdrafts and advances for the wool farmers up to an amount of R15 million, that amount of R15 million is advanced at a rate of interest of 7 per cent and 1½ per cent is added by the brokers because they have to run the risk of recovering those funds. I do not want to advance a plea for the brokers, but tell me: Who will run the risk of getting back such a large amount for less than 1½ per cent? The rate of interest then becomes 8 per cent and that is the rate of interest at which creditworthy farmers can borrow the money from the bank. In that case the broker does not assist the wool farmer at all and this is the matter I should like to discuss with the Minister in order to see whether he cannot do something else in this connection. [Interjection.] The Land Bank is not prepared to grant the wool brokers any loans at the usual rate of interest applicable to cooperative societies, namely 7 per cent, and I said that if the farmer has to pay 8½ per cent interest—and, in the first place, it is the farmer who is unable to obtain credit at the bank—he now pays the same rate of interest to the broker. I want to admit: He will probably be given more time to pay back the loan, but what was the position in the past? The farmer used to deliver his product and he had already received an advance of, say, R5,000 on that product. By the time that product reached the broker’s warehouse the farmer said: “Can you please lend me another R5,000 for next year?” In other words, he already enjoyed credit facilities on his product for several years. In terms of this aid measure he is expected probably to pay back within one year 25 per cent or 50 per cent of the amount the Land Bank advanced to the broker. In other words, he no longer enjoys the credit facilities he has enjoyed over the past years.

My time is running out, but I want to make a special appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance. We appreciate these means of aid which have been afforded agriculture up to now and we are grateful for it; when drowning one is grateful for any straw to clutch at, but the fact remains that what is being done here, is not nearly enough as far as agriculture generally and the wool industry in particular is concerned. It cannot rehabilitate the sheep and wool industry. It cannot even keep the sheep and wool industry on its feet because the means of aid which are being offered now are less than what the farmer had before; it is less in this respect, as I have already indicated, that whereas he could obtain an advance of 100 per cent or 80 per cent on his product, he is not allowed to obtain such an advance now because he has to pay back a portion of that money which was lent to him by the Land Bank. In addition, we have increased production costs. I want to make a particular plea to the Minister. I want to conclude by saying once again that agriculture is not afforded its share in this Budget. Much has already been said about the Budget and I do not want to say anything about it in this regard now, because much is still going to be said about it. But agriculture, which has to provide food and clothing to so many millions of people, deserves more sympathy and assistance that it has been given by this Government in this Budget. I want to repeat what was said by the hon. member for Newton Park. I cannot blame the Minister of Agriculture for being unsympathetic towards agriculture. I shall say that he farms in an area where he does not know what drought means. [Time expired.]

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

For many years I have been sitting here and listening to the United Party’s criticism on the agricultural policy and the actions of this Government and the way in which it deals with agriculture in South Africa, but the more I listen to them, the more I come to realize that the United Party’s points of view are like a weather-vane; they change direction as the wind blows. Not so many years ago the Opposition’s main attack against me as Minister was that deterioration and decline were evident in those industries in which the Minister had a say in the fixing of prices. They mentioned these industries by name, such as the wheat industry, the dairy industry, the maize industry and the meat industry. They then rose and said that God should be thanked for the fact that the Minister did not have any authority over the prices of wool, citrus and export products, because if he were to have any authority over those matters, they simply did not know what would happen. But what is the position this year? This year I listened to the criticism leveled here. I did not hear one argument in regard to the maize farmers, or at least very little from the other side. I did not hear anything about the problems of the wheat farmers; I did not hear anything about meat farmers who had problems, and even less about the dairy farmers, industries in respect of which they had been pretending here all these years that the Minister was to blame for the fact that the prices of those products were too low and that it was for that reason that those industries were finding themselves in difficulties. This year I have been hearing just the opposite. This year those products, in respect of which they have been saying all these years that they are pleased the Minister cannot fix prices, are the products which are allegedly in difficulties. This year they are leveling the accusation that the Government is not doing enough to solve those difficulties. I merely mention this, Mr. Speaker, to show you that when the United Party speaks about agriculture and about assistance to agriculture or about the agricultural policy, they do not pursue any definite policy. What they do, is this: They select those sectors of agriculture where problems do exist at the moment, and then they give out that that is the overall picture agriculture presents. Then they select them as it suits them; if it so happens that it suits them to apply this to the controlled product with a fixed price, then they do so, and if it suits them to apply this to an export product, in respect of which there is no controlled price fixed by the Government, then they also do so, and all they can do, is to criticize. I have been listening here this afternoon to the hon. member for East London (City), who said that no positive contribution had been made by this side of the House, that hon. members on this side had only thanked the Minister for the assistance he granted. But what positive contribution was made by the other side? With great prolixity the hon. member explained that the agricultural industry was one of the most important industries in South Africa, but nobody has ever denied that; there is no wrangling about that. Everybody admits that the agricultural industry is an important one and, surely, the fact that when the agricultural industry finds itself in difficulties, the Government is prepared to take special measures, which it does not do in respect of any other industry in the country, is in fact an admission that the Government regards agriculture as one of the important, basic industries. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Newton Park, who has just made an interjection, said with great prolixity that as far as agriculture was concerned, this Budget was a mini-budget, that it did not do anything for agriculture. I do not know whether the hon. member took the trouble to look at the Budget, but if he does so, he will see that apart from the other facilities that are normally made available to the farmers, provision is being made in this Budget for items which are directly connected with agriculture, i.e. services such as agricultural extension, research, subsidies, etc., to an amount of more than R200 million. This is the amount which is being appropriated in this Budget for agriculture, both directly and indirectly. It represents more than one-tenth of the total Estimates, and then the hon. member says here that this Budget is a mini-budget as far as agriculture is concerned. He bases his point of view on a few figures he quoted here totally out of context. He said that all he could see, was that the Minister had granted an additional amount of R10 million to the Land Bank. But does the hon. member not know how the Land Bank finds its financing? If he does not know, he should try to find out. The Land Bank finds its financing by means of the usual funding of funds amongst members of the general public …

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

Exactly.

*The MINISTER:

… and it finds it by means of funds which the State has been contributing to its funds over the years. In order to place the Land Bank in the position where it does not necessarily have to increase its rates of interest if there is a sharp rise in its expenditure, the State, too, must make a contribution now by investing funds in the Land Bank at a rate of interest which will enable it not only to invest the R10 million it has in agriculture, but also to invest in agriculture the funds it is specially funding for its objects. But this R10 million enables it to keep the rates of interest it charges the farmers on the same basis as the present one; in other words, the same rate of interest as it is charging on mortgages at the moment. In other words, this R10 million is not the only assistance the Land Bank is granting to the farmers.

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

We know that.

*The MINISTER:

What was the hon. member’s criticism? His criticism concerned the Budget; he said that in this Budget there was no ray of hope for the farmers. But let us go further. The hon. member knows what the position is in regard to Agricultural Credit as far as this Budget is concerned. In his Additional Estimates at the beginning of this year the hon. the Minister of Finance requested Parliament for an additional amount of R6 million to be made available to the Department of Agricultural Credit for assistance. That was not months ago, but only three or four weeks ago. In other words, on the Additional Estimates R6 million was appropriated, over and above the total amount which is being appropriated in the Main Estimates. Over and above that the hon. the Minister of Finance is appropriating an additional amount of R3 million in these Estimates. In other words, as compared with the original Estimates last year there is an increase of more than R9 million in the total Estimates.

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

Under what Vote is that?

*The MINISTER:

It does not matter under what Vote it is. The point is that the hon. member suggested here that only a meagre amount of R3 million was being appropriated for agriculture under this Vote; that is the impression he created. He said that it was a mini-budget as far as the farmers were concerned.

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

Under the circumstances it is too little.

*The MINISTER:

The allegation was made on the other side that no other assistance was being granted to the farmers. (But in his Budget speech the Minister announced that the farmers would be compensated for the losses suffered owing to the devaluation of the British pound to the extent to which prices were being affected by it—not necessarily for the total loss. [Interjections.] It depends on the prices fetched overseas. Let me put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: If an export product fetches on the British market a price which is equivalent to last year’s price, due regard being had to the devaluation of the British pound, does he then expect the Government to subsidize that industry? I am asking the hon. member a simple question.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

And if we export less, owing to the price increase?

*The MINISTER:

If one exports less and the price increases owing to the smaller quantity which is being imported, then it is a different matter. I am talking about the same quantity or a larger quantity. I shall now put a simple question to the hon. member. Suppose that the same quantity or a larger quantity is being exported and that one obtains a better price which cancels out the devaluation of the British pound, does the hon. member still expect the Government to subsidize such an industry?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

You are Alice in Wonderland.

*The MINISTER:

It is obvious, surely, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot give me a reply. He wants to know from me what the Minister of Finance is going to subsidize, but he is not even prepared to say what he wants the Minister to subsidize.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

Who is the Government? Are we the Government?

*The MINISTER:

That Party will never become the Government. No subsidy will ever restore an Opposition which devalues to such an extent as the United Party does.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

What about the R180 million?

*The MINISTER:

Hon. members of the Opposition give out that nothing is being done here for the farmers. But let us go further. In his announcement the hon. the Minister of Finance referred to the export industries. We know that there are export industries which are faced with problems, and we know that the citrus industry is one of those industries. That is no secret; everybody knows that, and we also know that their problems did not arise as a result of devaluation only. We know that their problems arose as a result of many other contributory factors, factors such as droughts, etc. But instead of hon. members opposite also accepting some responsibility sometimes, what happens? A few years ago in this House I told our citrus farmers in South Africa: “You must be careful as regards the planting of citrus trees and the quality you produce, because you are going to reach the stage where the overseas markets will not be able to absorb all the citrus we produce, let alone the domestic market.” The same hon. members who are now sitting on the other side of the House, jeered at that, and what did the hon. member for East London (City) do when my predecessor, Mr. S. P. le Roux, warned the wool farmers in 1951-’52-’53 and told them, “You must be wary of the high wool prices; you must not adjust land prices accordingly, because the wool price can drop.” The hon. member for East London (City), in his capacity as the then Chairman of the Wool Board, said at that time that the Minister was talking nonsense.

*Dr. J. H. MOOLMAN:

Yes. He did talk nonsense.

*The MINISTER:

There he repeats it. In other words, when the responsible Minister warned the wool farmers and said, “Be careful, do not adjust land prices to the high wool prices,” the hon. member for East London (City), as Chairman of the Wool Board, told them, “Adjust land prices to the wool prices; the Minister of Agriculture is talking nonsense; the current prices will continue to exist.” In other words, he was directly responsible for the high land prices. He was the leader of the wool farmers at that time, and all the problems that have arisen as a result of the tremendously high wool prices, accompanied by a tremendous rise in land prices in the Karoo, and not only land prices, he wants to …

*Dr. J. H. MOOLMAN:

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? You say that the farmers paid high prices for land because the price of wool was high. Does that have less bearing on the maize industry if maize prices are high?

*The MINISTER:

No, it does not have less bearing on the maize industry, but when I said in this very same House that in relation to our produce prices our land prices were too high, and that if prices dropped in the overseas markets, our farmers would land in difficulties, and that they should not then expect the Government to grant them assistance on the basis of the high prices they had paid, then hon. members of the Opposition attacked me because of the attitude I adopted and they criticized me. That also applies to the hon. member for Newton Park. Sir, there are industries which are faced with problems. Our citrus industry, as I have already said, is faced with problems. We have made the necessary provision. We have had talks with the Citrus Board and we have made provision. This is not necessarily an altogether separate item on the Estimates, but the assistance which we promised to give the Citrus Board and which they can get, will enable them to export their entire citrus crop this year, whereas they would have had to hold back a large part of that crop if that assistance had not been granted to the Citrus Board. The talks with the Citrus Board have already taken place. I do not want to intimate that the citrus farmers are 100 per cent satisfied with what they received, because no farmer is satisfied ever, but the marketing organization of the citrus farmers is at least being enabled to export their entire crop at a price which will still be a profitable one.

Now we come to the wool farmers, about whom the hon. member had so much to say. He said that no hope was being held out to them in this Budget.

*Dr. J. H. MOOLMAN:

I did not say that nothing was being done. I said that very little was being done.

*The MINISTER:

Fine, very little then. In the first instance, the Government contributed R1 million just in respect of publicity for the promotion of wool. But let me put this question to the hon. member: If the Government has to help the wool farmer, must it put somebody outside the door here with a cheque book so that he may ask everybody who passes by how much assistance he needs? If one grants assistance to farmers, one must after all have a method according to which one can do so. What is the best method for granting such assistance? [Interjections.] If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would listen, he might also learn something. The best method is to do so through the organization which normally finances farmers. The responsibility for recovering that money must be placed on somebody. Does the hon. member want the Government simply to make available a certain sum of money for which anybody can qualify without any check or control?

*An HON. MEMBER:

Of course not.

*The MINISTER:

Fine, where does the wool farmer obtain his financing? He obtains it at various places. Many farmers obtain it from the Land Bank. The poorer ones obtain it from the Department of Agricultural Credit. Other wool farmers obtain it from their wool brokers; others obtain it from their local co-operative societies and other again obtain it from the banks. We know that there are outstanding debts at the wool brokers, and we also know that there are wool farmers who have overdrawn accounts at the banks. We cannot give the banks a sum of money for the purpose of paying off those overdrawn accounts. In that respect the hon. member will at least agree with me, because if that were to happen, there would be many wool farmers whose overdrawn accounts would be paid off where this would not be necessary at all. In other words, when one grants this assistance one has to do so on a discriminating basis. Sir, I am a wool farmer, too, but would the hon. member for East London (City) put forward the suggestion that, in view of the fact that droughts are prevailing in the Karoo and in large parts of our country, the Minister of Agriculture should also be granted a subsidy on wool? No, one must therefore discriminate amongst the farmers in accordance with circumstances. We have worked out that this is the best method. The hon. the Minister of Finance came forward and assisted the Land Bank, but now the hon. member for East London (City) says that it does not help them at all; that there is no decrease in the rates of interest. But at the moment they are paying 10½ per cent interest at their brokers. This money they are not going to borrow at a rate of interest higher than 8½ per cent. That is already 2 per cent less than they have to pay if they can obtain a loan on that basis. But the hon. member says that so far relief has not really been granted, that nothing has been done.

*Dr. J. H. MOOLMAN:

I say in respect of the banks.

*The MINISTER:

The hon. member is referring to the banks. If the person concerned is considered to be credit-worthy at the bank, he borrows it there at 8½ per cent. He finds himself in the fortunate position that he can be helped there to-day. For the person who cannot borrow money there, there are other facilities, and in addition he also has the facilities of Agricultural Credit where he can apply for a loan at 5 per cent interest. I am referring to that section of our farmers who are being financed on that level. When we come to assistance, Whether it is in respect of the citrus industry or the wool industry, one simply has to discriminate amongst the various farmers with their various problems. One cannot take one industry and say, “In this industry all the farmers have the same problem”. The taxpayers’ money cannot be used to grant loans to people who do not need them, or who have extensive investments, with the hon. the Minister of Finance for instance, investments which are, what is more, tax free. After all, that is obvious. After all, it is obvious that that cannot be done. Does the hon. member want the Government to act so irresponsibly as to grant a general subsidy on interest, as to lend money on subsidized interest, also to people whose investments are earning a great deal of interest? Is that what the hon. member wants?

*Dr. J. H. MOOLMAN:

In 1934 that was done for everybody.

*The MINISTER:

The hon. member for East London (City) said that this assistance should be made available to everybody on a proportionate basis. He wants it to be possible for everybody to share equally in a subsidized rate of interest. Now I am asking the hon. member a simple question: Does he want to say that the taxpayers’ money should be used for granting a loan at a subsidized rate of interest of only 5 per cent to a person who has an investment that earns 7 per cent interest? The question I am putting to him is, after all, a simple one. Is that what the hon. member wants? Give me a reply to that. It is, after all, a simple question.

*Dr. J. H. MOOLMAN:

I shall do so—after all, I may not rise and reply now.

*The MINISTER:

That is why I say that the assistance must also be differentiated and that is why we are doing it in the present way. In saying that, I do not want to suggest for one single moment that the Government will, with these relief measures it is introducing, enable every farmer in the country to retain possession of his land. Not for one single moment do I want to suggest such a thing. Many of the problems that have arisen are not attributable to the lower wool price or the drought. Many of the problems with which so many of our farmers are faced, have arisen because at some stage or other the farmer injudiciously paid too much for land when the prices were high. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) mentioned, perhaps unwittingly, an example here. He told us about a person in his part of the world who wanted to obtain a loan from Agricultural Credit, and he mentioned the basis on which he wanted to do so. His application was turned down and subsequently he simply had to sell out. According to his own figures he obtained less for his land at a public auction than he wanted to borrow from Agricultural Credit.

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

He received less at the public auction, because credit had been curtailed to that extent.

*The MINISTER:

The reason is not relevant here. He received less than he wanted to borrow from Agricultural Credit to keep himself going. That is the basic fact. I do not know what the reason was. The reason might have been that land had been too expensive previously.

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

No, it was only a few rand per morgen.

*The MINISTER:

The fact of the matter is that he received less at a public auction than he wanted to borrow to keep him on that farm. Now I make this statement: If it were a case of a person whose position had deteriorated over the years as a result of several factors, then I would still say that one should have sympathy with him. But the hon. member himself admitted that a short while before the farmer in question had purchased land at a price which was almost as much as the total he received now.

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

No, I did not mention the purchase price at all.

*The MINISTER:

I think you said that he had obtained it at R15 per morgen.

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

No, I said the value was R15 per morgen. I do not know what he paid at all.

*The MINISTER:

Whether it is the value or the price, it is all the same.

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

Oh no.

*The MINISTER:

Well, then I assume that when the hon. member refers to the value, the price is even higher. I assume that.

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

No, you cannot assume that.

*The MINISTER:

Then my statement is even more accurate than the hon. member wants to concede. Now I say that if this assistance is granted, certain people must necessarily be disqualified as far as the allocation of assistance is concerned. I am referring to applications lodged with Agricultural Credit. I asked the hon. member whether he expected everybody who applied, to be assisted. We have had several cases of applications for assistance under Agricultural Credit for the purpose of consolidating debts, cases where the applicants purchased land between 1960 and 1964. That was the cause of the applicants’ difficulties. Must the Government use funds that were provided by the taxpayers to assist those people and thus, by implication, condone their high land prices? Surely, the hon. member can see for himself what we would be doing with our whole economic structure if we were to do that. In other words. I do not want to hold out any hope that every farmer in South Africa will be assisted. I do not want to suggest that there will not be any farmers in South Africa who will come to ruin. In the other sectors of our national life it is an everyday occurrence to see people—shopkeepers, shoemakers, and so forth—leaving certain professions.

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

But more so in the agricultural sector.

*The MINISTER:

The hon. member says that more people are leaving the agricultural sector. I challenge the hon. member to look at particulars in regard to sell-outs over the past four years, and he will see how few farmers were sold out.

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

You did not hear what I said. In other sectors people are also leaving, but many more are entering them.

*The MINISTER:

But people are also entering the agricultural sector. If the hon. member looks at how many insolvencies and sell-outs there have been over the past four years, he will see that on a percentage basis fewer people in the agricultural industry are involved than is the case in any other industry. He can look it up for himself. He does not have to take my word for it. But that does not mean that assistance will not be granted to those people. During this drought we have been granting special assistance to the sheep farmers in particular. In the drought-stricken areas the Government has, apart from the usual measures taken in regard to subsidies in respect of fodder or the conveyance of stock to other pasture land, subsidized fodder purchases by 50 per cent. What have the consequences been of subsidizing fodder? After this drought, one of the most serious we have ever experienced, our number of small stock increased by 3 million. Now the hon. member refers to the deterioration of the Karoo and the trampling of the Karoo. We agree with him, all of us are concerned about that. But now the hon. member must consider whether this sort of assistance would not in fact encourage the trampling of the veld. What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with land which is being over stocked under present circumstances. I do not have the time to go into the causes of this. Now we introduce with our relief measures, on which that side is insisting, and we provide these people with fodder to keep the stock on land that has already been trampled, without decreasing their numbers, without any rehabilitation taking place. Now the hon. member asks the Minister of Finance—I shall deal with this briefly because my time is short—to withdraw half of the Karoo. We do have a withdrawal scheme. Now I want to ask the hon. member this. If, as a result of withdrawal, half of the Karoo farms with the valuation their land has, has to be subsidized by this Government so that the farmers can make a living, what does the hon. member think it will cost the Government? Can he visualize for one moment that the Government has to pay for withdrawal at the present land valuation in the Karoo? And if it does not do so, the farmers there will not be able to subsist, even if the land is withdrawn. How are they to subsist then?

*Dr. J. H. MOOLMAN:

As things are going now, they cannot subsist in any case.

*The MINISTER:

It is easy to rise here and to suggest such a thing. But if the Government is not prepared to pay for the withdrawal on the basis of the valuation made by the farmer himself, that farmer would not be able to subsist, even if he is paid for that withdrawal.

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

Then he has to leave.

*The MINISTER:

I want to tell the hon. member that we did the withdrawals in the Northern Transvaal and even in the Cape. What was the effect of the withdrawal? All of them were very eager to withdraw as long as the drought prevailed, but last year when it rained and when that portion of the farm that had been withdrawn, was covered with grass, a large number of them wanted to withdraw their withdrawal.

*Dr. J. H. MOOLMAN:

In the Karoo?

*The MINISTER:

So far that has not happened in the Karoo, because it has not rained there. But if it rains there, you will see that they will come back and will want to withdraw their withdrawal.

*Dr. J. H. MOOLMAN:

No.

*The MINISTER:

Mr. Speaker, I think that in his outlook the hon. member has just as much knowledge of the mentality of the farmer as the hon. member for Gardens has. The position is that one cannot even keep the farmers away from the parts that we as the State have withdrawn, for instance the areas near the Orange River, areas we have bought up and for which we have already paid the farmers. Every day thousands of representations are made to me—and to my colleague behind me who bought up Bantu land—to grant permission for stock to graze on those areas that are covered with grass. Do hon. members now want to tell me that a farmer who has withdrawn half of his farm will not want his stock to graze on that half of the farm if it offers very good grazing? Then the State has to forbid him to do that.

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

In other words, the scheme is worthless?

*The MINISTER:

Theoretically this is a very fine scheme, as the hon. member tried to demonstrate here with many gestures, but if our farmers do not realize a few things, it will become worthless. In the first instance, they must realize that we are dealing with droughts and that they must implement soil conservation. If they do not realize that the carrying capacity of their land is being overestimated, I am afraid that we shall have to implement measures that are much more drastic. But they will not realize this if the Government is always prepared to grant assistance in all circumstances at all times. That is why I say that this assistance offered by the Government must be such that the maximum number of our farmers will be kept on the land. I agree with that. But it must also be such that by doing so our economic structure in agriculture, and even our own conservation farming, will not be undermined further.

Hon. members spoke of a Budget which was of no assistance to the farmers and to the various industries. I am prepared to allow the organizations which are concerned with agriculture and the farmers who are in the agricultural industry to pass judgment on the assistance the Government has to give them, after they have had deliberations with us. But I am not prepared to allow a group of United Party M.P.s to pass judgment, people who, for political reasons want to exploit for their own benefit this difficult situation in which agriculture finds itself. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Maj. J. E. LINDSAY:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has dealt for some time with certain problems that were raised here but it seems to me he very conveniently kept quiet about a point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) when he said that the Government was in fact setting the pace as to the purchase of land and the prices of land. I did not hear him say anything about that. He also said a lot about the interest paid by farmers, and the way they had to set about that. I would just like to point out that in 1934, when conditions were bad for the farming community, there was a United Party Government which did something practical and manageable.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

Ask Oom Jannie Wentzel!

Maj. J. E. LINDSAY:

Amongst other things I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the price of wool was subsidized, as also the interest to farmers. The railway rates were also lowered, and a moratorium was declared so that farmers could not be liquidated at the time. The hon. the Minister talks about soil conservation. I say, as I have said before, that the time has come that soil conservation committees should be given much more power in dealing with farmers in their areas. I can recall that during the no-confidence debate, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture quoted at great length from a White Paper on agriculture placed before this House in 1946. He dealt at great length with the state of agriculture at that time, and with how low the standard of soil conservation was. He provoked great laughter on the part of hon members on that side of the House, but he did not go on to say what the United Party did about it. He was very quiet about that.

Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

Oom Jannie Wentzel could have told him.

Maj. J. E. LINDSAY:

He could have, but he too was very quiet. We know of course that there is such a thing as a Soil Conservation Act. We also know of the Marketing Act, and other Acts, which came during the United Party rule. But I make the charge that to-day conditions are still as bad, after this Government has had 20 years to put our measures into force.

It is quite funny to see the contradictions on the part of hon. members on that side of the House, ever since we started this debate. One hon. member says that farming is not so bad, and having made that statement protecting the Government, promptly goes on to deal with certain problems that exist. Another hon. member then gets up and says that there are problems with farming, and then promptly rallies round the hon. the Minister to protect the Government and its policy. This reminds me of a football match. Hon. members on that side of the House are like a lot of loose forwards, rallying around the hon. the Minister who is the hooker and who is valiantly trying to hook this ball of Government policy. Unfortunately this ball is flat and will not come out. Nobody has said that nothing at all is being done. Every hon. member on this side has said that assistance is given. Indeed, the hon. member for East London (City) waived this memorandum of assistance available to farmers to the House, but we have maintained that the assistance falls far short of what is required. We on this side agree with the hon. member for Newton Park that this is indeed a mini-Budget as far as the farmer is concerned. The hon. the Minister has tried to negate that by saying what is available and what is not. One can go through all these Votes. Take the Vote of Economics and Marketing, for instance, and one will see that the amount voted for this Department is less than it was last year. R77,975,000 is voted for this Department this year, in comparison with R78 million last year. If we look at Agricultural Credit we find that only R23,000 more is voted this year, while in the Loan Vote there is an extra R3 million. In the Loan Vote there is only R3 million and that for an industry which finds itself in the plight agriculture is in to-day. I think this Budget is a micro-mini one. It would all have been very well if circumstances had been normal but circumstances are not normal. They are very much abnormal. It is also time that we got to the end of this story that the Government is not responsible for floods, droughts, pests, etc. I admit that they might not be directly responsible, but we must also remember that these phenomena occur throughout the country all the time. It never happens that one part of our country is not subject to one or other of these circumstances. What makes the position so bad is that as a result of Government policy the farmer is unable to establish himself well enough so that when this disaster strikes him he is unable to survive it. That is the crux of the matter. We have dealt with the question of interest rates. I have also mentioned certain aspects of this matter, but there is no reason whatever why the Government cannot assist the farmers. The hon. the Minister asks whether the Minister of Agriculture will have to be subsidized as well, if there is a general subsidization. Of course not, who would be so foolish. But if he needs it he naturally should be subsidized. There is always a means of determining this. If someone is borrowing money somewhere and investing it elsewhere, the position can be ascertained. If it can be established that a man requires money and that on balance he has borrowed more, then he is entitled to that subsidy on interest. This is not a question of it being impossible. The point is that it has been done in the past. But this is typical of this Government. They allow matters to deteriorate to such an extent that major action then has to be taken to rectify the position. Let us take the question of having an area declared an emergency grazing area. I maintain that there is no farmer in South Africa who would readily have his district declared an emergency grazing area, if he can possibly avoid it. Why then do we have all this palaver of having an area declared an emergency grazing area? Where the farmers as a body have applied to have their area declared an emergency grazing area, investigations must first be carried out which stretch from here to kingdom come. Forms have to be filled in as to the average rainfall and the kind of farming suitable, etc. The department and the magistrate have to make reports. There is so much red tape. When all that has been done and the application has been approved virtually six weeks have passed from the time the application was lodged until approval was given. What is more is that that proclamation is not made effective from that date but normally from some date in the future. In regard to the question of rainfall, do you know, Mr. Speaker, that there are areas in South Africa which can get their normal annual rainfall and still be subject to a critical drought. We have that position in the border areas to-day. Last year we had almost our full annual rainfall. But in a high rainfall area, if you do not get rain every fortnight, you are faced with a drought. If you have not had rain for two months, you are faced with a severe drought. If you have not had rain for six months, then it is absolutely critical. That is exactly what the position in the border areas is to-day.

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

I have drought for six months every year in my area.

Maj. J. E. LINDSAY:

Yes, but that is normal in that area. We have these conditions in the border areas at present. Last year we had an almost ful quota of rain, namely 25.7 inches. But since July last year we have only had three inches of rain, of which one inch fell in July and the other two in November. Since then we have had virtually no rain. Then some of these applications to be declared drought-stricken areas were approved, and others were not. I should now like to quote from a letter from the department which tells why one of these areas was not declared a drought-stricken area:

Voerdery vind altyd plaas met selfgekweekte voer wat vanjaar weens droogte nie beskikbaar is nie. Die doel van weidingsnoodlysting is om boere te help om veldvee wat normaalweg op veld loop en nie byvoeding kry nie, aan die lewe te hou en nie om produksie in stand te hou nie.

That was the reason why this area could not be declared an emergency grazing area. It was because normally at this time of the year their dairy cows which were in production were being fed in the manger. Do farmers only have cows in production? What about the young cattle and the calves and the dry cows? What about their other cattle and sheep? No, let us not be ridiculous about this situation. It seems to me that there has developed in the department the idea amongst the officials that they are there to protect the Government and that this emergency area must not be declared too soon. What the reason was I do not know. One would think that if farmers ask an area to be declared an emergency grazing area, they are out to get the world. But what is the immediate effect of this? We get a 75 per cent rebate in the cost of the transport of cattle or sheep out of the area or, alternatively, the transportation of feed into the area. Then we come to the most amazing situation of all. In regard to the question of what conditions must be before an area is proclaimed an emergency grazing area, we find that they say that conditions must be such that livestock have to be fed or taken away to prevent them dying. It would seem that the interpretation is that such stock must already be dying, in fact, before it can be applied. They forget that there are farmers who, when there is no more grazing, start feeding their own stock to keep them alive and in condition. But if there is no more grazing available for them, surely that is the time that they must get the benefit of the area being declared an emergency grazing area so that they can indeed keep their stock in the condition in which they are at that time. What do we find is the result otherwise? We find that the farmers who are able and who perhaps had the good fortune to have laid in a lot of feed, are able to keep their stock. The farmers who are well off will actually transfer their cattle and sheep from there to another area. But this costs the individual a lot of money. The ones who can afford it, do it. The ones who cannot afford it have to stay and see their cattle and sheep deteriorating until this area is declared an emergency area. Then only can they order their feed. By that time so many other farmers have ordered feed that it takes them another month to get the feed they require. It is, then, a question that those who can help themselves will be all right, while the person who is already struggling finds himself in difficulties. That is how we find the position to-day. This also leads to another difficulty. So many farmers find themselves in a position that they actually have to sell their stock. In our area many have actually done that. This year they have sold their stock. I know of farmers there who do not even have ten animals on their farm now. Now what do we find happens? The hon. the Minister of Finance on pressure from us over the years, last year made the concession that farmers can at least equalize the rate of income tax over five years. That may all be very well but that system is not functioning properly yet. Furthermore there are many farmers who do not know what it entails. But if a farmer has not gone in for equalization, it means that the income from the sale of stock this year will all be included in his income for this year and the result is that—the wealthier the farmer the more this amount is—ten to one he goes into the supertax and he has to pay 75 per cent of that over to the Government. [Interjections.] I am talking about the remaining ones. There are farmers who realize that the reaction of this Government will be so slow that they have to go ahead and sell their stock. There are farmers who have actually done that. It is true that he can then warn the Receiver of Revenue that this stock is being sold on account of the drought. In years to come when he re-buys stock he can have it credited against the year in which he sold and be re-assessed. But the position is that he has to pay this tax now. He cannot delay paying the tax. Where does he then get the money to buy new stock? The Government then has his money. I therefore suggest that the hon. the Minister of Finance investigate this position to see whether he can give relief to the farmers in the sale and subsequent purchase of stock.

*Mr. F. HERMAN:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for King William’s Town mentioned the fact that contradictory statements had been made from this side. On the one hand members praise the Government for its sound policy and actions in agriculture, but on the other hand they come to light with problems. But it seems to me as though the hon. member for King William’s Town does not take the evolution of methods and ideas into consideration. What the Government is doing cannot be done better, but we must keep pace with future developments. For that reason suggestions are always welcome. What is more, the hon. the Minister will always pay attention to them. The hon. member also dealt very extensively with the question of the drought and emergency grazing. He also said that the difficulty in which farmers found themselves at present, if there is any such difficulty, was as a result of the present policy of the Government. But I should like to put the matter in this way. A very prominent businessman said to me one day: “If you want to start a business and you want to build up a strong business for the future, you must always remember that you should spend a third of your time on the organization and administration of your business. Another third of your time you must spend on the business itself, and the last third you must spend on the books and finances of your business.”

*An HON. MEMBER:

When does one sleep then?

*Mr. F. HERMAN:

I am speaking of one’s normal working hours during the day. But it seems to me as though that hon. member is always asleep; that is why he asks such a question. Since this Budget was introduced more than a week ago, the Opposition have had the opportunity of bringing it to the attention of the voters in Pretoria (West) that this Budget of the Government is not in order. They could have brought it home to their people at Voortrekkerhoogte, or to the officials of Iscor or the other people in Pretoria (West), that it could be attacked, and they might have gained support in that way. But what happened was just the reverse. They failed hopelessly there and in spite of the opportunity afforded them by the Government, we emerged with even more distinction from that contest. The hon. member for Port Natal referred in passing to the election and changed the subject very quickly. He never considered the fact that in this election we attracted 70.3 per cent of the votes cast, while the Opposition only attracted a paltry 18 per cent. In 1958 the Opposition attracted 32.3 per cent of the votes and this time they attracted only 18 per cent. This shows that the Opposition is not keeping pace with the evolution of time and thought, as has already been said.

But I want to go further. The hon. member for Orange Grove spoke of an “uninspired” budget, and the hon. member for Yeoville of a “neutral budget”. Other hon. members on that side of the House praised this Budget. They also spoke of the rand which is in such a strong position in the world to-day. The hon. member for Yeoville wanted to drag in the Financial Mail, which had apparently criticized the Government’s Budget, but if he had read it carefully he would have seen that the writer was referring more particularly to the price of gold and the fact that the hon. the Minister of Finance did not want to make a statement on the price of gold. The hon. member for Pinetown likewise tried to force the Minister of Finance into making a statement on it. But I should like to refer to the Minister’s Budget speech, in which he stated very clearly—

An uncertain factor of significance in this Budget and in our whole economy is the future of the price of gold. Gold is not in itself a source of uncertainty; on the contrary, it is a bastion of strength in an uncertain world. The uncertainties reside rather in the currencies for which gold is exchanged, and recent events have by no means removed these uncertainties. Fortunately, we in the Republic of South Africa can face these uncertainties with confidence.

But I want to go further. The Opposition’s own newspaper the Sunday Times, also said something about the price of gold—

An increase in the gold price would result in inflationary pressure arising in South Africa by the higher income earned by the mines. However, should the gold price be increased, it is certain that the authorities will take steps to keep inflation in check.

Why the hon. member and the Financial Times want to force the Minister to make a statement on the price of gold, I do not know.

But, to go further, the attacks made by the Opposition during this debate produced absolutely nothing. They reminded me very much of a little boy who wants to climb a pole that has been smeared with grease. If they climb this pole, they slide down again flat on their backsides. This was proved again yesterday by the hon. the Minister of Justice when he wiped the floor with the members of the Opposition about the matter of hotels. Sir, can you imagine that they plead for the classification of hotels when those hotels have already been classified; that they plead that private hotels without liquor licences should be classified; and thirdly, that they plead that hotels should be classified while the proprietors themselves want to demolish those hotels? This is the type of arguments put forward by them. The hon. member for Parktown said that there should be more money available for long-term mortgage bonds, although the hon. member for Peninsula, on the other hand, had pointed out, that there had already been enough money for long-term mortgage bonds in the past and that a further R10 million had now been made available for this purpose. And then they come along here with arguments such as those of the hon. member for Mooi River and Port Natal, who want to make a plea here for mini-dresses. It rather seems as though they have a lack of mini-brains in this debate.

I want to come to the agriculture section of this Budget. Agriculture is one of the four great pillars of strength as regards our inland revenue. The agricultural sector contributed more than R1,300 million to the national income during 1966-’67. This represents 10 per cent of the entire Budget. The other three great pillars are the manufacturing industry, which contributed 21.9 per cent, the wholesale and retail trade, which contributed 14 per cent, and the mining industry, which contributed 12.5 per cent. This is on the revenue side, if the Opposition can read a Budget or a balance sheet. On the revenue side there is 10 per cent, but over against this an amount of R130,644,000 has been spent on agriculture out of the Revenue Account, and an amount of R110,784,000 out of the Loan Account. If one analyses these, it means that 11.76 per cent has been ploughed back into Agriculture from the Revenue Account and 20 per cent from the Loan Account. Any bookkeeper or auditor will tell you that if you receive 10 per cent from one department, you should try to plough back 10 per cent into that department. But the hon. the Ministers of Agriculture and Finance have done more for agriculture here than is expected according to the standards of bookkeeping. This is what is meant by finance.

The hon. member for Queenstown’s own words were that the Minister of Finance had judiciously granted benefits where they were necessary. In the view of the Ministers of Finance and Agriculture, more had to be done for the agricultural sector, and this is why it has been done. We must keep pace with development. Farming, agronomy in particular, requires very extensive mechanization to-day, and perhaps we must consider whether the time has not arrived to pay attention to establishing a more balanced type of farming. By this we mean the following. Particularly in areas where the rainfall is very irregular, the Government may assist a farmer in specializing in one type of farming, for instance, poultry-farming or pig-farming. By this means very great assistance may be rendered to such a farmer and he may establish himself in one direction. Many of them prefer it that way today.

It is unfortunately a fact that according to statistics approximately 13.9 per cent of our white population lived in rural areas in 1965, and according to the calculations on the basis of surveys made, approximately 8.6 per cent of the white population will be living in the rural areas by 1980. At all costs we must prevent agriculture from deteriorating in this respect. For this reason, too, the hon. the Minister deemed it fit once again to vote R18 million, and not R15 million, for agriculture this year in addition to the amount already voted for agriculture. The amount of R4 million set aside for the exporters has already been mentioned. It is for the purpose of retaining the markets in the devaluating countries for the agricultural export industries. This is a laudable gesture on the part of the Minister of Finance. The amount of R3 million for the wool farmers has already been discussed in detail, as well as the amount of R10 million provided from the Additional Loan Account for the Land Bank. Mention has also been made of the R1 million and the R150,000 voted for the Wool Board and the wattle industry. But provision has also been made for indirect concessions to the agricultural sector in the Budget. There is the case of working wives. The wives of many of these farmers who are having such a hard time to-day as a result of the drought, have had to seek employment. Now the Minister of Finance has deemed fit to help those working wives and couples as regards income-tax. Further rebates have been granted for children. All these things add to the indirect concessions.

My time is running out, and I should like to bring a few matters of practical importance to the attention of the Minister of Finance. Many of these farmers received loans for stock-feed and for mealie meal during the drought in recent years. All that the farmers are asking now, is that a further extension of time be granted for the repayment of these loans. This is a practical consideration. Many of them also fell in arrear with the repayment of interest and capital on their Land Bank mortgage bonds in this period. Having had a good crop last year, they tried to pay off some of their debts as soon as possible. They tried to ward off the summonses and the warrants, with the result that they fell in arrear with their payments to the Land Bank. Now they are asking that the Land Bank should be a little more lenient and should not be so quick to take action to sell the farms, even though they are a few years in arrear, as on account of the drought it had been impossible to avoid this. This happened for the most part in the agronomical sector of agriculture.

But I have a further practical suggestion to make to the Minister, and this concerns the Receiver of Revenue. Some of these farmers, when they had good crops, fell in arrear with the payment of their income-tax and subsequently made arrangements with the Receiver of Revenue to pay that tax by way of monthly instalments. Now some of these farmers have perhaps received deferred payments in respect of a tobacco crop and the Receiver of Revenue has seized these deferred payments. What they are now asking is that the Receiver of Revenue should keep to the original arrangement and accept those monthly payments, and that the deferred payments should be returned to them.

My time has expired and I should like to conclude my speech with these few words. The Minister of Finance has once again introduced a Budget in the classical tradition of South Africa this year, and he has maintained the good reputation of South Africa in the world. This year he has elaborated upon his motto of last year, “Work and Save”, and he has built up the economy of the country to such an extent that this year we again have a Budget of strength of which we may be proud.

*Mr. H. J. BOTHA:

I should also like to make my humble contribution towards the Festival of the Soil, and I want to avail myself of this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. the Prime Minister for the initiative displayed by him last year when he announced that we were going to celebrate the Festival of the Soil this year. It is a very important milestone in the history of South Africa, because it is the first time in history that such a festival is celebrated here. I think we as a House are all in agreement that we must pay tribute to all who are taking part in it.

The soil is very important to us and if we do not have the soil any more it will be of no use to talk of a fine Budget, because then we will have nothing more at our disposal: we will have lost everything. It is in this spirit to-day that we can echo the words of the poet that “the heritage they gave us for our children yet may be”. We hope and trust that the Festival of the Soil will contribute to making everyone conscious of that which is our own. It has been said that we commenced with soil conservation 21 years ago and that we have not made much progress with it. We are indeed making progress, but it will still take years before everyone, big and small, becomes soil-conscious in South Africa. Reflections are being cast on our agricultural economy, as well as on our agricultural production as such. It is a generally known fact to-day that America with its population is responsible for about 50 per cent of the agricultural production of the world. South Africa with its small population of 18 million is responsible for about 50 per cent of the production of Africa. This shows one how much progress our people have made in the agricultural field. This is an important aspect. We have made a great deal of progress in spite of our problems. We must remember that by this time to-morrow afternoon the population of the world will have increased by 180,000; by the end of the year it will have increased by 60 million; by the end of the century there will be six billion people in the world, and this is going to face agriculture with a greater challenge than ever before. There is one thing of which I am sure and that is that the South African agricultural industry will make its modest contribution. By the end of the century we shall have a population of between 35 million and 40 million people, while the whole of Africa, including us, already has a population of 311 million to-day. We are making rapid progress in the technological field, while the black African states are not making such rapid progress in agricultural production. What is the position in our reserves? In spite of the Whites living next to them, in spite of the Whites moving among them, their production is minimal as compared to that of the white man. The same is going to happen in the African states. Their production will make slower and slower progress, and as their population increases, they shall have to import more and more, and South Africa will be the obvious country from which to import. I am convinced that South Africa will make its modest contribution in this regard. What is in actual fact the position as regards our agriculture? Is our agriculture in such a critical economical position as has been suggested here? In this regard I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Gardens.

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

A moment ago you said that 60 per cent were on the verge of bankruptcy.

*Mr. H. J. BOTHA:

Yes, I shall come back to that in a moment, and I shall also come to the hon. member for Newton Park. How many categories of farmers do we have in this country? We have three. The first type of farmer is the one who needs no financial assistance of any kind whatsoever. Then there is the second type of farmer, i.e. the one who is financed not only by the private sector, but also by the Land Bank. While speaking of the Land Bank, I just want to say the following: It has been said here by hon. members that the farmers’ debts with the Land Bank are increasing. This is true; I admit it, but why have these debts increased? For the simple reason—it has come to my notice in my constituency—that the bank managers said to the farmers: “There is plenty of money available; I shall advance you the full purchase price to buy this or that farm which is for sale.” The farmers bought these farms and when credit restrictions were introduced these same farmers had to fall back on the Land Bank. As a result the liabilities of the Land Bank increased. But I now come to the third type of farmer, namely the one who qualifies for assistance from the Department of Agricultural Credit. Sir, how many farmers have applied for assistance under the Agricultural Credit Scheme? Altogether about 15,000 farmers have applied for aid. But this also includes farmers who have taken up loans for fodder and fencing material with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. Therefore not all of them were farmers who qualified for agricultural credit. These farmers included, there are 15,000 farmers who have applied to the Department of Agricultural Credit for assistance. How many of these farmers have been assisted? Assistance has been granted to 11,925 of the 15,000. How many applications have been rejected out of hand? 3,098. But if one listens to hon. members on that side, one would think that all applications for assistance from the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure are being rejected.

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

If that is the position, what have you done with the money? If the farmers have received nothing, what have you done with the money?

*Mr. H. J. BOTHA:

I have the details here of the assistance granted to farmers. The first amount is R31,720,000. This is the amount in respect of the assistance granted to farmers during the period from 1st October, 1966, to 31st December, 1967. This amount has not yet been finally paid out, but R22,834,000 has already been paid out. The aggregate amount is R54 million. This is the amount in respect of the assistance granted to the farmers. Sir, if any government has ever been sympathetically disposed towards the South African farmer, then it is this Government. Our attitude towards the farmer is a sympathetic one. In every deserving case in my constituency where individual farmers have applied for assistance, it has been granted to them.

Mr. Speaker, my time is running out. Why are many of our farmers no longer creditworthy? And now the hon. member for Gardens must please listen. Let me explain the position in this way: take the figure 100 as the basic investment. In my constituency I have found, after working it out with farmers who have problems, that one’s working capital, that is to say, one’s stock and one’s implements should constitute at least 60 per cent of your basic investment in the case of a normal mortgage burden of 50 per cent; then such a farmer can just make ends meet. Why are our stock farmers in such a critical economic position to-day? Purely as a result of the fact that in relation to their capital investment their working capital amounts to 25 to 35 per cent only, while their mortgage burden amounts to 70 to 80 per cent. How on earth can they make ends meet? In the first instance this is due to excessive land prices—and this is the reply to the question which the hon. member put here—and in the second instance to the drought conditions which prevail year after year. This situation in agriculture has developed as a result of over-confidence in agriculture.

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

How many farmers have bought additional farms in the last 10 years?

*Mr. H. J. BOTHA:

A very large number in my area.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

One hundred and forty-seven per cent.

*Mr. H. J. BOTHA:

I repeat that it is as a result of over-confidence in agriculture that these conditions have developed in agriculture. That is why our farmers are struggling and that is why the young farmers are struggling to enter the field of agriculture, and that is why the Government is assisting the young farmers to make a start in agriculture. As far as the future of agriculture is concerned, we have the fullest confidence in the industry, and we know that under this Government the industry is in good hands.

Mr. W. G. KINGWILL:

Sir, I would like to comment on the speech of the hon. member for Aliwal North. He posed the question towards the end of his speech as to what the problem of the farmer is, and he suggested that the high cost of land was the factor which had created all the problems.

Mr. H. J. BOTHA:

And also drought conditions.

Mr. W. G. KINGWILL:

That might well be so in several cases, but every farmer has not sold his ground and every farmer has not bought additional ground. There are many farmers throughout the length and breadth of South Africa who have been on the same farms over the last 50 years and because of present circumstances they find themselves in extreme difficulty. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the high price of ground. But even if the high price of ground has something to do with it, agriculture is in difficulties, and this Government will have to do something about it if they wish to see a strong agricultural sector in the Republic in the future.

The hon. member also raised the question of the Soil Festival. I share his thoughts in that regard. I think it is a most commendable undertaking; I believe it can only do good. But I thought that perhaps in this year of the Soil Festival the Minister of Finance would be imbued with the same spirit and that provision would be made in the Budget for a big allocation to fight the dragon of soil erosion. Sir, we have heard so much about the dragon of inflation, but I believe that if we are not able to slay the dragon of erosion, then we need not worry much about the question of inflation. First things must come first and we must solve this problem of soil erosion. I must say that in this Budget I do not see any new dynamic approach to this particular problem.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus started his speech by praising the Government for the Budget. According to him there were apparently no problems at all; every sector of the economy was flourishing. He then said that he wanted to offer some practical advice about certain matters and then he started recapitulating all the tragedies of the farmers who could not pay their arrear interest and who could not pay their income tax, etc. Even in his constituency the hon. member has the problems to which I wish to refer now in my speech. For many years—I would say over the past 12 years—many of the most successful farmers in the Republic have found themselves facing greater and greater difficulties, and I want to say that one of the major reasons for these problems is undoubtedly the fact that for the past 12 years we have had sub-normal rainfall conditions. Conditions of drought have been building up throughout that period and we have reached the situation where in our pastoral farming sectors, conditions to-day are almost untenable. We are approaching or we are already in a period of severe crisis. In all this time of drought and difficulties as a result of the drought, the economic climate too has not been very favourable. Prices have not always been economic and we have seen a constantly rising cost structure as far as production costs are concerned. I would say with all emphasis, Sir, that there are many of our old established farmers who to-day experience conditions of extreme financial difficulty. There is only one quarter to which they can turn in their difficulties, and that is the Government. In the past, when we had good governments, their problems were dealt with sympathetically and their difficulties solved. They have every right during this period of crisis to turn to the Government and to expect assistance in one form or another. Many farmers throughout the country looked forward to this budget in the hope that it would include a plan to help solve their problems. I think many of these farmers must be bitterly disappointed at the extent of the assistance that is forthcoming.

We had the Marais Commission sitting for a long time, and we hoped that by this time we would be able to see what its recommendations are. I do not know if the hon. the Minister knows the contents of the commission’s report. I wish we had access to it to see what is recommended. I wonder whether he will agree to the proposals put forward in due course, or are the proposals in the budget in fact the commission’s recommendations regarding the rehabilitation of the agricultural sector? I very much doubt that these are in fact the recommendations because I believe the report will give us a true picture of the depressed agricultural sector and will make recommendations far more extensive than the relief contained in the budget.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Agriculture when he considers the problems of the agricultural sector to do so from a long-term point of view. I think it is wise to do so. I know the Budget contains certain short-term relief measures and only the course of time will show whether these are effective or not. We feel they are not adequate, but it is just as well to reserve judgment and see to what extent they do help farmers in their present plight. I, however, want to deal with the longterm problem. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he really believes that the measures contained in the Budget are in the long run going to put the agricultural sector back on the road to prosperity? I have looked at the proposed measures from every angle, but I cannot see how they can in the long run rehabilitate our agricultural sector. I believe it is high time that we took a long-term view of this problem. I believe it to be the duty of the Government to look at this problem very seriously and, like a military commander normally does, make an appraisal of the situation. The commander makes an appraisal of what his problems are, and when they are well sorted out he decides on a method and a plan. I believe that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture should act in the same way. He finds himself confronted by problems, but we have not yet heard what his plans are. We look forward to hearing about them in the course of time.

I want to stress that when viewing the problems besetting agriculture, we must look for the root cause. We must establish what is the root cause of the problem. I say without hesitation, and I do not believe my statement can be challenged, that the root cause of the problem is that our agricultural sector, in all its ramifications, cannot afford to pay the current rates of interest in the country. Any sort of assistance which does not take full account of this fact can never succeed. What is the use of lending farmers money at an interest rate of 8½ per cent when at present their farming operations do not earn them anywhere near that return on their outlay? The assistance we are getting in this respect is but short-term assistance. I believe the Government must look into this problem more thoroughly and eventually come forward with a bold dynamic plan which will have the effect, inter alia, of adjusting interest rates to a level more in keeping with the earnings of agriculture. The Government has acknowledged that the rates at present charged are too high, else why did they fix the interest rate paid on loans made by agricultural credit at 5 per cent? They know that that is an interest rate which the agricultural sector can carry and that any higher rate is above the means of the agricultural industry at the present time.

By granting more and more short-term loans, the position is really being aggravated, because the farmer is being loaded with more capital debt than he can really afford to take on. As I said before, in many cases the interest rates are more than he can afford to pay. If we look at his long-term liabilities, which are mostly in the form of bonds in the private sector, and include the interest he has to pay on his various other debts—to-day at an interest rate of 8½ per cent—then we see the farmer has a heavy burden to carry. I want to try and show later on with figures that no sector of the agricultural industry is able to pay the prevailing rates of interest. That is why the farmers get into trouble. They get in arrears with their payments of interest, and they have still to pay various other debts, as the hon. member for Potgietersrust explained in his speech he just made. That is happening right throughout the country.

Often we are told that many of our farmers are in trouble because they do not run their farms on business lines and because they are not good business managers. This may apply to some of them. The same thing is encountered in the commercial sector. All businessmen are not good businessmen. Similarly, all farmers are not good farmers. I do think that to-day we can say most farmers in the Republic are good farmers who run their farms on good business lines. I want to quote a few figures to show what the position is. These figures relate to the Graaff-Reinet district. I do not want to say it is the best district in the Republic, though I am tempted to do so. But it is one of the best and one of the oldest established districts in the country. An enterprising group of wool farmers there decided to employ an agro-economist to assist them with their farming activities so that they could see whether their farming operations were being conducted on sound business lines or not. There were 28 of these wool farmers, and the average amount of capital invested by each of them in their farming undertakings was R207,000. That was the capital invested. The average net profit made by each farmer over several years was R4,100 per year. On a percentage basis, the net return on the farming operations was 1.9 on capital invested. I do not want it suggested to me that this low figure is the result of their having paid too much for their land. In most cases those farmers have been established there for a very long time. The real reason is that their rising costs, because of the prolonged drought, have reduced their net return on capital outlay. The situation as far as rising costs are concerned is beyond their control. There is nothing they can do about it. Therefore we believe the Government must conceive and execute some long-term plan to rectify this very serious situation.

I want to quote the example of a farmer in the Northern Transvaal, which is one of our best cattle farming areas. Let us take a man who is farming under optimum conditions, doing everything according to the book and according to the economist’s idea of how the farm should be run. If the farmer has 80 per cent calving, if his weaners average in the region of 300-400 lbs., if he enjoys normal seasons, and if his ground was bought at an economic price, the return on his capital outlay is in the vicinity of 7 per cent. If drought comes along, upsetting farming operations, making farming difficult and causing costs to go up, what will it avail that man to borrow fresh capital bearing an interest rate of 8 per cent if the net return on his capital outlay under favourable conditions is no more than 7 percent? These figures have nothing whatsoever to do with the high price of land. I believe the plight of farmers in difficulties can only be worsened by lending them yet more money. On the other hand, if these people are left to their own devices, and climatic conditions do not improve, they face bankruptcy. This is an alarming situation, and I often wonder if the Government really realizes how serious the position is. Many people are moving away from the platteland. We call it the “depopulation” of the platteland. No doubt hon. members opposite will claim this is a natural phenomenon. I could not agree more, because in any developing country the depopulation of the country areas is a normal feature. But there is an accepted tempo for this shift to the towns. As I say, the depopulation of the platteland is inevitable. But if the Government does not take steps to rehabilitate the agricultural sector the depopulation of the platteland will take place at an abnormal rate, because farming has become such an uneconomic proposition. In fact, I want to suggest this is happening at the present time. We in South Africa are dependent on our farming folk. I believe that every country draws its character, its strength and its backbone from its farming people. This is especially so in the Republic of South Africa. We cannot afford to have a single man leaving his farm due to circumstances beyond his control because he will be irreparably lost to our farming community. Our country cannot afford this sort of thing.

Another matter which worries me very much indeed is the alarming extent to which farming as a way of life in South Africa is falling into disfavour. If one goes about in the country one hears it being said by hundreds of young men who normally would take up farming that they do not want to do so because there is no future in farming. Many of them have decided that life on the land is not for them and consequently they leave the countryside. We have to re-establish the confidence of these people in the farming sector, otherwise there are going to be disastrous results. What is even worse is that, because so many Whites are leaving the platteland because of their difficulties, the platteland is falling into the hands of the black people. In the area where I come from it is really alarming to see to what extent the White-Black ratio is changing to the disadvantage of the white people, and something will have to be done about this. What is even worse is this. If something is not done to rehabilitate the farming sector, the black people are also going to start leaving the platteland, and they are going to swamp the locations in the towns which are already over-stocked with people and under-provided with houses.

Sometimes, too, one gets the impression that the Government is not really anxious, really concerned about the future of the agricultural sector, and I want to give a few reasons why I say this. When the hon. the Minister of Finance launched his tax-free R.S.A. bonds campaign he no doubt realized these bonds would attract a considerable amount of money which would otherwise have gone to building societies and trust companies for investment. I think many thousands of rand normally earmarked for investment with building societies and trust companies by-passed these institutions. The Minister realized that the building societies play a very important role in providing capital for people who want to buy or build homes, and he has come to their assistance now with these tax-free share arrangements. I have no doubt that the position will now improve to a very great extent in respect of the building societies. But Mr. Speaker, what has happened in the case of the trust companies in the platteland, and not only in the Karoo, but right up into the Orange Free State, for example Bloemfontein, Kroonstad, etc. In these areas the trust companies have played a tremendous role for a century or more in providing finance for the agricultural community. But because of this new arrangement, funds that would normally have been invested in these trust companies, are bypassing these institutions and going into the tax-free bonds. But even worse, when the Minister of Finance last year introduced the Participation Bonds Amendment Act, the position became even worse. It has been demonstrated that people who normally would invest their finance in these trust companies and via the trust companies into the agricultural sector, are no longer doing so because of the other more attractive investments that have become available. The agricultural sector to-day in the platteland has no source to which it can turn to get its finance. I think the position is such that we can ask the Minister of Finance to look into the matter. I just want to illustrate my point.

One case is that of a young lad who prematurely had to leave the university to take over his father’s farm, his father having died suddenly. This was a bond-free farm. Unfortunately this young lad had to pay considerable death dues and with that all his credit facilities were taken up at the bank. To-day he is in the position where he can get no more assistance from the bank. He is too rich to get any money from the Land Bank or the Department of Agricultural Credit. The trust companies which normally used to do agricultural financing have no funds to lend this fellow. So here he is, a rich young man, with no source of credit whatsoever. I am not making this up. Here is a letter which I have just had from this young lad. He has appealed to me to try and do something for him.

Here is another case. A very solvent farmer had his bond with a private individual. The other day it was called up. He finds himself unable to repay this bond. The bank is quite prepared to lend him the money, but they may not do it, because they do not have the funds available for this particular purpose. He goes to the Land Bank, who says: No, you are far too rich; you are not the kind of individual that we can help. Then he goes to the trust company, who says: No, we have no money, because our sources of finance have dried up.

*An HON. MEMBER:

You are lying now.

Mr. W. G. KINGWILL:

Of course these facts are correct.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Mr. Speaker, may I take a point of order? Is the hon. member there allowed to say, “You are lying” to the hon. member who is speaking?

An HON. MEMBER:

Who was it?

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

The hon. member himself knows.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order!

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

With respect to you, Mr. Speaker, nobody here mentioned the word “lie”. I said it was not true and that the hon. member should know that it is not true.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Mr. Speaker, I accept the word of the hon. the Deputy Minister. The hon. member on that side who said “jy lieg”, knows it, and I know he said it.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! Will the hon. member point out the hon. member who said so, if he knows who it is?

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

It is the hon. member who has just moved to the front row, the hon. member for Harrismith.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! Did the hon. member say that the hon. member was lying?

*Mr. J. J. RALL:

No, Mr. Speaker, I never used that word. Hon. members sitting around me here know that I did not say anything of the kind. I did not even take any notice of it.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Mr. Speaker, I accept the hon. member’s word.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. W. G. KINGWILL:

Mr. Speaker, to resume, I want to say that we must remember that these are good, honest farmers that do not want to come to the Government for assistance. They are people who feel that they are self-sufficient and the last thing that they want to do is to ask for assistance from the State I believe that cases like that need serious investigation.

Now I want to come to a conclusion. I want to say that we have this problem of agricultural financing, and it is always going to be with us, until at some time the Government realizes that the only possible way in which they can solve the problem which faces agriculture to-day, is to institute an agricultural financing organization on a large scale. It must cover more than just the activities of the Land Bank and the Agricultural Credit Department, but must finance agriculture in a big way, so that we are not left with the position where a man, who is in a very sound financial position, cannot get finance from any source whatsoever. Unless we think big and the Government acts big in this matter, in that it creates an organization of the kind, whereby all agriculture throughout the country—not just the wool farmers, but every sector of the agricultural economy—is financially backed, at the present time, with capital at 6 per cent interest, the problems of agriculture will not be solved. I do not believe that this is a difficult task. I do not believe that there are difficulties that cannot be overcome. But it will mean that the Government will have to use their resources. They have many resources. They have economists, financiers, advisers and agricultural colleges that can advise them on these matters. If they really look into this matter, it can be properly controlled. I have no doubt that hon. members will ask me: If interest rates are brought down, what is going to happen to land prices? Will they not automatically go up? That could quite easily happen, but I believe there are methods of control that could get that situation very easily buttoned up. I would suggest that it be done on these lines. Where a farmer approaches the agricultural banking organization, which the Government should create, for assistance, that farmer should then understand that, before he can embark on another farming enterprise, buy another farm or increase his holdings, he shall redeem his debts to the Government. Then he can buy bigger farms and he can act as he wishes. But as long as he is indebted to the Government, and wishes to make use of the favourable interest rates which a person should be able to get from the Government, he must be obliged to farm his farm in terms of strict conservation practice. I am quite sure that, if controls on those lines are implemented, this question of the rising prices of land can be thoroughly controlled.

In conclusion therefore, I recommend that the Government investigate this matter very thoroughly and that they plan for the long term in order to try and get agriculture on to a sounder economic footing than it is now, because I believe very strongly that short-term patchwork can never solve the present ills of agriculture.

*Mr. G. P. VAN DEN BERG:

Mr. Speaker, something unusual occurred in this House of Assembly this week. We had the very pleasant privilege of welcoming three new members in one session, members who came here as a result of by-elections. All three of them came here as representatives of the National Party. These three gentlemen are from three constituencies which are constituted in such a way that they are true reflections of the average composition of the population of South Africa. Two of the hon. members were returned unopposed as representatives of the National Party. One of the new members, the hon. member for Pretoria (West), scored a brilliant victory for the National Party. I do not think this event may be allowed to pass unnoticed, because in these times it carries a specific message, in that it is a reaffirmation, after 20 years, of the mandate which the electorate of South Africa gave this Government and this Party to continue its policy of separate development and everything it brings along and includes. That is the message of this occurrence.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Why did you get 2,000 votes less?

*Mr. G. P. VAN DEN BERG:

If the hon. members derive joy from having drawn 1,100 votes in Pretoria (West) and from having received 17 per cent of the total poll, I do not begrudge them any of the joy they may derive from that. This does not only represent a reaffirmation of the mandate which was given to this Party and to this Government on so many previous occasions, but at this stage it is a personal triumph for the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to emphasize and confirm the following in view of the fact that various bodies and persons have tried to create confusion and doubt in the minds of the population, to bring the policy of the National Party under this Prime Minister under a cloud of suspicion, and that is that a crystal-clear pronouncement was given at Pretoria (West), and I say that this represents a personal triumph for the hon. the Prime Minister. It is more than that; it is the green light for the hon. the Prime Minister and for this Party and for this Government to proceed on the course taken.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Of doing nothing!

*Mr. G. P. VAN DEN BERG:

We will proceed on that course. If it is the choice of the electorate that we should do nothing. I want to tell hon. members this: They have now given us the mandate to proceed as we did for the past 20 years. We never had any intention of deviating from that course at all, but I repeat for that hon. member’s information, that what happened constitutes a reaffirmation of the things in which we are engaged.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Tell us something about the agricultural policy.

*Mr. G. P. VAN DEN BERG:

This carries a further message, namely …

*An HON. MEMBER:

The supporters of the United Party were too scared to fight an election in an agricultural constituency.

Mr. G. P. VAN DEN BERG:

That message is that the outcome of this election in Pretoria (West) was a severe and crushing defeat for all splinter groups and bodies which seek to destroy and to deviate. It was a crushing defeat for those splinter parties born from slander, which possibly originated from hon. members in this House. [Interjections.] I am referring to hon. members of the Opposition. We too have done some detecting into the sources from which that slander originated. We have been in politics for a long time, and it comes from the Opposition members who sparked it off. [Interjections.]

During May this year the National Party will hold a country-wide congress here in Cape Town to commemorate its 20th year as the governing Party. Then we shall once again have the opportunity at that festival congress to look back over 20 years of National government. At each by-election the National Party will be returned to Parliament with greater force, because the National Party has been doing these things which are essential for South Africa throughout that period of 20 years.

*Dr. J. H. MOOLMAN:

What has it done?

*Mr. G. P. VAN DEN BERG:

I shall tell you very briefly what it has done. This Government and the National Party found the answer to that one weighty problem. We brought about a greater national unity. During this period of 20 years of National Party rule and government greater national unity was created between the two white language groups in South Africa than during any other period. The reason for that is the following: This Government had the courage of its convictions to remove those unnecessary constitutional points of difference which existed between these two white language groups. This Government gave South Africa one flag of which all of us are proud, and for which we are grateful to the Government for having given us that. This Government gave us one national anthem so that we may be recognized in the world as a nation with a national anthem. Issues like these were the things about which we quarrelled for many years in South Africa. During the 20 years it has been in power the National Party saw to the removal of these constitutional issues and in so doing ensured much greater national unity, in spite of severe opposition it often experienced from the side of the Opposition. During that period of 20 years the National Party Government brought about separation amongst the various colour groups and population groups, but also created opportunities for those population groups to be able to develop and grow on their own. In each sphere, whether in the sphere of culture, labour, or politics, the Government brought about separation and created opportunities for each population group to grow and develop. Because hon. members ask us what we have done during that period of 20 years, I want to say that the National Party Government has fulfilled the deepest desire of the people.

We have our own, independent Republic, to which we had aspired for so long, to which all of us belong to-day and of which all of us are proud. We experienced the most severe opposition from the side of the Opposition when we established the Republic. We are grateful that the Republic, after more than five years, has now been accepted by everyone who loves South Africa and bears goodwill towards South Africa. It was under the guidance of the late Prime Minister that South Africa quitted the black-dominated Commonwealth. I do not believe there is one well-meaning person in South Africa to-day who regrets that we no longer belong to that tottering, black-dominated Commonwealth. This is what the National Party Government has done. Therefore we shall have the opportunity of looking back at what has been established during this period of 20 years that the National Party has been governing this country. The National Party has seen to it that the people of South Africa, be they White, Coloured or Black, could retain their self-respect in this country, and that peace is prevailing in South Africa. While the National Party is governing it is building up good relations with its neighbouring states in Southern Africa, to a greater extent than that side of the House ever did while they were in power.

I contend that things in South Africa look different to-day than in the rest of Africa as well as in other countries in the world, because here in South Africa there is a National Party which has been in power for the past 20 years. I contend that if the United Party had remained in power for the past 20 years, the position would not have been as it is to-day. South Africa would not have had peace and would simply have been another African state with the chaos which prevails in them. We are fortunate and we are grateful that a National Party Government has been in power in South Africa for the past 20 years. What happened this week, when we were able to welcome three hon. members to this House, is the green light for the hon. the Prime Minister, our dynamic leader, to proceed with his policy and on the course he had taken.

It is not only in the constitutional field that the National Party has given South Africa what I have outlined here. Also in the sphere of agriculture the National Party has done more for the agricultural industry and in the field of soil conservation during these two decades than the Opposition ever did during the entire period they were in power. I find myself in very good company when I say this, because the farmers of South Africa think so as well. The farmers of South Africa have been of this opinion for the last 20 years already. It is interesting to know that there are 75 rural constituencies in South Africa, and that only six of them are represented by hon. members of the Opposition. Some of them, although they represent rural constituencies, live in urban areas. The farmers have therefore decided who is their friend, and who must look after them in this House. I want to say at once that I am not one of those people who suggests that the farmer only votes for the Government that offers him the greatest benefit. The farmer of South Africa votes National because he is clear-thinking. The farmer is prepared to make sacrifices, if necessary, to keep the National Party in power, only for the sake of the policy of the National Party. It is therefore not a matter of who can hand out most favours. I maintain that the National Party, after 20 years of governing, need not be ashamed of what it has done for agriculture. The National Party regards agriculture as the basis of the people, and has proved this over the past 20 years. Thanks to the sympathetic support of this Government, and the great powers of perseverance of the farmer—and where would you find anyone with greater powers of perseverance than the farmer of South Africa?—and thanks to the vitality of our agriculture, the agriculture of South Africa has all along succeeded in keeping pace with the needs of the fast-developing and growing population of South Africa. Agriculture has all along been able to keep pace as regards its primary aim, namely to produce food for the people, and, secondly, to provide raw materials for our secondary industries.

We on this side agree with the hon. member for Walmer, who is not here at present, that there are problems, and no one denies this. I do not think, however, that the root of the problem is higher rates of interest. I think we must look for the root of the problem in the conditions which force the farmer to take up loans from time to time. These are circumstances beyond his control. No government, and no minister of finance, can, in a year such as the present one, when the country is stricken by droughts, provide all the financial relief which we would otherwise have had if we had received the necessary rains from Heaven. It is true that good agricultural soil is very scarce and very limited in South Africa. It is true that there are very few fertile parts suitable for irrigation. It is true that there are few rivers in South Africa that can be dammed up so economically that irrigation is made possible. Therefore it is necessary that we should ensure the highest possible productivity in respect of all kinds of soil in South Africa.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 90 and debate adjourned.

SEPARATE REPRESENTATION OF VOTERS AMENDMENT BILL (Second Reading resumed) Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

Mr. Speaker, last Friday I dealt in detail with the arguments put forward by hon. members on the other side in support of this Bill. I came to the conclusion that they have not succeeded in producing even one good reason why the Coloured South African should not be represented in this House. In the few minutes left to me, I would like to emphasize the main reasons why we on this side of the House oppose the Bill. In the first instance we oppose it because all the officially elected representatives of the Coloured people in this House have expressed themselves firmly against the contents of this Bill.

The existing Coloured Council, appointed by the Government, has also expressed itself on no less than two occasions in favour of the principle that the Coloured people should be represented in this House. There can therefore be no doubt that it is the wish of the Coloured people that they should be represented in the highest body of the country. Secondly, we are opposed to this Bill because it abolishes all meaningful political rights for the Coloured community. What they get in return cannot be termed political rights in the proper sense of the word. Everywhere in the world the term “political rights” is taken to mean the right to vote for the highest authority in the country, and not the right to vote for a minor or the lowest authority. This Bill seeks to relegate the Coloured community, in this day and age, to the ranks of the politically voteless in respect of the Parliament of their own country.

Our further objection is that it will be seen and treated by the Coloured people as an injustice. The widespread feeling that they are being unfairly treated, will increase. This type of treatment has never, in the history of any country, done a country any good. We on this side of the House speak for 45 per cent of the white electorate of our country. As such we want to say to the Coloured people that we condemn this action of the Government, and take no responsibility for it whatsoever. We are living in times when strong emotional feelings are sweeping the non-white world everywhere. One need only read the latest news from America to see the devastation which can be caused by a senseless act towards a civil rights leader. I am not placing this Bill in the same category, but what I am suggesting is that, considering the climate, and how sensitive people have become everywhere over matters concerning civil rights, the removal of rights contained in this Bill is an act of grave irresponsibility and a disservice to the white people of South Africa. This Bill will also adversely affect our own Parliament. We are depriving ourselves here of the benefit of hearing the views and the voices of some 2 million citizens over whom this House is called to govern.

Parliament will be more unreal than ever. We will be more ignorant of the needs and the views of the people over which we must govern. I think that time will show that one of the greatest disservices this Government has done to South Africa, is to isolate Parliament from the realities of South Africa and make it less effective than a parliament should be. We are in fact damaging ourselves and our own interests. We are floating deeper into the fool’s paradise in which so many of our electorate already live.

Finally, this kind of legislation plays directly into the hands of those who seek our undoing abroad. In fact, on this very day a body of people backed by the United Nations are setting out to force their way into South West Africa for the purpose of creating atmosphere against South Africa. We should oppose them with all power at our disposal. But what is the Government doing? If ever there was ammunition for our enemies, they have it here in this very Bill, presented to them by the Government on a platter. I say that it is a tragedy that every time South Africa calls for the best in us, this Government produces its worst. Let it be quite clear that we on this side of the House recognize the fact that this is a country of diverse peoples. The Coloured community is a community with an identity of its own. There is no issue as far as that is concerned. Nothing can change the fact that we are diverse peoples, each with an identity of its own. Nobody seeks to undo that. But nobody tries to hide the fact that, apart from the differences that we have, Coloured and White have a common interest in the general well-being and administration of the country. Therefore we on this side of the House stand for political co-operation in matters of national and mutual concern. We therefore wish to register our strongest protest against this Bill and what it stands for. We shall do so in the firmest manner Parliament will allow.

*Mr. W. W. B. HAVEMANN:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat did what we expected he would do. He delivered an emotional and ardent plea for political integration. There is nothing strange about this, of course, because did not this hon. member, as far back as March of last year, long before the Commission brought out its report, make a plea before the Institute of Citizenship to have Coloureds in Parliament? In the Sunday Times of 18th April, 1967, we read the following heading under his own hand: “Coloured M.P.s a must.” At that stage already he pleaded for this political integration, even before the commission appointed by his own party to investigate the matter and before the commission of inquiry appointed by this House had brought out their reports. Therefore I think it is only right that I should say to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that I sincerely congratulate him, because what he said has become the policy of his party. What he had said and advocated even before any commission brought out its report, they accepted at their congress in spite of the fact that he was overseas at the time. I really want to congratulate the hon. member on an exceptional achievement.

I now come to the legislation before the House, which the hon. member summarily wanted to sweep off the board. The facts which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout brought to our attention, immediately bring us to the choice before this House and this nation, the choice between political integration or separate political development and political evolution.

*Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

What does that mean?

*Mr. W. W. B. HAVEMANN:

Mr. Speaker. I was once a teacher, but I never had such dull children in my class. I now want to make the factual statement that the legislation at present before us, is true to the fundamental principles of the National Party and the principles of our policy as developed and stated through the years. As far back as 5th February, 1965, on the occasion of a debate on matters of colour and our relationships policy, Dr. Verwoerd put the policy of the National Party in a nutshell in this House (Hansard, col. 625). After discussing the policy of separation, he said the following: “The crux of the policy of separation is political separation.” That golden thread runs through our entire policy and is known to all. It is no secret. On this principle we have been sent to this House for 20 years. The crux of the policy of separation is political separation. But now I want to make it very clear that when we speak of separation, it is not separation for the sake of separation. It is not a rigid mechanism, a mechanism by means of which one merely regulates votes and so on. It has nothing to do with “the mechanics of government” which that side of the House elevates to a principle. We are dealing with a positive instrument for the development of the various population groups. The relationships policy which is propounded by us, and which is to be applied by means of this positive instrument of separation, is aimed at achieving harmony in the relationships between population groups. It is the harmony to which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred, the harmony which does not exist in a certain major country today. Over the years all the population groups have come to accept this view and positive policy of the National Party to an ever-increasing extent. In this regard I need not refer to authorities in our own ranks. I need only refer to the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member absolves himself as follows in The Cape Argus of 1st December, 1967, and in a similar article in The Star of the 4th December, 1967—

A third factor which affected United Party thinking was the unfortunate but inescapable fact that the Government’s policy over the years had made an impact on the South African mind.

This was one of the reasons why they had changed their policy. I take another witness from their ranks. He is the hon. member for Transkei, one of my colleagues on this Commission of Inquiry. In the course of this debate he told us the following—

The Coloureds themselves have now come to accept the position that they are a separate group after so many years of Nationalist rule. They were prepared to accept the position and they prefer to be on a separate roll. They have become used to it.

We are now faced with these indisputable facts, the witnesses to which are the hon. members on the other side. Under these circumstances we should take note of a particular fact which has been denied on occasion by that side, but which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has again underlined and placed in the correct perspective. This is, firstly, that the Coloureds have their own identity and, secondly, that the Coloured also does not want integration. On page 135 of the report of the Commission of Inquiry we find that a Coloured leader, Mr. Petersen, uttered these particular words—

Die Kleurling voel dat hy Kleurling wil wees. Hy wil nie ’n Bantoe wees nie. Hy wil ook nie by die blankes wees nie. Hy wil net homself wees. Geen integrasie, maar ’n eie identiteit—dit is wat die Kleurling aanvaar.

If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also underlines that evidence that they have an identity of their own and if the hon. member for Yeoville also underlined it in the article to which I referred, then we must, in the second place, accept another key principle in terms of which we must judge this legislation. That is that the Coloureds would like to see the Coloured Council as the true mouthpiece of the Coloured people. That is why the leader of the Kleurling Federale Volksparty says—

Wat ons betref, ons wil hê dat die Kleurlingraad die eintlike mondstuk vir die Kleur-lingmense moet wees.

In other words, the Coloured Council must be the political centre of gravity of the political activities of the Coloureds. Now, it has been said in the course of this debate, by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as well, that the Coloured Council is really a kind of provincial council. Such comparisons have been drawn in this connection, but this Council, which is very closely connected with the representation of the Coloureds, is no provincial council. It is an institution sui generis. Therefore it is a true mouthpiece. It is altogether different from the provincial councils of the Whites, which are integral parts of the government of the country. There are four of them, but the voice of the Whites is here in this House of Assembly. The Coloureds want a place where they also have their voice, and that is why this leader says, in other words, that the “real mouthpiece of the Coloured people” must be the place where the political centre of gravity lies. Evidence to this effect is repeated over and over again in the report.

It is against the background of these facts that we must judge this legislation. This legislation is true to the basic principles of the policy of the National Party. All that is happening now, is that in the political evolution of the Coloureds a further implementation of this basic principle is taking place. It is the principle which Dr. Verwoerd summarized in the words. “The crux of the policy of separation is political separation.”

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

What did he say about the Coloured representatives here?

*Mr. W. W. B. HAVEMANN:

I am dealing with fundamental matters. I shall reply to the hon. member for Durban (North) in a moment by means of his own words.

We therefore have the evidence that we have principles which we are implementing in accordance with the circumstances and new evidence which comes to light. I do not often go to the hon. member for Durban (North) for assistance, but I do want to say that in the course of this debate he uttered a truth on which I have to congratulate him. He said the following—

As long as you have principles you can apply them and you have to apply them according to the circumstances that prevail at the time.

This great truth uttered by the hon. member is precisely the policy of the National Party. We have principles which are known to all and we implement them according to the circumstances prevailing and the evidence which becomes available from time to time.

Mention has also been made of the weight of the evidence. It has been said that the weight of the evidence was against the principles embodied in this legislation. Before dealing with the weight of the evidence, I again want to associate myself with an hon. member on the other side. The hon. member for Pinelands said in the course of this debate—

It is well known that the expression “weight of evidence” involves an evaluation of the evidence, weighing whence that evidence comes, who gave it and what is the substance of the organization or institution which advanced that evidence.

I want to say to the hon. member that this is a very sound and sensible statement of the Opposition. I also want to say to the hon. member that this definition which he gave of the evaluation of evidence he ought to give to his hon. Leader, because the latter also spoke of the weight of the evidence and made a little addition sum for us: 47 people appeared before the Commission, so many did this and so many did that. He did not consider “who gave it, what is the substance of the organization or institution which advanced that evidence”. I would therefore assume that when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made his little addition sum he accepted the Black Sash, the Liberal Party, the Institute of Race Relations, the Christian Institute and so forth as important witnesses.

No, we are not dealing with little addition sums now. I am going to do precisely what the hon. member for Pinelands said we must do. I am going to evaluate the evidence according to the standards: who gave the evidence and with what weight did they speak? Who are those people? They are the representatives of the Coloured people themselves and of their political parties; they are authorities on the Coloureds; they are leaders amongst the Coloured people. Then we find that all this evidence indicates that continuation of the present system of representation is untenable and no longer desired. In other words, whether the representation is by Coloureds or by Whites, they are not satisfied with the present system. A change is being requested. Secondly, it has become very clear from the evidence that the system of direct representation in the House of Assembly leads to a political dualism, a dualistic political set-up which, if the present system should continue, would create an impossible situation.

Why would it do so? Firstly, because everyone wants to develop the Coloured Council into a mouthpiece for the Coloured people. Secondly, because they do not want that Council to be hampered by the kind of representation existing here. What do they say in this regard? All the witnesses say that they want a change, and then they say that an untenable position would arise, and I refer here to page 139 of the report, where it is tersely summarized for us by one of the witnesses, Mr. Fortuin, who says the following—

As die Kleurlinge daarbenewens ook nog deur, sê maar, ses Kleurlinge in die Parlement verteenwoordig moet word, skep ons ’n posisie waar hierdie verteenwoordigers kan kom en sê dat hulle die Kleurlingmense verteenwoordig. Wat dan van die raad? Ons kan nie sien waarom, as daar ’n Kleurling-parlement is. Kleurlinge hulle neuse nog in die blanke Parlement moet gaan insteek nie.

Mr. Dollie, a respected Coloured leader, says the same on page 50.

*Mr. M. W. HOLLAND:

What is he a leader of?

*Mr. W. W. B. HAVEMANN:

He is a respected Coloured personality in the Cape Province. I want to say to the hon. member for Outeniqua that I am also going to quote him in a moment. On page 50 of the report we find Mr. Dollie’s memorandum, in which he puts the situation to us as a member of the Coloured Council, and if we look at all the positions in which he is serving and has served, it is clear that he is an exceptional personality. He says—

The new Council cannot accept responsibility for the welfare of its people if the same electorate had to choose another body also. Friction must and will continuously occur. But if the Coloured people were to be asked which they prefer, namely the Coloured Representative Council or the four White members in the House of Assembly, I am perfectly satisfied that they will choose the Coloured Council, the reason being that they are anxious to take part in their own affairs at the highest possible level.

We can go on in this way with the witnesses, and then we get the Conservative Party, which says a further significant thing to us, on page 132. They say that they do not want two voices because they have only one mouth, and in addition they say that an untenable position has developed—

In die laaste vyf jaar het dit vir ons duidelik geword dat daar botsings ontstaan tussen die Kleurlingraad en daardie mense wat die Kleurlinge in die Volksraad verteenwoordig.

Another Coloured party submits the same evidence on page 147. I am now referring to parties which are here mentioning their problems with their representatives. They say—

The relationship between these White Coloured Representatives and some members of the Coloured Council has not always been as happy as it could have been. We must face facts. It has not been as happy as it could have been. I can remember and tell you about many instances where differences of opinion developed between members of my Council and members of Parliament representing the Coloureds. In some cases, even apologies had to be offered. So I say that the relationship has not been happy at all.

Then we find evidence in regard to this impossible and untenable political dualism on page 319 as well, a political analysis of the situation as given by the former Secretary for Coloured Affairs, who came to the conclusion that we are faced with a dilemma. He said—

Soos ek dit sien, lê die dilemma daarin dat doen ons dit nie, …

He was referring to the abolition—

… die Volksraadslede wat die Kleurlinggemeenskap verteenwoordig in die weg sal staan van ontwikkeling tot voile verantwoordelikheid by die Kleurlingraadslede. Trouens, solank daar blanke verteenwoordigers van die Kleurlinge in die Sentrale Parlement sit, kan ek nie sien hoe algehele ontwikkeling kan kom nie.

But there was also a Coloured party which asked for direct representation, on a separate voters’ roll if necessary, but actually on the Common Voters’ Roll. This was the South African Labour Party, and I refer to page 123 of the report, where a particularly significant admission was made. I put certain questions to this witness. This was the question—

Dus kan dit wees dat die Kleurlingraad oor ’n sekere aangeleentheid ’n sekere stand-punt inneem, terwyl die verteenwoordigers in die Parlement oor dieselfde aangeleentheid ’n heeltemal ander standpunt inneem. Aan watter groep se standpunt moet die Regering in sulke omstandighede voorkeur gee?

His reply to me was this—

Ek glo nie ons sal aan die Regering kan voorskryf wat om te doen nie. Hy sal self moet besluit hoe hy die verskil gaan oorbrug. Die Regering sal dan kennis moet neem van die feit dat hy self ’n posisie geskep het waar so iets moontlik is. As dit dan sal ontstaan, moet die Regering self na vore kom met ’n oplossing.

This is what we are doing now, namely, coming forward with a solution. In this way we gained the impression from all these representative Coloured leaders that there was something wrong with a system of direct representation, that there was something wrong with political dualism, a politically untenable position. And what do they suggest? Throughout the evidence, like a golden thread, they realized this dilemma and sought a solution, and the solution which was put forward time and again was that the Coloured Council should become an electoral college to elect members of the House of Assembly to sit here—in other words, indirect representation. This is requested by the Conservative Party on page 12, the Federale Volksparty on pages 60 and 155, the E.P. Coloured People’s National Union on page 69, Rev. Engelbrecht, a respected leader of the Coloureds, on page 273, Mr. D. J. Johnson, a Coloured witness, on page 179, and no less a person than the hon. member for Outeniqua on page 88, as his considered opinion. I promised him that I would quote him, and I do so readily. This is what the hon. member said to us—

After careful consideration …

Which is different to the way he spoke a moment ago—

… I am of the opinion that the Coloured representatives should remain as they are until such time as the new National Coloured Council is elected and appointed …

And this is happening now—

… The National Coloured Council should then be placed in the position where they could nominate the Coloured Representatives on a panel, from which the State President-in-Council will then appoint the required number.

Thus we find throughout this evidence—and we are now dealing with the weight of the evidence—that the Coloured representatives are aware of the fact and realized that an impossible political dualism would develop and they want the centre of gravity of political representation to lie in the Coloured Council, and they suggest that it be made an electoral college. Others, again, appreciate the same dilemma and propose a limited franchise—I do not want to read all the evidence—such as the Rev. J. A. J. Steenkamp, who says that on certain matters they ought not to vote, such as motions of no-confidence, etc. There is also the Coloured witness, Mr. J. King, on page 68. Because all these witnesses feel that such a system of direct representation would militate against the development of the Coloured Council and the political evolution of the Coloureds in their own surroundings and in their own council, there is consequently only one solution which is fair and right towards the Coloureds and which he himself requested. According to the weight of the evidence, this is the abolition of this system which creates the problems. It is the only possible solution. We therefore have the choice between the sentimental retention of the historic position, and on page 141 Mr. Petersen also says in his evidence that people are attached to this representation because it has become of sentimental significance to them, and that the Government should act responsibly and accept the decision to create a new dispensation on the basis of positive separation, a dispensation which will in fact have political substance for the socio-economic and political development of the Coloured people. The weight of the evidence, as I said, is against direct representation. The alternative is then an electoral college. An electoral college is no longer relevant; it has not been proposed and it has constitutional implications which I do not want to discuss. The other alternative is then the abolition of this representation, and the development of the Coloured Council. Over against this we must place—this is the evidence which we have had—what the United Party offers the Coloureds.

The United Party offers the Coloureds two voters’ rolls, which absolutely divide the Coloureds, in spite of the evidence which is before us, and which was also given by the Conservative Party on page 131, where they adopt this strong standpoint—

Ons kan nie toelaat dat die Kleurlingmense in die jare wat voorlê, nog verdeel moet word nie. Daarom moet daar net een kieserslys wees, ’n kieserslys waarop alle Kleurlingmans en-vrouens dwarsdeur die Republiek geregistreer sal word sonder enige kwalifikasies. Een algemene kieserslys sal die Kleurlingmense saambring en ons sal dan begin met ’n nuwe era waar ons geleer sal word om saam te kom, saam te praat en saam te staan.

The United Party is therefore offering these people something which is not justified by the weight of the evidence, and they are specifically creating what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition called “a hotbed of dissension”. But do you know, Sir, that the representatives of the United Party on this commission themselves felt so strongly about it that they came forward with such suggestions as one voters’ roll only, for elections for both this Parliament and the Coloured Council. Their suggestions can be found on page xxix. Then their Congress changed it. First they found that this was the weight of the evidence, but immediately afterwards they forgot about the weight of the evidence. Incidentally, the hon. member for Durban (North) was very concerned about the Senators. If he reads that proposal for which they voted, he will find that no provision was made for Senators. They were simply cast aside.

What does the United Party offer the Whites? It offers them political integration, but it is now seeking to achieve this political integration by way of a separate voters’ roll which still leads to integration. What the hon. member for Bezuidenhout pleaded for and what the United Party’s new policy is, the hon. member for Karoo gave us with prophetic vision: First representation of Coloureds by Coloureds, then Indians by Indians, then Bantu by Bantu and then the final U.P. heaven proffered to the nation, in the words of the visionary of the Karoo: “The merging of all groups onto a common roll.” Sir, what has been advocated on that side in this debate in this Parliament is the beginning of this matter, the beginning of political integration. Sir, we on this side stand by the policy as it has existed through the years, and I conclude by making this quotation; “The crux of the policy of separation is political separation.”

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

The hon. member for Odendaalsrus alleged that political integration, along the lines of a separate voters’ roll, was the policy of the United Party. I find it strange that that side of the House has made repeated attempts since 1948 to place the Coloureds on a separate voters’ roll without having had political integration in mind. The hon. member alleged that the weight of evidence was in favour of the removal of Coloured representation from Parliament. This side of the House has already dealt with that allegation. The hon. member quoted the evidence of the Conservative Party but I find it strange that the hon. member merely quoted certain extracts from page 132. Why did he not quote the following extract as well.

*Mr. W. W. B. HAVEMANN:

I have not read the entire report.

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

The hon. member has not read the entire report nor has he listened to the evidence before the Commission. I want to quote that extract which the hon. member did not quote—

Maar terselfdertyd wil ons nie van die mense ontneem wat hulle reeds het nie. Ons weet dat as jy iets van ’n mens wegneem wat hy het, hy altyd ’n grief oorhou. Ons het op die oomblik politieke verteenwoordiging in die blanke Parlement. Wyle dr. Malan het gesê dat hy nie wil hê dat Kleurlingverteen-woordiging uit die Volksraad weggeneem moet word nie. Daardie versekering is ook aan ons gegee deur wyle dr. Verwoerd, asook deur die Minister van Kleurlingsake.

And now follows the illuminating sentence—

Ook ons voel dat daardie verteenwoordiging in die Volksraad daar moet bly, maar terselfdertyd voel ons dat ons …

And this was the statement on which the hon. member based his argument—

… nie twee stemme moet hê nie.

The hon. member started his quotation from the point where they said that they did not want two votes, but omitted the entire preceding portion.

*Mr. W. W. B. HAVEMANN:

Why do you not quote that portion in which they stated that they wanted to have a whole number of people here, people they called advocates, who had to be elected by them?

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

I concede to the hon. member that there were witnesses before the Commission who wanted representatives to sit in this Parliament, without their having been elected on a voters’ roll, but the fundamental point is that they still wanted representation in this Parliament. That is the important point. The hon. member for Odendaalsrus said that they could not put up with a condition of dualism; that one could not give the Coloureds representation in Parliament as well as a representative council which would develop on its own. Has the hon. member for Odendaalsrus forgotten about the 1948 election manifesto of the Nationalist Party? In 1948 they proposed a Coloured Persons Representative Council as well as representation in this House.

*Mr. W. W. B. HAVEMANN:

Was that direct or indirect representation?

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

It is strange that the idea of dualism has only presented itself to the hon. member at this stage. In the election manifesto of his Party of twenty years ago no mention was made of dualism. No, the hon. member as well as the hon. member for Randfontein is inclined to speak about the weight of evidence. To me the most outstanding evidence was that of Mr. Tom Schwartz as chairman of the Coloured Council. What did Mr. Tom Schwartz say on page 146? I do not want to quote that in full, because it is much too long, but from page 146 to page 148 he repeated no less than six times that the Coloureds wanted representation in this Parliament. He even went as far as saying that the Coloureds wanted their own people in Parliament. As far back as 1960—I have the cutting here—Mr. Tom Schwartz reacted to a speech made by the late Dr. Verwoerd, when he addressed the Coloured Council. Even in 1960 that was his attitude. He said—

My personal reaction to the Prime Minister’s second statement is one of general satisfaction with the whole of the positive programme as submitted. I am, however, personally disappointed that the Prime Minister has turned down direct representation in Parliament by the coloured people themselves.

They are in favour of direct representation. How much the more does the body of opinion amongst the average Coloured not favour the retention of their representation in this Parliament?

*Mr. G. DE K. MAREE:

Is the United Party in favour of Coloured representation in Parliament by Coloureds?

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

Yes, the hon. member ought to know that. Hon. members opposite charged my hon. friend next to me with allegedly having said that it was the United Party’s policy to have Coloureds in Parliament but they were quite wrong in doing so. As long ago as 1961 it was decided at a congress of the United Party that Coloureds would have the right to sit in this Parliament if they were to receive the support of the electorate. That is the position. Therefore this is nothing new.

*Mr. M. W. BOTHA:

But did you say that during the election of 1966?

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

That hon. member knows that the change in the United Party’s policy was made as a result of the recommendation of a committee of investigation which we ourselves had appointed. The matter was duly submitted to our congress, and that congress accepted our policy to allow Coloureds to sit in Parliament after having been elected on a separate roll. That is no secret. It would not surprise me at all if the hon. member for Jeppes were to come to support that policy eventually.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of this debate numerous arguments were advanced in justification of the step which is being taken to-day. If one goes through the debates conducted 17 years ago in this House when this House was considering legislation for placing the Coloureds on a separate roll, one finds that virtually the same arguments as those advanced in this debate were advanced in those debates. The argument was advanced that the Coloureds should be placed on a separate roll because, in the first place, they were being exploited and, in the second place, the Coloureds were not really interested in what was happening in the Parliament of the Whites: they were not very interested in the elections of the Whites and— the argument which the hon. the Prime Minister is so fond of using—only a small number of them had the franchise in any event. There was a lack of interest on the part of the Coloureds and consequently it would be a good thing to place them on a separate roll. Further the main argument was that this Parliament ought to be a parliament for Whites only, a parliament in which the White man would maintain his leadership. Precisely the same arguments are being used to-day for the removal of White representation from this Parliament for the Coloureds. There has been no change in the arguments of hon. members on that side during this period; there has only been a change in the cause. The same arguments which were used at that time in favour of a separate roll are now being used by hon. members opposite against a separate roll, and against White representation of the Coloureds, with this difference: At that time, in 1951, in 1954 and in 1955, when the big discussion of the Coloured vote was in progress in this Parliament, the Government had a mandate from the electorate. They did not in fact have a two-thirds majority, but they did have an instruction from the electorate, as expressed in their Parliamentary majority to place the Coloureds on a separate roll. I want to repeat that they did not in fact have the required two-thirds majority, but the fact that the Nationalist Party was in favour of a separate roll for the Coloureds had clearly been submitted to the electorate. In 1948 they obtained a small majority for the step. But the only step that was taken as regards this Bill now before this House was that it had been referred to a commission of enquiry for the commission to give the decisive answer. There has been no mandate from the electorate to remove the Coloured representatives from this Parliament. On the contrary, this matter was not even submitted to the electorate during the last election in 1966. I want to suggest that these changes which hon. members opposite are now proposing, have not even been submitted to their Cape Congress. The removal of Coloured representation from this Parliament is a matter which chiefly affects the Cape Province, but it has never been discussed by them at their Cape Congress. A decisive answer has never been given in this regard. At their last congress in Port Elizabeth supporters of the National Party argued about the Press, about their Party and about “verligtes” and “verkramptes”, but no decision was taken that Coloured representation had to be removed from this Parliament. Therefore I find it strange that Parliament has been presented with legislation in this way. Why has this change of policy not been conducted through the normal democratic party channels? For the simple reason that the Nationalist Party dare not submit this matter to their own supporters because of the fact that they are divided in their own ranks about this question of Coloured representation.

*Mr. G. DE K. MAREE:

Make that an election platform and then we shall see what happens.

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

It has already been made an election platform. In 1963 an independent Nationalist, Mr. Daantjie Scholtz, was a candidate in the election of Coloured representatives. Mr. Scholtz opposed the hon. member for Karoo and what was his attitude in that election? I quote from what he said at Worcester on 8th October, 1963 (translation)—

The Coloureds form an integral part of our population.

The report continues—

The speaker predicted that the time would stilt arrive when the Coloureds could choose whether they wanted to be represented in Parliament by Whites or by Coloureds.

Mr. Speaker, that was not said by a supporter of the United Party; it was said by Mr. Scholtz, an independent Nationalist candidate. Has the Nationalist Party taken any steps against Mr. Scholtz since that time? Has he been kicked out of the Nationalist Party, as the hon. member for Uitenhage kicked out some of his members in Uitenhage? No, he still is inside the ranks of the Nationalist Party and that still is his attitude, and he advocated that attitude from election platform to election platform in 1963.

*An HON. MEMBER:

That shows you how independent he was.

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

In the book written by the hon. member for Turffontein, he himself was in favour of Coloured representation here. And not only by Whites, but also by Coloureds. In the Cabinet as well. Therefore I maintain that the Nationalist Party is coming to Parliament with this legislation in this way, because they would not dare to have this legislation approved at a Congress, still less at an election. Therefore they did not submit this matter to the electorate either in 1966 or during any previous election. In addition I want to maintain that there is disagreement about this matter not only in the ranks of the Nationalist Party but also in their Press. That is why they have deemed it necessary to present this legislation in this way. In this connection I may refer hon. members to Die Burger and more specifically to Dawie. On 23rd November, 1960, Die Burger stated the following in its leading article, under the heading (translation) “The Future of the Coloureds”—

For a considerable time intensive thinking on the part of wide circles of Government supporters and others who are kindly disposed towards the National Party has been in progress about the position and the future of the brown people … The Prime Minister apparently is firmly opposed to this as a dangerous step in the direction of integration.

That is, to allow Coloureds into Parliament. Die Burger regarded that as the “thin end of the wedge of swamping and destroying the Whites”. He continued—

That most definitely is not the view taken by Nationalists who champion that idea, some of whom in fact belong to the most sincere supporters of the accelerated separate development of which the Government is now holding out the prospect.

I can also quote what Mr. Willem van Heerden said in Dagbreek. As a matter of fact, he clearly said that the decision to leave the representation of the Coloureds in this House unimpaired had not been wrong. On 2nd October, 1966, he wrote (translation)—

The position of the Coloured is different. He forms part of the aboriginal Western-orientated population. His language and religion are largely the same as those of the Whites. He has no other homeland than that which he shares with the White man. In his case there is no question of a territorial division. In addition he forms, as far as numbers are concerned, too important a part of the population of a common homeland to assume that he can remain without a share in the decisions of a community of which he forms part.

This is another reason why this matter has not been placed before the electorate of South Africa. I can also quote to this House what Professor S. P. Cilliers said, and what Professor Du Toit of the University College of the Western Cape said. They want us to make closer contact with the Coloured. Therefore the Government will not dare to take this matter to the electorate and to ask the electorate for a mandate. The intellectuals amongst the Nationalist Party and their Press are divided about this matter. But hon. members themselves are divided about this matter— hence the way they have presented this legislation. Outside this House there is no extraordinary degree of enthusiasm for this step by the Government. The Coloured representatives in this House are not being regarded as a danger—as a matter of fact, a dangerous situation may develop by removing them. As justification for this step, it is being said that a separate body will be developed for the Coloureds. But from this body we shall continually hear critical voices because they cannot be heard here in this Parliament which will decide about their destinies. Therefore, when the argument becomes too thin, the Nationalist Party usually makes its voice thick. Where the advantages of separate representation have been held before the eyes of the population for decades and where this system is now to be rejected, every straw has to be grabbed at in justifying such a step. For years they have been telling the nation what a good thing it was that Coloureds should be represented on a separate roll. Mr. Speaker, by taking this step they are really moving a motion of no-confidence in their own policy of the past twenty years. Therefore I am not surprised that even the name of the late Dr. Verwoerd had to be mentioned in this debate and that is why it is being said that this representation was in any event not a step which the Government originally wanted. It was even said that this representation was an enforced compromise. But if one makes a study of the policy of the Nationalist Party, as laid down in 1948, it is very clear that the Coloureds were to have some form of representation here. It is quite correct that they proposed second class M.P.’s for the Coloureds. They would not be able to vote on motions of confidence and on matters relating to war. That was the original policy. They would be nominated by the Coloured Persons Representative Council. But the principle in question has always been that they would have representation in this House. That policy of the Nationalist Party was changed to the advantage of the country as a whole and of the Coloured specifically through a man like the late Mr. Havenga.

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

Did that receive your support?

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

The hon. member asks me whether that received my support; surely he knows what the situation was. Surely he knows that a major struggle was being waged in 1951 about the way in which this Government wanted to remove the Coloureds from the common voters’ roll. Their way disregarded the two-thirds majority. But the change proposed at that time by Minister Havenga to the original policy of the Nationalist Party which was that those people would be second-class representatives, that they would not vote on motions dealing with matters of confidence and participation in war, was of great advantage to the Coloured.

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

Did you support that?

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

Whether I or my Party supported that is not relevant. It was a good change and it was a good compromise. In order to find justification for the rejection of this compromise, everything must be dragged in. That is the reason for dragging in the name of the late Dr. Verwoerd and for alleging that he supposedly always favoured the removal of the Coloured representatives from Parliament. I trust hon. members opposite noted recently that statements were made by members of the Verwoerd family. Members of the Verwoerd family, as well as some of his friends, said they had no knowledge about it ever being the policy of the late Dr. Verwoerd to remove the Coloured Representatives from this Parliament. His own brother, Dr. Len Verwoerd, stated in public that he regarded Dr. Verwoerd as a sincere man who revealed his intentions in an honest way in public. In other words, the late Dr. Verwoerd never was of the opinion publicly or privately that Coloured representation had to be abolished in this House. I want to refer the hon. the Minister of the Interior to a letter written by Dr. Verwoerd to Mr. Robert Menzies, the Prime Minister of Australia. Mrs. Verwoerd was prepared to reveal this correspondence. This letter was published in Die Beeld of 22nd October, 1967. I do not want to quote the entire letter in full, but I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that the late Dr. Verwoerd gave an exposition in this letter of his policy in respect of the Coloured representatives in this House. If it were the intention of the late Dr. Verwoerd to remove the Coloured representatives from this House, he would have alluded to that in this letter. But what did he do? He even went as far as saying that immediate consideration could not be given to representation by Coloureds, but that it was a possible alternative in the future. One principle which had been accepted was that “as the Coloureds succeeded in the matter of government, on a more local level, their further progress will be undertaken. We cannot be rushed along as was done in the Congo.” The late Dr. Verwoerd held out the prospect of representation by Coloureds in this House as something for the future. The late Dr. Verwoerd apparently consulted the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs in this matter. He apparently also consulted the hon. the Minister of Defence in this matter. Was the hon. the Minister who is in charge of the present legislation also consulted in this matter? Does he too have any knowledge about that? He ought to tell us in this debate whether he, as well as other members of the Cabinet, except the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Defence, has any knowledge about this. Why does the hon. the Prime Minister have no knowledge about this? Why are these two hon. members the only people who know that what Dr. Verwoerd really meant was that the Coloured representatives were to be removed from this House in the course of time? The hon. the Minister of the Interior has the opportunity now of telling us whether he too was in the inner circles when this matter was discussed. It is strange that when he introduced this legislation he did not advance this argument. It would have been a very strong argument had the hon. the Minister of the Interior also been in the inner circles and had known about the consideration that the Coloured representatives were to be removed in the course of time. [Time expired.]

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Speaker, we have now for almost twelve hours been discussing this legislation, which provides for the removal of the Coloured representatives in this House. I do not think this was too long, and I admit that it is not a matter which a government undertakes lightly, without considering very thoroughly what it wants to do, why it wants to do it, and whether it is not only in the interests of one section of the population, but also in the general interest. The Government inevitably considers all the pros and cons of a Bill and how it affects everyone. Therefore I think it is fair to allow a considerable period of time for discussing and debating this Bill. I do not intend to reply to the debate at this stage. However, I want to express my disappointment with the many arguments that were raised, but that actually contained nothing. The arguments mainly took the form that one person had said this and another person had allegedly said that, or that someone in the past had said this, and another that. I do not think that these arguments bring us to the essential principles contained in the Bill under discussion. The last speaker said that the National Party did in fact tell the people in its manifesto in 1948 that the Coloureds would be removed from the common voters’ roll and would be placed on a separate roll. That was what the National Party envisaged. He also said that the late Dr. Malan had had completely different ideas at certain times. Reference was made to what Dr. Malan had allegedly said in 1921.

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

1948.

*The MINISTER:

All right, in 1948. That hon. member quoted the late Dr. Malan, the former Prime Minister, and said that Dr. Malan had not mentioned certain things we are doing now. I now want to ask the hon. member what the policy of the late General Smuts was in 1948, and where he stood in relation to the policy which is at present accepted by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and has been stated by him as being the official policy of the United Party. I know, and the people know, that in 1948 the United Party, after their defeat in the general election, held a post-mortem to determine the reasons for that. It was then generally admitted and accepted that the late Minister Hofmeyr was the main cause of the defeat the United Party had sustained. He had allegedly said, in a speech he made in the Strand before 1948, that the day had to come that Coloureds would have to be represented by Coloureds, and Indians by Indians, in this House.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

He did not say that.

*The MINISTER:

Minister Hofmeyr did say that. When he advocated this in those days and said it was his conviction that it would come—and he was, after all, the senior Minister in the United Party Cabinet—it gave rise to so much opposition on the part of the entire people, including the supporters of the United Party, that it was the basic reason why the United Party lost the election in 1948. Now the hon. member for Newton Park comes along and very piously refers to what Dr. Verwoerd had allegedly said. Another hon. member made an interjection and said that it was scandalous that the name of Dr. Verwoerd had been drawn into this debate in this way. Who are the people who dragged in the name of Dr. Verwoerd? It was the Leader of the Opposition, who opened this debate. He took a firm stand against this legislation because we had allegedly thrown Dr. Verwoerd’s policy overboard. Dr. Verwoerd’s name was not dragged in here by my colleague the Minister of Defence. His name was dragged in by the Opposition. This is perfectly natural. I do not take it amiss of anybody if he should refer to the late Dr. Verwoerd. I think, however, that the best opportunity to deal with this matter properly and in all fairness, and also to reply to the hon. members’ question in respect of the relations between Dr. Verwoerd and myself, will probably be when we have time for my full reply. Mr. Speaker, I therefore move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.

The House adjourned at 5.58 p.m.

MONDAY, 8TH APRIL, 1968 Prayers—2.20 p.m. COMPANIES AMENDMENT BILL

Bill read a First Time.

COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY AND WAYS AND MEANS—CENTRAL GOVERNMENT (Debate on motion to go into—resumed) *The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinetown suggested that this Budget was really an unrealistic one, that it was actually swathed in a veil of unreality since it did not make sufficient allowance for the real problem of the day, namely the problem of gold and of international currencies. I want to tell the hon. member that in my Budget speech I referred time and again to gold and the attitude adopted by our Government in this regard. I also want to tell him that after everything I had heard in the course of this debate over the past week and after all the information I have obtained over the past few weeks, I have as yet not found one single reason why I should change my Budget fundamentally in any one respect. But in order to meet the hon. member half-way I want to promise him that I shall not deal very exhaustively to-day with those matters touched upon by members on both sides of the House. The hon. member for Queenstown and other hon. members on this side, as well as my hon. colleagues on my right and on my left, have all replied adequately to many of those matters. To-day I shall confine myself to going into a few of the most important questions and, having done so, hon. members will pardon me if I devote most of my time to the question of gold.

This Budget has been called a status quo or a stand-still or a neutral Budget, but in as far as this is being said of this Budget, I want to say that I do not regard this as a point of criticism, but as a compliment and a commendation, because that is exactly what this Budget was intended to be. If everybody around one is running away from dangers and threats and it is still possible for one to stand still, the fact that one can do so is already an achievement. When we see how the countries of the world move hither and thither and do not know which way to turn, it is a sign of the strength of South Africa that she can decide when to move, if she wants to move, and when to stand still, if she wants to stand still. It was not the intention with this Budget to come forward with any radical, new, spectacular matters. That is what a Minister of Finance often feels tempted to do if he wants to do things for effect and seek popularity, as hon. members opposite are sometimes inclined to do in an irresponsible way. But it is the task of a Minister of Finance, and of any government, to resist the temptation to indulge in the spectacular and in doing things for effect and in seeking popularity, and to approach his affairs soberly and in a responsible way. A status quo Budget does not mean a Budget which leads to nothing. It does not mean a Budget which has a rigid effect on the economy. On the contrary, this Budget must be viewed in the light of last year’s Budget. It is based on last year’s Budget and it is merely taking it further. The status quo in regard to this Budget merely means that we are continuing with the policy we laid down last year already. Those measures we took in the Budget last year, were intended to combat inflation, and the past year has proved that those measures have been successful. This Budget confirms those measures once again and continues them. In other words, the doctor has found that the patient has shown the correct response to his treatment and he is continuing that treatment; he is not stopping it, but continuing it. That means that in spite of the claim that this Budget is a status quo Budget, it still remains a dynamic Budget, since it is the continuation of a dynamic process which started last year and is being continued now.

True to their nature, the Opposition once again came forward this year with a plea for more and more concessions in all sorts of spheres. In spite of the fact that in the Budget I had already granted a large number of concessions, within the framework of the possibilities, they are coming forward like Oliver Twist and are always asking for more. But it is, of course, also the desire of any government and of any Minister of Finance to do as much as possible for the under-privileged, for the poor, for the sick, for the children, for the disabled and for the aged. But Rome was not built in one day only. In future, as financial means and circumstances permit, we shall grant more and more concessions. But we must be on our guard against one thing, and that is that we should not begin to make our people more and more dependent upon the State, that we should not stifle individualism and self-respect amongst our people, and that we should not gradually bring about in South Africa a form of a welfare state, which has already done so much harm to others.

† Now, Mr. Speaker, 'I wish to come to what I shall call the dualism in the minds of the hon. members on the other side of the House. I deliberately say the minds because the Opposition has never learned to make up a mind. It has no mind on any particular subject but always a multiplicity of conflicting minds. On the one hand we find the hon. member for Umbilo—he told me he would not be here to-day—pleading together with others for more and more concessions which mean greater State expenditure, and on the other hand we have hon. members, such as the hon. members for Kensington, Pinetown, Peninsula, and others, asking me to lower rates of taxation and even to abolish some forms of taxation altogether. Of course this plea is not new. We have heard it again and again, but never have the hon. members been able to tell me if I were to accede to their requests to lower tax rates, to decrease taxation, to abolish certain forms of taxation, where am I going to get the funds from to meet the demands of the hon. members opposite? [Interjections.] As I say, a multiplicity of minds, and now we have a multiplicity of voices. [Interjections.]

Mr. W. V. RAW:

What about the R180 million?

The MINISTER:

I will come to that. One fine day the hon. Opposition will succeed in reconciling these opposing views; then that will be the day when we shall be able to take them seriously. The hon. members for Peninsula and for Kensington raised some very interesting points. I listened with keen interest to what they had to say. With some of their views, which I must confess are not entirely new, I have some measure of sympathy. But I have the problem that if I do what they wish me to do, then first of all, where do I get the money from to finance the ordinary State expenditure and to grant the extra concessions which were requested? Secondly, how can I follow their suggestions in circumstances where I think they agree with me that we should do all we can finally to check inflation? Thirdly, I think they will agree with me that I am not in the position to make any radical changes in the tax structure of to-day when I have a commission sitting on the very subject. [Interjections.] We know that laugh. In answer to questions put to me by the hon. member for Pinetown I may say that I have given that commission all the staff they need and I have asked them, if possible, and I think it might be possible, to give us an interim report before the next Budget. I think I must agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Parktown that in spite of the requests of the hon. members for Peninsula, Kensington and Pinetown to reduce taxation, it would be a gamble with the future if we were to lower taxation now. Hon. members have referred to various matters in this regard. The hon. member for Pinetown and the hon. member for Green Point and others mentioned the donations tax, the tax bulge and the general rate of taxation. The hon. member for Peninsula and the hon. member for Kensington spoke about estate duty which incidentally supplies the Exchequer with R20 million annually, and about the undistributed profits tax which incidentally only applies to private companies. I think that hon. members will agree with me when I say that it will perhaps be best if we do not enter into a discussion about these forms of taxation now but to leave it over until we are in Committee of Ways and Means.

There is, however, one matter which I cannot allow to pass unchallenged at this stage. I deem it necessary for the sake of the record to correct now a statement made by the hon. member for Peninsula. The hon. member made a good speech, but unfortunately he spoiled some of the good points he made by quoting a wrong example and making erroneous deductions from that example. It seems to me that the hon. member has made an excursion into the distant past. He referred to conditions which existed when the old Death Duties Act of 1922 was still in force. The hon. member ought to know that the Death Duties Act of 1922 was repealed by the Estate Duties Act of 1955. What strengthens me in this view that the hon. member has been delving into the past, is the fact that he quoted a statement made by the late Mr. Havenga, a statement which was made before the repeal of the Death Duties Act of 1922. The case quoted by the hon. member, and which I want to have on record as being quite erroneous, is the case of an estate where a farm valued at R300,000 was left and cash amounting to R2,000; that is an estate of R302,000. The hon. member said that death duty of nearly R90,000 had to be paid on this estate. This cannot be true. Under the existing Act the maximum death duty payable is 25 per cent of the estate and that applies only to that part of the estate which exceeds R100,000. Under the present Act, without allowing for any rebates, the duty payable would have been R65,600 and not R90,000. If, for instance, there had been a surviving spouse and two children, without taking into account any of the new rebates I proposed in this Budget, the death duty would have been R58,450, and not R90.000. I also wish to remind the House that whereas now such an estate would have attracted a death duty of R58,450, in 1948 the very same estate would have attracted a duty of R107,000, almost double the present amount. In this regard I again wish to emphasize what the hon. member for Florida has already mentioned and shown very clearly, firstly that rates of taxation in South Africa are much lower now than they were in 1948 and secondly that they compare very favourably with those in other countries.

Returning to the question of State expenditure, concessions and taxation, I want to say that I was utterly amazed when I heard one of the hon. members on the other side of the House, and I think it was the hon. member for Mooi River, say that I should be prepared to budget for a deficit. Mr. Speaker, would you imagine that an hon. member from the other side of the House should under the circumstances in which we live to-day ask me to budget for a deficit? I wonder what the hon. member for Parktown would say about this. I am not prepared to budget for a deficit. In the first place, this practice would run counter to the honoured tradition of our country. In the second place, for a Minister of Finance to budget for a deficit under inflationary circumstances, would be the height of financial folly and irresponsibility.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

What has Ben Schoeman done?

The MINISTER:

I am speaking about the Minister of Finance. [Interjections.] It is a completely different matter. Here we see again the dichotomy in the minds of the members, in their thinking, their lack of policy and conflicting views. On the one hand, they are asking me for more and more concessions and tasks to be undertaken by the State.

Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON:

You have done that yourself.

The MINISTER:

You are asking for still more. On the other hand they are asking for less and less taxation which is decreasing the income of the State. On the one hand we find them asking me to lower rates of taxation; on the other hand we find the hon. member for Parktown very sensibly saying that lowering of taxation would be a gamble with the future.

Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON:

We just have better ideas.

The MINISTER:

You or the hon. member for Parktown? On the one hand they claim that they have always given us the correct advice as to how to counter inflation, and now an hon. member says that we have to budget for a deficit.

Coming back now to the matter of budgeting for a deficit or a surplus, I wish to discuss briefly a very interesting point which has been raised by the hon. member for Parktown. The hon. member made mention of an amount of R180 million odd, which he alleges I have secretly tucked away and which embarrassed me to such an extent that I do not know what to do about it. The hon. member reminds me of the methods employed by our youngsters in their modern arithmetic. I honestly admit I do not understand the methods they use in their modern arithmetical procedure for division, addition and subtraction. But still, though completely incomprehensible to me, they do arrive at the same conclusions as I do with my own old-fashioned methods. The same applies to the hon. member for Park-town. I find it very difficult to follow his arithmetic, but still he arrives at more or less the same figure as I do, the so-called secret fund of roughly R180 million.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

Are you using a computer?

The MINISTER:

I never attempted to conceal the existence of this amount. [Interjections.] It was of course not appropriated in the usual sense of the word in that it was voted to be spent in this or that way. But I did mention in my 1967 Budget speech that the surplus on Revenue and Loan Account would be left in the Exchequer Account and sterilized, that is to say, not used. I did say that.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Under the mattress.

The MINISTER:

Whether it be under the mattress or not, in any case it is in the White Paper. Similarly, in my 1968 speech I mentioned clearly that the Exchequer Account was expected to increase in the year 1967-’68 by some R137 million, of which R88 million was transferred to the Stabilization Account. These facts were clearly mentioned. The money in the Stabilization Account, which amounts to R87.7 million, as you know, cannot be used to finance Government expenditure in this financial year. It may at some time in the future be withdrawn and used when the time arrives, but not now.

Mr. W. V. RAW:

In the next election year?

The MINISTER:

We are not as irresponsible as all that. We cannot even think of these irresponsible things, as the hon. member can. Similarly, it is not the intention to spend this money during the present financial year. The accumulated funds in the Exchequer Account will by the end of the year amount to about R93 million. It is this R93 million and the R87.7 million in the Stabilization Account which constitute the R180.7 million which my hon. friend mentioned.

These funds are all sterilized, and form a useful nest egg for a rainy day. Just as it is wise policy for an individual or for a company to save, to create reserves for the future, so it is wise also for the Government in times of inflation to drain away purchasing power and to create reserves for spending in times of recession when they can be spent with greater advantage for the public as a whole.

This brings me to the question of investment capital—a matter which has also been raised by the hon. member for Kensington. I admit there is a shortage of capital, particularly for investment in fixed interest-bearing securities. For that reason municipalities and corporations are finding it difficult to finance their activities. Similarly, farmers, home seekers and others find it difficult to obtain loans and mortgage funds. Everybody seems to be obsessed to-day with the idea of growth. This is the result of inflation and a fear that the value of money will decrease, a fear which has been intensified by the uncertainties existing in the international monetary sphere. For this reason we can only hope that a solution will soon be found for these problems in the international field and that we shall finally succeed in checking inflation in our own country. When this happens, money will again flow back into fixed interest-bearing securities. In the meantime we shall have to do the best with what we have—we shall have to cut our coat according to our cloth. For us it will be a matter of determining priorities. At different times, different priorities must prevail. From time to time we shall have to decide whether we should give greater priority to housing, or to communications, or to transport facilities, or to power supplies, or soil conservation, or other things.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Or television?

The MINISTER OF PLANNING:

How will you look on television, Marais?

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

The question of foreign capital has also been raised here and attention was drawn to the vast inflow of foreign capital in recent times. This capital does not consist of flight capital only, but it is also real investment capital. Although this capital is welcome from certain points of view, it is unwelcome from other points of view, particularly from the point of view of inflation. Since so much foreign capital has been flowing into South Africa in recent times, we are compelled to keep certain measures of control in force for a longer period than would probably have been necessary otherwise—in other words, it is necessary for us as a State and as a nation to bear certain burdens for others to have the right to let money into the country. Of course, this inflow of foreign capital is a clear sign of confidence in South Africa. But it is also clear that the time has come that we should consider anew the role played by foreign capital in South Africa as well as the advisability of allowing such large amounts of foreign capital to enter the country under the present circumstances. In this connection we had many suggestions from that side of the House—inter alia, release of the blocked rand, relaxation of the foreign exchange control regulations and relaxation of import control on capital goods. These methods and others are possibilities that may be applied. Let me make it clear, however, that it is necessary that we should act very judiciously in this connection. This is a matter to which serious attention is being given by the Government. It would, however, be wrong to make hasty decisions under the present circumstances. International financial conditions are particularly fluid and uncertain at the moment. It will be dangerous therefore to lay down a rigid and permanent line of action. The Opposition may rest assured, however, that serious attention is being given to this matter.

In this connection I want to draw attention to an interesting idea which was expressed by the hon. member for Parktown. Of course, he exaggerated a little but there is nevertheless something in it. He said, “We live in fear of our own fortune; we are afraid of prosperity”. He suggests we are afraid when too much capital flows into the country; we are afraid when our exports are too large in volume; we are afraid when we have a large agricultural crop—in short, “we are afraid of our good fortune; we live in fear of prosperity”. I think the hon. member for Parktown has something here, but he has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. We are not afraid of prosperity. On the contrary. This Government has always sought to attain prosperity—as a matter of fact, we have succeeded in attaining prosperity for our people. We are definitely not afraid of prosperity. What we are afraid of, is the danger of inflation which may be bound up with prosperity. We strive to attain prosperity without inflation—otherwise that prosperity is not real prosperity, but sham prosperity. Inflation eventually renders real prosperity impossible. Therefore I say that we are striving to attain prosperity without inflation. We believe it is possible—as a matter of fact we have already accomplished it in the past.

There are many other matters which I should have liked to go into if I had the time. The question of the provinces was raised, amongst others by the hon. members for Witbank, for Paarl and the hon. member for Green Point. I would prefer us to discuss these and other matters when my Vote is discussed. I do not have the time now to go into all these matters.

Before dealing with the question of gold, I want to make an interesting announcement. I said in my Budget speech that we did not want to rely too much on foreign loans under the prevailing circumstances. We know the European capital market is the most important capital market to-day, and it has been our desire for a long time now also to make our début on that market one day. Admittedly, we were able to arrange a number of loans from banks in Europe, but the Government has not yet negotiated a public loan on the European capital market. We would also like to get there, to have our name placed on the list of the big investors of the world, together with other countries and other big companies. During my visit to Europe recently, I conducted negotiations with several European bankers. Owing to the uncertain financial position as a result of the devaluation of sterling, however, we thought it advisable to postpone such a loan until circumstances are more favourable. But on 20th March we concluded an agreement with a consortium of banks consisting of the Deutsche Bank as the leader, the Banque de Paris et des Pays-Bas in Paris, and the Banca Commercialé Italiana, Milan. Under this agreement a public loan was floated on 2nd April for an amount of 60 million Deutsche mark (approximately R10.7 million) for a period of five years at a rate of interest of 7 per cent and an issue price of 99½ per cent. I am pleased that I am able to inform this House that this loan was very favourably received and was heavily oversubscribed immediately on issue.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

At 7 per cent!

*The MINISTER:

I want to ask the hon. member whether he knows what the current rates of interest in Europe are? A loan at 7 per cent at an issue price of 99½ per cent is one of the most favourable loans one can obtain in Europe at the present time. Private individuals showed a great deal of interest. The interest in this over-subscribed loan was so great that the bank took the unusual step of suggesting that we should increase the amount of the loan, but as it was not our object to obtain money but rather to make ourselves known, I decided not to negotiate the increased loan. This great success we have had is proof of the confidence which the European investors have in South Africa and it paves the way for our entry into this important capital market should that be necessary in the future. I want to express my gratitude to-day to the banks which took the lead in floating this loan and to the investors in particular for their confidence in South Africa, and I want to give them the assurance that South Africa will not disappoint them in their trust.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to the question of gold, the question about which hon. members recently expressed opinions in this House and about which they put questions to me during the Budget Debate. I should like to congratulate the hon. members on the responsible way in which they put this matter in Parliament. I should like to thank the hon. member for Pinetown, who spoke on behalf of the Opposition, for the well-considered point of view he put on behalf of his Party in the questions he addressed to me, as well as the hon. member for Florida for the words of wisdom spoken by him in this connection. I am glad of the attitude adopted by the hon. members in regard to this matter, because if ever there was a time for judicious and responsible action by the monetary authorities of the world and by us as the biggest producer of gold in the world, it is now, because what is at stake here, is not the welfare of individuals or a few countries, but the interests of the whole world for the present and for future generations. South Africa, as the largest gold producer in the world, is deeply affected by decisions taken in this connection on gold in the past, particularly in the recent past, and by developments in the monetary sphere which may still follow in the future. Although we, South Africa, have not been consulted about these decisions, we are prepared to approach this matter with the highest degree of responsibility and with a will to co-operate, fully aware that our prosperity is closely bound up with the prosperity of the world as a whole. I realize that if the question of gold and of international liquidity is handled wrongly, it may lead to an international disaster in the monetary sphere, and because we, with our open economy, will not be able to escape the consequences of chaos and disorder in the international monetary sphere, it is in our interests as well as in the interests of the world that this question should be tackled in a responsible way in order to find a generally satisfactory solution. I know that there are those who accuse us in South Africa of allegedly being irresponsible, because we never cease to plead for an increase in the official price of gold. But we can state here in all honesty to-day that our pursuit of a higher official gold price does not spring merely from a desire for national gain, but that South Africa is sincerely convinced that an increased official gold price will also be in the interests of the world. It is a pity that political considerations are apparently also beginning to play a role in this purely monetary, financial matter. At present there are international political considerations, partly because South Africa and partly because Russia are the biggest gold-producing countries. But internal political considerations, too, are already playing a role in some countries in this connection. If ever there was a time for such political attitudes to be pushed aside in order to save the world from monetary danger, that time is the present. South Africa, like an adult, is prepared to ignore unfriendly political attitudes adopted against it in regard to this matter, and to co-operate with others who are also prepared to consider the question of international monetary liquidity de novo and objectively in the interests of the world economy.

Under present circumstances the question of the gold price is closely linked to the problem of retaining the dollar and sterling as two important international reserve units. We for our part and according to our views would like to assist in maintaining the strength of these currencies in relation to other currencies, because if one or both of them were to collapse and if uncertainty and crisis conditions were to result from that in the system of international payments, it could be disastrous for the whole world and also for us. Our endeavour in South Africa is not to obtain for ourselves a sudden, large benefit which may flow from an enforced increase in the price of gold, possibly with accompanying monetary disorder. Something like that may be disastrous to the whole world and consequently to us as well. South Africa has always endeavoured to achieve its object in an orderly fashion and in a form which will be to the advantage of the world economy as a whole. To me it seems somewhat inexplicable that certain nations appropriate to themselves the right to take on their own decisions on these questions, particularly the gold question, to the exclusion of other states which have as much interest in those matters and which are also competent to make a contribution. It is true that South Africa is not one of the ten wealthiest countries in the world, but we are nevertheless one of the dozen or so most important countries in the sphere of international trade, and consequently the question of the world’s currencies is of the greatest importance to us. We are not one of those countries which contributed to the gold pool, but we are nevertheless the world’s largest gold producer. Mr. Speaker, to speak about gold without mentioning South Africa, is like Hamlet without the Prince. I am convinced that South Africa can make a valuable contribution to these discussions. In any event, it seems wrong and unfair to me that one important point of view, the point of view in favour of an increase in the official price of gold, was not stated, or could not be stated fully, at international consultations such as those which were conducted in recent times. Surely, that is not conducive to the forming of a balanced judgment in regard to these matters. To me it was equally incomprehensible that the question of an increased gold price was completely excluded from the terms of reference of a committee of experts recently appointed by the Group of Ten to go into the question of the creation of reserve assets. Here I am referring to the so-called Ossolo Report of August, 1965. To me it seems as though certain bodies and persons deliberately close their eyes and ears to arguments in favour of gold, in spite of the fact that gold still is the most important international medium of payment and at present still enjoys the greatest measure of confidence. To me such an attitude does not appear to be one of strength. I believe the time has now arrived for the nations of the world which have a real interest in these matters and which are really able to make contributions, to meet once again to reconsider the entire question of international liquidity de novo, without any prejudice and without any preconceived ideas. South Africa is prepared to meet its obligations in this sphere in a responsible way.

I do not intend repeating our arguments in favour of an increased official gold price on this occasion to-day. These arguments have been put very clearly on many occasions. I only want to express the hope that the bodies and persons who are concerned in this matter will once again examine these arguments thoroughly and will not, as happens more often than not, ignore and reject them completely without considering them. In an attempt to find a solution to the world’s monetary problems, and particularly to the problem of the pressure which the dollar and the pound sterling experienced, a decision was recently taken in Washington to introduce the so-called two-tier system, the system of having two gold markets. As we all know there will now be two markets for gold, firstly, an official market on which gold deals take place between monetary concerns and institutions at an official fixed price of 35 dollars per fine ounce, and secondly, an open, free gold market with varying prices, of which the price will be determined by the forces of supply and demand.

The object of this arrangement is to prevent a further flow of monetary gold from official reserves to private ownership where it is held for industrial hoarding or purposes of speculation. This happened in the past. Gold flows in this direction, from monetary holdings to private holdings, because the price of gold on the free market exceeds the official price. Since steps are now being taken to prevent monetary gold from filtering through to the private, free market, it is hoped that the total quantity of monetary gold will be maintained at the existing level, even though the distribution of that gold amongst the countries may vary from time to time. If the deficits in the balance of payments of the U.S.A. continue to exist, her holdings of gold will decrease and those of the countries with surpluses will increase, but the total quantity of monetary gold ought to remain the same. Of course, a quantity of new gold may always be absorbed into the monetary reserves. An underlying idea of this plan may be to allow gold to find its own price level on the free market so as to get some criterion or indication of what the real price of gold ought to be. Furthermore, it may also be the endeavour to use the free market as a means of forcing the price of gold down to 35 dollars or lower so as to invalidate the arguments in favour of a higher gold price. Whatever the stated or unstated objects of this scheme may be, one thing is certain. We do not believe, and I take it that most of the architects of this scheme do not believe either, that this is a lasting solution to the world’s monetary problems. It is merely a temporary remedy, a gimmick, as it is at present being called in high financial circles in Europe and America. It solves no basic problems. In practice it will be very difficult in the long run to prevent a leak of gold from the official market to the free market, particularly if the price on the latter market is higher. A system of two prices for one commodity has never succeeded in the long run. It may perhaps render temporary assistance to suppress speculation against the dollar, but by itself, it cannot save the dollar or the pound sterling. The reasons for the problem of these two countries, the U.K. and the U.S.A., must be sought in their own internal economies and their unfavourable balances of payments. As long as the U.S.A., for example, continues to have the tremendous deficits on its balance of payments, as has been the case for many years, the pressure on the dollar will remain and there will be uncertainty in international monetary circles and the demand for gold will continue. In the U.S.A. as well as in the U.K. measures have been announced, and have already been implemented in part, to eliminate the uneven balances of payments. The world is now waiting in suspense to see whether and how they are going to succeed in doing so. The world is no longer satisfied with words and promises; it now wants to see deeds and results. The coming months will be decisive in this connection and in many circles there is doubt whether the U.S.A., for example, will be able to put its house in order. If the U.S.A. does not succeed in achieving this object, the artificial character of this two-tier system will become very obvious.

The only real value of this system is, firstly, that it gains time—it may gain time for an opportunity to be created to seek solutions that are new and more permanent—secondly, that it is an admission of the fact that the pegging of all gold on one price for such a long time was a wrong step; and thirdly, that it is a step in the right direction, in the direction of a general revaluation of gold in relation to other mediums of payment. Now another question arises. Suppose the U.S.A. does succeed in correcting its balance of payments, the following problem threatens. The extent to which the U.S.A. will be able to correct its balance of payments, will be the extent to which dollars will be withheld from the rest of the world and will be the extent to which the source of dollars of international liquidity will be exhausted, which in turn may lead to a deterioration in the position of international currencies. As South Africans our answer to this problem is that an increase in the official price of gold offers the solution, that that will be the necessary supplementation of the international reserves. Other nations, particularly the U.S.A., do not want to hear of this, however, and that is why the I.M.F. recently decided on a new artificial creation for supplementing international reserves, by means of this creation which is called Facilities for Special Drawing Rights. I do not want to go into the details of these new facilities today. I just want to say that although the system may bring temporary relief, it cannot offer any lasting solution to the basic money problems of the world either. Above all, it offers no solution to the problems of the United Kingdom and the U.S.A., unless they are created in such quantities that that in turn will cause international inflation, which will be much worse than that which an increased gold price may entail. For the Facilities for Special Drawing Rights—the S.D.R.s—are merely a form of credit provision without the underlying discipline of gold. As long as the U.S.A. and the United Kingdom are unable to solve their balance of payments problems, the S.D.R. system will provide no solution. Furthermore, it seems to me as though this system seeks to place a premium on countries which cannot control their international monetary commitments, at the cost of those countries which do in fact succeed in putting their own affairs in order. The success of any international currency is based on the confidence the world has in it, and I believe that this confidence depends on the extent to which it is covered by gold. At the moment the confidence the world has in paper money, is at a very low ebb. In times of relative peace it is virtually nil. In times of international unrest and war even this measure of confidence will disappear entirely and the world will move away from the S.D.R.s and fall back on gold once again.

If one wishes to test the value of this system of Special Drawing Rights, one can merely ask oneself the following question: If I had to choose between two countries, one which has all its reserves in S.D.R.s and the other which has all its reserves in gold, which country would I choose?

It is being suggested that it is possible that the U.S.A. may proceed to demonetizing gold entirely, i.e. to free the dollar completely from gold, or to free gold completely from the dollar. It is being suggested that such a thing, if it were to happen, would constitute a tremendous threat to gold. I cannot imagine the U.S.A ever taking such a rash step, since it could actually cause international disruption and would completely destroy confidence in paper money. One of the reasons why the U.S.A. is opposed to a higher gold price, is that she believes that it would mean a devaluation of the dollar and that it would shock confidence in the dollar and amount to breach of faith. If that is the case, freeing the dollar from gold should be an even greater shock and much more of a breach of faith. What about those countries which have extensive dollar holdings and which have acquired them because they believed that these dollars would always be convertible into gold? Do you think that those countries would resign themselves to accepting such a system and that they would continue to accumulate dollars if they expected such a thing?

When the U.S.A. had a great deal of gold, she could still have considered such a thing, but now that her gold reserves are diminishing and those of other countries are increasing, such a step would be a tremendous shock as far as international confidence is concerned. Such a step would lead to two gold blocs in the world: on the one hand, those countries in the world which range themselves on the side of gold, monetary units which are covered by gold, and, on the other hand, those countries which range themselves on the side of America with their monetary units which are covered by the dollar. Then the dollar will have a fluctuating value which will have to be determined daily, which will lead to uncertainty in the rates of exchange and have the effect of hampering world trade. I cannot believe that such a thing could ever happen. For how long have attempts already been made to demonetize gold? No success has been achieved so far. Quantitively speaking gold has indeed in recent times lost its relative share in the international reserves owing to the low price of gold, but as a criterion of value gold cannot be substituted. Qualitatively gold can never be demonetized.

Now I want to deal with the future balance. What about the future? I want to say that to me it is inconceivable that the U.S.A. will ever proceed to a demonetization of gold, but if it should happen, if the inconceivable does take place, what then? My reply is this. Even if it were to happen, then I still have every confidence in the long-term future of gold. At first gold will perhaps, as is already the case, decrease quantitatively in the total amount of monetary reserves, but its qualitative significance as a criterion of value for the currencies of the world—I cannot visualize how that can ever be abandoned. Gold still remains the best means of determining the value of one currency in relation to others. I cannot imagine that under the present circumstances another monetary unit, such as the dollar, can become the criterion of the monetary units of the world. That would make the world dependent upon the economic vicissitudes and the political decisions of one particular country. It is not possible that the demonetization of gold, if it should happen, may cause the free gold market to suffer a temporary shock and that it may in this way cause a temporary drop in the gold price. But I believe that in the long run gold will retain its value and that its price will nevertheless have to increase. That will be as a result of the inherent qualities of gold. There will always be people who have indestructible confidence in gold, apart from its monetary significance. As prices rise and as paper money without gold backing increases, there will always be people who will seek the security of their future in gold.

For a decade the U.S.A. could retain the confidence in the dollar, because it possessed a great deal of gold, but as its gold holdings dropped, the confidence in the dollar also weakened. In addition there is the industrial demand for gold for jewellery and ornamental purposes, for industry in general, for electronics, for space travel, for the aircraft industry, etc. The demand in this regard is increasing all the time, and in a few years’ time it may absorb the total gold production. It is the special qualities of gold, qualities which no other metal has, which has made it a sought-after metal through the ages and which will also ensure its being in demand in future. It is these special qualities of gold, along with its scarcity value, which will contribute to its price having to be increased in the future.

Then I also believe that for the sake of its own safety every country will always have to have a considerable amount of gold in its possession for strategic reasons. I do not think that any right-minded Government would dare to consider a future war without considerable gold holdings. In other words, irrespective of what may happen in the monetary sphere, I have no fear for the long-term future of gold. It is on this basis that South Africa has to determine its practical policy for the future. In the first place, we are fortunate in that financially we find ourselves in a very favourable position to-day. Economically we are strong. Our balance of payments is sound. Large amounts of money are flowing into the country daily. Our gold and foreign exchange reserves have reached record heights and are still on the increase. Our foreign debt is minimal. At the moment it is not necessary for us to sell gold. Nor are we selling any gold at present. Nor shall we be compelled to sell gold in the foreseeable future. At the moment our foreign exchange holdings are sufficient to meet our foreign commitments. We are therefore in the fortunate position that we are not being compelled to take any forced steps which may be to the future detriment of our economy and our gold-mining industry.

Since our position is strong and since we have confidence in the future, we are prepared to sacrifice any profit which may be of a temporary nature if by doing so we can ensure our long-term future as a gold-producing country. I am glad to be able to say that the Government and the Chamber of Mines are in agreement in this regard. The fact that the free market price of gold is at the moment not much higher than the official gold price, does not alarm me. The artificial situation that exists to-day as a result of the two-tier system, does not lend itself to the determination of the world price of gold. Furthermore, it is known, and this is important, that a large amount of speculative gold is being bought and sold on the free market to-day. It may even be that there is to-day 2,000 tons of gold which has been purchased for purposes of speculation and which has to be sold on the free market now or in the near future. It stands to reason that this gold must have a depressing effect on the free gold price. Apart from that, I also believe that there are certain invisible powers that are using other means to force the gold price down. It is therefore to be expected that the free market price for gold will have to remain low for a while. How long this period will be is difficult to say. We must assume that the market will in fact absorb this speculative gold one day. As soon as that happens, the price of gold ought to increase again. Our own policy will be not to sell any gold for the time being.

We have no reason for selling gold at the moment. The new gold which the mines are making available, will be bought by the Reserve Bank in the meantime, and when South Africa proceeds to selling gold on the free market one day, the sales will be effected by the mining industry under the control and the supervision of the authorities. When it is necessary for us to sell gold again in order to earn foreign exchange, South Africa will make use of its right to sell new gold on the open market through the mining industry. However, when we do so, we shall always have due regard to the long-term interests of the gold-mining industry and arrange our sales accordingly.

We shall also make use of our right to sell gold to monetary authorities at the official price. We know that, for the sake of their long-term interests and for the sake of promoting monetary stability, numerous countries will be keen to supplement their gold supplies. We shall, as soon as we have gold for sale, be prepared to try to meet this need. However, the question of when we shall resume our gold sales and how much we will be selling on each of the two markets, is something in regard to which no decision needs to be taken as yet. Our attitude will be determined from time to time in the light of the long-term interests of South Africa and of the gold-mining industry. Nor am I prepared to state now where we are going to sell our free gold. There are many technical and other problems that have to be taken into account in this regard. In the meantime we are not committed to either of the gold markets. We are free to market as and where we deem it fit and in the interests of South Africa. In future we shall market our gold at that place or those places and through those particular channels where this can be done to the greatest and most permanent benefit for South Africa.

In conclusion I want to deal with just one other matter. I have already stated that currencies can only be sound if they are based on confidence. Confidence is the basis of all money, national and international. The task of the monetary authorities of to-day is to find international currencies in which humanity has confidence; otherwise they will not succeed in their endeavour. But now we find the alarming and absolutely incomprehensible fact that leading countries of the world are engaged to-day in weakening and eliminating also that part of international currencies which has always enjoyed general confidence. Of all the international currencies gold still forms the major part to-day. Gold still deserves the greatest confidence to-day. Not sterling or the dollar, but gold. Through the ages, in the most uncertain times, gold has been the anchor on which humanity has been fastening, and is still fastening, his hope and confidence. That is why it is so incomprehensible that responsible bodies are trying to dislodge this anchor of confidence, namely gold. In these uncertain times and for the sake of international stability one would rather have expected the financial leaders of the world to have clung first of all to that which generates lasting confidence, an element of confidence which already exists. One would think that they would make that their point of departure and elaborate on that. Now we see the staggering and incomprehensible phenomenon that responsible bodies are doing just the opposite. They are trying to destroy the confidence which still exists and which is a part of our international system of payment. To me this is something inconceivable.

In conclusion I want to say that in all modesty I want to sound the warning that to my mind such a step is an injustice, a profound injustice, not so much to gold and gold-producing countries, but to the world and humanity as a whole. It is an injustice of which, if it were to continue, everybody will reap the bitter fruits one day. I believe that it is still not too late. I trust that before long well-meaning leaders in this field will come to their senses once again, and I hope that goodwill and common sense will yet prevail.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—113: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, W. A.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Wath, J. G. H.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout and G. P. van den Berg.

NOES—35: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lewis, H. M.; Lindsay, J. E; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY—CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue Account [R.P. 1—’68] and from Loan Account [R.P. 8—’68].

Votes 1, 2 and 3 put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.

LIVESTOCK AND PRODUCE SALES AMENDMENT BILL (Senate Amendment)

Amendment in clause 2 put and agreed to.

SEPARATE REPRESENTATION OF VOTERS AMENDMENT BILL

(Second Reading—resumed)

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Just before the House adjourned on Friday I had said by way of introduction that during 12 hours of debate on the second reading of this Bill, a stage where, for the most part, one discusses the principles contained in the Bill, there was really nothing new forthcoming from the opposite side. The same pattern was followed as that followed in previous debates of this nature, but I do think there was a little less bitterness, less sharpness and a little less malicious joy. But in the main the same basic objections have been repeated in this debate, and consequently one can almost sum up the Opposition’s objections to this Bill in a nutshell by quoting the introductory words of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he informed this House what their principle objection was. Sir, I have said that there was less hate and less acrimony than usual, but that does not mean to say that there was none at all. I am thinking for example of the uncalled-for, worthless kind of comment such as that made by the hon. member for Karoo who practically threw his hands into the air and stated that I should kindly inform the House what the Coloureds had done that we should hate them so. That was not only uncalled-for, it contributed nothing to the debate. The hon. member asked: What had they done to deserve our hate? Who hates them? I think that the National Party Government has proved to the Coloureds—and they accept this and are grateful for it (I have a great deal of evidence to prove what I am saying)—that they have not only shown more interest in them but also that they have received more assistance and that they have progressed further along the road leading to the development of a national pride of their own than has been the case under any former Government. The hon. member for Hillbrow, to mention another example, was the man who held the conscience speech here. After he had consulted his conscience and found that his conscience was still a typical United Party one, he stated that we were interring the white man’s honour.

Sir, it is not my intention to resort to that kind of argument, and to spend my time on trivialities. I want to turn in particular to the principal objections put forward by the Opposition. One of their principal objections, one of their main accusations, was, inter alia, that this Bill, which we have now introduced here, also as a result of the recommendation contained in the majority report of the committee, in no way took into account the so-called weight of evidence as submitted to that committee. Before mentioning a few names, I should like to convey my heartfelt congratulations to all the members on this side on the contributions they have made to this debate. As a result of the effectiveness of their speeches they have actually made it difficult for me, who as Minister has to reply to the second-reading debate, to find something to say which they have not already said, because one speaker after another on this side has simply taken to pieces the principal arguments of the previous United Party speakers, with logic and proof. The assertion was made here that we did not take the weight of evidence into consideration. The hon. member for Malmesbury in the first place, and the hon. member for Odendaalsrus, have, as members of the committee, replied very effectively to that assertion. They referred to the evidence of one witness after the other in order to prove the contrary, but I should just like to add to that, in regard to this matter of the weight of evidence, that the report of the committee has already been dealt with thoroughly in this House, but I think I owe it to this House and the electorate to show how the Opposition has dealt with the evidence and on what grounds its minority report was based.

It is once again necessary to throw some light on the facts of the investigation as they affect the Opposition. It appears from the statement made by the hon. member for Yeoville, as it appeared in The Star of 4th December, 1967, that the United Party had for two years previously been busy with an investigation of their own into the political representation of the Coloured population, under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Gardens, the leader of the United Party in the Cape, who was also a member of this Commission of Inquiry. Similarly the hon. member for Yeoville is the leader of the United Party in the Transvaal. The Leader of the Opposition has acknowledged this investigation by their party, which was either of longer duration or was commenced sooner than the one appointed by this House. The United Party has therefore had the advantage of two commissions of inquiry, of two reports, and nevertheless we find that after having had all the evidence at their disposal and having evaluated the weight of evidence in that regard, the following position was reached. In the first place they proposed (according to page XXIX of the Minutes of the Commission of Inquiry) that the Common Voters’ Roll be reinstated for the Coloured voters in the Cape and Natal. Immediately after that motion was negatived, they voted for a motion with this preamble: “That this Commission, after having carefully considered the representations and evidence, is of the opinion …” and then they voted, and do you know for what? For separate voters’ rolls for the entire Coloured population of the Republic, with representation in the House of Assembly and in the provincial councils, and in fact for a voters’ roll without any qualifications for franchise except the age qualification. That is what they voted for. And please note, both provincial leaders of the United Party voted for this, the chairman of their own commission of inquiry, together with the provincial leader of the Transvaal, the hon. member for Yeoville. And that after they had just introduced a motion in regard to the Common Voters’ Roll and had lost the division. Now my question is on what weight of evidence did the United Party come to two such directly opposed resolutions so rapidly, and that within the course of one morning and one sitting of the Commission of Inquiry? This was followed by the report of the minority group.

We must accept that once again this report was at least drawn up after consideration and attention had been given to the weight of evidence. What do we find? Merely a recommendation that our Coloured citizens should have some form or other of defined representation in the sovereign Parliament. There is no longer any indication and no description of the form; there is nothing further.

This was followed shortly after by the Bloemfontein Congress. Once again we have to accept that the weight of evidence must have weighed heavily or counted a great deal with the United Party. What do we find? They abandoned their policy in respect of the Common Voters’ Roll, and there is an acceptance of separate voters’ rolls, but now with this important difference that there will be two rolls, one with qualifications for franchise but no indication of what the qualifications are. Then we also find the abolition of the representation of Coloured voters in the provincial council of the Cape, something which the minority reported wanted to retain. This is the story of the weight of evidence as seen through United Party spectacles. But this United Party conduct is evidence in itself in regard to this matter. It furnishes damning evidence against the United Party, to the effect that they have treated this entire matter with the greatest recklessness and the greatest political opportunism one could ever imagine. And now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who anticipated this Commission of Inquiry, and the hon. member for Karoo, who did the same, have come forward and made their own policy statements in public. In the public Press they have asked for representation for each population group by its own members in the House of Assembly.

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

No: Where did I say that?

*The MINISTER:

We have heard a great deal about the weight of evidence, but what remains now of the weight of evidence, as the United Party has dealt with it, is not only an enigma …

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

May I put a question? Would the hon. Minister give me proof of this statement he has just made?

*The MINISTER:

Yes, both the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, as well as the hon. member for Karoo, anticipated this Commission. Is that what you mean?

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

Only in regard to the Coloureds. I only made a statement in regard to Coloureds.

*The MINISTER:

Yes, but that statement you made anticipated this report of the Coloured Commission.

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

That is not what you said.

*The MINISTER:

Well, that is what I meant to say. [Interjection.] But I want to go further. The impression was created here, and it was stated very explicitly by the hon. member for Durban (North) as well as the hon. member for Pinelands, that we were not to deduce from the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had mentioned the number of witnesses, 26 for and 29 against, or anything of that nature, that they were merely counting heads. I know that. But if they want to determine the weight of evidence in this way, they may just as well have counted heads, because it is a common occurrence in any court, whether it is the magistrate’s court or the Supreme Court or the Appeal Court, that the weight of evidence is in favour of a person who is for example found guilty and that the court finds that person guilty, not because he could not find sufficient evidence with which to try and prove his innocence, but because the court based its judgment on the quality of the evidence and not on the quantity. [Laughter.] I want to go further. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is laughing now, but consider what happened in 1948. Sometimes it also happens that the nation is called in to act as judge. In 1948 the nation was called in to act as judge. The United Party on the one hand had the weight of evidence in numbers, and the National Party a considerable minority in numbers. There one also had judges who determined the weight of evidence according to quality and substance, and not according to quantity. That is why the United Party is sitting where it is to-day. Now I want to tell you that it does not follow from what I am now saying that one must always seek the weight of evidence in the minority report, or in the majority report, because since that time the nation as such has been proving the minority wrong throughout. That is why they are still in opposition and why they will remain in opposition when I have proved on what grounds they based their arguments here in the course of this debate in order to create an impression both within and outside and to prove the Government and the National Party to be people who break their word, to be people who throw their leaders overboard, whose word one cannot believe at all and who do not have a policy, whereas they are supposed to have had consistency. I shall come to that.

But I should like to furnish specific replies to one or two questions which have been put. It has been put to me that these four Coloured Representatives should really be the people who should interpret the voice of the Coloured population and of the Coloured Council in this Parliament. Now, I have no objection. I do not want to berate the Opposition if that is their honest opinion, but I maintain that there was no weight of evidence whatsoever to the effect that that was what the Coloureds as such felt—and this has been proved, you can read through the report of the Commission yourself. It was by way of exception that they pleaded for the retention of the Coloured representation as it exists today in Parliament, i.e. those four members, who are only three now; and in reality there are only two left. My question is as follows: Suppose they have to be elected in the way in which they have to be elected, or are being elected at present, because it did not become apparent from the discussions in this debate in what other way the Opposition wanted to have them elected. They advocated the retention of Coloured representation as it exists at present, and as a result of the arguments which were put forward here I have the right to accept that they will be elected in the same way as they are at present being elected. Now I want to ask the following question: If they are to be elected in this way, what control, if any, if there to ensure that those four Coloured representatives will be the mouthpiece of the Coloured Persons Council in this Parliament? What assurance, if any, is there that this will be the case?

I want to go further and state that nobody on this side has at any time denied that the voice of the Coloureds should also be heard in this House. A means must be sought to ensure that their voice is heard here and the Prime Minister stated very emphatically only a few weeks ago that we were going to establish the Coloured Persons Council some time after the middle of next year. Then this newly elected Coloured Persons’ Council …

*An HON. MEMBER:

Elected?

*The MINISTER:

… will for the first time have a majority of elected members, i.e. 40 elected members and 20 nominated members—and it is only under the National Party Government that they have the privilege of electing a Coloured Persons’ Council. The old so-called Coloured Persons’ Advisory Council under the United Party, which we inherited, consisted entirely of nominated members. It is we who have effected a change for the better by having a majority elected and a minority nominated. We are now going much further. With a view to the experience they have gained over the years, since that still-existing Coloured Persons’ Council with a minority of elected members was established, the work they have done and the dedication they have shown, and the will and desire and endeavour to make a positive contribution on behalf of their own people, the National Party as the governor of this country—and it is the task of the Government of this country as guardian of the non-Whites to determine for them the time for further forward steps in their development—has now decided that the time has come and for the first time in their history they will have their own Parliament which we are going to call the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. We are going to call it by its old name, despite what the Commission suggested.

The hon. the Prime Minister also stated that the time may come when the Coloured Persons Representative Council would desire to have another name and that it could then consider whether that name was a desirable one or not. But the fact remains that that Coloured Persons Council which is now being elected by the Coloureds, and in regard to which we will introduce legislation—it stands here on the Order Paper—will be something that the Coloureds have never had before. That is why I find it reprehensible when the opposite side— and I am going to return to this later—tries to belittle the importance of that Council as an administrative body, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, inter alia, did. But that is precisely what hon. members opposite did in regard to the establishment of the present Council, and I am going to refer to that, and I shall quote to you from Hansard what hon. members on the opposite side said in regard to that Council. For any steps which the National Party have taken to improve or to develop more favourable race relations in order to improve the lot of the various race groups on a separate basis, on the basis of parallel development, has been opposed by the Opposition tooth and nail for obvious reasons; they are basically opposed to any form of separation because basically they advocate integration and bringing together things which ought not to be brought together.

I have been asked why the Coloureds of Natal are now being disenfranchised. Admittedly this Bill, if it becomes law, will put an end to an old historic heritage—the right which a steadily diminishing group of Coloureds in Natal had to vote on a joint voters’ roll, together with the Whites of Natal, for representatives to this House. As I have said this small group of Coloureds is steadily diminishing. When we previously established separate representation for Coloureds, we could, owing to the geographic situation of Natal, not offer the Coloureds of Natal anything practical. We therefore allowed them to remain on the joint voters’ roll. But even now we are not disenfranchising them immediately —it will only be done at the end of the life of this Parliament. By that time it is hoped that the new Coloured Persons Representative Council will have been established and then the Natal Coloureds will receive the same treatment as all other Coloureds in the country—in other words—to vote, together with the other Coloureds, for the 40 representatives whom they have to elect to the Coloured Persons Representative Council. I can in no way understand why the Natal Coloureds should receive different treatment in this regard than the Coloureds of the other Provinces. That is why I do not want them to vote on two voters’ rolls—one on behalf of a few United Party men who in any case were never interested in them, and another one for their own council. [Interjections.] We are not afraid of losing their votes—it is you who are raising objections. We want to bring it home to the Natal Coloureds that they form part of the Coloured population of the entire Republic of South Africa, and that, together with the others, they play a role as one people, one nation, and one cultural group with its own identity. The Coloureds in Natal will have to learn that the Coloureds in the Republic cannot be divided up according to the Provinces into four groups, but that all of them belong to one people who have their own identity.

As regards the statement by hon. members on the opposite side that Coloureds should have representation here, I have already said that I regard it as premature to say a thing like that now. We are not saying that their voice is not going to be heard. The hon. the Prime Minister has already stated that the channels, the lines of communication, between the Coloured Persons Representative Council and this Parliament will be worked out in consultation with the Coloured Persons Council, and not after consultation with the United Party for example. The course being followed by the Opposition is diametrically opposed to ours, and we have no intention of allowing ourselves to be led off course by them.

The hon. member for Durban (North) asked me whether the senators who have been appointed to the Senate on the grounds of their knowledge of the Coloureds are going to be removed. No, definitely not, because they are not representatives of the Coloureds.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

But they are supposed to be chosen on account of their knowledge of the Coloured people to act as a channel for them.

The MINISTER:

There was only one senator representing the Coloured people in the Senate. I refer to ex-Senator Olivier. The other senators were appointed by the Government …

Mr. W. V. RAW:

On the grounds of their special knowledge of the Coloured people.

The MINISTER:

No, not only that. When they were nominated their knowledge of Coloured affairs was a consideration.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

And they must serve as the channel for …

*The MINISTER:

Yes, they can serve that purpose and they will continue to serve that purpose; the only difference is that there will be more channels for the Coloured population. They are not responsible to the Coloureds; they are nominated by the Government, and consequently they are responsible to this Parliament, either to the Senate or the Government, actually to the Government. It is a Government channel which has been established, and they remain where they are. That is the reply.

The hon. member for Durban (North) also discussed our Constitution. He said we were violating the Constitution because we were changing it. He says we were abolishing; Coloured representation here. He said we were like Barney Barnato: “If you don’t like my principle, I will change it.” He says we were changing our principles left, right and centre, as we pleased. I find it rather strange that the United Party should accuse us of changing principles and changing the Constitution, and of making light of our principles. They are ostensibly making such a fuss of the Constitution and venerating it to such an extent. It was stated here on behalf of their hon. Leader that the hon. Opposition’s new policy is that the Coloureds may be represented here in this Parliament, if they so desire, by Coloureds themselves as well as by Whites. Since when does our Constitution make provision for that? In other words, if they want to implement their policy which they have trumpeted forth with such acclaim here, they will also have to amend the Constitution. But after all the nation is not there for the sake of a Constitution. Surely the Constitution is there for the sake of the nation. What government, in the past or in the future, can, if it wants to govern the country correctly, let itself be bound by a Constitution and not have the right to change it? Of course we are changing it, but we are changing it on a democratic basis. We are changing it in a constitutional way. Nothing in the world can prevent us from changing it, and it is not a change in principle. I am coming to that now, because that is their main theme, i.e. that we have thrown our principles overboard. They maintain that we have not only thrown our principles overboard, we have gone and thrown our principles overboard with Dr. Verwoerd and all.

*HON. MEMBERS:

That is correct.

*The MINISTER:

I am glad that hon. members opposite are reacting so strongly to this. Now I just want to prove that these assertions that we are breaking our word, that we are throwing our principles overboard, and that we are acting in conflict with the policy and the vision of Dr. Verwoerd, are completely erroneous, they are completely erroneous, they are completely untrue. They are untrue. If the United Party, which is the official Opposition and which must consequently be accepted as the alternative government of the country, knows so little about the Government’s policy and reveals such great ignorance after it has heard it being stated here year after year for many years, as well as having a knowledge of this Party’s history, then I do not think it has or will ever have the right to criticize this Government or this Party. One should at least try to go into the history of a Party. I am now going to give hon. members opposite a short history lesson. This National Party, of which I am a member, and which is governing the country to-day, was born in 1915. Since the day of its establishment the National Party was never satisfied or felt happy with the political representation or the political place the Coloured population had occupied in the White or the South African politics. I am now going to take hon. members back to 1st October, 1931. On that day a National Party congress was held in Kimberley, and at that congress the first motion under discussion was a motion to the effect that the National Party should make it its task and should accept as its principle that the Coloureds should receive separate representation by removing them from the common voters’ roll. It was decided at that congress, by a considerable majority of votes, that it was too soon to do what was being proposed, that it could not happen then. In 1932 the following resolution was adopted, with only one dissentient vote, by the Provincial Congress of the National Party at Stellenbosch (translation)—

The Congress requests the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Native legislation, and in the last instance the Government, to give serious consideration to the desirability of separate constituencies both for Whites and Coloureds as distinguished from Natives.

In 1932 this particular motion was accepted with only one dissentient vote. That was in the days when the National Party was governing under the late General Hertzog.

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

The one dissentient vote was that of General Hertzog himself.

*The MINISTER:

Wait a moment. I shall tell the hon. member now. Look, this is where the United Party is making such a mistake. In the course of time they are always trying to appropriate our leaders and our foremost men. They are doing so because every leader this Party has had has won great acclaim and a great name, not only in South Africa, but abroad as well. They steal them and then want to make the world believe that these men were their leaders as well. I shall tell hon. members what happened. This was in 1932. In 1936, when General Hertzog was the leader of the United Party, he made a certain proposal in the House of Assembly. [Interjections]. Wait, let me now tell the United Party what they inherited, because at that time there was a split amongst the Nationalists. Some of them walked over to the other side, and the rest remained behind. Then the Purified National Party actually represented the old National Party, and General Hertzog and a large part of the National Party, which really comprised the majority, formed a coalition with General Smuts. Now I want to show hon. members what went on in that Party at that time. In 1936 General Hertzog moved the following motion in respect of the Natives, who were at that time still on the joint voters’ roll (translation)—

That the names of enfranchised Natives in the Cape be removed from the White voters’ roll, and that they be given separate political representation.

Who opposed this? The late ex-Minister Hofmeyr, and according to Hansard of 1936 he had the following to say. I want the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to listen to this, because these are actually the words he wants to use. The late Minister Hofmeyr stated as follows (translation)—

… a citizenship which bears the marks of inferiority in section after section of this Bill, and in addition it bears the additional stigma that whatever progress the Native may make in regard to civilization he will always be restricted to three members in a House consisting of 153. But I am also objecting to that because I regard, as I have always done, the principle of communal representation to be an unsound one.

Here the United Party, because Mr. Hofmeyr was never a Nationalist, was already advocating certain things. From as far back as can be remembered he had been differing from the logical line of thought of the National Party under the leadership of General Hertzog, even when he was the United Party Prime Minister in 1936. In 1938 …

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

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

*The MINISTER:

No, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has had opportunity enough to put questions, and I am not going to let him put questions to me now. I can guess what he wants to ask. He wants to ask how it came about that they were subsequently given separate representation.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

No, that is not what I want to ask.

*The MINISTER:

No, apart from what he wants to ask, I am now making my own speech and I do not want to lose the thread of my argument. In 1938 Dr. Malan, as leader of the Purified National Party, accepted within the Constitution and according to the principles of the constitution of the Party that this Party would strive to attain and would also accept the responsibility for placing the Coloureds on separate voters’ rolls. This formed part of the election manifesto of the National Party in 1948. It was clearly stated therein. The hon. member for Gardens knows extremely little about the National Party; that is why he asked me what they said in 1948.

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

No, I said 1928.

*The MINISTER:

I have given an account of the events since 1938.

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

You forgot 1928.

*The MINISTER:

I shall tell hon. members what happened then, which is what the hon. member wants to refer to. Reference has already been made to that. The statement has been made that Dr. Malan even wanted Coloured women on the voters’ roll. That is a shameless distortion of the truth, because in those days even the White women did not have the franchise. This was in 1921, and not in 1928, to be precise. I shall correct hon. members.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Your history is quite confused.

*The MINISTER:

At that time women had not yet been granted the vote. Dr. Malan stated that he had actually found himself in a dilemma, and that is why he did not feel that the time had come—that was his attitude at that time—for women to be given the franchise, if he had to give the franchise to women and not to the Coloureds, great pressure would possibly have been exercised on him to give the Coloured women the franchise as well. We did not want to allow that. I now say that this Government, under this new dispensation, is allowing the Coloured Persons Council to be elected and is removing them from our own politics, out of this Parliament, and giving them their own Parliament so that they can govern their own affairs, and is giving, for the first time, the Coloured woman the right and the privilege of being equal in respect of the interests and the resolutions which have to be taken in the interests of her own nation, of which she is the mother. If that is not an improvement on what has existed up to now! It also deals a death-blow to the argument that what we are offering them is no improvement on what they formerly had. As I have said, we had this manifesto in 1948. In the Havenga-Malan agreement, clause 3—I have it here, but I do not want to take up the time of the House in dealing with it—Mr. Havenga and Dr. Malan were not entirely in agreement in regard to separate Coloured representation. According to clause 3 each retained the right, as regards this provision, to reserve his own view in regard to the matter. That is what they did. It was in the interests of the National Party. Dr. Malan did not sacrifice anything there. In fact, ever since we stipulated it in our Party Constitution as a matter of principle Dr. Malan was, up to the day of his death, a strong advocate of that principle, and he adhered to the principle, i.e. increased separation, in the political sphere as well, between White and non-White. Dr. Donges joined him in adhering to the same principle. In 1951 Dr. Dönges piloted through a few measures. When he introduced the debate on the Separate Representation of Voters Act he mentioned five reasons for taking that step. I have here a statement he made (translation)—

The third requirement is that the Coloured vote should rise above the sphere of party politics, out of the position it finds itself in to-day where it has become the football of the political parties.

The fourth requirement to which such a system had to comply was to place the Coloureds on a separate voters’ roll and to give them separate representation.

The fourth requirement is that the abuse which has crept into the old system, and the evils attaching to it, i.e. that it causes a rift between the Whites and the Coloureds, has to be eliminated. Unfortunately it was too optimistic and too idealistic and it has not been eliminated.

There sits one of the greatest offenders, namely the hon. member for Houghton, who has the ability of letting her tongue run away with her, and who can in addition be as sharp and cutting as a knife. The fifth requirement he put forward was a very important one in the political times in which we are living.

The fifth requirement is that the Coloured vote should be placed outside the fear zone, so that the Whites can advocate and promote the upliftment of the Coloured community without having to fear that they are conniving at their own downfall. In other words, the threat of domination, no matter how unlikely this is regarded to be, has to be eliminated. It must be clear that stability can be brought about, and I maintain that this will only happen if that requirement is complied with, that a system such as the one we are now proposing in this Bill will really be an improvement.

There is nobody who can tell me that the 1951 Amendment Act, which removed the Coloureds from the common voters’ roll, and placed them on a separate voters’ roll, was not an improvement.

We come now to 1954. I challenge any speaker on that side of the House—if they were able to do this, they would have done it already—to prove that Advocate Strijdom, after he became Prime Minister of the country, at any time advocated the retention of Coloured representation in this House as it exists at present. He never said that. We also envisaged it in the 1948 manifesto, as a result of the Paul Sauer Commission, on which the National Party of all four provinces was represented. I now come to what my colleague, the present Minister of Defence—he was at that time Minister of Coloured Affairs—said in this House in 1960. An attempt has been made here, in a shameless way in my opinion, by the Leader of the Opposition to interpret what he had said in this House when the report of the Commission was being discussed, in respect of Dr. Verwoerd’s policy, as an insult or as a blot on the character of the late Dr. Verwoerd, and of his integrity in regard to the nation and his own Party. It has even been said that he differed from Dr. Verwoerd. In 1960 he stated in this House (translation)—

Now I do not want to imply that the form of representation which exists here is the final solution to all problems. As this goodwill increases and develops, instruments will have to be devised to afford the Coloureds the opportunity of having their voice properly heard in this House.

This was said by the Minister after the introduction of the Coloured Persons Council. In 1961 Dr. Verwoerd made the following statement, in addition to what the present Prime Minister read out and quoted from Hansard, and which I feel like reading out again. But I want to read from another column than that from which the Prime Minister read. There, Dr. Verwoerd said (translation)—

I am not asserting that in the political field we could already have given the alpha and the omega. What I am in fact asserting is that we have indicated the course of development within their own circle very clearly, that we have undertaken a great deal in respect of their upliftment and the improvement of their circumstances and their joint say on various levels.

He said this on 24th January. On 17th May, 1961, Mr. P. W. Botha, referring to a speech of the Prime Minister, the late Dr. Verwoerd, said (translation)—

He said that that was as far as we saw the road at present, but he also stated that of course nothing remains static and that further consideration would have to be given to political rights on the basis of parallel development.

This is extremely important. If it is not clear to hon. members in this House, then I do not know what will be clear to them. On 10th April, 1964 …

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Why do you not read what he said in 1962?

*The MINISTER:

I shall do so gladly. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition quoted the following from Hansard (Hansard, 1962, col. 93)—

Nevertheless I want to reply to a few points raised by the Leader of the Opposition. The one is that he said that the inference had been drawn that the representation of the Coloureds in this House will disappear when a new type of Council for Coloured Affairs is established, that larger and more representative Council. I never said anything like that, and such an inference is not justified. The representation of the Coloureds in this Parliament is simply not relevant in terms of this planning …
Mr. Barnett:

For how long?

*The Prime Minister:

I have said that it will remain in existence. Must I say for ever?

He said that it would remain in existence, but that for how long it would do so was beside the point. His point of view was that they would not remain in existence for ever. That is what he is saying here. [Interjections.] That shows how people are trying to wrest it out of context. I am reading further—

Must I say forever? I repeat that I have no plan at all, that I have no plan in connection with the development already announced which includes the disappearance of the Coloured representatives here. I am not even considering it.

In 1962 he did not give further consideration to it. However, I can mention thousands of examples relating to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who does not even give thought to next year during this.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

What about 1964?

*The MINISTER:

I shall come to that in a moment. But what did Dr. Verwoerd say in the same year? He was asked this question (translation)—

Are the Coloureds ultimately going to lose their parliamentary representatives as well and be in the same position here as the Indians and the Bantu in the White areas?

The hon. the Prime Minister quoted this from Hansard of 10th April.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Was it in 1961 or 1962?

*The MINISTER:

1962. This is the reply the hon. the Prime Minister gave:

Until we reach the level of development, which I spoke about, where the Coloured Persons Council is exercising its function in full, no judgment will be passed on what action should be taken in regard to the Coloured Representation in this Parliament, but it will remain as it is at present.

That is what he said.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

He probably envisaged that Coloureds …

*The MINISTER:

No, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is once again talking about “he probably”. Mr. Speaker, have you ever in all your life heard of a responsible, a person who reads and listens and hears what is being said, who then wants the world to believe that what he thinks is the meaning, is really the meaning of another man’s words. I once told someone—and I think that this is the worst thing I have ever said to anyone—that he ought to refrain from thinking. He never forgave me for that. Dr. Verwoerd went on to say—

We have also stated already that as a result of the introduction of group areas we also want to give the Indians full control over separate residential areas so that they can themselves have their own local government on parallel lines, as we are envisaging for the Coloured community.
Dr. Steenkamp:

In Parliament as well?

*The Prime Minister:

No, not representation here. I have just, in regard to the Coloureds, stated very clearly, and I am saying this in regard to the Indians as well, we determine the progress of their development as far as that of the Council which will exercise authority over their affairs similar to what provincial authorities now have. Subsequently we will make further provision …

He did not block the road. I shall presently take this matter further to prove that he went much further than that at a later stage. [Interjections.] I now want to come to 1965, for why should we spend so much time on 1962. In 1965 Dr. Verwoerd was still with us. I remember very well that in 1965 he made certain statements in this House. On 10th April, 1965, the then Minister of Coloured Affairs, our present Minister of Defence, stated the following (translation)—

No arrangement in respect of a nation’s political course of development is cast into a final form at a given time. A nation is a living organism which undergoes new processes of development from time to time. Since we therefore have four main population streams in Southern Africa, i.e. Whites, Coloureds. Indians and Bantu, it is there that we will have to investigate and overhaul the instruments of mutual consultation from time to time in accordance with the development of South Africa’s various nations on the basis of separation and each one’s distinctiveness.

On 10th April, 1965, Dr. Verwoerd, referring to the consultation between the Coloured Persons Council and the Government on an exceptionally high level, stated, inter alia (translation)—

The fact that the Coloured Representatives in the House of Assembly are being limited, is and remains a ceiling above the heads of the Coloured community.

He subsequently stated—

What more do such critics want to propose? In my opinion there is only one reply to that. It is that in some or other way there must be Coloured representatives in this Parliament.

He said “in some or other way”, but never the way the hon. members of the Opposition are suggesting it should take place. Then he could just as well have said that he regarded this representation as the best, and that it should remain in existence. He never said that. I shall go even further to prove how he regarded this view as definitely not being good enough. On 7th April, 1965, the hon. the Prime Minister, when his Vote was being discussed, said the following, inter alia

But there is another issue in connection with the Coloureds to which I also have to refer and that is the question of their political position. Are these people free at the present time, or are they not free? Are they or are they not to be given sovereignty? In this connection one must look again at the situation with which we are confronted here. It is a very simple and a perfectly clear situation. If we eliminate the Bantu from our political life …

Which we have done—

… and ignore them in the situation that we are considering here, then the position is that we have a White majority in South Africa and two minority groups. What happens to minority groups in other countries? Even where minority groups have the vote, the position is that their chances of getting into power are very slight, unless they hold the balance of power between two equally strong parties, two majority groups, and the result is that they are powerless. The great grievance of the Tamils in Ceylon, for example, and the great grievance of the Madhis and the Sikhs in India, is that as minority groups they are powerless and that they have absolutely no say therefore. In the same way we are left here with the problem of minority groups. If the minority group becomes the tail that wags the dog because it happens to hold the balance of power between two equally strong parties, a colossal injustice is done towards the majority of the people because then it means that the minority rules the majority. But unless that happens, that minority has nothing; it can achieve nothing and such a minority, which has nothing, although it seemingly has a share in the control although it seemingly has rights, has no real control over anything that it can put to its own productive use. Surely it is much better then to give such a minority group limited powers and opportunities. That is the basis of our policy. One must not only ask for separate freedoms in the sense of freedom for a minority, freedom which is equivalent to the sovereignty of the entire nation. It stands to reason that the position of power of the majority in a state is such that the control of the State is in the hands of the majority. But when we give our minority groups something which the Chinese and the Indians in Malaya would dearly like to have and that the Tamils in Ceylon would dearly like to have, why should we be accused of unfair treatment of these minority groups to whom we want to give something which practically no minority group has ever been given in any state in the history of the world? Because what is being given to them is self-government over matters which are of real importance to them. That is what we are doing, and the privileged treatment of the two minority groups in South Africa lies in the fact that we are prepared to allow bodies to be developed for them which will be parliamentary in character, which will exercise control over all matters which affect them as a group and which one can entrust to them within the group. It is true that for the rest, in respect of foreign affairs, in respect of taxation and in respect of other similar matters, they will be subject to the authority of the entire state which is controlled by the majority group of the population. It is true that the position would be no different if they had a sham vote, except that the sham vote would enable them in the circumstances to which I have referred to do an injustice to the majority group. If we look at this matter from the point of view of justice therefore, we must look at it from every angle. We must ask ourselves which people are going to benefit and in what way you can best serve the interests of everybody, even if it means that the one gets slightly less than the other. That is the honest and right way to view this matter. Hon. members of the Opposition can now go and represent the position to the outside world as though we were committing an injustice here; they can go and tell the outside world that we are not giving sovereignty to the minority groups within our sovereign state; that we would only be doing justice to them if we gave them a minority share in the control of the state, but I say that this concept, as we are developing it, is much more honest, much more genuine, much more valuable to these groups, than to give them sham representation here by means of constitutional means and by ensuring at the same time by means of an entrenched section in the Constitution that the White man retains absolute supremacy, as the United Party proposes to do.

In other words, if it is not implied in these words spoken by Dr. Verwoerd in 1965—but only in other words—that Coloured representation in this House will have to be altered, if it does not disappear altogether, then words have no meaning whatsoever.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Quite right.

*The MINISTER:

What I find reprehensible is that the United Party wishes to cast doubts on Dr. Verwoerd’s integrity here. [Interjection.]

*An HON. MEMBER:

It is you who are doing that.

*The MINISTER:

No, we have not done that. Hon. members on the opposite side must not begin to feel ashamed now.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

Were his promises useless?

*The MINISTER:

I just want to show you, Mr. Speaker, what the English Press does. Here I have a report by the Cape Times correspondent, “Mrs. Verwoerd denies Botha’s claim”.

An HON. MEMBER:

Read the entire report.

*The MINISTER:

This report is an absolute justification of what the hon. Minister of Defence said here. There is no headline here which wants to make another representation; here it is simply stated: “Mrs. Verwoerd denies Botha’s claim.” I do not want to drag Mrs. Verwoerd into this debate because I have a high regard for her, and I hope that this feeling is a mutual one amongst all the members of this House, but I want to expose the tactics of the English-language newspapers, and with that the tactics of the United Party, because I think their behaviour is reprehensible. They are the holy apostles, so holy that when I referred the hon. member for Newton Park the other evening to the policy of the United Party in 1948 and pointed out that they had lost the election of 1948 principally as a result of the political policy of the late Mr. Hofmeyr, as he stated it either at Somerset West or at Somerset Strand, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said “No”. Strangely enough …

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

It is the wrong pamphlet.

*The MINISTER:

No, the hon. member need not be afraid.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

14th January, 1947.

*The MINISTER:

I quote (translation)—

Minister Hofmeyr’s liberal standpoint has already brought him so far that he has opposed the policy of apartheid in almost every sphere …

This is correct—

On 26th April, 1937, Minister Hofmeyr, who was then Minister of Labour, refused to accept an amendment of the National Party here in this House which provided that Whites and non-Whites could not be members of one and the same trade union.

Hon. members will find it in Hansard of 1937, Col. 5528 in the Afrikaans version. I have already stated what his standpoint was in 1936, but I want to go further. On 15th January, 1947, the late Mr. Hofmeyr stated very explicitly what he wanted. On 28th March, 1946 (Hansard, Col. 4436), Mr. Hofmeyr also advocated this principle in the House of Assembly and stated—

I take my stand for the ultimate removal of that colour bar from our Constitution. I put that quite clearly. If my hon. friends want to use it to make political capital against me they are free to do so.

According to the Cape Times of 15th January, 1947, he stated very clearly on 14th January, 1947, at the Strand (translation)—

Natives must eventually be represented by Natives and Indians by Indians in the House of Assembly.

He did not at that time state that Coloureds should be represented by Coloureds because it was not necessary since the Coloureds were at that stage still on the common voters’ roll. They were at that stage already being represented in certain instances by Whites in Parliament. But what would the position have been to-day if they had remained on the voters’ roll, taking into consideration the increase in population which has taken place and the increased interest which the United Party would have shown in them in regard to registration, etc.? Because no less a person than the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that the Coloureds of the Cape were all entitled to vote, and why not. He also pointed out that they comprised more than 90 per cent of the total Coloured population of the country. I maintain that if the position had remained, and if the National Party had not come into power, we would quite possibly have had the position to-day that in the majority of constituencies in the Cape it would not have been the Whites who decided who their representatives in Parliament should be, it would have been the Coloureds who decided that for the Whites. Mr. Speaker, what I expected in a debate of this nature was not that hon. members should come along here and quote what this or that person had said at this or that time …

*An HON. MEMBER:

That is precisely what you have done.

*The MINISTER:

But hon. members on that side have compelled me to do so. I did not do so in my introductory speech. There I confined myself to the principles. But the United Party are afraid of themselves, and they are even more afraid of their future. They are afraid of themselves because they know that they are losing one by-election after another with this liberal policy of theirs of a multi-racial Parliament. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout stated very clearly the other evening that there could be no white Parliament in a multi-racial country. Those were the words he used. That is what they believe. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as well as other members on that side, have stated that we did not in 1948 receive a mandate from the voters to do what we are doing now. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not want to accept the challenge issued to him by my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Defence, to appear with him on the same platform at Swellendam.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I would go with the Prime Minister.

*The MINISTER:

The arrogance of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition astonishes me. This is the most conceited thing I have ever heard, for in what country in the world —and this applies to South Africa as well— is the Leader of the Opposition, according to protocol, equal to the Prime Minister of the country? According to the protocol list the Leader of the Opposition is not even the equal of a Cabinet Minister. But now he wants to place himself above a Cabinet Minister. [Interjection.] He must not be petty-minded now.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I think the hon. the Minister should return to the Bill now.

*The MINISTER:

According to the newspapers the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went to address a meeting last Saturday night or Friday night at Bredasdorp on behalf of the candidature of the United Party member in the by-election at Swellendam. There was also a by-election in Pretoria (West) where a United Party candidate stood. Surely the hon. Leader of the Opposition had a golden opportunity, with both these by-elections, of presenting their objections in principle in respect of this legislation to the voters, and of testing the will of the nation there. Did he try to do so in any way? He did not even refer to it. That is why I say that they are afraid of bringing their policy into the open, and that they are afraid of their own future. Sir, the voters can rest assured that this National Government will try, as long as it remains in power, to protect the interests of all population groups in South Africa in such a way and to help develop and promote them in such a way that it will bring them the greatest possible happiness, peace and justice and will prevent them as far as possible from becoming the prey of wicked exploiters, irregardless of what group or party they may come from, because we feel that it is our responsibility to teach them responsibility, to introduce means to help them to help themselves and to develop with a view to peaceful co-existence and enabling them to play a more important and better role in South Africa as citizens of South Africa, and to afford them the opportunity of acquiring greater self-respect, a national pride of their own, and developing a greater love for South Africa. Mr. Speaker, when does one develop these things? One develops these things when one is afforded the opportunity of doing so for oneself; then one develops one’s own national pride; then one develops one’s own responsibility, and then it leads to happiness and not to frustration. This course leading to a multi-racial society and a multi-racial parliament and of the expansion of political rights, which the United Party wants to adopt—because their policy amounts to the gradual expansion of political rights for non-Whites but at a more gradual tempo than that envisaged by the Progressive Party—will only lead to frustration, for where in the world has it ever led to happiness? If one removes this so-called discrimination—we call it autogenous development—where one leads the non-White population groups and helps them along the road to a place where there will be living space for them, these people who are mentally less developed and who are on a lower level of civilization and who cannot yet bear the responsibility which the Whites are able to bear, then one brings them into direct competition with the white man. A large measure of the frustration which one finds to-day in other parts of the world, particularly in America, the country which, according to them, maintains the most humanitarian principles, is because the non-Whites who have been thrown without further ado amongst the Whites, realize that they will always remain inferior and poor because they cannot keep pace with equal competition. That is why I have no qualms of conscience and why I have nothing to reproach myself with. On the contrary I am grateful that I have been called upon to introduce this historic Bill here in the interests of the Coloured population and of South Africa.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—113: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Carr, D. M.; Coetser, H. J.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L. ; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, W. A.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C. ; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe. W. L.; Van der Wath, J. G. H.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H. ; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout and G. P. van den Berg.

NOES—32: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lewis, H. M.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith. W. J. B.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell. Question affirmed and amendment dropped. Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

PROHIBITION OF IMPROPER INTERFERENCE BILL (Second Reading) *The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I move—-

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

In view of the fact that the Government is now taking statutory action to terminate, with effect from a certain date, the representation of a minimal number of Cape Coloureds in Parliament and in the Cape Provincial Council, the question arises quite rightly whether it is still necessary to take steps by way of legislation to prohibit political interference by one population group or racial group in the politics of another population group. Everyone knows that in the past we have had to deal especially with not only improper interference, but also exploitation by Whites of the political rights of non-Whites in this country. Moreover, this was not aimed at serving or helping the non-Whites or furthering their interests. So they were made to believe, but unfortunately self-interest was the main motive. No one could benefit permanently from this, and among the Coloureds especially it created confusion and also disunity. It was by no means conducive to the fostering of better relations between White and non-White. It much rather served to undermine all that was good. Admittedly the interest of the Whites in the political activities of the Coloureds should fade and diminish now that the latter’s political rights will vest in their elected Coloured Council. The Coloured people will no longer be the political football in white politics that they have been. I sincerely hope that this will be the case. I believe it is the right of every population group to work out its own salvation without the interference of other population groups and to carry on its own political activities amongst its own people without any hindrance and in its own interests. This also applies to the Coloured people, particularly now that they are being enabled by the National Party Government to decide by themselves to a very large extent about those matters which are necessary for their future and indispensable to their progress along the road of national awareness. We also know that there are still political forces both inside and outside our country which will continue to do everything within their power to obstruct the Government in the implementation of its policy of separate development in the political field as well. We know, moreover, that the vast majority of thinking Coloureds are seeking protection against the political interferes from outside their own population group. With the advent of this new era in their history they prefer to be given the opportunity of proving their responsibility and of indicating their own course in their own way. As far back as 1964 the Federale Kleurlingvolksparty declared in its manifesto: “We do not want white political parties to come and upset us. The reason is clear, because they divide us into two groups and confuse us, and this does not bring us any nearer to what we want.”

We want to prevent this, and therefore, I regard this Bill as merely a further important foundation stone which we want to lay in the implementation of our policy of seeing to it as guardians that the right of self-determination is exercised by all population groups in as untrammelled and uninfluenced a way as possible. In order to achieve this positive aim, one must get rid of old practices which, as already mentioned, later deteriorated into malpractices.

In the Bill presently under discussion we confine ourselves to three basic principles only, which I shall deal with now. In so far as it is practically possible and feasible, we firstly want to prohibit any person from being a member of any political party of any other population group. Secondly, we want to prohibit persons of any population group, for personal gain and with improper aims and objects, whatever they may be, firstly, from rendering assistance as an agent, or, secondly, from being a member of an election committee, of a political party of which any person who belongs to any other population group, is a member, or of any person who belongs to any other population group …

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? What does he mean by “agent” in this measure? Does the definition in the Electoral Act apply?

*The MINISTER:

I am referring to “agent” as defined in the Electoral Act, because we are actually dealing with elections here. For example, a person who renders assistance as an agent, sits at a table and issues ballot papers and performs similar tasks.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

That is not an agent in terms of the Electoral Act.

*The MINISTER:

… and who has been nominated or may be nominated as a candidate for an election in terms of the Electoral Consolidation Act, 1946 (Act No. 46 of 1946), or the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council Act, 1964 (Act No. 49 of 1964). Furthermore, no person who belongs to one population group may address any meeting, gathering or assembly of persons of whom all or the greater majority belong to any other population group or groups, for the purpose of furthering the interests of a political party or the candidature of any person who has been nominated or may be nominated as a candidate for an election such as I referred to a moment ago. Thirdly, the receiving of financial assistance from abroad is being prohibited.

When it was decided on Monday, 26th September, 1966, to refer the draft Bill of that time to a select committee for investigation, the Opposition already admitted through its hon. Leader that abuses in connection with elections of Coloured representatives existed and had arisen. Moreover, the Muller Commission has now recommended in a majority report that steps should be taken by the Government to curb improper interference. In addition, on 28th February, 1968, during the discussion of the report of the Muller Commission, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition admitted, by way of implication, that there had been certain malpractices. In any case, in the course of the same debate the hon. the Prime Minister stated the Government’s attitude very firmly, thoroughly and clearly, and promised that we would introduce a Bill, and here we have the final result.

This measure is possibly not watertight, but we sincerely trust that it will deter persons who do not mean well from interfering in the affairs of the non-white population groups for personal gain. The Government has confidence in the Coloureds, and this Bill is not aimed against the Coloureds, but against those Whites who want to exploit the Coloureds. Neither need there be any doubt that the penalty provisions in the Act will be strictly applied in case of offences.

I want to conclude by stressing once again that as Whites we are the guardians of the non-white population groups, and as befits honest guardians, we must, by virtue of the position of trust in which we find ourselves, protect the rights of the non-Whites against being interfered with in any way whatsoever. If the Government should fail to protect the political rights of the non-white population groups against the exploitation of these rights which is taking place at present and has taken place in the past, it would seriously fail in its duty and would also be an accessory to that unlawful exploitation.

Over the years the National Party has always in all honesty and sincerity carried out its duty as guardian of the non-white population groups, and now, too, it will again fulfil its duty by doing everything within its power to protect them against the robbers of their political rights, who apparently have as their object not to promote the interests of the non-Whites, but only to further their own personal ambitions. By robbing the non-Whites of their political rights and by once again making them a political football in white politics, they are apparently trying to revive so-called political doctrines which the white electorate has repeatedly rejected most emphatically. Repeated warnings by members of the Government against these unlawful actions on the part of some Whites have simply been ignored in the past. Therefore it would not be worthy of us as well-meaning and honest guardians to shy away from this problem any longer.

I would seriously advise hon. members to think deeply about this matter so that we may discuss it during this debate in a manner which I trust will accord with our dignity and sincere intentions as white guardians.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Mr. Speaker, although we on this side of the House are against the acceptance of financial aid by political parties from sources outside the Republic of South Africa—we feel that practice is undesirable and should be put an end to—we find ourselves unable to support the legislation as put forward by the hon. the Minister. Despite the arguments of the Minister that there is need for this legislation, even after the removal of the Coloured Representatives in this House and the Coloured Representatives in the provincial council, the fact is that we are faced here to-day with legislation of a very far-reaching kind which I make bold to say is striking evidence of the failure of this Government to get electoral support from any of the non-European groups in South Africa.

The Minister has said that in view of this removal, the need is perhaps not as great as it was, and yet this is very far-reaching legislation indeed. I think we have to ask ourselves whether it is justified and whether it is going to achieve the object with which the hon. the Minister sets out, and whether it is not possible that it may have effects which are not expected at the moment and which may do quite a bit of damage to our relations between the races in South Africa.

This is one of the matters which was discussed by the Commission which was appointed to go into the improper political interference and the political representation of the various population groups. If one reads the minority report in that Report, one finds the minority group says that, “Having given careful consideration to the voluminous memoranda and evidence which this Commission received on the Prohibition of Improper Interference Bill, we came to the considered conclusion that the Bill should not be proceeded with, inter alia, for the following specific reasons …” I want to name just three of those reasons because I think one is irrelevant now because of the changed type of legislation we have before us. The first reason was the following—

It is not practicable and it conflicts with the principle of good government to separate politically the population groups of the Republic of South Africa (which are interdependent economically) into watertight compartments.

The second reason is—

It is unwise and unnecessary to prohibit members of the separate population groups in the Republic of South Africa from associating in appropriate bodies and from discussing freely all matters affecting the common welfare of our South African nation.

I have excluded the third reason, because I do not think it is relevant at this stage. The fourth reason reads as follows—

Throughout its deliberations the Commission was faced with the impossibility of finding a practical and acceptable definition of “improper” interference not already covered by the Electoral laws …

I leave out the portion dealing with financial aid from overseas and I quote paragraph 5, which reads as follows—

After full discussion on the proposals to amend the Prohibition of Improper Interference Bill we came to the considered conclusion that the suggested amendments were impractical and not suitable for legislation. We therefore did not participate in formulating the recommendations on the said Bill.

This Bill before us embodies really the recommendations which the minority group on that Commission thought were impracticable and not suitable for legislation. I think if one examines the Bill, one finds that first of all it is based on the report of the Commission in which the irregularities, the malpractices of which evidence was given, were limited virtually entirely to malpractices already covered by the Electoral laws. I do not think there is evidence in that Commission’s report—I speak under correction—of malpractices not covered by the electoral laws. This Bill goes a great deal further than that and it was interesting to me to notice when the hon. the Minister introduced it, he himself said this Bill would be applied “sover dit prakties moontlik is”. I think, Sir, he himself appreciated the difficulties. I think the fact that no prosecution will take place under this Bill otherwise than by the personal direction of the Attorney-General of the province concerned, is indicative of the fact that he realizes that this Bill is so cast that he may catch fish that he did not intend to catch at all. One has difficulties almost at once, when one starts examining the Bill. The hon. the Minister speaks in clause 1 (b) of an “agent”, and says an “agent as defined in the Electoral Act”. If that is what the hon. the Minister means, I hope it will be incorporated in the Act, because at the moment all we have is the word “agent”, which has a very different meaning from “agent” as defined in the Electoral Act.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I must admit that I am not sure of the definition of “agent” under the Electoral Act, but what is meant by an “agent” here, is “agent” in the general sense of the word. One becomes an agent, not appointed under the Electoral Act, but by somebody else, who pays one to be his agent. It is meant in the broader sense of the word.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I accept the Minister’s explanation entirely. It is not my custom to try and fight on the basis of the meaning of words. Let us agree on what it is the Minister wants to legislate about. I accept that he means then that it is an agent in the broad sense of the word, so that, for instance, if I employ a driver to fetch people to the polls, that would be an “agent” of a kind.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

If one would for instance …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I think this is a matter which can be discussed in the Committee Stage.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I can reply to that …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I cannot allow a debate like this at this stage.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister will forgive my rudeness in remaining on my feet, but I am afraid that if I sit down I will lose my opportunity to continue.

That is one of the troubles. Then the hon. the Minister spoke of “openbare vergaderings”. The Bill says “any meeting”. It is not limited to public meetings. Is it the Minister’s intention to limit the Bill to public meetings? Because the Bill speaks here of “any meeting, gathering or assembly”. That is obviously not a public meeting.

I would just like to raise one other point while we are on this. The hon. the Minister says I admitted there was exploitation and malpractices in connection with the Coloured electorate. I think in almost every speech in which I mentioned it, I dealt with the malpractices as applying to registration and the electoral roll. But the Minister himself admits that the Bill is not watertight. I think we are going to find that in certain important respects it possibly is not watertight and perhaps in certain respects we would like to see it applied very much more strictly. My trouble with this Bill first of all is that it is so vaguely drafted that it is difficult to know how it is going to apply. The most important clause is clause 2. That deals first of all with a member of any political party. Nowhere in this Bill is a political party defined. What is a political party, Mr. Speaker? If you are a political party, must you be a party which puts up candidates at an election? And if it is a party which puts up candidates at elections, must it be at elections for the House of Assembly, or elections for the Provincial Council? Or is it sufficient that they are put up for the Coloured People’s Representative Council, the Legislative Assembly in the Transkei, or is it sufficient if you put up candidates for the municipal elections? Or can there be a political party without putting up candidates in elections, if they stand for a point of view and propagate it, make propaganda for it and try and persuade people that that is the right sort of thing to support?

Nowhere in our Constitution is a political party defined. Nowhere in the Interpretation Act is a political party defined. It is going to be very important indeed for this Bill to decide what a political party is. We may get the oddest results. We may find ourselves in the position that a political party is a party putting candidates for the Cape Town municipal elections, in which Coloureds and Europeans are both entitled to vote. How are we going to conduct those elections? This is the difficulty that exists. It seems to me that ’his essential portion of clause 2 (a) is so vague that it is virtually meaningless and it will not be possible to apply it without getting some extremely odd results. In any event we, on this side of the House, are not in favour of mixed political parties. But is there anything wrong with those who want to have them? That could do no harm in certain circumstances. Must they be ruled out altogether where people of two different groups vote in the same election for the same candidate, as still happens in certain parts of South Africa? We have the general meaning of clause 2, and for me clause 2 is incompatible with the maintenance of white leadership in South Africa. It is incompatible, and I think also it is inconsistent with a lot of the evidence which has been given before the commission which went into this matter. But it is quite clear that a large number of the Coloured organizations are still seeking white guidance, white support, white leadership. They wish to retain that leadership. Most of the witnesses that dealt with this matter seem to think that legislation of the kind envisaged here, is not possible. The Government prohibits mixed political parties under this Bill, but itself takes the right under other legislation to nominate 20 members of the Coloured People’s Representative Council.

Dr. C. P. MULDER:

It is the Government, not the party.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

It is quite right. The hon. member says it is the Government and not the party. But for a long time this Nationalist Party has been trying to identify itself with the State. It has been trying to take power for itself as a party, power which no party should have, even if it forms the government of the country.

The PRIME MINISTER:

That is no argument at all.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

The hon. Prime Minister says this is no argument at all. Of course it is no argument; he can interfere, but nobody else can. He can nominate the 20; nobody else must be allowed to participate in the elections or influence them in any way. Is that just?

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Would you like the Opposition to nominate them?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

The hon. the Minister says: Would you like to do this, would you like to do that? I do think those people are not going to support the Government by and large, whether they are inside or outside the party. Is this not interference of the kind we are hoping to stop?

Then we come to clause 2 (b), and we find that this clause completely prevents the implementation of the policy which the United Party, this side of the House, stands for. We stand for representation of Coloureds in this House, either by Europeans or by Coloureds. If clause 2 (b) is effective, how can a European fight for an election if he is not allowed to have a member of another group on his electoral committee, or not allowed to have a member of another group as an agent of his of any kind in the election? We stand for representation in this House of Bantu by Whites. How can they be elected if clause 2 (b) becomes law? Here is an attempt to separate into watertight compartments by means of penal legislation the politics of Whites and non-Whites in South Africa, which are affected by the same major issue, and to try and limit the means by which this House discovers what the non-Whites are thinking, through channels provided and controlled by the Government and by the Government alone.

What kind of alternative blueprint are we getting for South Africa if this legislation is applied? You can no longer have representation of non-Whites by Whites in this House or any other body where they are chosen by election. You can no longer have them working easily, if they are electing people for the same body of any political kind. We cannot accept legislation of this kind. Is the hon. the Prime Minister so afraid that he and his party will get no support from non-Whites that he must try by means of this legislation to make it impossible for Whites to participate as representatives if necessary on behalf of non-Whites in this body or any other body? What is going to be the position of the Minister of Coloured Affairs who under other legislation is going to address the Coloured Council?

Clause 2 (c) provides that:

No person who belongs to one population group, may address any meeting, gathering or assembly of persons of whom all or the greater majority belong to any other population group or groups, for the purpose of furthering the interests of a political party or the candidature of any person who has been nominated or may be nominated as a candidate for an election referred to in paragraph (b).

That limits free election. But the purpose of furthering the interests of a political party is not limited to elections referred to in paragraph (b). What is the position of the Minister of Coloured Affairs when he addresses the representatives of the Coloured People’s Representative Council to further the interests of the Nationalist Party by telling them what the policy is he wants them to support. What is the position of a politician who is invited to speak at a Coloured university to set out the policy of his party? Does he fall within the ambit of this Bill? What is meant by “for the purpose of furthering the interests of a political party”? Where does it begin and where does it end? If articles are written in a newspaper furthering the interests of a political party and those articles are made available to members of an individual group by way of an address read by somebody, would that be furthering the interests of a political party? It also talks about “a gathering or assembly of persons of whom all or the greater majority belong to any other population group …” When does a majority become the greater majority? Is it the moment you have one more person than the number of persons on the other side? Is it the moment you are over 50 per cent or must it be a greater majority even than that? This Bill bristles with vagueness and difficulties which are not going to make it easy at all to interpret and apply. What is going to happen to the existing Coloured representatives? Are they going to be allowed to report back to their voters? They are not going to be allowed to address a meeting or an assembly of persons of whom all or the greater majority belong to another population group, in the interests of a political party. But they would address it in the interests of a political party and they would tell the Coloured people concerned what they think of the Government. Are they going to be prohibited in terms of this Bill from reporting back to the people who elected them for the time they still remain in this House?

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

There is only one who belongs to a party.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Is he going to be prohibited from reporting back to the people who elected him? Is he going to be victimized? There is nothing to stop the other Coloured representatives from joining political parties. What will happen if one joins the Nationalist Party? Will he be prohibited as well from reporting back to his voters as to why he had done so? Would he be able to do this if he changed his mind and thought that the hon. the Minister of the Interior had done him a good turn and he wanted them all in future to support the policy of the Government? He is prohibited from doing that in terms of this Bill. Is that what the hon. the Minister means? Is that what he is trying to achieve here? When you start going into this legislation, it is so vague that it is going to apply to a lot of people whom I am sure the Minister does not intend to get in his net. Secondly, it is designed to divide the people of South Africa into different watertight groups politically. Why has this been done? It is because hon. members on that side of the House find themselves incapable of applying the electoral laws in such a way as to avoid the abuses they have seen in elections in the past. That would not be impossible if they set about it in the proper way. What is the result going to be? We are not going to know what the Coloured people or the Bantu people are thinking. Our only contact with them in this House will be through the Minister of Coloured Affairs who comes here and tells us what the Coloured People’s Representative Council is thinking. If he does not want us to know what they are thinking, we will not know what they are thinking. We are not going to be allowed to address meetings to persuade them that what they are thinking is wrong. That is limited to the Minister, who can go to the Council and tell them that they are wrong. He can do that not only in the interests of the Government but in the interests of the Nationalist Party as well. This is not the kind of legislation which we on this side of the House can support, however much we are against abuses under our electoral laws, and however much we are against political parties getting financial assistance from overseas.

I come now to clause 3, which deals with the question of a political party or a member of such a party or other persons who from outside the Republic receives financial aid which is to be used for a variety of reasons or to combat any aim or principle of a political party. What do we mean by “to combat any aim or principle of a political party”? First of all I want to know what a political party is and secondly what is meant by combating any aim or principle of a political party. Does this refer to any political party? Suppose it is combating the principles of the Liberal Party or the Progressive Party. Is that what the hon. the Minister wants? What is going to happen in the case of Mr. S. E. D. Brown, editor of the S.A. Observer? It will be most interesting to try to forecast what will happen if they were to receive any assistance. We are in principle against financial aid being given from outside South Africa to political parties here.

Dr. C. P. MULDER:

What is a political party in your view?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

The hon. member will be free to define a political party when he makes his speech. I hope he will and I am sure the hon. the Minister will be grateful for his help. I do feel that this clause is so wide that we may find churches being dragged in under it. We may find religious societies being dragged in. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Minister. I think that at the Committee Stage we must have a very careful look at this clause to see whether we must not arrange for exceptions to avoid catching bodies of that kind in this net. In the way this clause is worded at the moment it would apply to a South African citizen living outside South Africa. If I am living outside South Africa and I am a good South African knowing what a hard time the Nationalist Party has getting funds at its elections and I want to send some money to South Africa for them, I will be prohibited in terms of this clause from doing so. Is that what the hon. the Minister wants? This clause is framed in such a way that it is going to be difficult to apply. I am told by the financial experts that even framed as it is, it will not be adequate to catch the man who is determined to get money into South Africa by devious means. I therefore think that this clause must be considered very carefully.

Then I come to clause 4, which lays down penalties. In paragraph (a) it is stipulated that in the case of a first conviction, the penalty is to be a fine of not less than R300 and not more than R600, or imprisonment for a period of not less than six months or more than 12 months, or both such fine and such imprisonment, When there is a second conviction the minimum fine and term of imprisonment are, of course, higher. We have always been totally opposed to minimum sentences for legislation of this kind. Where legislation is as vague as this Bill is and with legislation where you may find yourself with results which were totally unexpected in all respects, and unwanted I believe by the hon. the Minister, then these minimum penalties are too severe. The matter should be left to the discretion of the courts. Furthermore, there is the other provision which I think can be interpreted as an admission of weakness on the part of the hon. the Minister. I refer to clause 4 (2)—

No prosecution in respect of an offence under this section shall be instituted except on the express direction of the Attorney-General concerned.

Attorneys-General are very responsible people. That being so, how in all honesty are they going to find out exactly what we intend with this legislation? How is he to decide when to institute a prosecution and when not? I think the Minister is here throwing a totally unfair burden on the Attorneys-General in South Africa.

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

It is the same as under any other legislation. The Attorney-General decides primarily, and the courts finally.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I defy the hon. member for Prinshof to produce another Bill as vaguely and as loosely framed as this Bill, a Bill which may mean so many other things—things which the Minister did not intend.

The PRIME MINISTER:

I have heard that argument at least three times in connection with other matters.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Let me tell the hon. the Prime Minister that if he thinks the salaries of his draftsmen should be raised, I shall support him. I know his difficulties at the present time. I know how this House waited for legislation because Bills could not be drafted in time. But if the Prime Minister says he has heard this argument on three occasions then let me tell him that it was justified on every one of those occasions, as it is on this occasion.

The PRIME MINISTER:

You never came to this House with examples.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Lastly, we find in the long title of the Bill provision to “prohibit interference by one population group in the politics of any other population group and the receipt by political parties of financial assistance from abroad”. In the short title, however, this Bill has suddenly become the “Prohibition of Improper Interference” Bill, without “improper interference” being defined anywhere. Why is there this difference? Why does the long title provide “to prohibit interference” only whereas the short title talks about “improper” interference? This Bill makes some attempt to prohibit assistance to political parties by means of funds from abroad. This we support. But otherwise this Bill is so vague and contains so many bad proposals that we on this side of the House cannot support it. It will render the application of race policies for which we stand in South Africa impossible. We believe the alternative blueprint is one that is undesirable and one which must lead to racial friction in South Africa. In the circumstances, we cannot support it.

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a very feeble attempt to oppose this measure. The arguments advanced by him sometimes verged on the ludicrous. He dealt with the Bill from the long title to the short title, and after having given free reins to his imagination, he intimated that he did not understand the measure. But I think that the fault lies in his not having read the Bill. In the course of his argument he brought forward points against the measure, points which in my estimation had nothing to do with the matter. Among other things he asked, What is the position of the Press in terms of this legislation? But the Press is nowhere involved in this legislation; nowhere is mention made of the Press; there is nowhere a clause or provision which gives any indication that the Press is involved. Then he also asked what the position of the Minister would be if he should have to appear before the Coloured Persons Representative Council. But this Bill is concerned with political activities, especially in elections. The Minister is not going to appear before the Coloured Persons Representative Council to talk politics. Furthermore, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that he did not know what this legislation included, and what elections would be covered by it. “Are city council elections perhaps covered?,” he asked. But if he had looked at clause 2 (b) he would have seen to what elections this legislation is limited. In fact, each election is stipulated.

He went further and described this legislation as “in conflict with the principle of White guardianship”. But in my opinion this legislation specifically takes the principle of White guardianship into account. It takes into account the fact that the Whites can give assistance to the non-Whites from time to time as long as this happens within the framework of the legislation. It is for this very reason that clause 2 (b) provides that a minority group of non-Whites may be present at conferences and discussions, i.e. when political matters are not involved. Therefore I say that this Bill specifically takes this principle into account.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went further and said that the members who signed the minority report, found that it was unnecessary to have this legislation. I shall return to this later and deal with it in greater detail. I want to prove that this legislation is necessary, and that it is essential that we place it on the Statute Book. I want to begin by saying that the most important reason, virtually the central reason, why White political parties interfere in the politics of other race groups, is the political advantage which they can gain by so doing. The political gain which could be achieved in the past by Whites and White political parties being able to have candidates elected to certain councils by making use of non-White votes, was the main reason for interference and improper interference. We have examples of this throughout the political history of the Cape Province, where non-White groups have shared political rights with the White man from time to time. The most striking proof of what happened we find in the latest provincial election, when an obsolete political party, which is in disfavour with the Whites, succeeded in reaching the Cape Provincial Council on the backs of the Coloured voters. In the process scandalous malpractices were perpetrated. Now, as a result of legislation being piloted through this House, each race group will in the future be assigned to its own political institutions, and this will remove the sting, the central cause, of political interference from the political struggle. In future non-Whites will no longer be expected to vote for White candidates for Parliament and for provincial councils, and the inducement to interfere will therefore no longer exist, because the political advantage thereby achieved will not be there directly. As a result of this our task is being considerably simplified and this legislation is much simpler than the original legislation which was referred to a commission of inquiry. Experience has taught us that it is very difficult, and that a very intricate law is required, if one is faced with a situation where you expect voters in one population group to vote for candidates in another population group. Such a state of affairs requires intricate legislation and if one does not want to make the position of candidates in such an election untenable, one can hardly contrive efficient legislation. Therefore, with this obstacle out of the way, in that it will no longer be expected of one population group as voters to vote for candidates of another population group, with this sting of political interference—the greatest inducement to political interference—removed, the question may arise, as the hon. the Minister also mentioned, whether further legislation against interference is still justified. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition now says that members who signed the minority report of the commission found after deliberation that it was not necessary and that no justification existed for further legislation against interference. The hon. members who signed the minority report, came to this conclusion notwithstanding the fact that the commission was specifically appointed as a result of improper interference which existed to such a degree that a prima facie case had been made out, which was accepted by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It is a case which was made out, among others, by the hon. member for Peninsula, and which convinced the Opposition and this House that it was necessary, that there was sufficient reason for it, and sufficient evidence of improper interference to justify the appointment of a commission. Notwithstanding this, hon. members say that they find no justification for legislation in this connection, apart from the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now admitted in his speech that under certain circumstances, to prevent certain actions, legislation would indeed be necessary, such as the receiving of money from abroad. I should like to know how he will control it if he does not control it through legislation. Hon. members who signed the minority report say that legislation is not necessary, notwithstanding the fact that 14 of the 19 witnesses concerned admitted that there should be some or other form of control over interference. This fact was proved by the hon. member for Odendaalsrus with chapter and verse from the report and I do not want to cover the whole field to-day. I only want to refer to this. Numerous non-White organizations and non-White witnesses asked for control on a political level. They asked for it, but notwithstanding the weight of the evidence in this connection, hon. members who signed the minority report say that they find no justification for such legislation.

There are many other reasons why we find this legislation necessary. It is very clear that present legislation, including the Electoral Act, is not sufficient to combat improper interference and abuses. The hon. member said to-day that nothing is taking place which cannot be combated under the Electoral Act. The recent election which has been mentioned proved that the Electoral Act was not adequate to eliminate the malpractices. There were various convictions in the courts and people were found guilty. [Interjections.] Yes, but what did not take place which was never revealed. Many transgressors are still free and the hon. member for Umlazi knows of them. The trouble is that the United Party and the Progressive Party, who fought the last provincial election, the National Party not participating, know what went on behind the secenes. The United Party did not lift a finger to help the State bring the offenders to book. The State went out of its way and succeeded in bringing many of these people to book. The fact that so many offences took place and that the hon. member for Peninsula read out a long ream of evidence here which cries out to high heaven and which even paled those hon. members with shame, is clear proof to us that the existing legislation is not sufficient to deal with these matters.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

Can the hon. member give us an example where somebody could not be prosecuted or found guilty under the Electorial Law?

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

If the hon. member would make inquiries at the local electoral office, the head official would furnish him with all cases which could not succeed in the courts through lack of evidence, but where there were obvious offences. We want to concede that abuses can indeed be combated to a degree under the Electorial Act. One can make the Electoral Act even stricter so that it may have a firmer grip on these people committing the abuses. One can even attempt to control the handling of money during an election under the Electoral Act which was in fact attempted in the past, although I must admit that it was a failure. We all know that the Electoral Act in the past provided that returns of election costs had to be submitted. It was a farce, and could not be done properly. However, I say that a person can try to do it in terms of the Electoral Act, but the question of interference cannot be controlled in terms of the Electoral Act and legislation is necessary for that. It is merely a question of whether we tolerate interference or whether we do not. If one does not want it, there must be legislation. It is a matter of principle, i.e. whether interference in the politics of one race group by another should be tolerated. It is a matter of principle and the National Party supports the principle that there should not be interference. This is the basic difference between the National Party and the United Party. If the National Party’s policy of separate development is accepted, there must be a law prohibiting malpractices such as these, namely mixed political parties, agents and mixed election committees. This is what the National Party believes. However, the United Party does not believe in this. They are accustomed to mixed political parties, and history is full of examples of political integration on the part of the Opposition. In their day they did not only have a mixed membership of Whites and Coloureds within the same political party; in certain constituencies they had branches with Bantu members, Indian members, Coloured members and White members, when the Bantu were still on the voters’ roll.

*Mr. T. HUGHES:

Where was that?

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party associates come forward quite piously and say that they are not in favour of mixed political parties, but they are accustomed to it and are therefore still pleading for it to-day.

*An HON. MEMBER:

You cannot mention a single example.

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

They are accustomed to mixed election committees.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Where?

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

Through all the years. That hon. member knows nothing about that because he does not reside in these parts. It is so and no hon. member on that side who has knowledge of these matters will deny that they had mixed election committees in virtually every constituency in the Cape Province to canvass for the Coloured vote. Sir, this was not only the case in the past; it is still the case to-day. In purely White elections everywhere in the Peninsula, of which I have experience, one finds vehicles at each ballot box with non-White drivers fetching voters for the United Party. They are therefore accustomed to this sort of thing; to us it is objectionable. But, what is more, at the most recent election the election committee of the hon. member for Salt River included a large number of Coloureds who constituted his office staff—Coloured women and Coloured men. The hon. member for South Coast does not want to believe me; he is gaping. Sir, the United Party is accustomed to political integration and it is still happening to-day. Therefore they find it strange for us to want to make an end to this kind of political integration. But we cannot tolerate it. Mr. Speaker, I leave the matter there. I think that I have given sufficient proof of the present position.

I want to go further and say that it is necessary that the non-White population groups should be granted the opportunity of controlling and attending to their own political affairs. They want this; they have asked for it. They do not want interference. [Interjections.] Yes, they have asked for it; that hon. member knows nothing about it. He is like a Rip van Winkel; he is living in another century. I say that the non-Whites do not want interference. It is quite apparent from the report. Fourteen of the 19 witnesses concerned said that they did not want interference. I should also just like to quote from a few cuttings (translation)—

Coloureds support the legislation. The majority of Coloureds are in favour of the Bill which envisages the exclusion of Whites from Coloured politics, Mr. Solly Essop, Leader of the Republican Coloured Party, said at Beaufort West.

Here I have another cutting (translation)—

The Federale Volksparty opposed to interference by White parties.

Here is another cutting from Die Banier of December, 1964—

“Curtail White interference in our politics”.

There was a debate in the Coloured Advisory Board and that was the consensus of opinion there. The members of the Board said that there should be control of interference by Whites in their politics. Tom Schwartz, the leader of the Federale Kleurlingparty said—

Keep out of Coloured people’s elections. Our people are tired of being political footballs.

Sir, I say the Coloureds do not want the Whites and the White political parties to interfere in their affairs. Since we are now entrusting greater political powers and high-level control over their own affairs to the Coloured population groups to an increasing extent and since these political institutions which we are creating are actually political training schools for many of them because they are lacking in knowledge in this regard and because these institutions cover ground which they have not previously traversed, we must encourage them to strive towards political maturity and to develop according to their own choice. It only leads to racial discord and strife and ill-feeling amongst the various race groups if one race group is allowed to interfere in the politics of another. The hon. members for Orange Grove and Bezuidenhout know how we Whites were disappointed at the United Party because throughout the years they dragged the non-Whites into the quarrels of the Whites. The hon. member for Orange Grove has condemned it more than any member on this side of the House. He took photographs of how the hon. member for Sea Point carried the non-Whites in his arms into the polling booths. It was objectionable to us; it aroused racial discord. We must save the Coloureds and the other race groups these things of which we have had this bitter experience. We must prevent the Whites from once again causing offence by interfering in the political disputes of non-White groups. We have the experience and we owe it to the non-White groups—they expect it of us—to offer them this protection.

The main reason why we must have this legislation is that we must be in a position to deal with Whites who have false motives and therefore interfere in the politics of the non-Whites. History has taught us that we have leftist elements in this country, elements which are activated by White capital and White brains, which will stop at nothing to bring about the downfall of White civilization in this country and which will try anything to disturb the peace and order and to cause ill-feeling between Whites and non-Whites. Nothing is too base for them; they will not hesitate for one moment to try and make these political groups and these political institutions the instruments for their dirty work. They have already tried to do that dirty work in the Transkei and we would be fools to be under any illusion that they would not also try to do it in the case of the other non-White national groups which are now receiving their own political institutions. This legislation must be a deterrent to them in advance. Let them be warned. In terms of this Act we shall deal ruthlessly with those who envisage the possibility of making these non-White political institutions the instruments for doing their dirty work in South Africa. There are many people who would want these institutions which we are giving to the non-White group not to serve their purpose; they would put any spoke in the wheel to have them fail because they do not endorse the principle of separate development. Many people are bent on trying to create racial discord and racial tension in South Africa at all times. There are evildoers who would try in any way possible to disturb the peace and order in South Africa. Let them all take cognizance of this legislation. The National Party will not tolerate such improper interference and such undermining, and if this legislation does not make sufficient provision for dealing with these people, then this House and this party will not hesitate for a single moment to take more drastic measures and greater powers for combating these evils among the various race groups.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Sir, if the hon. member for Parow demonstrated anything in his peroration, I think it was that my hon. leader was right when he said that hon. members opposite tend to equate the Government and the Nationalist Party. But this hon. member went even further. He even made this House part of that same process. The hon. member unfortunately did not have all his facts right. He said that we had in the United Party mixed election committees and mixed branches. He is wrong.

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

You had them.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

But one can understand the hon. member being wrong about what happens in the United Party, but it is very difficult to understand how the hon. member can get up and make a bald statement of fact to the effect that there are certain malpractices which cannot be dealt with by the existing electoral laws or by an amendment to those laws. He says that, and when the hon. member for Umlazi asked him to give an example, he said: If you want to know, go and ask the chief electoral officer.

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

Oh no, I gave examples.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

The hon. member did not; he said we should ask the official concerned. But on page 49 of the report of the Commission of which the hon. member was a member, he says that he has had no complaints of this nature which, as far as he, the electoral officer, is concerned, cannot be dealt with by the existing legislation. But the hon. member says that we must go and ask him, and this is his answer. Is it then not a fact that whatever the complaints are that the hon. member has about these malpractices, they can be dealt with by an amendment to the existing electoral process or by the existing laws?

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

What about interference?

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Now the hon. member talks about interference. What is interference? Here we have a Bill talking about interference, but there is no definition of interference at all, and what the hon. member will call interference and what I may call interference may be two different things. But what the hon. member calls interference is in many respects what I would call some sort of meaningful contact with another race, what I would call dialogue with another race, what I would perhaps call consultation with another race group, or what I would call just making myself informed as to the feelings and the thoughts of another race group. But that would not occur to the hon. member for Parow or other hon. members opposite. They have deliberately pushed aside any form of contact or consultation with other race groups, and they are prepared, as my leader has indicated, to have all their contacts through the Minister, who will seek them through his Department.

The hon. member had the impertinence to say that my hon. leader had not read the Bill, and he had the impertinence to say that some of the arguments of my hon. leader bordered on the absurd. One of the examples my leader gave was that of a Coloured Representative. Take the example of the hon. member for Karoo. We have just had the second reading of a Bill which now makes it lawful for the hon. member for Karoo to stay in this House until the dissolution of this Parliament. Let us assume that this Parliament will run its normal course until 1971. In terms of their own statute, he is by law a member of this House, a lawful representative of the coloured people, elected as a United Party member, and elected on the United Party platform. Now we have the extraordinary position that he commits an offence if he goes back and reports to his constituency what he as their representative elected under the United Party banner has done for them during this Session. What an extraordinary position!

An HON. MEMBER:

How lucky he is!

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

There you have it, “How lucky he is!”. In other words, here is an hon. member who is prepared to accept that he is lucky in that he need not go and do his duty. [Interjections.] But one must agree that it is quite absurd to have a situation like this.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

To which clause are you referring?

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

I am referring to clause 2 (c). The hon. Minister may not have read it, but it says that no person who belongs to one population group may address any meeting, gathering or assembly of persons of whom all or the greater majority belong to another population group or groups for the purpose of furthering the interests of a political party or the candidature of a person who has been nominated.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

He can still tell them what happened in Parliament, but he cannot canvass support for any political party.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Has the hon. the Minister ever known anyone having to report back to his constituency without flying his own banner also? The hon. member was elected under the United Party banner, and he goes back to report, not only as their member but also as a member of the United Party. He goes back to tell them what he has done here, and what he has done as a member of the United Party is to oppose this Government, and he tells them why he, as a member of the United Party, did what he did, and in so doing he furthers the interests of the United Party. [Interjections.]

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

If he tells them that one party or another, an existing non-White party, is fostering the objectives of the United Party and he says he asks them to support that party, then he is interfering but otherwise not.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

If the hon. the Minister had read this Bill, he would not say such things. If that is his intention, I suggest that he look at the Bill once again. That is not what the Bill says. It is not merely a report-back meeting; there are other matters, too. If the hon. member for Karoo goes back and consults with certain people, there is a gathering. What is a “gathering” in law? It is not defined in this Bill, but it was mentioned in the Suppression of Communism Act and it was then interpreted by the courts as a meeting consisting of more than two people. If the hon. member goes and consults the people, who is to say he is not furthering the interests of the United Party, because he is here as a member of the United Party, elected on our platform? This is nonsense, Sir. But I want to go further. The hon. the Minister, when he replied to the second reading of the Bill we have just dealt with dealing with the separate representation of voters, said that the Senators who were nominated in terms of section 29 (2) (b) of the Constitution were going to remain. I want to remind the Minister of what that section says. It says—

When nominating Senators, the State President shall have regard further to the requirement that at least one of the Senators nominated from each province under this section shall be thoroughly acquainted, by reason of official experience or otherwise, with the interests of the coloured population in the province for which the said Senator is nominated and that the said Senator should be capable, inter alia, of serving as the channel …

Not a channel, but the channel—

… through which the interests of the said coloured population in that province may be promoted.

How can he promote their interests? This seems to divert a little from the principles the Minister has enunciated, but here we have the situation that they are going to remain and that the Coloureds’ interests will be promoted through the Senate, and not through this House because their representatives here will go. But how can these people ever promote the interests of the coloured people if they do not meet them, if they do not hold a meeting of coloured people, and address them, and invite questions?

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

But their interests need not be those of a political party.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

I am coming to that. They are all nominated, and so they are all Nationalists.

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

Not necessarily.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

The hon. member is really naive. Has there ever been anyone appointed to the Senate by this Nationalist Party who was not a Nationalist except one, who was a Communist? Apart from the one that was a Communist and whom the Nationalist Party nominated, namely, Senator Petterson, every other one was a Nationalist. This is part of the deal. Of course he is.

The MINISTER OF SPORT AND RECREATION:

I thought you were talking of Senator Berman, also a Communist in the United Party.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

That is a nasty thing to say. [Interjections.] This is the sort of thing one can expect from the hon. the Minister.

The MINISTER OF SPORT AND RECREATION:

[Inaudible.]

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

I would say this for the hon. gentleman about whom this hon. Minister is talking, which will distinguish him from this hon. Minister; he has some brains.

The MINISTER OF SPORT AND RECREATION:

Just like you.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

How are these men going to promote the interests of the coloured people if they do not ever have a meeting and they are going to be Nationalists? There is no exception and there never has been an exception. The hon. the Minister and other hon. gentlemen will no doubt rely upon the fact that everything in the end depends upon the Attorney-General. Everyone who addresses a meeting will commit an offence. Every Commissioner-General who talks to a gathering of Bantu is going to commit an offence under this Act. What else are they doing except telling them what the Government’s policy is. What is Government policy if it is not in fact the policy of the Nationalist Party? This is what they have been saying all the time. Is this not exactly what it is all about? And so he commits an offence. The hon. member for Karoo is going to commit an offence. When the Minister talks to the Coloured Affairs Council he will commit an offence. When the Secretary talks to the Coloured Affairs Council he will commit an offence. When in fact the regional representatives talk to gatherings of these people about the implementation of the Government’s policy, they will be committing an offence under this Bill. But they will not be prosecuted, because that is in the discretion of the Attorney-General. When the Attorney-General decides whether to prosecute or not, he is going to have, as my hon. Leader said, some difficulty. But if the Attorney-General does not want to prosecute, then there is still something else this Government can do, because the hon. the Minister of Justice can tell him to prosecute. There is no denial from the hon. member for Prinshof.

Mr. G. P. C. BEZUIDENHOUT:

You are reflecting on the Attorney-General.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

No, I am not reflecting on him at all. What I am saying, is that if the Attorney-General does not want to prosecute or feels he should not prosecute, the Minister may nevertheless prosecute. I am not reflecting on the Attorney-General. The Minister has the power, and let me read it to the hon. member. In terms of section 5 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act “Every Attorney-General shall exercise the authority and perform his functions under this Act, or under any other law, subject to the control and direction of the Minister, who may reverse any decision arrived at by an Attorney-General and may himself in general or in any specific matter exercise any part of such authority and perform any such function”.

An HON. MEMBER:

How many times has that occurred?

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

It is when one gets legislation like this that that power is likely to be exercised. What sort of stuff is this for an Attorney-General? The Attorney-General is concerned with the commission of offences; he is concerned with law and order. He is concerned with unlawful matters; he is not concerned with nonsensical, political, Alice-in-Wonderland stuff like this. The Attorney-General is, as my hon. Leader said, going to have great difficulty in interpreting what it is that the legislature is getting at. He is going to have great difficulty, for the simple reason that he is a lawyer and there are hardly any terms here which are defined. There is the situation that in fact, as I have said, all those examples that I gave are offences under this Act. The Attorney-General will not prosecute. And if he does prosecute, and he does prosecute a Nationalist or someone who is postulating and furthering Nationalist Party policy, or the Government’s policy, I wonder whether perhaps his colleagues might not persuade the hon. the Minister to exercise his powers.

Mr. G. P. C. BEZUIDENHOUT:

Now you are talking a lot of nonsense. You are talking absolute nonsense.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

You say that is quite impossible?

Mr. G. P. C. BEZUIDENHOUT:

I think it is quite impossible. Mention one case in 20 years’ time.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

I agree it is very unlikely, it is almost laughable to think that a Commissioner-General would be prosecuted for addressing a group of Bantu.

Mr. G. P. C. BEZUIDENHOUT:

Of course it is laughable.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Of course it is. It is laughable to think that that would happen because it would make this Bill even more laughable than it is. The fact of the matter is this. He does in fact commit an offence. What about all the other people who obviously are not going to be prosecuted. What about the hon. member for Karoo who will commit that offence? How does he know he is not going to be prosecuted? How does he know? That is exactly the point. The object of this is to frighten people away from having any contact with any group of non-White people or any organization of non-White people, to frighten them away because they would in fact commit an offence and they would have to get the “O.K.” beforehand from the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is not in a position to give an “O.K.” beforehand. This does not happen. A person does not go to the Attorney-General and say, “Look, I am about to commit an offence, can you please give me a clearance?”. This does not happen. It is after an offence has been committed that the Attorney-General exercises his discretion. So one cannot have any contact of a political nature with any organization of non-White people unless one has the permission of the Government, unless one gets it either ex post facto or before the event. You have to get permission first. So the only White people who will be able to exercise any influence on the non-Whites will be the Government or the Nationalist Party or someone supporting the principles of that party. That is the only contact there is going to be. In clause 2 (c) one sees a complete abandonment of the right of anyone else in this country, except the Nationalist Party, to exercise the minds of the non-White people as to their thinking in this country. For clause 2 (c) prevents in effect any dialogue whatsoever or exchange of ideas between race groups, except, as I say, through the aegis of a Government agency. This is probably what is called “political separation”. Even Parliament in terms of the new pattern of things is to be entirely excluded from having any contact with the representatives of the non-White people. When the Coloured representatives are gone, Parliament is not going to be able to hear their views and decide upon them. They are going to go through the hon. the Minister and the Minister will report that which he wants.

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

Where do you see that?

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

That is not in this Bill, that is in the Bill that was dealt with before, but it is part of the same pattern. I want to go further. Officials will address these various gatherings, they will be obliged to address these gatherings, and they are obliged when they talk to them to tell them what Government policy is. That is their job, they are employed by the Government. That is what they are going to get and that is part of the very object of the Bill that we have. Is it really necessary for this Government to enforce its policy to cut off all dialogue whatsoever between Whites and non-Whites in this country, except through the Government? Is this really what they want? Let us take a gathering. Take again clause 2 (c). What is a gathering, referred to in that clause? If the interpretation of the Suppression of Communism Act is given to it, and there is no reason why it should not be, then it is a small group of two or three people. Now, how often have hon. members not been approached during the recess by non-White people? How often has one not been asked to go and address a non-White ratepayers’ association which is in one’s constituency? How often has there not been a gathering of non-White people who have come to one to complain about something? [Interjections.]

Mr. W. V. RAW:

They do not know about things like that.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

I am going to tell them. In my constituency I have a ratepayers’ association of Indians who are in a terrible state as far as telephones are concerned. They want to know what can be done and one has to deal with them. They live in my constituency. Who else can they go to?

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

Is that furthering the interests of a political party?

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Oh, wait a minute! Then there is the Group Areas Act. One has to do something about that very often. May I not be said, in addressing some of these gatherings, to be furthering the interests of a political party? The hon. gentleman over there would think I was. Look how suspicious the hon. member is that this happens. He has never heard of it. He has never heard of anyone talking to non-Whites. He is very suspicious. I want to go further. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana has shared with me several times a platform before a non-White audience. He has been asked to express the views of the Nationalist Party and I have been invited to express the views of the United Party on whatever it may be. I think it is a very good thing that they should hear all the points of view.

My hon. Leader has spoken about compartments, and I want to say this Bill believes that one can put into separate compartments the different race groups in this country. So far as politics are concerned, one can have different politics in the various communal councils of these people, in the Coloured Council, in the Indian Council. I will agree that the matters in the Indian Council are matters which concern Indians only and therefore are their own affairs. The ones in the Coloured Council would concern their own interests. But here in this House we legislate for everyone. This is the sovereign Parliament, and there is no such thing here as different politics. There is no such thing as the Coloureds having different politics from the Whites or the Indians or the Bantu—they are all politics, they are all the exercise of power, here by the majority party in this House. One cannot talk about different politics in one place which ultimately determines the destinies of all those people. I go so far as to say that the Opposition and the Opposition members have a right to know what non-Whites think, to know the effect of Government thinking on them, and to know what effect their own thinking has as an alternative Government. Surely this is part of the democratic process. We should have the right to know what they think, we should have the right to be able to ask them, because we should have the right to try and persuade them that in fact our path is one which they could well support. Especially is this true of members of Parliament and members of this Opposition since this last Bill has passed its second reading. The last vestiges of any representation by the non-White people is to disappear, and where are we to consult them, how are we to know what they think; except by some form of dialogue outside this House. But no we cannot have that either.

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

The hon. member can go and listen to the Council meetings.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

The hon. member for Prinshof is an advocate. Has he not read that Act? Surely he knows that the matters they are going to discuss are entirely matters that concern the Coloured people or the Indian people, matters that do not concern anyone else. [Interjections.] How does one ask and know what they think about matters that we deal with here? They are two completely different matters. I am not allowed to do so. I ask the hon. member opposite to pick up all the Bills on his desk and he will find every single one affects Coloureds and every single one will affect Indians.

My time is up, but before I sit down I do want to say this. This Bill demonstrates the lack of confidence that this Government has in its own policy. When you have got to the stage that this Government can introduce a Bill like this, together with the one that went before it, I think it demonstrates they have no confidence at all that the development that will take place, and is taking place, is either natural, traditional, national, or even desirable, and it demonstrates a complete lack of faith. We are confident that we do not need this sort of legislation in order to govern this country. Why do they fear the future, why is it necessary, why is there this fear? It is because they know it cannot work, and so they have to force it to work, and they are going to force it to work with measures such as this. It does not do us any good. We have heard a lot about tarnishing the image of South Africa by saying various things. The introduction of this Bill will do us more harm outside this country than anything else. [Interjections.]

An HON. MEMBER:

When will you even learn?

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Yes, they have heard it from us many times, and they will go on hearing it …

The MINISTER OF FORESTRY:

They were going to be placed back on the common roll, and you gave that up too. We heard that too.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

The hon. the Minister was probably one of the people that said it. This is where it all goes. As soon as the Government gets into trouble, it legislates. Chop this off, chop that off, and then in the end, try and force the thing through. Measures such as this they force through, a measure which one can describe only as totalitarian. We cannot possibly accept it.

Mr. S. FRANK:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban (North) found it very difficult to oppose the essence of the Bill, so he was looking around and seeking points here and there with which to criticize the Bill. But I am afraid he was not very successful. He mentioned a few points, and I will deal with them. He mentioned the nominated senators, for example, and said if they hold meetings with Coloureds then they will be contravening this measure. In all the history of this Parliament, as far as I know, no Senator has ever addressed meetings of, for instance, Coloureds in order to ascertain their views. It happened neither during the United Party’s time nor under the Nationalist Party regime. It just did not happen. Then the hon. member was much concerned about the hon. member for Karoo. He said he would not be able to address his constituents. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent this hon. member from reporting back to his constituents, and the hon. member for Durban (North) missed the point, namely the meeting to be illegal must be held for the purpose of furthering the interests of a political party or a candidate. Of course, the hon. member will not be furthering his own candidature because he cannot be a candidate. I cannot see what the United Party will want to do with the Coloureds because that party is also excluded in this respect in the next elections. If they addressed a non-White gathering then, it would not be for furthering their interests, although it might be incidental. The law will not hold that they went to the meeting for that purpose. The same applies when the hon. the Minister or officials address these Councils. They will not go there for the purpose of furthering the interests of any political party or any candidate, so that question does not arise. The same applies to a ratepayers’ association meeting. So practically all points raised by the hon. member fall away. [Interjections.]

I will deal now with the speech made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. He did the same thing, because he tried to raise all possible points that could be raised during the Committee stage, and he also evaded the main principle of the Bill. He was trying to draw a red herring across the trail. I will deal with a few matters dealt with by the hon. Leader.

The first point raised by him was what is an agent? An agent is defined in the dictionary as “a person appointed to act on or on behalf of any other person”. The meaning is clear and it was not necessary to raise that matter here.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Do you mean an election agent?

Mr. S. FRANK:

No, I mean any agent. An agent is a person appointed by another person to act for and on his behalf.

The next question he asked, is what is a political party? I am content to let the courts decide that. We all know what a political party is, and no doubt the courts will know what a political party is. The court can decide for itself.

The next point raised by the hon. member was that the Government will nominate 20 members, and he said that constitutes undue interference. The 20 members will be appointed, not elected, but the hon. Leader wanted to know why should the Government be able to nominate 20 members whilst the other parties cannot participate. It is because the Government does not enter into elections, and during elections the harm is done to race relations.

The hon. Leader also alleged that the hon. the Minister would not be able to address a Council because he would be raising political matters in the Council. The same point was raised by the hon. member for Durban (North). This will not contravene the Bill, because he does not go there for the purpose of furthering the interests of any political party.

Another point raised by the hon. member was what constitutes “the greater majority” of those present. We can also safely leave that to the courts to decide. The courts have frequently in the past had to deal with points of that nature.

Then the hon. Leader dealt with the question of money received from abroad. He stated this particular clause was too widely worded. He said his party was also opposed to money being received from abroad. I should like the hon. Leader to give us a better wording to deal with the situation which we want to guard against. We on this side will be glad to hear of a better way of phrasing it. Although the hon. Leader said the wording was too wide, he said that even so the prohibition could be circumvented.

Then the hon. Leader mentioned their main objection to the Bill, and what they object to is really the essence of the Bill. He said: If this measure is passed the United Party will not be able to proceed with its policy of having Coloured representatives being elected to this Parliament or of Whites representing Coloureds or Bantu in this Parliament. That is their main objection to this Bill. I concede that point. If this Bill is passed it will not be possible to have the groups mentioned represented in this Parliament.

I now wish to make a few remarks in general. Since Union the interference by European groups in the political activities of other racial groups has been taking place. All these years this interference was proper interference as Whites represented the different racial groups in Parliament. These Europeans were members of White political parties. Unfortunately this position was the constant cause of friction resulting in discord among the various races.

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

That was proper interference.

Mr. S. FRANK:

I said so. The interference was proper because the Whites represented the non-Whites in Parliament. With the passing of time we found, however, that the nature of this interference changed its character and it developed into improper interference because of sordid methods used by some European political parties to further the prospects of their respective candidates. The position deteriorated to such an extent that even the representatives of the Coloured community unanimously recommended a commission of inquiry into the whole question of representation in Parliament. With the abolition of Coloured representation in Parliament and the creation of separate political institutions, the whole basis of even proper interference by one group in the political affairs of another, should of necessity disappear. If we should allow interference, would it be fair, for example, to the Coloureds?

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.

The House adjourned at 7 p.m.

TUESDAY, 9TH APRIL, 1968 Prayers—2.20 p.m. QUESTIONS

For oral reply.

Bantu Occupation of Houses in White Areas *1. Mrs. H. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

  1. (1) In which Bantu townships in white urban areas have Bantu been permitted to acquire houses under 30 year leasehold;
  2. (2) how many houses are at present so held in each of these townships.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:
  1. (1) In all urban Bantu residential areas.
  2. (2) Statistics in this connection are not kept and the information can only be obtained by extensive enquiries and a large volume of work.
*2.

[Withdrawn.]

*3. Mr. J. W. L. HORN

— Reply standing over.

Police Duties in Connection with Civil Documents *4. Mr. H. M. LEWIS

asked the Minister of Police:

  1. (1) Whether any members of the Police Force are being trained to take over aliens control after the introduction of the proposed citizens’ passports by the Department of the Interior; if so,
  2. (2) whether it is the intention that the Police will check applications for (a) identity cards, (b) birth registrations, (c) permanent residence and (d) residence in group areas; if so,
  3. (3) whether arrangements have been made for the records of the Departments of the Interior, Immigration and Indian Affairs to be made available to the Police for these purposes;
  4. (4) whether application for the extension of visitors’ permits will also be made to the Police.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE:
  1. (l) No:
  2. (2) and (3) Fall away.
  3. (4) Besides at offices of the Department of the Interior, application for the extension of visitors’ permits can also be made to the police where the Department of the Interior has no offices, but only for the transmission of such applications to that Department’s head office.
    The object of this question evidently is to cause suspicion and bring the proposed system into disfavour. However, it is a pity that it is attempted in this manner.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL: Arising out of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply, especially the last part of it, is he aware that there was a newspaper report that this was going to be done by the Police by September of next year?

The DEPUTY MINISTER: The hon. member should not take notice of newspaper reports in all cases.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL: Further arising out of the reply, was this report not made available to the Deputy Minister’s Department?

Mr. H. M. LEWIS: Further arising out of the Deputy Minister’s reply, did he not take note of this report?

Bantu Education: Annual Report, 1966 *5. Mr. P. A. MOORE

asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

  1. (1) When will the Annual Report of his Department for 1966 be laid upon the Table;
  2. (2) whether there have been interim reports on special aspects of Bantu Education; if so, what reports.
The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:
  1. (1) During May, 1968.
  2. (2) No.

Mr. P. A. MOORE: Arising out of the Minister’s reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the annual report of the Department of Education, Arts and Science for the year 1967, not 1966, has already been laid on the Table?

The MINISTER: Yes, and there was a very good reason for the delay, which was not caused by my Department.

Replies standing over from Friday, 5th April, 1968

Wage Board Investigations, 1963-1967

The MINISTER OF LABOUR replied to Question *6, by Mr. G. S. Eden:

Question:
  1. (a) How many wage board investigations were carried out during each of the last five years and (b) at how many of these investigations (i) were employees directly represented at the public sittings of the wage board and (ii) did employees submit memoranda.
Reply:
  1. (a)

Year

Number of investigations

1963

8

1964

12

1965

15

1966

13

1967

14

  1. (b) (i) and (ii) In all cases memoranda were submitted on behalf of the employees. In addition, employees were directly represented at one or more public sittings during each investigation except one in 1964 and four in 1966.
Buffeljagsrivier Prison Out-Station

The MINISTER OF PRISONS replied to Question *14, by Mr. J. W. E. Wiley:

Question:
  1. (1) (a) On how many occasions during 1966, 1967 and 1968 to date, respectively, have prisoners escaped from the Buffeljagsrivier out-station in the Swellendam district, (b) how many prisoners were recaptured in each period and (c) how long after their escape were they captured;
  2. (2) (a) how many (i) prisoners, (ii) white warders, (iii) non-white warders and (iv) other staff are there at the out-station at present and (b) what is the full complement;
  3. (3) whether it is intended to take steps (a) to prevent future gaol breaks, (b) to increase security and (c) to increase the staff; if so, (i) what steps and (ii) when.
Reply:
  1. (1)
    1. (a) 1966: One (Three prisoners).
      1967: Nil.
      1968: Nil.
    2. (b) 1966: Three.
      1967 and 1968 fall away.
    3. (c) One on 5th day, one within one month and one after 2 months.
  2. (2)
    1. (a)
      1. (i) 504.
      2. (ii) 5 Permanent members.
      3. (iii) 12 Permanent members.
      4. (iv) 5 white and 39 non-white temporary members.
    2. (b) Permanent staff: 6 Whites and 12 non-Whites.
      Temporary staff: According to the number of labour gangs.
  3. (3)
    1. (a) Yes. Prisoners are carefully screened prior to being transferred to Buffeljagsrivier Prison out-station. In this way it is constantly being endeavoured to prevent escapes.
    2. (b) No.
    3. (c) Yes.
      1. (i) One European.
      2. (ii) As soon as accommodation is available.

The above-mentioned information refers to escapes from the out-station itself as the question reads. It may be mentioned, however, that escapes also occurred from labour gangs under supervision of special warders of private employers of prison labour. Details about this can be furnished but will take a considerable time.

Railway Pensioners and Higher Pension Allowances

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT replied to Question *20, by Mr. G. N. Oldfield:

Question:

Whether railway pensioners will receive any increases in respect of (a) the bonus paid to certain pensioners, (b) the special supplementary allowance and (c) the higher special supplementary allowance paid to pensioners who performed full-time military service; if so, (i) to what extent will increases be granted in each case and (ii) from what date will the increases be effective; if not, why not,

Reply:
  1. (a) No.
  2. (b) No.
  3. (c) This is a matter which concerns my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions.
Commission of Enquiry into Chiropractics

The MINISTER OF HEALTH replied to Question *22, by Dr. A. Radford:

Question:

Whether he will make available the report of the Commission of Enquiry into Chiropractics; if so, when; if not, why not.

Reply:

The Commission of Enquiry into Chiropractics has completed its report on the scientific basis thereof. In order to be able to achieve a well-founded evaluation of chiropractics, an investigation into the practical results thereof is, however, indispensable and for that reason the co-operation of individual chiropractors is essential. Although such co-operation has already been obtained, slow progress is being made in securing actual cases with the result that it is impossible to make an evaluation of chiropractics at this stage.

Dr. A. RADFORD: Arising out of the Minister’s reply, does that mean that he is carrying out further investigations in co-operation with individual chiropractors and their patients?

The MINISTER: Individual chiropractors are being pressed to give their evidence, but obviously they do so very reluctantly.

Dr. A. RADFORD: Further arising out of that reply, will the Minister make the first part of the report on the chiropractors available when it arrives?

The MINISTER: It would not be fair to publish only portion of the report. I think it is only fair to the profession that the whole report should be published simultaneously.

For written reply:

Students/Staff Ratio at Bantu University Colleges 1. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

  1. (1) What is the ratio of students to (a) teaching and (b) administrative staff at the University Colleges of (i) the North, (ii) Fort Hare and (iii) Zululand;
  2. (2) what is the number of (a) White, (b) Bantu and (c) other non-White persons on the teaching staff of each of these university colleges.
The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(1)

(a)

6.8:1

4.5:1

4.66:1

(b)

24.5:1

15.0:1

15.00:1

The North

Fort Hare

Zululand

(2)

(a)

61

77

62

(b)

18

20

9

(c)

none

none

none

Statistics as on the 1st Tuesday of June, 1967.

Students/Staff Ratio at University College for Indians 2. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Indian Affairs:

  1. (1) What is the ratio of students to (a) teaching and (b) administrative staff at the University College for Indians;
  2. (2) what is the number of (a) Indians, (b) Whites and (c) other non-Whites on the teaching staff of this college.
The MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS:
  1. (1)
    1. (a) 10.8 to 1
    2. (b) 42.7 to 1
  2. (2)
    1. (a) 25
    2. (b) 109
    3. (c) Nil.
Bantu Students Studying at Natal Medical School, etc. 3. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of National Education:

How many Bantu (a) medical and (b) dental students are studying at (i) the Natal medical school and (ii) other universities.

The MINISTER OF NATIONAL EDUCATION:

(a) Medical students

(b) Dental students

(i) Natal medical school

133

(ii) other universities

In connection with (ii) attention is drawn to Proclamation No. R.434 of 1960 as published in Government Gazette No. 6077.

Bantu Pupils Enrolled in Government, State-aided and Private Schools 4. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

What is the total enrolment of Bantu pupils in Government, State-aided and private schools, respectively, in each class of lower primary, higher primary, secondary and high schools.

The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:

Government schools

State-aided schools

Private schools

Total

Sub-standard A

6,028

454,585

19,644

480,257

Sub-standard B

4,479

335,091

14,996

354,566

Standard 1

3,668

278,143

12,565

294,376

Standard 2

2,704

203,999

9,577

216,280

Standard 3

2,191

155,938

7,613

165,742

Standard 4

1,673

114,427

5,751

121,851

Standard 5

1,518

87,896

4,320

93,734

Standard 6

1,395

78,155

3,818

83,368

Form 1

3,567

25,720

1,363

30,650

Form 2

3,111

18,219

957

22,287

Form 3

2,292

11,408

738

14,438

Form 4

1,779

1,107

344

3,230

Form 5

1,010

618

208

1,836

Total

35,415

1,765,306

81,894

1,882,615

Statistics as on the 1st Tuesday of June, 1967.

Bantu Pupils and Standard VI, Junior Certificate and Matriculation Examinations 5. Mr. L. F. Wood

asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

  1. (1) (a) How many Bantu pupils from (i) the Republic and (ii) South West Africa entered for the Standard VI examination at the end of 1967 and (b) how many of these (i) obtained a continuation pass, (ii) obtained a school leaving certificate and (iii) failed;
  2. (2) (a) how many Bantu pupils from (i) the Republic, (ii) the Transkei and (iii) South West Africa entered for the Junior Certificate Examination at the end of 1967 and (b) how many of these (i) passed with distinction, (ii) passed in the first class, (iii) passed in the second class, (iv) passed in the third class and (v) failed;
  3. (3) (a) how many Bantu pupils from (i) the Republic, (ii) the Transkei and (iii) South West Africa entered for the Matriculation examination at the end of 1967, (b) how many at this examination and supplementary examinations early in 1968 (i) obtained a university entrance pass in each of the first, second and third classes, (ii) obtained a school certificate pass in each of the first, second and third classes, and (iii) failed and (c) how many of those who obtained a university entrance pass passed in (i) Latin, (ii) a science subject and (iii) mathematics.
The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:
  1. (1)
    1. (a)
      1. (i) 76,040.
      2. (ii) The St. VI examination for Bantu pupils in South West Africa does not fall under the control of my Department of Bantu Education.
    2. (b)
      1. (i) 39,195,
      2. (ii) 25,842.
      3. (iii) 11,003.
  2. (2) (a) (i) 13,575, (ii) 2,690, (iii) 124.

Republic

Transkei

S.W.A.

(b) (i)

28

2

1

(ii)

1,117

119

39

(iii)

4,560

746

69

(iv)

3,633

774

12

(v)

4,237

1,049

3

  1. (3) (a) (i) 1,760, (ii) 249, (iii) 25.

Republic Transkei S.W.A.

(b)

(i)

first class

31

none

none

second class

380

34

2

third class

36

1

1

(ii)

first class

none

1

none

second class

192

66

1

third class

205

10

7

(iii)

916

137

14

(Results of the supplementary examination are not available yet.)

  1. (c) (i) 14, (ii) 103, (iii) 125.
6. Mrs. H. SUZMAN

— Reply standing over.

Removal Orders Served in Terms of Bantu Administration Act 7. Mrs. H. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

  1. (1) Whether any removal orders in terms of the Bantu Administration Act were served during 1967; if so, (a) how many, (b) on which persons, (c) on what dates and (d) from and to what place was each person removed;
  2. (2) whether any removal orders (a) were withdrawn and (b) lapsed during 1967; if so, (i) how many, (ii) what are the names of the persons concerned and (iii) on what dates were the orders withdrawn or did they lapse;
  3. (3) whether any persons against whom removal orders were enforced died during 1967; if so, (a) what are their names, (b) when and where did they die and (c) from which places had they been removed.
The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:
  1. (1) No; (a), (b), (c) and (d) fall away.
  2. (2) (a) Yes; (i), (ii), (iii) order against the following were withdrawn on the date stated in each case:
    Vusunzi Make: 16th August, 1967 Joseph Kumalo: 16th August, 1967 Mxoshwa Mdhluli: 16th August. 1967 Jim Lithako: 23rd August, 1967 Ben Baartman: 5th September, 1967 Elizabeth Mafekeng: 7th September, 1967
    Gilbert Hani: 21st September, 1967 Jacob Mpemba: 21st September, 1967
    Majjo Ka Tandabantu: 3rd November, 1967
    Mhlabuvelili Hlamandana: 3rd November, 1967
    Tyaliti Edward Sineke: 7th November, 1967
    Elias Monare: 7th December, 1967.
  3. (3) No; (a), (b) and (c) fall away.
Double Sessions in Bantu Primary Schools 8. Mr. P. A. MOORE

asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

  1. (1) (a) In how many classes in (i) the sub standards, (ii) standards I and II, (iii) standards III and IV and (iv) standards V and VI are double sessions operating and (b) how many (i) pupils and (ii) teachers are involved in each case;
  2. (2) (a) in how many (i) primary and (ii) post primary schools does the platoon system operate and (b) how many (i) pupils and (ii) teachers are involved in each case.
The MINISTER OF EDUCATION:
  1. (1)
    1. (a) (i) and (ii) Statistics regarding the number of classes are not readily available; (iii) none; (iv) none.
    2. (b) Sub-standards A and B: (i) 686,376, (ii) approximately 6,864.
      Standards I and II: (i) 16,622, (ii) approximately 166.
      Standards III and IV: (i) none, (ii) none.
      Standards V and VI: (i) none, (ii) none.
  2. (2) The information is not available and cannot readily be made available as a special survey will have to be undertaken at all the schools.

(Statistics as on the 1st Tuesday of June, 1967.)

School Admission Refused to Bantu Children 9. Mr. P. A. MOORE

asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

Whether any children were refused admission at the beginning of 1968 to (a) lower primary, (b) higher primary, (c) secondary and (d) high schools because of a shortage of accommodation; if so, how many in each case.

The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:

The information is not available and to obtain it a comprehensive survey will have to be undertaken.

Degrees, etc., Awarded to Bantu Students Successful in University Colleges’ Examinations 10. Mr. P. A. MOORE

asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

How many Bantu students were awarded (a) post-graduate degrees, (b) Bachelor’s degrees, (c) post-graduate diplomas and (d) non-graduate diplomas at the end of 1967 or early in 1968 after having passed examinations conducted by the three university colleges for Bantu.

The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:
  1. (a) 3.
  2. (b) 111.
  3. (c) 23.
  4. (d) 77.

Preliminary figures as the supplementary examinations have not been finalized yet.

11. Mr. L. F. WOOD

— Reply standing over.

Degrees, etc., Awarded to Bantu Students Successful in Examinations Conducted by Univ. of S.A. and other S.A. Universities 12. Mr. P. A. MOORE

asked the Minister of National Education:

How many Bantu students were awarded (a) post-graduate degrees, (b) Bachelor’s degrees, (c) post-graduate diplomas and (d) non-graduate diplomas at the end of 1967 or early in 1968 after having passed examinations conducted by (i) the University of South Africa and (ii) other South African universities.

The MINISTER OF NATIONAL EDUCATION:
  1. (i) University of South Africa

UNISA

Northern

Zululand

Fort Hare

(a)

11

3

3

6

(b)

26

48

27

41

(c)

3

10

6

7

(d)

5

-

1

1

Totals

45

61

37

55

  1. (ii) Other universities
    1. (a) 3
    2. (b) 2
    3. (c) -
    4. (d) -
    5. Total 5
13. Mr. H. M. TIMONEY

— Reply standing over.

Replies standing over from Friday, 5thApril, 1968

Telephone Applications Received from Natal Bantu Townships

The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS replied to Question 1, by Mr. L. F. Wood:

Question:

How many applications for telephones for private use were received from residents of (a) Kwa Mashu, (b) Chatsworth and (c) Austerville during each year since 1964.

Reply:

The required particulars in respect of separate years are not available as it is not feasible to maintain such statistics owing to the changing circumstances of applicants. However, at the end of each of the years in question, the number of applications that could not be met was as follows:

1964

1965

1966

1967

Kwa-Mashu

11

7

3

10

Chatsworth

32

19

35

261

Austerville

0

0

9

25

Persons Convicted During 1967 in Terms of Certain Acts

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE replied to Question 12, by Mrs. H. Suzman:

Question:
  1. (1) How many persons in each race group were convicted during 1967 under (a) section 21 of the General Law Amendment Act, 1962, (b) the Suppression of Communism Act, (c) the Public Safety Act and (d) the Unlawful Organizations Act;
  2. (2) whether any persons were released during 1967 after serving sentences of imprisonment under any of these Acts; if so, how many in each race group;
  3. (3) whether any of the persons released during 1967 were subsequently charged with offences under any of these Acts; if so, (a) how many in each race group and (b) under which Acts;
  4. (4) how many persons in each race group were serving sentences of imprisonment under each of these Acts at the end of 1967.
Reply:

(1)

Whites

Bantu

Coloureds

Asiatics

(a)

-

3

-

-

(b)

1

24

-

4

(c)

-

-

-

-

(d)

38

4

-

(2)

Yes

6

178

-

(3)

No.

(4)

(a)

11

531

18

14

(b)

-

326

1

1

(c)

-

-

-

-

(d)

12

419

2

-

SEPARATE REPRESENTATION OF VOTERS AMENDMENT BILL (Committee Stage)

Clause 2:

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Mr. Chairman, this is the clause which for the third time extends the life of the existing Coloured representatives in this House for a further term. It is, if one may say so, the last of a series of confidence tricks which relate to …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! What did the hon. member say?

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

I said it is the last of a series of confidence tricks …

The CHAIRMAN:

What does that imply?

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

I will develop that theme, Sir.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

I withdraw them, Sir. In terms of this provision the term of office of the existing representatives is now to extend until the dissolution of this Parliament, which, unless the hon. the Prime Minister is frightened by the Swellendam by-election result, will probably be in 1971, and that means that the representatives of the Coloured people in this House will have had exactly double the life that they were elected to have. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that the Prohibition of Improper Interference Bill was introduced during the time of the Premiership of the late Dr. Verwoerd, and then the tragic death of the late Prime Minister came about. Then in the new order of things the present Prime Minister made an agreement in relation to this rather inglorious Bill to have the Bill sent away to a Select Committee so that some solution could be found which would be better than that ghastly Bill that we had. In all good faith my hon. Leader was agreeable to that, and he agreed that the Bill should go to a Select Committee. He felt—let us find something rather than have this legislation on the Statute Book.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member is making a second-reading speech now. The principles of the Bill were dealt with during the second-reading debate.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

With great respect, Sir, if you look in the rubric you will see I am dealing with “the substitution of section 1 of Act 34 of 1966”. I am dealing now with that, and that is part of what is before us now.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! It was dealt with in the second-reading debate as well.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

No, Sir. With respect, this Committee is entitled to throw out the whole of this clause. If that is so, with great respect, I am surely entitled to deal with the reasons why we object to it and with the history of it.

The CHAIRMAN:

I will allow one speaker to deal with the basic reasons why the Opposition object to it, but I am not going to allow a general discussion on the principle now.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

I am not dealing with the principle, Sir. I have said already that this is the third time, as will be seen from the rubric, that the life of the Coloured representatives is being extended. What I want to indicate is that the first time it was extended as a result of an agreement between the hon. the Prime Minister and my leader.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

No, that was the second time.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

This is the third time. The first time was in 1966. The Prohibition on Improper Interference Bill was introduced in 1966 before Dr. Verwoerd died. Then after the present hon. the Prime Minister took over from Dr. Verwoerd, the Bill which was introduced under the premiership of Dr. Verwoerd was then sent away as a result of an agreement between the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the present Prime Minister. Then we had a further extension of it. As a result of that first agreement a Select Committee was appointed and the Bill was sent to the Select Committee. Then the Select Committee did not finish its work by the end of the session and a commission was set up. That commission sat during that year but could not report by the end of the year as a result of which it was continued in 1966. We agreed to an extension of the life of the Coloured representatives so that the Commission could finish its deliberations and submit a report. But what obviously happened was that that commission had already made up its mind as to what it was going to do. The commission had quite obviously decided to abolish the Coloured representatives in this House despite the evidence given before it. No matter what happened the Coloured representatives were going to be abolished. The hon. the Minister can growl in his bench, but that does not make any difference to the facts. The fact of the matter is that if the commission were to have had regard to the evidence, it would not have recommended the abolition of the Coloured representatives. Another fact is that they had made up their minds as to what they were going to recommend without any regard to the evidence. Mr. Chairman, that is why I used the words you told me to withdraw, namely “a confidence trick”.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Yes, Mr. Chairman,

I have withdrawn them but I am explaining why I used them.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member must not use them again.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

I shall leave the matter there, but that is why this was done. Now we have a further extension until 1971 at the latest. But this is not good enough. Why are the lives of the Coloured representatives to be extended until 1971? How can they remain here as representatives of the Coloured people if they never have an election? Surely it is basic to our democratic system that where you have representative government you have periodic elections. If you never have elections or if you only have them every ten years, you are so much out of touch with your voters that you cannot represent them properly. Surely this is so. That is why we have elections every five years.

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

Your own Leader agreed to the extension.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Yes, he did agree to an extension. The hon. and learned member for Prinshof must just have entered the House. We agreed to it in the first place so that this Bill could be shelved.

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

Do not try to wriggle out of it now.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

No, I am not trying to wriggle out of it. I hope that the hon. member will rise and tell us what it was that was agreed to. It was agreed that that Bill be referred to a Select Committee rather than have it placed on the Statute Book. On the second occasion we agreed to it again. My hon. Leader made it very clear as to why we agreed to it. Let me refresh the hon. member’s memory. On the second occasion on the 9th May, 1967 (column 5598), the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said this:

We on this side of the House will support this Bill at the Second Reading because we accept first of all that the select committee has been unable to complete its task. The hon. the Minister said it was unable to complete its task because of public interest in the matters it was considering. I believe that means that there has been so much evidence placed before it, and there is still so much evidence for it to hear, that it has not been possible to complete its deliberations.

Then the hon. Leader of the Opposition went on to say something which is very significant:

I think that is a healthy sign, but at the same time it is a pity that we have to have this prolongation.

In other words, it is a pity that we have to have it but it is apparently necessary. The fact that the commission had not finished its work was a good reason for this. In other words, we did agree to the prolongation—if one can get that into the head of the hon. member for Prinshof—because we agreed with the extension of the time of the Commission. We agreed with the extension because a select committee was sitting and after that a commission to investigate the question of improper interference into the rights of the Coloureds, etc. We could not anticipate that. That select committee was appointed by this House. We therefore agreed to this extension pending the decision of the commission but all the time that commission had already made up its mind to abolish the Coloured representatives. That is the fact of the matter. It is very clear from what my hon. Leader has said. And if we had known that at the time we would not have agreed to it.

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

How can you prove that?

[Time expired.]

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! before I call upon the next speaker, I want to point out to hon. members that S.O. No. 59 reads as follows—

In committee of the whole House on an amending Bill, debate shall be confined to the proposed amendments to the principal Act and such other relevant amendments as may be subsequently moved.

S.O. No. 58 reads as follows—

The principles of a Bill shall not be discussed in committee, but only its details.

The speech I have now permitted the hon. member for Durban (North) to make, dealt with the principles of the Bill; I shall not permit any further such speeches.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Mr. Chairman, this makes matters very difficult in Committee, of course, because there are only four clauses in this Bill, apart from the title, and each one of the clauses contains the principle. Surely, since one is allowed to vote against each clause in Committee, one should be allowed to argue each clause in Committee.

The CHAIRMAN:

I have given my ruling.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Yes. Well, I am going to do my best to argue on the clauses in spite of your ruling.

I want to say first of all that, unlike the hon. member who has just sat down, I never had the slightest doubt that we would have to come back to this House again and again to extend the life of the sitting Coloured representatives, because the Government was not going to find a solution to its dilemma. To get the historical facts quite correct for the record, this is indeed the fourth time that we have had a prolongation of the life of the sitting Coloured representatives. The first time we did it, was not in 1966, as the hon. member for Durban (North) said, but indeed in 1965. That was when we had the first prolongation. That was immediately after the Provincial Council elections on 10th March. Shortly after that, the Government introduced a Bill in this House to excise the Coloured elections from the ordinary general elections for white representatives, which all of us knew were due to take place in 1966. We were given a lot of reasons then, not one of which approximated to the real reason and was nowhere near the truth behind this whole sordid story. What the real reason of course was, is that the Government had to find a way to stop the Progressive Party from fighting and winning four Coloured seats in this House. So the lives of the sitting representatives had to be prolonged and the election postponed, while the Government was finding a way to do this. When the hon. the Minister came to this House the first time and suggested an extension to the life of the sitting Coloured representatives who have been here since time immemorial, since 1961, without ever having to go back to their electorates to find out whether their electorates still wanted them to represent them here, the reason that we were given was that there were administrative difficulties about having Coloured elections and white elections at the same time, or within a couple of weeks of each other. Then we were also told that it was advisable that we remove the Coloured voters from the national main stream, that the Coloured voters should not be asked …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member is dealing with the general principles of the clause now and not with the details.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Mr. Chairman, with respect, I am dealing with the history of this clause. This clause does not come de novo to the House. This clause now comes for the fourth time.

The CHAIRMAN:

All that has been stated during the second-reading debate and can be restated during the third-reading debate. I have read out what the rules say; the hon. member must abide by the rules.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Well, Sir, am I not entitled to try and persuade the House to change its mind about this clause? [Interjections.] I am not discussing the principles; I am discussing the history.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member may deal with the details of the clause, but not with the principles embodied in it.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

You mean, Sir, that I can suggest that the life of the representatives be prolonged until to-morrow, but not until the end of this Parliament?

The CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member can move any amendment to prolong the life of these representatives, but that would not change the principle.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Well, if it were not for the second clause, which provides that no vacancies shall be filled, I would certainly move that the life be prolonged until to-morrow, instead of 1971. But there is no point in doing that, because the Government will not allow vacancies to be filled, although, of course, as I pointed out, if hon. members had resigned when the first Bill was passed, the vacancies would have had to be filled. Unfortunately, that bright idea did not occur to them at the time. Since this clause was introduced the first time, we have seen the introduction of two other similar clauses. The Official Opposition was naïve enough—or shall I say “optimistic enough”, although I in fact do not know what to say. But I know it was extremely stupid to agree …

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

You obviously do not know what to say.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

It happens very seldom that I do not know what to say, but it happens very often that the Official Opposition does not know how to act—very often. It made its first mistake in 1966 when it agreed to a further extension under this perfectly ridiculous, as subsequently proved, allegation that it was necessary to clean up the roll, an allegation which the hon. the Prime Minister was quick to rebut when he took part in the debate on this Bill.

Let me say, Sir, that the clause as it is now being presented to us for the fourth time, is no more acceptable to me than the one presented four years ago, three years ago, two years ago, and last year. It still has only one basic reason behind it—to prevent the Coloured voters of South Africa—at least, those who have the vote, attenuated as it is— from exercising a normal democratic practice, i.e. to vote for representatives of their choice. Consequently, I shall vote against this clause.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

One of the most important reasons for this clause appearing in the Bill is that it is proposed to extend the term of office of the Coloured representatives until such time as there has been set up a Coloured Representative Council …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! Where does the hon. member see that in this clause? The hon. member can deal with the details of the clause, but cannot discuss matters which are not covered by it.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

May I, on a point of order, ask you for a ruling on this? Am I not then entitled to discuss, here in Committee, the reason why this clause is here, to state why I am opposed to the clause and to say that the reason being advanced for its presence in this Bill is wrong?

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! I have given a ruling to the effect that I will allow the hon. member one speech in which to explain why his party is opposed to this clause. But now the hon. member is dealing again with the principle instead of with the details.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Am I not entitled, here in Committee of the whole House, to debate the reason for this clause being here and the reason why I think the clause should not be passed?

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member has done that already. I allowed him ten minutes for that purpose.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

No, Sir. The point which I unfortunately …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member must now abide by my ruling.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

But I am doing that, Sir.

The CHAIRMAN:

Well, it does not seem so.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

May I then continue from where I left off when my time expired …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! I allowed the hon. member a great deal of latitude during his first ten-minute speech.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

May I, on a point of order, point out to you, Sir, that this clause contains a principle?

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! But that principle was accepted at the second reading.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

I accept that, Sir. You are helping me, if I may say so. But let me point out too that it is impossible to discuss this clause without discussing the principle contained therein, and if you are not going to allow us some latitude here we shall be unable to put our point of view on this clause.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! That point of view has been stated during the second-reading debate and by the hon. member for Durban (North) during his 10-minute speech in committee. Consequently I am not going to allow a further discussion of the principle.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

On a point of order, Sir, was the principle of the Bill, as far as the second reading was concerned, not the abolition of the Coloured representatives?

The CHAIRMAN:

It was the principle contained in this clause.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

Will you be kind enough, Sir, to define the principle for us in order to help us to abide by your ruling, especially the principle contained in this clause?

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member should look at the long title of the Bill, where he will find the principle. I am putting the clause now.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

One of the reasons advanced by the hon. the Minister for introducing this clause …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. the Minister has not spoken in Committee yet.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

I know, Sir. I refer to his second-reading speech …

The CHAIRMAN:

Exactly. And what he said then was dealt with during the second-reading debate.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Well, one of the things the Minister said was that it was proposed to keep these Coloured representatives here until such time as the proposed Coloured Representative Council had been set up and until such time as some form of liaison between that council and this Parliament had been established. This means that until that has come to pass we shall have these Coloured representatives here.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member is trying to circumvent my ruling. I cannot allow him to do so. The hon. member must now resume his seat as far as this clause is concerned.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

On a point of order, Sir, earlier on you referred me to the long title of the Bill. Well, I looked at it and I am somewhat at a loss to see how we can discuss this Bill at all in Committee if your ruling has to be strictly observed. The long title contains more than one principle. The first principle is “to provide for the further extension of the period of office of the sitting members of the House of Assembly elected under the Separate Representation of Voters Act, 1951”. This is the principle which is contained in the clause we are now discussing.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! May I refer the hon. member once more to Standing Order No. 58, which states that “The principles of a Bill shall not be discussed in Committee, but only its details”. The hon. member does not want to observe this rule. I am now putting the clause.

Mr. A. HOPEWELL:

On a point of order, Sir, I submit that one of the details of this clause is that the period of office of the Coloured representatives shall terminate on the date on which Parliament is dissolved. I further submit that it is quite in order, in terms of your ruling, to discuss the question of the extension of their period of office until the date of the dissolution of Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! That has been discussed. I have allowed the hon. member for Durban (North) an opportunity to state the case of his party.

Mr. A. HOPEWELL:

I submit that that is what they are discussing.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! Yes, but they are only repeating.

Mr. L. G. MURRAY:

In so far as this clause is concerned, the principle, which has been accepted at the second reading is to provide for the further extension of the period of office of the sitting members of the House of Assembly elected under Separate Representation of Voters Act, 1951. I now want to discuss the procedure as to how we can, in conformity with the principle accepted during the second reading, deal with the prolongation of the term of office of these representatives. The existing provisions, which are sought to be repealed in this clause, are contained in Act 34 of 1966, in section 1, which reads as follows—

For the purposes of section 22 of the Separate Representation of Voters Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the principle Act) the date of the last general election of members of the House of Assembly held under that Act before the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to have been the first day of November, 1962 …

This date was amended in 1967 to read 1964—

… or such earlier date as may be determined by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette.

In other words, the procedure of prolongation, which we have had up to the present time, was one whereby a date of an election was presumed and there was an expiry date, which was 1969, that is to say, five years after 1964. The procedure which is suggested under this clause to prolong the term of office of the present members, a procedure to which I feel we can take exception, is now not the existing procedure, i.e. that a member shall be elected as from a certain date and hold office for five years, but that he shall not hold office beyond that certain date—in other words fixing a date of termination of office—this is, I feel, a departure from the procedure that has been adopted in this House in the past in terms of which members hold office for a certain period, and not a blunt termination of office. Although the principle has been accepted, we feel therefore that we must object to this clause. This Bill obviously prolongs the life in Parliament of the present Representatives of the Coloureds to 1971, instead of 1969 in terms of the existing law. We believe that the Act should stay as it is. We will then have an opportunity to see how the Coloured Representative Council works and if necessary another measure can be introduced to say that nobody shall be elected after 1969. It is for that reason I rise to support the statement by the hon. member for Durban (North) that we are opposed to this clause because, by prolonging the term of office of the present members in this manner, the Bill removes the right of Coloureds to further representation in this House.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

On a point of order, Sir, there is on the Order Paper at page 267, under “Amendments to Bills”, under the title of this Bill, an amendment in my name to negative this clause. My point of order is that if I am entitled to move the deletion of this clause entirely, then I submit that we are entitled to debate the contents of the clause and the principle involved in the clause, the deletion of which we are entitled to move.

The CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member should know by now that he cannot move as an amendment that a clause be negatived. He can only move amendments to a clause. That ruling has been given year after year since he has been in this House.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

I wish to move as an amendment—

To omit all the words after “terminate” in lines 21 and 22, to the end of the proposed section 1, and to substitute “forthwith”.

The object of my amendment is to make it perfectly clear that we on this side of the House are convinced that it is quite wrong that the term of office of the representatives of the Coloureds should be prolonged in this fashion and that it should be prolonged again and again until we have no guarantee whatsoever that they still represent the views of the people whom they represent in this House. It is of the essence of the parliamentary system that Members of Parliament should report back to the electorate periodically for a confirmation of their mandate. But this provision has the effect of allowing Parliament to act as the electoral body and not the voters. The present Coloured Representatives were elected for the life of the Parliament in which they originally took sitting. There are precedents in parliamentary history for a temporary prolongation of membership to serve certain purposes, but I think that a third prolongation; extending over the life of two parliaments, of the term of office of individual members, is completely unprecedented in the history of Parliament. It is true that in the time of the Stuarts there were cases where Parliament itself prolonged its life as a Parliament, but it is entirely unprecedented for individual members to have their term of office prolonged in this fashion. It is a complete negation of democracy, and it is an injustice to the particular section of the people whose right to renew their mandate to their representatives is being denied to them. We on this side of the House do not want to go on record as supporting such a negation of the principle of democracy. For that reason I take the liberty of moving this amendment, and I want to make it, perfectly clear that we feel that the Coloured people of South Africa should have representation in this House. Therefore if our amendment is successful—and I trust that it will be; I trust that some hon. members on the other side will have an instinct for democratic procedure and will support us in this amendment—then we shall move a suitable amendment under clause 3 to provide for immediate election by the Coloured people of new representatives until the end of the life of this Parliament. We appreciate that we cannot move an amendment for the retention permanently of the Coloured Representatives in this House because that would be contrary to the principle of the Bill. But it would be within the principle of the Bill to move under clause 3 that there must be a re-election of Coloured Representatives to this House until the end of the life of this Parliament, so that not only will vacancies be filled if members now depart but so that there will also be an election to fill the vacancy caused by the death of the late Mr. Barnett, whose constituents are in any case going to be unrepresented until the end of the life of this Parliament.

*Mr. M. W. BOTHA:

Did you not agree to the prolongation?

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Yes, they did twice.

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

I rise to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. I feel that it is quite wrong that representatives who have been elected to this House to represent a section of the people for a limited period should have their lives in this Parliament extended merely on the flimsy evidence submitted to this House by Government speakers in the course of the second-reading debate on this Bill. I support the amendment particularly for the reason that it is my intention to move, when we come to deal with clause 3, that elections should be held to fill casual vacancies. I feel that that is the only democratic way in which you can treat these people. I think the time has come for Parliament to take a stand in this regard. The hon. the Prime Minister has indicated in any event that in 1971 when this Parliament is dissolved, there will be no further representation in Parliament of the Coloured people of this country. I can see no reason at all why we should wait until then to give effect to what the Government itself desires, namely, that there should be no further representation. I support the views expressed by the hon. member for Yeoville. I feel that to deal democratically with the situation which has now arisen, an unprecedented situation, it is only right that we should forthwith terminate the life of the existing members and give the Coloured people an opportunity at least until 1971 to elect whomever they like to represent them in this House. I would like therefore to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Yeoville.

The CHAIRMAN:

I am afraid I am unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville because it is destructive of the principle of the Bill as read a second time. The principle is to extend the life of those Members of Parliament, and this amendment does just the opposite.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Of course I accept your ruling, Sir. Will it be in order then to move that their term of office will be extended until the end of the current Session of Parliament?

The CHAIRMAN:

That is also destructive of the principle.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

The long title talks about extending their life.

The CHAIRMAN:

Their life has already been extended to 1969.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Surely the principle is to extend their life and the period is a detail which we can discuss.

The CHAIRMAN:

There is an existing law extending it to 1969, so the hon. member cannot move that it be extended to an earlier date.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

On a point of order, I want to address you on your ruling. Should one not have regard to what is the principle of the Bill, and not what is the principle of this clause? Surely the principle of the Bill is not to extend the lives of the Coloured Representatives, but in fact just the reverse. In those circumstances the hon. member for Yeoville’s amendment is, with respect, in order, because it does not detract from the fact that they will go in 1971.

The CHAIRMAN:

I have given my ruling and I am going to put the clause now.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—107: Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C ; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L. ; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M. ; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—33: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lewis, H. M.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Radford, A.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. ML; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

Mr. Chairman, we are opposed to this clause. In our opinion it is a final admission of defeat by this Government. It is an admission also that they have failed to attract for their policy any support whatsoever from the Coloured people whom this clause affects. In our opinion the effect of this clause will be that one of the principles accepted in this Bill, namely that the Coloured people are entitled to representation in this House at least until the dissolution of this Parliament, whenever that might be, 1971 if it runs its normal course will be adversely affected. In view of the fact that it is accepted they are entitled to representation here, we believe they are entitled to proper representation. Proper representation, in our opinion, consists of those people who were elected under the existing legislation to represent them in this House. But now, because the Government is afraid, because it has no confidence whatsoever in its own policies, it is now going to ensure that any future vacancies in addition to the existing one are not going to be filled. Now, is this a fair deal for the Coloured people? Of course it is not. It is not a fair deal because the alternative form of representation which is going to replace their representation in this House is not functioning. So what in fact is going to happen is that the Coloured representation, already depleted, stands a chance, for one reason or another, of being further depleted by the time the life of this Parliament ends. I think this will be a very bad thing indeed, apart from the fact that it must shake the confidence of the Coloured people in our handling of their affairs, because they are still subject to the laws of this Parliament. They are subject to the legislation which we are in fact discussing at the present moment when it is placed on the Statute Book. Surely, if they are going to be subject to legislation of this kind, they are entitled to the full, effective representation which they are entitled to have, in discussing this very measure which is going to affect their whole future. I want to say quite frankly that I am shocked by the method that has been resorted to here to remove the representation of those people from this House.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE:

Are you discussing the principle now?

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

I am asked whether I am discussing the principle. I do not know what right the hon. the Deputy Minister has to query whether I am discussing the principle or not. [Interjections.] I do not know if he is anticipating the Chairman’s ruling. I should like to tell the Deputy Minister that by his remark, he is casting a reflection upon the Chair. Apart from that, Sir, you yourself said that we were going to be allowed to put our point of view, and that is exactly what I am trying to do.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! I shall allow one Opposition speaker to speak on this aspect, but not more than one.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

As I say, we are totally opposed to this clause for the reasons which I have stated. It is reducing the strength of the Coloured representation in this Parliament, for the remainder of its life, representation to which the Coloured people are entitled. They are entitled to that by virtue of existing legislation. So we are completely and utterly opposed to this clause.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Mr. Chairman, I hope you will permit me to put my point of view as a member of the Opposition but not the Official Opposition, because my view is somewhat different. I am obviously against this clause. I have been against any prolongation and non-filling of vacancies since the Government first started on this zig-zag course of trying to find a way to “save” the Coloured people from the Progressive Party.

The hon. member for Yeoville said he did not want to be on record as voting for prolongation and non-filling of vacancies, and so on. May I point out to him that he is already on record as having done so, and the count is now I think two against and two for. They voted once against the prolongation, right from the beginning, and at that time, I might say, vacancies could be filled. That was at the time of the very first Bill to prolong the life of the Coloured representatives. They voted with the Government on the second prolongation, and there, I might say, vacancies could not be filled. In the event of death or resignation the vacancies could not be filled.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

For a limited period whilst their position was being investigated.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Well, never mind, however limited, it is the same principle; it is extending the life of the Coloured representatives without their allowing their electorate to decide in the normal democratic way whether they wished them to continue to represent them over the normal …

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

I think this matter is much too serious for petty debating.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Oh, no. When it suits the hon. member for Yeoville, principle does not exist. Then he simply delays the matter for a short while so that his party and the Government can get together in order to carry out a political manoeuvre, because that is exactly what it was. The second time is on record as well, and that is the third prolongation. The hon. member for Yeoville and his party are on record for voting once again for the extension of the life of the existing representatives, bringing it to a cool seven years by then, and also they are on record for voting twice for the principle of not filling vacancies. In other words …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member should not make the same speech on every clause.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

No, it is not the same speech; it is a different speech, Mr. Chairman. I am talking about vacancies now.

The CHAIRMAN:

Exactly.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Unfortunately it is the same ugly history, and therefore very often I find that I am using the same phrases. Anyway, I just want to point out that let us stick to the principle of the thing and let us vote against the principle, and let us not have any pious talk of not toeing on record for this or that. Because people are already on record as having voted for the extension of the life of the representatives and for the non-filling of vacancies. I take exactly the same attitude as I took from 1965 When the first of these four measures came to this House. I voted against the extension of the Coloured representatives’ life and I voted against this highly undemocratic practice of not filling vacancies in the event of death or retirement. And I do so now.

*Dr. C. P. MULDER:

Mr. Speaker, the standpoint which the hon. member for Houghton is adopting here to-day is the same standpoint which she has adopted ever since 1965, and therefore I cannot find fault with her for adopting that standpoint. It is a consistent standpoint which is diametrically opposed to ours, and we respect it. But the hon. the Opposition, on the other hand, has once again performed an egg dance here, as in the past. I want to begin by asking the Opposition whether there is any difference between the present position, in terms of which we are prohibiting the filling of vacancies, and the position when they voted for the prohibition of the filling of vacancies in 1966? The circumstances are precisely the same. At this stage there is as yet no measure to prevent political interference. The voters’ rolls are as they were in 1966. In other words, I cannot understand why they now want to vote against this clause if they voted in favour of it and accepted it along with us in 1966. Only they with their policy can explain it, no one else. It is a question of pure opportunism. In those days it suited them to vote with this side, but now it suits them to vote against the measure. The Opposition’s standpoint is quite inconsistent in this instance, and they can by no means want to pretend that the present circumstances differ from those of 1966, when they voted with this side. Therefore I say that they are not politically honest if they vote against this legislation now, or else they were not politically honest in 1966. On one of the two occasions they were politically dishonest.

The second point is this. We are being asked to fill the existing vacancies. This legislation provides for their not being filled. Mr. Chairman, can you imagine what the result would be if a vacancy had to be filled now? Let us be practical. In the first place the voters’ Toll is still in the same state. Secondly, it would be possible for interference to take place as it can take place at present. Thirdly, the member who is elected, whoever he may be, would know in advance that he would remain here until 1971 at the very longest. What would that man’s attitude in this House be? Would he come here to work for the Coloureds or would he take advantage of this platform to further his own personal interests and to kick up a personal row? That is why I think it is highly necessary that this clause should toe accepted exactly as it stands. We have sufficient reason for accepting it as it stands.

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the hon. member who has just sat down. There is a vast difference between the present situation and what took place in 1966. In 1966 this House was confronted with a commission which had been appointed …

HON. MEMBERS:

It was prior to that.

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

I want to deal with the commission first. The House was confronted with a commission which had been appointed by the Government to deal with various aspects including the problem of the future political rights of the Coloured people. At that stage I think it was quite reasonable for the Government to have asked the Opposition to agree to extend the lives of the present Coloured representatives at least until such time as the commission had reported.

An HON. MEMBER:

Was it a principle or an expediency?

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

It was a necessity. I do not want to become involved in an argument with the hon. member for Houghton, but we know that at that stage there had been a great deal of interference in the roll itself.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

It was 129 out of 20,000.

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

One hundred and twenty-nine had come to light tout we do not know of the many thousands which had not come to light.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Do you know more than the courts of law?

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

Mr. Chairman, I have sufficient difficulty arguing with the Government without having to argue with the hon. member for Houghton as well. She is going to miss me in 1971. The situation is now totally different. We are now confronted with a situation where the Government through the Prime Minister himself has indicated that it wishes the Coloured people to voice their opinions through the new Representative Council which the Government wants to establish within the next 12 to 18 months. But the Prime Minister himself went on to say that it would be quite unfair to eliminate Coloured representation in this House before that Coloured Council is functioning. For that reason the hon. the Prime Minister said that he wants the present Coloured representation to remain in this House until the dissolution of this Parliament in 1971. If Coloured representation is going to remain until 1971—and that is the wish of the Prime Minister and the Government—then surely it is not unreasonable for us to say that any casual vacancies in that representation should be filled until 1971. If you are going to give the Coloured people representation, give them proper representation. Here we have a situation where, owing to the untimely death of the late Mr. Barnett, you have a complete constituency unrepresented in this House. What is the value of what the hon. the Prime Minister has urged, namely to give the Coloured people representation in this House until the dissolution of this Parliament in 1971, if he is not prepared to fill vacancies? I suggest that the situation is totally different to that in 1966 and 1967. We are faced with a fait accompli as far as the Government is concerned. They are prepared to allow Coloured representation to remain in this House until 1971. If that is so, I say that they must give the Coloureds full representation. If a casual vacancy does arise during that period until 1971, the Coloured people should have the democratic right to elect whoever they choose.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member is now dealing with the general principle of the Bill.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Mr. Chairman, I hope you will allow me to reply briefly to the assertions and the questions which the hon. member for Randfontein was allowed to put to us. I want to say at once that it strikes one that a sudden touching unanimity, a real alliance has developed here between the Nationalist Party and the hon. member for Houghton because they have a common motive, namely to misrepresent the Official Opposition.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

The difference is that I do not vote with them; you do.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

They have a common motive, namely to misrepresent the Official Opposition. The facts are very simple. In 1966 it was quite clear that we were faced with a voters’ roll which was in no way representative and which had in many respects been illegally compiled. Therefore the Opposition agreed that the elections should be postponed for the purpose of clearing up those voters’ rolls. We were strengthened in that view when we saw the number of prosecutions and the number of convictions of persons who had tampered with the voters’ roll. These prosecutions ran into double figures, although the people who had actually committed the corruption, the Whites who had organized it, were never brought before the courts. Secondly, at the end of the 1966 session we agreed to a further extension of the term of office of the Coloured representatives because we received the assurance from the Prime Minister, after an agreement with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, that a strong commission would be appointed to investigate this matter, partly to see if these malpractices and this corruption could be eliminated, and partly to see if we could place the representation of the Coloureds in Parliament on a better footing. For that purpose alone did we agree to do it. Now the commission has published its report. Two years have elapsed and the Government is still neglecting its duty. The voters’ rolls are still in a corrupt state and it is ridiculous to think that an election could be held. I further want to say that instead of coming forward with a better idea in regard to the way in which the necessary rights of the Coloured population can be exercised, the commission has come forward with a recommendation for the total abolition of all Coloured representation in this House. Mr. Chairman, I think that you will agree with me when I say that one thing is clear, and that is that the Official Opposition’s standpoint is unequivocally that the race groups in our country are entitled to a measure of representation in this sovereign Parliament. If the Government introduces a measure which is in conflict with this basic principle, then the must expect resistance from the Opposition and then they get it. This is the reply to the silly question by the hon. member for Randfontein. I hope he understands this matter now.

*Mr. M. W. HOLLAND:

Mr. Chairman, since the position is that as the Coloured representative of the Outeniqua constituency I have not on previous occasions in this House officially gone on record as having opposed the extension of the term of office of the Coloured representatives, I consider it my duty to state my reason for doing so on the occasion of the discussion of this clause. It unfortunately concerns legislation which I am not allowed to discuss here, namely the Separate Representation of Voters Amendment Bill, in connection with which I have instructions from the voters in my constituency. I may not discuss it here, but I cannot evade my instructions. These instructions were reconfirmed on a substantial scale in my own home last Sunday morning when a deputation from the Eastern Province came to me at their own expense to discuss certain details.

The second point is that at the time the extension of the term of office of the Coloured representatives in this House was discussed, the situation which we have to-day did not exist. Reasons were advanced at the time as to why this extension was necessary.

*The CHAIRMAN:

Which clause is the hon. member discussing now?

*Mr. M. W. HOLLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I am discussing clause 3.

*The CHAIRMAN:

No, the hon. member is discussing clause 2, which has been disposed of.

*Mr. M. W. HOLLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I ask you please, even though I may seem to be digressing, to give me the opportunity to come to my point, namely the reason why I have to vote against clause 3, that is to say, the extension of the term of office of the Coloured representatives until 1971.

*The CHAIRMAN:

That has nothing to do with clause 3, which deals with the filling of vacancies.

*Mr. M. W. HOLLAND:

Yes, that is precisely the point. When the term of: office of the Coloured representatives in this House was extended, there was no vacancy. Now there is a vacancy. The seat of the former member for Boland, who has passed away and who tried to do his duty as he saw it in the time that he was here, is vacant. We were given no indication as to how a vacancy would be filled if such circumstances were to arise. Now the circumstances have arisen.

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The existing Act provides that vacancies shall not be filled.

*Mr. M. W. HOLLAND:

This clause provides that vacancies shall not be filled for the period up to 1971. That is the difference. Seeing that I did not oppose the extension of the term of office of the Coloured representatives when there was no vacancy, but am doing so now that there is a vacancy, I want to give my reasons for doing so. One of the reasons is that the entire Boland constituency will descend upon me, if they can get hold of me, when they want their needs stated in this House or attended to by a member of the House of Assembly, which they will now not be able to do after 1971. If they cannot get hold of me, they will come to the hon. member for Peninsula, as his constituency is also in the Boland area. The other reason why I am opposing this clause is that at the time of the extension of the term of office of Coloured representatives, there was no question of the Coloureds being deprived of their representation in the Central Parliament of the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Mr. Chairman, I agree 100 per cent with what the hon. member for Outeniqua has said. It is absolutely impossible, reprehensible in fact, that we should sit in this House and consider the possibility of extending the term of office of members and at the same time of leaving a vacancy which has occurred in this House unfilled, thereby leaving the voters in that constituency unrepresented for up to four years.

The CHAIRMAN:

Does the hon. member know that that is existing law?

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

I am merely agreeing with the last member who spoke, Sir.

The CHAIRMAN:

I ask the hon. member whether he knows that this is existing law?

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

It is not existing Law, Sir—not until 1971.

The CHAIRMAN:

That is existing law up to 1969.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

This Bill has the effect of extending the term of office of the three sitting members and, at the same time, of prolonging the existence of the vacancy until 1971.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

You can discuss that next year.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

I must disagree with the hon. the Minister, Mr. Chairman. Why should we only discuss it next year? However, I have made my point, which is that it is reprehensible that we should even consider such a thing. The hon. member for Randfontein made certain allegations against the Official Opposition, inter alia that we had changed our attitude since 1966. He asserted that the same conditions as applied in 1966 still apply to-day. But this is the fallacy in his argument, as was pointed out to him by the hon. member for Yeoville and by the hon. member for Peninsula. But he said something else. What he said was, in effect, that in 1966 when the hon. the Prime Minister was negotiating with the Leader of the Opposition on the question of … [Interjections.] How can you say that? You have not even heard what I am going to say. Hon. members on the other side know what is coming and they are afraid before I have even said it.

What I am saying is that what that hon. member said, in effect, was that in 1966 when the hon. the Prime Minister was negotiating with the hon. Leader of the Opposition on the question of the extension of the lives of hon. members representing the Coloureds in this House for a period of 12 months, he had already made up his mind that he was going to introduce into this House the legislation that we have before us now. For all his assertions that this was on account of a voters’ roll which was not supposed to be in order, for all the evidence that he brought, the hon. member for Randfontein now alleges that the Prime Minister knew, at that time, that he intended introducing this legislation. This smacks a little bit more of the type of association referred to by the hon. the Minister for Defence between himself and the late Dr. Verwoerd. I reject this Bill categorically.

*The CHAIRMAN:

Before calling upon the next hon. member to speak, I just want to say that I shall allow no further discussion on the principle.

*Dr. C. P. MULDER:

I just want to reply to what was said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I think it is necessary that it should be stated that in the agreement entered into between the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister in 1966 provision was already made, on that occasion, for no vacancy to be filled. It is necessary to know that this was already said there, because the impression is now arising that this principle was not accepted then, and is only now being introduced as a new principle. It is necessary for the record to say that this principle was accepted at that time already, and that precisely the same situation still exists. I repeat that a commission of inquiry was appointed, which found that there was in fact interference, and that all the witnesses asked that the interference be stopped.

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member is repeating second-reading ideas now.

*Dr. C. P. MULDER:

I am not dealing with second-reading ideas, Sir, but am arguing why vacancies cannot and must not be filled. Precisely the same conditions exist at present as existed at that time, and as a result of the fact that a commission of inquiry was appointed, our suspicions of 1966 have been confirmed to the letter. This decision is therefore more necessary now than it was in 1966. At that time the Opposition agreed with us; now they do not agree with us. They have made the somersault, not we.

Mr. L. G. MURRAY:

Mr. Chairman, I am rather surprised that the hon. member for Randfontein, occupying a senior position, made the statement that he did make. I want to read to the Committee, if I may, what the hon. Minister of the Interior said in 1966 regarding vacancies. I think this is important. It is the direct opposite of what this hon. member has now said. This is what the hon. the Minister said:

The second clause provides that, in case a vacancy should occur in the ranks of the Coloured Representatives, such vacancy shall not be filled until such time as the select committee has submitted its report and other provision has been made.

Where is the undertaking of the hon. the Minister that vacancies will never be filled? I think the Committee should take note of that.

Clause put.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

Mr. Chairman, as a matter of comment on this clause, is not the hon. the Minister …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! I put the clause.

Clause 3 put and the Committee divided:

AYES—97: Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L. ; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J. ; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, B. ; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L. ; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K. ; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Visse, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—34: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A. ; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lewis, H. M.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B. ; Steyn, S. J. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 4:

The CHAIRMAN:

Before I put Clause 4, I wish to point out that this clause, read with the Schedule, embodies the main principle of the Bill, as read a second time. I would also draw the attention of hon. members to Standing Order No. 58, which provides that the principles of a Bill shall not be discussed in Committee, but only its details. In accordance with practice, however, I shall allow not more than two members briefly to state their objection to this Clause. I cannot allow a general discussion of the principles of the Bill in the Committee Stage.

Mr. L. G. MURRAY:

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to you for the ruling that I may state the grounds of our objection to this clause. Sir, the laws specified in the Schedule, the 12 enactments dating from 1951 to 1967, record on one sheet before us the relentless erosion of the political rights of the Coloured people in this country. I will concede that the history which is recorded here is consistent with the Government’s policy founded on its concept of separate representation; it is consistent up until the introduction of this Bill which we have before us and this clause in particular. The adoption of this clause will, I submit, be the end of the Government’s consistent legislation, legislation consistent with its policy. By the repeal of these laws we will now reach the position where separation will be complete, in the political sense, as between the white and Coloured people of South Africa. Meaningful representation will be non-existent so far as the Coloured people are concerned. Sir, I say that meaningful representation will be nonexistent, because we believe that for political representation to be meaningful, albeit linked with the aspect of separate development, which is the policy of this Government, must be representation in the sovereign Parliament of the country, the Parliament which governs the lives of the people concerned, which dictates what taxes they should pay and which determines the methods of using the moneys which are collected. With the passing of this particular clause, that particular right, that meaningful representation, will now for all time be taken from the Coloured people. For those reasons we oppose this clause. We oppose it because of the effect it will have on the right to participation by the Coloured people in the political life of this country.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

I just want to say one or two things in addition to the points made by the hon. member for Green Point and with which I heartily concur. I think there are two points which were not made during the second-reading debate concerning the principle of removing the Coloured Representatives from this House. The first point that I want to make is that it was not only the intention of the Government to retain the Coloured Representatives in Parliament and in the Provincial Council, but when the original Separate Representation of Voters Act, which is now being repealed in the Schedule, was passed, the principle was actually adopted that their representation should be extended in this House; that it was not pegged to four representatives. That is a point which nobody has mentioned in this debate. We are not only removing the four representatives by repealing the Acts mentioned in the Schedule, but we are also removing another right which was given to the Coloured people in the 1951 Act and that is the principle of further extension of Coloured representation in this House. Sir, the then Minister of the Interior, in introducing that Bill, said—

Their representation has not been pegged. The principle that it can grow …

That is to say, the principle that Coloured representation can grow—

… according to the comparative increase in their numbers, has been complied with.

The original Act which removed the Coloured voters from the common roll and which instead gave them separate representation in this House, did not peg the number of representatives in this House to four. The principle that that representation could be increased as the number of Coloured voters on the roll increased, was adopted at the time, so Parliament is taking a very far-reaching step indeed to-day. They are not only affecting the rights of all the present Coloured voters in the Cape, but they are also affecting the rights of future voters in the Cape who would have been entitled in the course of time to an extra seat or more in this House. Sir, there is another point which has hardly been raised at all, because the Official Opposition is in agreement with the Government in this regard. I may find myself agreeing about logical arguments with the Government now and then, on my logic and on the logic of their policy, but I seldom find myself voting with the Government on essential issues, as the Official Opposition has done. The latter has already announced its intention of supporting the principle of removing the two Provincial Councillors by virtue of this legislation. The reason given for that step by, I think, the Leader of the Opposition, was that that was in keeping with the Official Opposition’s policy of race federation and of giving authority to the Coloured Council. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did state that he was in agreement with the disappearance of the two Provincial Councillors. [Interjections.] Whether it is under your policy or not, you stated that you agreed with this.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

That does not mean that we accepted it outside of our policy.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Anyway, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated that he was in agreement with the Government because it conformed with the United Party’s own policy that the two M.P.C.s representing the Coloureds would go because of their race federation policy. [Interjections.] I say then that at this stage the United Party made the statement that it is in agreement with the disappearance of the two M.P.C.s representing the Coloureds, and that statement was made by their Leader during the second-reading debate on this Bill. I am sure hon. members will remember it; I certainly remember it.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

They are already running away from what they said.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

In any case, I will look it up again. My point is that equally reprehensible is the removal of these two Provincial Councillors. They do a tremendous job in the Provincial Council. I said at the time that if Messrs. Friedlander and Break of the United Party had been sitting in the Provincial Council instead of Dr. Wollheim and Mr. Van Heerden of the Progressive Party, maybe the United Party would not have been in agreement with the removal of the two M.P.C.s. Sir, these people do a tremendous job. I can produce the record of these two particular M.P.C.s, Mr. Van Heerden and Dr. Wollheim. They have a magnificent record since they were elected in 1965. I have paeans of praise from no less a person than the Administrator of the Cape in the Provincial Council; I have words of praise from two Nationalist Exco members about the actual work that these two members have done on behalf of the people they represent, but over and above that one must think of the functions performed by the Provincial Council, functions which do not fall within the ambit of the new Coloured Council and certainly do not fall within the ambit of this House.

It is not only the five portfolios that are going to be handed over to the new Coloured Council that are discussed by the Provincial Council in relation to the Coloured people. All sorts of things are discussed beyond that. The hon. member for Green Point correctly pointed out, and obviously one will enlarge on this when discussing a different measure, that this House deals with matters very pertinent to the Coloured people which the Council will not be touching, matters like job reservation and group areas. But may I point out that the Provincial Council also deals with subjects which the new Coloured Council will not be given a mandate to deal with. I will go into greater detail in that regard when we deal with the other Bill, but one cannot simply accept the disappearance of the two Provincial Councillors representing the Coloured people with an easy wave of the hand, saying: Oh, well, we accept that because it is in conformity with the policy of race federation. Sir, this is a tragedy for the Coloured people. They are losing not only their four representatives in this House, who should be, as I said, the representatives of their choice and not of the Government’s choice, but they are also going to lose the services of two extremely able and conscientious M.P.C.s who have done a magnificent job in the Provincial Council and whose record is there for anybody to read. I oppose not only the removal of the four representatives from this House, but with exactly the same vehemence do I oppose the loss to the Coloured people in the Cape of their two representatives in the Provincial Council.

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

I shall be very brief. I wish to associate myself wholeheartedly with the views expressed by the hon. member for Green Point in regard to this clause. I regard this clause as the most retrogressive one and I propose to vote against it. I regard it as a debasement of our national honour in this country and as a breach of the pledged word given repeatedly by the white leaders of our nation to our Coloured citizens. It is sad indeed that Parliament should see fit to introduce such a clause, and I propose to vote against it.

Mr. M. W. HOLLAND:

I must disagree with the hon. member for Peninsula in regard to a small matter, namely that he associates himself with the hon. member for Green Point when the latter says that clause 4 and this Schedule are an erosion of the political rights of the Coloured people. What I understand by “erosion” is erosion by the elements, by wind or by water. But this is corrosion. These were additives added all along and we did not realize it. If one looks at this Schedule, and thinks back to what happened over the years, from Act 46 of 1946 to Act 66 of 1967, then this Commission on Improper Interference— not on the abolition of Coloured representation in this House—and then this subsequent legislation, this process cannot be construed as other than contemplated corrosion, with the necessary additives from time to time. I leave it at that. I am in honour bound in regard to my constituents, who want to retain their representation in this House, but I want to express my regret about one thing. Let us be honest about it. As originally the Natives’ representation in this House was brought to the point where those people started electing communists, so Coloured representation was highlighted when they started electing representatives from certain political parties. What I cannot associate myself with is the ambiguity of the United Party now saying that the Coloured Representatives here must remain, but in the Provincial Council they must be abolished. I should like to know what they base that on. I certainly cannot accept that. We cannot be as ambiguous as all that. We must either eat all our cake, or leave the whole lot. I do feel that I am in honour bound to my constituents to carry out my mandate from them, which I tested out time and again, namely that they do not want to lose their representation in this House or in the Provincial Council, but it is up to the Government to find ways and means of preventing improper interference, which I am in agreement with. But if we consider improper interference and if we find improper interference, why must the Coloured people suffer as the result of what certain white people are alleged to be doing?

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

It is a great pity that the hon. member for Houghton has sought so often during this debate to have a left and a right at the United Party. [Interjections.] I know the hon. member perhaps cannot control herself in these matters, but it is a great pity. Let me put the hon. member for Houghton right, and the hon. member for Outeniqua, too. The hon. member for Houghton should have listened when the hon. member for Green Point spoke. He said that we would oppose this clause, not that we would move an amendment to it so as to agree with the repeal of just that part of the Schedule which deals with the Provincial Council in terms of the Separate Representation of Voters Act.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

[Inaudible.]

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

The hon. member for Houghton must realize what lack of control she appears to have, talking all the time. Does the hon. member not want to listen to me?

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Not particularly.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

I hope the hon. member for Houghton will be as courteous while I am talking as we had to be while listening to her. What I want to say to the hon. member is, that obviously we adopted at our last Congress a policy …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member is once again discussing principles. I gave a ruling before putting the clause that I would allow two speeches on the principles involved, and I am not going to allow any more. The hon. member must get back to the details of this clause.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

On a point of order, Sir, may I not answer the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Houghton, where she attacks us in regard to our attitude to this clause? Surely I am entitled to answer the hon. member?

The CHAIRMAN:

I think the hon. member has done so. I will allow him to say a few more words about that.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

The position is that we adopted the policy in terms of which we decided that it would not be necessary to have representation for the Coloureds in the Provincial Council when our policy was implemented, and when the communal Coloured Council that we envisaged was set up. What is more, we envisaged more members in this House. But that obviously will only happen when we have set up the Communal council, and that is clear enough. You will notice, Sir, that we are voting against the whole of the Schedule. There is in the Schedule a portion— if the hon. member for Houghton has looked at it—dealing with the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, para. (5) deals with the deletion in subsection (1) of section 68 of the words “subject to the provisions of the Separate Representation of Voters Act, 1951”. In other words, that is the reference to the provincial councillors. We at this stage are voting against the whole of the Schedule. If the hon. member was right, we would have moved an amendment so as to provide that we were opposed to the laws in the Schedule being repealed, save to that particular one.

One other point was not made and I would like to do so briefly. It is that this is not just a tragedy for the Coloured people; it is a tragedy for this Parliament. The hon. members are depriving themselves deliberately of having the benefit of hearing what representatives of the Coloured people think. When they form their judgment on Bills we debate concerning the Coloured people—and every single Bill before us will concern them—they are depriving themselves of that opportunity.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! That point was made very adequately during the second reading debate.

Clause 4 put and the Committee divided:

AYES—94: Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Erasmus. A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Visse, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg and J. H. van Wyk

NOES—34: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S. ; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill W. G.; Lewis, H. M.; Lindsay, J. E. Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G. Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B. Steyn, S. J. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M. Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T. Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D. Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 5 put and the Committee divided:

AYES—100: Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S. ; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C. ; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, S. P., Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg and J. H. van Wyk.

NOES—34: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lewis, H. M.; Lindsay, J. W.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Schedule put and agreed to.

Title of the Bill put and the Committee divided:

AYES—99: Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Horn. J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A. ; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan. R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe. W. L.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—35: Basson. J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Connan. J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill W. G.; Lewis, H. M.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Title of the Bill accordingly agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

PROHIBITION OF IMPROPER INTERFERENCE BILL (Second Reading resumed) Mr. S. FRANK:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I sketched the historical development of interference and showed how proper interference deteriorated into improper interference—to such an extent that even the representatives of the Coloureds supported the appointment of a commission of inquiry. I said that with the removal of the European representatives from this House the whole basis of interference would fall away.

Now. Mr. Speaker, I want to mention a few examples of what the position could be should we allow this interference to continue. We must remember that we will now be dealing with a position where the elections will be confined to the racial group concerned. If we should allow, for example in the case of an election for the Coloured Representative Council, this interference to continue, we shall find that a candidate in that election might be supported by, for example, the Progressive Party with its capital resources and with its whole organization, whereas the other candidate—and we know that these people are not the most privileged section—will not have the support of one of the European parties, and will thus be placed at a distinct disadvantage. I think it will be most unfair to allow such a position to develop. Further, we will revert to the position as it was when the Coloured representatives here agreed to a commission of inquiry on account of the malpractices by certain European parties in elections.

But I come to my main reason for supporting this measure. If this Bill is not passed, the United Party and the Progressive Party will appoint agents to act for candidates whose policy is antagonistic towards the Government. Even if they do not appoint agents, they could still give their wholehearted support to those candidates who support the party which in turn is antagonistic towards the Government. If this position arises, the National Party in turn would be obliged to support those candidates who support parties which favour the Government. In other words, having joined issue in this respect, there will be a full-scale election fought by the European parties instead of by the Coloureds themselves. We can imagine what this could lead to. It is of the utmost importance and vital to the future of the white man in South Africa that we retain the goodwill and the necessary co-operation of all races in this country. Can one imagine a more fertile field for sowing discord than an election of the kind that I have just mentioned? The matter becomes even more serious if we face up fully to the consequences. Let us be honest in this respect. The National Party is associated with the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population. The other parties, the Progressive Party and the United Party, are associated with the English-speaking section. [Interjections.] That is the position, whether we wish to admit it or not. If these parties enter the field in these Coloured elections, one section of the Coloureds would be embittered towards the Afrikaans-speaking European section. The other section would become embittered towards the English-speaking European section. In other words, a feeling of bitterness will be engendered towards the whole European population. [Interjections.]

Let us further bear in mind that we intend giving this vote, not to 20,000 or 30,000, but to about 800,000 voters, mostly as yet not properly developed, thousands still illiterate. Such animosity once aroused, lingers on, leaving a fertile field for hostile propaganda. When one considers the present situation in the U.S.A., one shudders at the thought of what might happen here. We have a grave responsibility in the field of human relations. If we should ever lose our country, it will be due to our failure in this respect. I have dealt now with the position of the Coloured Representative Council. What I have said, applies even more, on account of the numbers, to the Bantu. We must ask the question: For what reason must we interfere in their politics? To what good is it? We all concede that they have reached a stage of civilization where they are entitled and capable of exercising certain political rights. The Government will give the necessary protection, so that law and order is maintained and elections fairly and properly conducted. Leave them to it. Why cause bitterness between the races, and not only between the races, but amongst the Europeans as well, because if the European parties interfere, the one will accuse the other of using the other races to bolster their own position.

Mr. C. J. S. WAINWRIGHT:

It is only because they do not vote for you.

Mr. S. FRANK:

Mr. Speaker, in the creation of this Coloured Council, the Indian Council, the separate Bantu homelands, it is the earnest desire of the Government to create a situation in our country where every nation can develop to its fullest capacity on its own without interference—I stress “without interference”—by other nations, and so to create separate communities which will co-operate in peace and prosperity and all of which can be relied on in times of stress, strain and peril, to stand by our country.

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Have the Coloureds not always done that in the past?

Mr. S. FRANK:

This objective which I have just mentioned can only be achieved by peaceful coexistence and this in turn can only be attained if the principle enshrined in the United Nations Charter is strictly adhered to, namely non-interference in the internal affairs of others. This principle is applicable not only in the strict international sphere but, as I have analysed the position, also in a political scheme for promoting the orderly advancement of different races occupying one territory.

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Mr. Speaker, the first question I ask myself is why the hon. member for Omaruru took part in this debate. He is a member for South West Africa. Is it the intention of the Government that these provisions should be extended to South West Africa as well? Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the position is.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

He has just as much right to take part in this debate as you have.

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

That was not my question. My question was whether the provisions of this Bill are to be extended to South West Africa as well. If that is to be the case, then I think it is the duty of the hon. the Minister to let us know and to explain why the hon. member for Omaruru took part in this debate. The hon. member for Omaruru used an argument which has been used before by other members on that side of the House, namely that all representatives of the Coloured people, whether they gave evidence before the commission or whether they were members of the Coloured Council, were against improper political interference. Everybody is against improper interference. I am also against improper interference. But what does this Bill have to say in this regard? What kind of so-called improper interference is mentioned in this Bill? It is called improper interference if a white person explains his political policy to a group of Coloured people. It is called improper political interference when a member of one racial group assists at the elections of another group. What the hon. member for Omaruru should do is to go to the Coloured people and ask them questions such as the following: Firstly, do you want to have the right to have a European address you on important political matters affecting you? Their reply will be yes. If he asked the Coloured people whether they want the right to have either a Coloured man or a white man to sit in councils, whether is this council or a city council or a provincial council, to represent them; would they say yes or no? The answer would again be yes. That is what we are asked to regard as improper interference.

I regard this Bill as a cynical piece of political opportunism. I believe it to be the frustrated cry of a desperately cornered political group. This Bill is an admission to the world, to the country and to everyone that their policy has failed. Let us not forget that for 20 years they have been wooing the Coloured vote, the Bantu vote and the Indian vote. They had a lot on their side, such as money, jobs, houses, cars and status. But with all these factors on their side they still failed to win the support of the majority of the non-Europeans in this country. Surely we as members of Parliament, we who believe in different policies, have the right to try to persuade, for the sake of racial peace in South Africa, the different race groups to accept our policies. If we propound the United Party’s policy to the Coloured or the Bantu, we are not trying to incite them to racialism. We are working for racial peace. We are trying to get them to understand the policy of the Opposition and the policy of the possible future government of this country. Why should we be denied that right?

Mr. G. P. C. BEZUIDENHOUT:

They have rejected your policy.

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

No, it has been a case of the truth fighting against the Nationalist Party policy. Since it seemed that the truth might have won, they have introduced the Bill which we have before us to-day, which is an admission of failure. Persuasion is one of the basic rights of democracy. It is one of the basic rights of democracy to persuade your opponents and people of other colours or of your own colour to accept your point of view. What has this Government done? For persuasion they are now substituting brain-washing.

They next ask: “What about the irregularities that took place at elections in the past?” There have been irregularities in Coloured elections and White elections. There have been as many in one as in the other. Can the hon. the Minister mention any irregularities which took place in a Coloured election which could not also take place in a white election? Possibly he could, possibly he could not. I can think of one such irregularity. I can think of irregularities in regard to the registration of voters which could take place under the law in regard to Coloured elections but which probably would not take place under the Electoral Act governing white elections. But who is responsible for the laws which provide an environment which makes it possible for corrupt practices to take place in regard to registration? After all, if corrupt practices took place —and I am very much against those corrupt practices—they took place as a result of the laws passed by this Government.

This Government has wooed the Coloured and the Bantu vote over 20 years and they have failed to win that vote and that support. They are the frustrated suitors. I suggest that the hon. the Minister takes this Bill of his and frames it with a photograph of himself on the cover and entitles it “Love’s Labour’s Lost”. All the flowers and bouquets of separate development and all the orchids and perfumes of Coloured councils have been in vain. The Nationalist Party, the greatest wooer of the Coloured vote this country has ever seen, has become the rejected political suitor. As is the case with a rejected suitor, their action has been that of frustration. It is almost a case of a politically demented reaction. That is why we have this Bill here to-day. They are determined to continue to work among the non-Whites, but they want to deny that democratic right to us of the United Party. This Bill is entirely misnamed. It is called the Prohibition of Improper Interference Bill, but it could for instance be called the Bill to Reserve Proper and Improper Interference to the Government. It would perhaps be even better if it were called the Manipulation of Non-Whites Votes Monopoly Bill. The monopoly is to be in the hands of this Government.

Do not let us bluff ourselves. If this Bill is passed the Nationalist Government will continue to interfere as much as it does at present in Coloured and Bantu affairs and in persuading the Coloured and the Bantu voters to vote on their side. Perhaps they will not do it as members of the Nationalist Party. As the hon. member for Parow suggested, they might do it as the Government, but it will be very much the same thing. They will woo the non-white voters in the disguise of officialdom or in the wig of being the Government and not the Nationalist Party. They will still go to the Coloured elections and still interfere with the elections for the Coloured Representative Council. I would not be surprised if they will see to it that there is one or other party amongst the Coloureds, and perhaps even one amongst the Natives, which supports their policies. They would go into the Transkei elections. They would have their report-back meetings too. The hon. member for Karoo will not be allowed to hold a report-back meeting, but I am quite sure that for the Bantu in the Transkei there will be a report-back meeting by that sturdy model of independence and political rectitude, the Commissioner-General Mr. Hans Abraham. Sir, may I ask the Government this in all sincerity: If they say, as the hon. member for Parow said, that the Government can go and address meetings on Government policy, would they also allow the Opposition to do so? If my Leader wanted to explain our policy to the Coloured people in the same way as the hon. the Prime Minister, for example, explained the Government’s policy to the Coloured Council last year, and if he went there as Leader of the Opposition and not as a member of the United Party, would he be allowed to do so, or would it be said that that too was unfair interference in politics?

Mr. R. G. L. HOURQUEBIE:

Why should he have to get permission?

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Exactly; why should he have to get permission? Why should this Bill be here at all? Sir, I think of the Bantu Advisory Councils that we have in the cities. There has to be contact with these councils and there must be regular explanation of policy to these councils.

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

But they are not included under the Bill.

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

The Bill says—

… may not address any meeting … for the purpose of furthering the interests of a political party.

It does not talk about “public” meetings. Obviously, if the hon. the Prime Minister addresses a meeting of the Coloured Council he is furthering the interests of his political party or the principles of his party. In the Johannesburg City Council we have the right and we should have the right to address the Bantu Advisory Council on policy, even if they do represent a meeting of non-Whites. It might be in the interests of a political party. We too have our principles that we would like to put to these people. We are not there to defend the Government’s policy.

Mr. C. J. S. WAINWRIGHT:

What are they going to do about the radio?

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I am coming to that. I do not think there has ever been a more muddle-headed, obtuse, insensate Bill than this one. It seeks to prohibit meetings where members of one group are addressed by members of another group. Sir, have you looked at some of the groups who are prevented from addressing each other? According to this Bill a person of Asiatic origin who believes in Che Muslim religion and who is a Cape Malay, may not address a meeting of people of Asiatic origin who support the Muslim religion but who belong to the Indian group. Members of one group may not address members of the other group. The hon. member for Parow defended the provisions of this clause about meetings, which says that the majority of the members must belong to one group. He said that the words “majority of a group” were inserted on purpose so as to make it possible for a few Whites—officials or professors or lecturers or interested people—also to be in the audience. The point is that if the majority is, say, Coloured, then the speaker must be Coloured and if the majority is Bantu then the speaker must be a Bantu.

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

At political meetings?

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Sir, I see Chat meetings are included in the Bill. May I ask why broadcasts over the radio are not included? If it is such a sin for a member of one race to address members of another race, would it also be a sin for the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to go on Bantu Radio with its Bantu listeners and to talk politics or Government policy? Those of us who have listened to the hon. the Prime Minister’s New Year’s message, have seen how politics can be introduced over Bantu Radio. What about books; what about pamphlets; what about newspapers written by Whites for non-Whites? I am glad that these are not included in this Bill, but if the Government sees nothing wrong with the distribution of books and pamphlets written by Whites and giving their point of view, amongst the Bantu people, why come along and make an exception in the case of meetings? Or might this not be the thin end of the wedge in order to make a Bill of this nature applicable at some time in future to, say, Native newspapers which are edited at the moment by Europeans? Sir, the Government has been challenged more than once to define what it means in this Bill by a “political party”.

*Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

Don’t you know what a political party is?

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I am glad that the hon. member asked that question. I know what a political party is, but I want to ask him as a Transvaal member whether he knows what it is. In a recent by-election there were two political parties; one was called the Democratic National Party, which I have never seen described by them as a party—it is called the Du Preez group—and the other was the Republican Party, which is called the Van der Merwe group. It seems to me that the hon. member over there does not know what a party is—not that I defend those parties in any circumstances, but the hon. member put that question to me and I think I have given him a clear reply.

Sir, one fundamental problem in this Bill is the question of interference by “agents” of a political party. We asked the hon. the Minister what was meant by the word “agent”. I have his unrevised Hansard here. I said—

Mag ek die agb. Minister ’n vraag vra. Wat bedoel hy met „agent” in hierdie maat-reël? Is die definisie in die Kieswet van toepassing?

The hon. the Minister replied—

Ek verwys na „agent” soos omskryf in die definisie in die Kieswet, want ons het hier eintlik met verkiesings te doen. Byvoorbeeld, iemand wat hulp verleen as agent, sit daar by ’n tafel en reik stembriefies uit en verrig dergelike take.

The hon. the Minister’s reply shows how confused he is about the Electoral Act. because people sitting at a table are not necessarily agents.

*Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

The Minister changed that and your Leader accepted it.

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

What change did he bring about?

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Surely you were here.

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

It is quite possible he did, but, Sir, let us see what an agent can be. Agents need not be helpers on an election committee. They can be people who write out canvass cards. They can be people who insert pamphlets in envelopes. Are they agents under this Bill or are they not?

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Of course.

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

The hon. the Minister seems to be quite sure; when he replies will he tell us whether they are agents or not? The hon. member for Prinshof said that I had had a clear reply: I am getting a very clear reply now. Mr. Speaker, let me give one instance of what happened in my own constituency in the last election. All my pamphlets were distributed by European youths, but I discovered that in a certain street, by some omission or other, the pamphlets had not been distributed. So I went along and got my old garden boy and I said to him: “Bring along the pamphlets and get into the car”, and I went along to Third Avenue, Highlands North, and he put all these pamphlets in the different post boxes in that street. Was he an agent under those circumstances? Will I be transgressing the law in future? We have an organization in Johannesburg—and I am sure that they have it in other cities too—which is called Express Messengers and which employs Bantu to distribute pamphlets, amongst other things. This is an organization which is used by all parties, by the United Party, the Nationalist Party and the Progressive Party, and they do a good job.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

When this Bill is accepted, you will have to have it done by Whites.

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

There you are, the hon. the Minister is admitting it. Let me put another point to the hon. the Minister: Under the rules and regulations of the Post Office I can send my political pamphlets in envelopes addressed to “The Householder”. Very well, suppose I addressed 10,000 of those pamphlets to my constituents and they are distributed, in many cases, by Bantu postmen. Will they in future have to be distributed by European postmen only? The situation is becoming more and more confused. [Interjections.] I am quite prepared to make use of the services of that organization, Express Messengers, and I do not mind if some of my pamphlets are distributed by Bantu as well as European postmen.

Mr. Speaker, then there is this other clause in the Bill dealing with the giving of money by a person in one country to a party or organization in another country. As we have already stated, we on this side of the House are in favour of prohibiting people from outside sending money to a political party in South Africa. We have stated that that is our attitude and we shall also show it in future speeches on this Bill, but I wonder if the hon. the Minister is quite clear as to what principle is involved in this Bill. Perhaps he should explain it to us. To me it seems that here again there might be a great deal of muddled thinking. Is the principle that it is wrong, that it may be criminal, for people in one country to send money to another country for political purposes in that country?

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Yes.

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Very well, the hon. the Minister says “yes”. If I send a cheque for R100 to a friend in Rhodesia and I ask him to use that money to fight communism and terrorism or to give it to the Rhodesia Fund or to spend it on comforts for the troops, would that be wrong? The hon. the Minister has said “yes”. I realize that this Bill only refers to moneys coming in from other countries to South Africa. I am speaking, however, of the principle. I am trying to discover what the principle is behind this. The hon. the Minister says he is against the sending of money by any one country to another country for political purposes. This Government would be only too glad to get a loan from the World Bank to develop the Bantustans, and those Bantustans will be developed according to the policy of that party. Surely they are not going to prevent that money from coming into the country. An organization like Sabra or the Institute of Race Relations might get a grant from a Carnegie Foundation or from the Ford Foundation, and at the present moment they would be entitled to use that money, and Sabra could bring out articles and write against the policy of the United Party.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order The hon. member is going too far now.

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Well, I will not pursue that matter further, and I only hope that the hon. the Minister will give us replies on matters such as these.

Sir, I think this is really a sorry little Bill; it is a little subterfuge Bill. The saddest part is not that the Nationalist Party will suffer under it—I could bear that—but the real victims will be freedom of speech in our country, free discussion, honest consultation, racial harmony and, finally, our country’s good name.

*Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

The House will pardon me if I do not deal with the hon. member for Orange Grove at any great length, because these flights of the imagination which we have just had from him in connection with the Bill are of such a nature that one simply cannot discover what he would like to know and what he would like to say and what he would like to have in this Bill. This cavilling is simply a gnashing of teeth on the part of the United Party, because the party now finds that the policy of separate development is continuing in spite of the United Party’s gnashing of teeth. I can appreciate why hon. members opposite are opposed to this Bill. It is because they stand for integration. That is the United Party’s real problem.

*Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Nonsense.

*Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

The United Party is a party of integration and this is legislation of segregation. This is really apartheid legislation —I grant that—and that is actually what the hon. member for Orange Grove cannot swallow, because he remains a member of an integration party, a party which wants motley, hotch-potch politicking in South Africa, something which can simply no longer be tolerated at this stage of our development.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Does integration not mean co-operation?

*Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

Not in the United Party sense. The integration the United Party advocates, is integration of Black people in this Parliament which will eventually lead to the Whites in South Africa being swamped completely, That is where the United Party’s policy would land us. With this Bill the Government is, as it were, completing an essential trilogy of legislation which places the Coloureds on a road leading to their own political future, a political future which will to a large extent be in their own hands from now on. If the Coloureds seize this opportunity and act in a responsible way, I foresee a very fine future for the Coloured population of South Africa. This legislation will enable the Coloured population to make a special contribution on their own behalf and to the country as a whole. This Bill places the Coloured population in the position where they can develop themselves politically, and administratively, too, it affords them opportunities they have never had before. The Bill is, in the first instance, the outcome of the findings of a proper commission of inquiry. The majority report suggested that this Bill should be submitted to Parliament.

For the past week I have been sitting here listening to hon. members of the Opposition, who kept on talking about the weight of evidence and the assessment of evidence and who said that this was allegedly contrary to the evidence submitted to the commission, and nonsense of that sort. It would seem to me as though the Opposition has been confusing evidence led before a court of law and evidence led before a commission. Evidence submitted to a court of law, is considered for a certain purpose, to prove a certain point, and then the Judge has to consider the evidence to see the extent to which that point has been proved and the extent to which the onus of proof is being discharged. But a commission of inquiry is in a quite different position. A commission summons its witnesses in the light of certain knowledge it has already gained. A commission is quite entitled to say: I have at my disposal this knowledge which I am not going to disclose but which I am in fact going to use when I give my ruling. Then it calls for evidence and the commission sifts it and considers it and tries to see what is the best of what flowed from everything it has heard, as well as that which it knew itself. If we were to follow up the nonsensical arguments advanced by the Opposition, it would have been possible to have this position before a commission, namely that one could have had a host of communists giving evidence before the commission and that the commission would then have been obliged to say: “We had 20 communists here, all of whom said the same thing and therefore we now have to make such a recommendation.” This is foolishness of the worst degree. I say that this Bill is the result of a proper inquiry by a commission appointed by this Parliament.

But further, speaking as a member of the National Party as such and not merely as a person supporting the commission, I say that these three Bills we have been dealing with this week give effect to the policy of separate development, and let us have no more doubt about that.

*Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Ha!

*Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

The hon. member says, “Ha”! I concede that this is apartheid legislation. He might as well put it in his pipe and smoke it. We are moving in the direction of separate development for the four groups in South Africa which are going to try to maintain themselves in this country. Let us look at the cornerstones of this separate development. In the first place, as far as the National Party is concerned, its most important cornerstone—something which the United Party does not accept—is that the Republic of South Africa will only be governed by white persons in this Parliament. As against that, the United Party, as an integration party, has already told us that they want Coloureds in this Parliament, and I predict that if they were ever to come to power, which will never happen, they would also have black people in this Parliament in the course of time. For on what basis can one discriminate against the black man if one is going to allow Coloureds here? I say that this is the first cornerstone of separate development. The second is the retention of its own identity by every population group, and the third is that since we are living together within the borders of the Republic, there should be practical regulation of our social community in order that the separate groups may live here in peace. As far as this Bill is concerned, it complies with the statement I have just made. It is a Bill which is regulative in order that the groups may live together in peace. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Omaruru who said that all sorts of difficulties could arise here if this Bill were not piloted through.

Let me make it very clear to the United Party so that they may not have any illusions as to what is envisaged with this legislation. For the proper functioning of this enlarged Coloured Council, with its extended franchise and the extensive powers it will be granted and the R50 million it will have at its disposal, it is imperative that there should not be any interference by any other population group. I say it is imperative if we want this Coloured Council to function properly. Then there is the question of whether there is any danger of interference, and I immediately want to say that there is. In terms of clause 2 of the Bill we have prohibited such interference, and I want to say right now that I do not have the slightest doubt that if this Bill is not enacted, the Progressive Party will be guilty of continuously interfering in Coloured affairs in order that it may control the Coloured Council. This I say because the Progressive Party has discovered that it does in point of fact make no impression on white South Africa. It does not make any impression whatsoever on the average white voter in South Africa. That is why the Progressive Party and the Liberal Party have been concentrating on trying to influence the Coloureds. It was an attempt to gain for themselves a niche in the political firmament of South Africa. I say that in that attempt of theirs to gain the support of the Coloureds, they have been abusing the Coloureds disgracefully, and I am going to prove it. That is why it is essential to have this Bill before the House to-day. I should like to prove this by using the hon. member for Houghton’s own words.

A day or so ago the hon. member for Houghton delivered a tirade here—it may have been last week—aimed at the Government and the National Party, and then she said the following. She said the real reason why we were removing the representatives of the Coloureds from the House of Assembly was that we knew that four members of the Progressive Party would now be elected. She made it very clear, and it is quite clear from the context of her words that she did not at all have the interests of the Coloureds in mind when she said that. She was only thinking to herself that she would be getting four members of the Progressive Party into the House of Assembly. In other words, she wanted to abuse the Coloureds completely so that she might get four Progressives into this House. That is why I say that all this influencing of the Coloureds by the Progressive Party really amounts to taking advantage of the Coloureds.

But they are not the only people who would have done so. The Liberal Party has already intimated that if this Bill is enacted, they would no longer have any right of existence. The Liberal Party was honest enough, unlike the Progressive Party, to admit frankly that they had to rely on the Coloureds; otherwise they would no longer have any right of existence. There are clear indications that these groups would definitely have tried at least to influence and take over the new Coloured Council if this legislation should not be adopted.

But that is not all. There are also other people in South Africa who will try to do so. Nusas, for instance, will want to do so. It is an organization which is also under suspicion, and I shall prove that as well. Nusas does not hesitate to arouse anti-apartheid feelings in South Africa at any time, and I want to tell you, Sir, that Nusas has representation on the National Committee of the Anti-Apartheid Movement. For instance, in 1965 Martin Legassick was the representative of Nusas on the National Committee of the Anti-Apartheid Movement. [Interjections.] I shall also prove something else which the hon. member for Houghton will dislike. I know I am beginning to tread on the hon. member’s corns, but let me just tell her that this very same Anti-Apartheid Movement also has representation on the Defence and Aid Fund, and Defence and Aid has its origins in Christian Action. Just let us see what Christian Action is, and who the members of Christian Action and of the Anti-Apartheid Movement are. Amongst them one finds people such as Joe Slovo, Ruth First, Leon Levy, Ruth Finkelstein, Dadoo, etc.—i.e. in Christian Action. The names of certain people have been mentioned here, and I know for a fact that they are not Christians. I do not know whether they are followers of other religions, but from their names one can hear that they are not Christians. In all probability they do not have any religion at all, but now they belong to Christian Action. The word “Christian” is simply slapped on in order to obscure its communistic basis.

*Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

What does that have to do with the Bill?

*Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

It has a great deal to do with it. Defence and Aid is being supported by the Anti-Apartheid Movement, and the latter organization has members, people who come from South Africa, who are serving on its National Committee. But that is not all. We are familiar with the fact, and the hon. member for Houghton knows it very well, that the Suzmans and people of their ilk in South Africa, i.e. those liberalists, are working night and day to undermine this Government and its policy, and they will not hesitate, if they can gain control of the Coloured Council, to influence the Coloureds to stir up unrest in South Africa. That is why this legislation has become imperative.

In regard to clause 3 I just want to ask whether it is essential to prohibit financial assistance from abroad. Sir, the danger exists that the population groups may be abused. In England alone one has the following people who are working against our policy of apartheid night and day. I have admitted frankly that this is apartheid legislation. It is a fact; it is a completion of separate development. In England one finds people such as the following: The Anti-Apartheid Movement, Christian Action, Movement for Colonial Freedom and Africa Bureau. I see that some of the hon. members cannot swallow this pill either, Mr. Speaker. Then one has the South African Freedom Group, the Union of Democratic Control, the National Peace Council, the African National Congress, the P.A.C., the South African Communist Party and the S.A. Indian Congress.

Mr. P. A. MOORE:

May I ask a question? Is the hon. member quoting from a pamphlet called “The Puppeteers”? Because they have just lost an action in the British courts.

*Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

I am quoting from my own notes. Nor does it matter in the least whether any actions have been lost; here we have the facts. Those organizations do exist. The hon. member should not try to draw a red herring across the trail. Just let us see what the objects of the Anti-Apartheid Movement are.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I hope the hon. member will not go too far. He must confine himself to the Bill.

*Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

I am only trying to indicate, Sir, in respect of clause 3, that there are in fact people outside our borders who will put money to use in South Africa to stir up unrest amongst the population groups here. The objects of the A.A.M. are as follows—

To campaign for international action to help bring the system of apartheid to an end, and to co-operate and support South African organizations campaigning against apartheid.

Not for a single moment will they hesitate to make money available for the purpose of gaining a hold on this new Coloured Council. Let us also see what the objects are of the so-called Christian Action. They are as follows—

To assist in the development of a non-racial society based on a democratic way of life.

At the beginning of my speech I said that the problem which was being created here for the Opposition by means of this Bill, was the fact that this was indeed segregation legislation, and that is something hon. members of the Opposition cannot swallow. To the hon. member for Houghton this is nothing but poison. The fact of the matter is that this legislation is imperative for the implementation of this Government’s policy, which is a policy of separate development. Whether the hon. member for Houghton or the hon. Opposition kick against it or not, this separate development will be carried through to its ultimate conclusion by hon. members on this side of the House, and nothing will stop us. If hon. members look at the Bill, they will see that the National Party is quite prepared to put itself on a par with the Opposition. The National Party realizes that it is essential for each group to be afforded the opportunity to realize itself.

Now I want to come back to the hon. member for Orange Grove, who made the reprehensible statement that this Government would be in a better position since it would be able to use its officials to propagate its policy amongst the Coloured people.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Not only officials.

*Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

Who else could the hon. member have meant?

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

You yourselves.

*Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

The hon. member clearly said that we would use the machinery the Government was going to create here in order to explain our policy to the people. Implementing a policy is something quite different from explaining a policy and making propaganda for a party.

In the time I have left, I want to mention just a few of the points the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put to the House yesterday. He said that this Bill was incompatible with white leadership in South Africa. He said, “It is incompatible with white leadership”. In my modest opinion it is this very Bill and this sort of legislation that guarantees white leadership in South Africa, because if we were to do anything else, we would disappear from South Africa in the course of time. There is no doubt about that. He also said that clause 2 (b) prevented the United Party from stating its policy to the Coloureds. This clause does not prevent Coloured people from doing so at all.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

How are they to hear of it?

*Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

The United Party is quite entitled to inform certain Coloured persons about their policy, and those persons can then go to the Coloureds and, in turn, inform them about the policy of the United Party. But, if we want to preserve racial peace in South Africa, we cannot permit white people to get up and make political speeches where there is a difference of opinion amongst non-White groups.

Then it was very sneeringly asked here whether the Coloured Representatives might report back. But, of course, they may do so. However, they must report back in the same way they came here. They must go out and tell the Coloureds what they have done for the Coloureds. They must not make party-political propaganda, as I suspect the hon. member for Karoo will do. They are here for the purpose of representing Coloured interests and they must state here in what way they are representing those specific interests. That is not being affected by this legislation at all.

Then I just want to refer to what the hon. member for Durban (North) had to say. He said that in terms of the Constitution four senators were nominated by reason of their knowledge of Coloured affairs. His objection was that the National Party would in point of fact have the advantage now, because Nationalists were being nominated to represent the Coloureds in the Senate and therefore they were escaping the net cast by this measure. That is correct. I want to concede that the persons who are going to be nominated, will most probably be Nationalists. They need not necessarily be Nationalists, but they will in all probability be Nationalists. But, in terms of the relevant section in the Constitution, they are being nominated by reason of their knowledge of Coloured affairs. They will not represent the Coloureds; they are being nominated by reason of their knowledge of Coloured affairs, and that is entirely a horse of another colour.

Now the hon. member for Durban (North) says that the dialogue between the population groups is being discontinued. That is not true. However, the exploitation of the population groups is being discontinued. But the dialogue is not being discontinued at all. This political exploitation which has been taking place all these years, which has made such a disgraceful football out of the Coloureds, and which has actually made one feel so ashamed that one did not want to participate in Coloured elections, owing to all the irregularities, this political exploitation will now be eliminated entirely. This measure will ensure that the Coloured Council will be exclusively Coloured-based. The Coloureds will say what they please, the Coloured will be able to elect whom they please, but the hon. member for Houghton will not be afforded the opportunity to expand her Party on the back of the Coloured community of South Africa.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a lot of vicious speeches in this House, but I think one of the most vicious that I have listened to has just come from the hon. member for Prinshof. That hon. member has dragged into this debate a lot of extraneous factors, like the composition of bodies such as the Christian Institute and the Anti-Apartheid League …

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

No, I said Christian Action.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Yes, Christian Action …

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

Not the Christian Institute.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Well, I would not put it past the hon. member to try and “beswad-der” them as well. He referred to Christian Action and, of course, he managed to get in a few anti-Semitic digs while he was at it. But let us leave that to one side. I do not even know whether those persons are in fact members of Christian Action, because the hon. member does not tell us what he quotes from; he does not tell us where he gets his information from. I would not be at all surprised if the hon. member for Kensington did not hit the nail right on the head when he said that the hon. member for Prinshof was quoting from a book called The Puppeteers, over which a very expensive court action has recently been fought, and lost, I might say, by the authors. That happened quite recently. Anyway, the hon. member said a lot of other things too.

I want to tell him first of all that the Coloured people are not the half-witted creatures that he appears to imagine them to be. The Coloured people are fully aware when they are being exploited and when they are being used by the white people for their own ends. There are a large number of highly educated Coloured people in South Africa, and those Coloured people have great influence with their own people. There are Coloured teachers, Coloured nurses, professional men. They are not the half-wits the hon. member thinks they are.

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

I never said they were.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

They know perfectly well when they are being used by political parties. They chose to vote for the Progressive Party, not because we are exploiting them but because the Progressive Party offers a policy that they happen to agree with, a policy of recognizing them as full citizens in the country of their birth, a policy which will allow them to use their potentialities to the fullest, and not hive them off into some little mythical Cape Coloured homeland which is never coming into existence any way. That is the reason why the Coloured people voted for the Progressive Party, because it most nearly approximated to what they wanted. Now, it may well be they wanted more than we were prepared to offer, but we were the nearest approximation to a full realization of citizenship for them in this country. That is why they voted Progressive, not because they are half-wits who can be readily exploited.

The hon. member for Prinshof says we should disappear from the scene with the same honesty as the Liberal Party once this Bill becomes law. Nonsense, Sir. We have not the slightest intention of doing that. Let me tell the hon. member, and tell other hon. members of this House, that we have not the slightest intention of disappearing. We have got a following among all the people of South Africa who believe in the removal of racial discrimination, and that means not only non-Whites but white people in South Africa as well. We represent a very decided point of view in this country and it will grow. That point of view will grow because it is in keeping with the rest of the civilized world. Let me remind the sneering hon. member for Prinshof that it was not very long ago in the history of this country— because political history is a long history— that the Nationalist Party had only one Transvaal member sitting in this House. Let him put that into his pipe and let him smoke it. The day will come when the white people of South Africa will understand that for lasting peace and for lasting prosperity and for lasting security in South Africa, there is only one path to be followed and that is the path that does not make colour the testing ground of a man’s ability to exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizens.

An HON. MEMBER:

Like the “peace” in America.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

The hon. member says it is like the riots in America. He is so ignorant that I …

An HON. MEMBER:

No, I said the “peace” in America.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Yes, but you used the word in inverted commas, of course. What you were referring to are the riots. [Interjections.] Oh, come, do not be so stupid. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is so ignorant that I am going to spend two minutes of my valuable time telling him a little something about the “peace” in America. He assumes that the “peace” in America …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member should not waste her time to answer every interjection …

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I think you have got a very good point there, I will not waste my precious time. There will be another opportunity, I am quite sure, when I will be able to tell the hon. member that peace in America has not been broken because civil rights have been given; peace in America has been broken because civil rights have not been fully implemented.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member is not taking my advice. She says it is good advice but she does not take it.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

That was an aside, Sir, and I now leave that. I could have given him much more, but I do not have time to do it.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

They have “peace” in America because they follow the way you want us to follow here.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

There you see, Sir, there I am again being misled by a very provocative and noisy member, the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Mr. J. J. LOOTS:

That is where you will land South Africa.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

There we are, there is another one! Anyway, Sir, I will continue and come back to this Bill.

The hon. member for Omaruru who has for the moment disappeared, into the wastes of South West Africa, no doubt, made some interesting observations earlier this afternoon. He said it was all right to nominate the persons to the Coloured Council. The point was raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition yesterday, when he stated, correctly to my way of thinking, that the Government was interfering in non-white politics because it would nominate members to the Coloured Council that was going to come into existence. The hon. member for Omaruru replied to that by saying, “Oh, no. As long as you do not enter elections, it is not interference.” Well, now really, this is an argument! One can therefore circumvent the whole democratic process whereby persons ought to be elected to the Council, and that is all right; that is not interference! One simply says, “These 20 members will belong to the Coloured Council”, and one does not interfere.

Surely, that is much more direct interference than going into an election? Then at least one gives the voters the choice of whom they are going to have in their Coloured Council. I say the Government is interfering in politics in the Transkei, because more than half the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei consists of chiefs who hold their post by virtue of the goodwill of this Government. So that too is direct interference in colour politics in this country. What hon. members really mean by the word “interference”, by “improper interference”—the hon. member for Omaruru tried to distinguish between “proper” and “improper” interference—is anything the Nationalist Party cares to do in the field of non-white politics, such as removing the Coloureds from the common roll, such as taking Coloured representation out of this House, such as removing the Africans from the Common Roll and taking African representatives out of this House, and setting up councils in which there will be a very large proportion, and certainly the case of the Transkeian Legislative Assembly a majority, of members directly beholden to this Government for their position—that is “proper” interference. But “improper” interference is if any party opposes the Government’s policy of apartheid, as if apartheid has been handed down from the Mount. This is a policy which must not be touched.

Well, let me tell hon. members that the whole process of democracy presumes the right of argument against official policy, if one wants to. That is my democratic right, elected by a white electorate. But it is irrelevant whether I am elected by a white electorate or a non-white electorate, because I draw no distinction between riding into Parliament on the backs of the white voters of Houghton, or the hon. member for Prinshof riding into Parliament on the backs of the white voters of Pretoria, or the hon. member for Karoo riding into Parliament on the backs of the Coloured voters of the Karoo. I do not think that it matters at all. They were all voters and they those these particular members. The sin comes when it is a party propounding the direct opposite of apartheid, when it is a party propounding the removal of race discrimination and the granting to non-white people the right, not based on colour, but based on individual merit, of playing their full part in this country. Then it becomes improper interference. Because let us not be diverted by the nonsense talked by the hon. member for Parow about the irregular practices that he claims went on. We know perfectly well what went on in that election. We know what the courts have said. The courts told us that there were cases where some registration cards were irregularly signed, and that is all. Oh, ask hon. members, who knows what else went on?

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

Your Party bribed them.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

The hon. member would not dare to say that outside this House.

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

It has been proved in the courts.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

The hon. member knows I will take him into the courts of law right away. He makes libellous statements under the protection of this House. If he says that outside, I will take him to court. It was not proved for one moment. My party had nothing to do with any such thing. One member of my party was charged, and he was found not guilty by the courts of law. The hon. member has no business to make libellous statements like that. I object strongly to that. There were no irregular practices that could in any way justify this Improper Interference Bill. Irregularities at registration were minute in proportion to the total number. They had nothing whatever to do with the election itself. Practically all of those people were put back on the voter’s roll and were able to vote. There is no justification for this talk about the “unclean roll”, the roll being in a mess. There is nothing in the report of this commission that bears that out. The hon. member for Yeoville himself said that when the report was being discussed. That is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the Bill before the House. The Bill is aimed at one thing only, and that is to prevent what hon. members on the other side define as improper interference, which is any political party taking part, across the colour line, in politics, with a policy that is against apartheid. That is the simple explanation of this whole Bill. We could not get much out of the hon. the Minister’s definition, and we did not get very much out of his explanation. But there is not the slightest doubt from all the speeches that have been delivered in the House so far, that that is the aim and object of this Bill.

It is a much simpler Bill than its ugly predecessor. It only needs to be simple, because it does not have to do what the other Bill attempted to do, namely to find every possible devious way whereby the Progressive Party, or any other white party for that matter, that is anti-apartheid, could take part in elections for the Coloured representatives in this House. That is why this is such a simple little Bill. The fact that there is this clause to say that no meeting may be addressed is simply embroidering the main objective of the Bill. The main objective has been achieved, which is in fact the removal of the Coloured representatives. This Bill was not even necessary any more, because who really cares whether one addresses a meeting of Coloured people or not, as long as they are not going to be able to outvote white voters on a Common Roll, or to sit in this House, expounding a policy that is not pro-apartheid.

There are lots of odd little provisions dotted around, but I am going to wait till the Committee Stage to see whether I can get any clarification from the hon. the Minister. I might say this with regard to this question of interference—If any party is guilty of improper interference, it is the Nationalist Party. They have done nothing, as I say, but interfere in non-white politics in South Africa since they came into power 20 years ago. The biggest spreaders of racial hostility were members on that side of the House, including the hon. the Minister of Defence, when he was the Minister of Coloured Affairs.

I am against this Bill, not only because it is part and parcel of the three Bills, which really go together, namely the abolition of the Coloured representatives, the setting up of the Coloured Council and now this Bill, but I am against it, because it infringes a basic democratic right, namely freedom of association. That is the actual nub of this Bill. It grossly infringes freedom of association, and thereby freedom of speech. Furthermore, it is a manifestation of the whole basic assumption which underlies the apartheid philosophy. Colour is the important criterion whereby a person should be judged, irrespective of how clever he is. Irrespective of what he has achieved; his colour sets him apart. That decides where and how he shall live his life in South Africa. The Government is so obsessed with this colour idea, that it completely negates any scale which might be used in valuing our ordinary, common humanity. It admits in fact no common humanity between White and non-White in this country.

It is true that my party is fundamentally opposed to that policy. We believe that a man should be judged on individual merits, not on colour. The Indians never had any rights, anyway, but having deprived the Coloured people, and the African people of all their meaningful political rights, the Government now wants to deprive the different sections of the population of this fundamental right of free association, of political and other association across the colour line. As I say, this is a fundamental concept. Every single country in the world that is democratic, realizes that freedom of association is a basic concept. When the hon. the Minister of Planning, who is looking at me with such a quizzical look, was wearing his striped pants and top hat and was attending diplomatic functions as an Ambassador and being so moderate on colour policy, he made a speech in London not so long ago in which he told his audience that there was complete political freedom in South Africa. He might remember his deathless words. He said there was complete political freedom in South Africa, and that even the Liberal Party has every opportunity to work out its own destiny. [Interjections.] This was in London when the hon. the Minister was a diplomat.

HON. MEMBERS:

It was banned.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Well, they banned every leader of the Liberal Party. They leave the rest of them to work out their political destiny, to such an extent that they may no longer have non-white members. [Interjections.] No, of course not. Why did the hon. the Minister not tell the London audience that they can work out their political destiny provided they do it the way the Government tells them to do it? That is the sort of freedom this Government gives. Of course that is a totalitarian idea. As long as everybody does what the Government wants them to do, they are free to do what they like. That is a marvellous definition of political freedom, I must say. I would like the hon. the Minister when he trots overseas next time, to have another meeting in London of the South Africa Association, or one of these other bodies that will be delighted to provide him with a platform—maybe he could even ask Christian Action to give him a platform. He can then tell everybody again in London that there is political freedom and every party has the right to work out its own destiny.

The MINISTER OF PLANNING:

What I shall tell them, is that instead of 27,000, 300,000 can now vote.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

What hypocrisy! My word! Hon. members have been at pains to tell us that this Bill does not prevent multiracial meetings. One can go to a multi-racial meeting as long as one does not advance the aims of one’s own party. The hon. member for Karoo can go back to his constituency and talk to an audience, with the greater majority being Coloureds. We still do not know what that means. The hon. the Minister no doubt, in his own inimitable, clear way, is going to tell us what he means by “greater majority”, when we get to the Committee Stage. But one can address such a meeting, providing …

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

You are not really so ignorant as you are pretending to be.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

I am very confused about this clause. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will enlighten me. I will listen to his speech when he enlightens me. [Interjections.] There is a very interesting definitions clause in this Bill, too. I want to give the hon. the Minister los of time to tell me what I want to know in the Committee Stage. The very first part of this clause says—

In this Act, unless the context otherwise indicates—
  1. (i) “population group” means the persons who from time to time belong to any one of the following population groups:
    1. (a) the Bantu population group;
    2. (b) the white population group;
    3. (c) the Coloured population group;
    4. (d) the Indian, Chinese and other Asiatics population group;

This conjures up all sorts of interesting possibilities of people hopping around from one population group to the other all the time. It is a sort of classification hopscotch. One is a chameleon in this country. From time to time one apparently changes one’s colour classification. I know that we have lots of classifications under different Acts, but it will be very interesting for the hon. the Minister to tell us what he means by “persons who from time to time belong to any one of the following population groups”.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Have you never heard of objections against classifications?

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Yes, but the hon. the Minister is doing his best to stop them. When the last Bill was passed in this regard I thought that he told us that it was intended to stop all this hopping around from one population group to another. Is that what he was thinking of? I do not think it was what his advisers were thinking about. They were thinking about something quite different when they put that extraordinary little phrase in this Bill.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

You had better ask them then.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

No. It is the hon. the Minister’s job, not mine.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! Is the hon. the Minister of the opinion that he will advance his case by continually making interjections?

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Finally I want to say that I have had the privilege of belonging to a multi-racial political party for nine years. I want to make it absolutely clear that it has been a privilege to belong to a multi-racial party for nearly nine years. The majority of hon. members never come into contact with a non-white person other than in a master-servant relationship. That is the only relationship they know, because they have never met and discussed across a table, politics or any other of the important things that affect this country with a non-white person.

I want to tell them that it is a very enlightening experience. They will find that non-white people are politically very moderate and that all they want are the opportunities that white people have, namely to have compulsory education for their children and to use their potentialities to the greatest extent. They do not want this protection from competition which the hon. the Minister mentioned. In his second-reading speech he told us that one of the things that was being done for the Coloured people was that they were being protected against competition with white people. They do not want such protection. All they want is an opportunity to start off on the same basis as the white people in this country, to have education and to use their potentialities to their best advantage. They do not want protection against competition. They are quite able to hold their own. The Minister need not be so protective towards them. I suppose the reason why we have job reservation is to protect the Coloured man against competition from the white man. I want to say that it is a very rewarding experience to have belonged to a multi-racial party.

I am grateful for the contacts I was able to make with my fellow non-white citizens because I learnt a great deal from them. One thing I learnt is that they are far more moderate in their outlook than the members of the Nationalist Party. I say that it is a dangerous thing that the House is doing to-day, namely to deny moderate non-Whites the opportunity of talking politics and of participating in the formation of policies in multi-racial parties and of meeting to discuss politics with other moderate white citizens such as myself. I have news for our well-travelled Ministers. Overseas I am considered a conservative but in terms of South-African policies I am indeed a moderate white South African. I say that to deny fellow non-white citizens of this country the right of discussing politics with moderate white fellow-citizens is a dangerous thing. It is a danger that was pointed out by two persons who gave evidence before this commission. Ds. Botha and Professor N. J. J. Olivier also pointed out the dangers of not allowing non-white people to discuss politics with moderate white South Africans. We want to drive the non-Whites away from us. As everyone knows I do not subscribe to this argument of ganging up. I do not want the Coloureds to gang up with us against the African people but this whole system of separating people into political compartments on a racial basis is a dangerous thing. It is going to drive the non-white people into bitterness, frustration and hostility. It is something for which this country is going to pay. What is happening in America at the moment is a transition period. When the Civil Rights Legislation is fully implemented that bitterness will disappear. What we are building in South Africa to-day, with our divisions into racial groups and our compartmentalizing every aspect of life, with the frustrations and the hostilities that we are building up, are all things for which we may not have to pay, or for which that hon. member may not have to pay, but his children and his grandchildren will pay for it. They will pay dearly for it.

Mr. Speaker, I therefore wish to move—

To omit “now” and to add at the end “this day six months”.
*Mr. A. N. STEYN:

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend pursuing the argument of the hon. member for Houghton, as we are poles apart. We shall never find common ground on which to argue. In between her private altercations with the hon. the Minister of Mines, the hon. the Minister of the Interior and other members, she touched upon a few matters which really belong in the Committee Stage, and which will be discussed there. However, at the end of her speech she referred to the Rev. Botha’s evidence before the Committee, and I shall quote to her later on in my speech what the Rev. Botha said about the Progressive Party.

The Bill now before the House is the result of the National Party’s desire to seek the best for the Coloured people and the non-Whites in South Africa and to ensure greater active political rights for the non-Whites; greater rights than those they have had until now. This legislation is based on and is a result of our policy of separate development. It is based, in particular, on two of the pillars of the policy of the National Party. The first is that every group be afforded the opportunity of developing to its full potential. We therefore believe that the non-Whites must develop politically at a rate that suits them and not at a rate recommended by certain Whites and white parties. The bitter experience of African states which received political rights before they were ripe for it is still fresh in our memories and is a warning to us to hasten slowly in this connection. The second pillar of our policy which is applicable here, is our wish to minimize as far as possible all possible friction between the various race groups. The black clouds of smoke hanging over many cities in America to-day, bear witness to the fact that the granting of rights on paper, rights which therefore cannot be exercised in practice, provides no solution to a race problem. On the contrary, it can only lead to enormous friction and frustration. The hon. member for Houghton will of course welcome friction and frustrations of this nature in South Africa. Everyone who has sincere intentions as regards the Coloured people, will admit that it is in their own interests that they should stand on their own feet, that they should think for themselves and that they should exercise their own political rights. Every right-thinking hon. member in this House must admit that it is in the interests of the non-Whites that they should be able to develop their own national pride with the least possible interference from outside and that they should produce and choose their own political leaders from amongst their own ranks. If situations occur that frustrate this ideal, which we envisage for the Coloured people as well, it is our task and duty to take action to remedy the position. We must then intervene, because it is generally recognized that the Whites of South Africa are the guardians of the non-Whites of South Africa. A guardian who is worth his salt seeks only the best for his ward, irrespective of whether he may embarrass other persons in the process. And the National Party, as becomes a guardian who views, exercises and fulfils his duty in an honest way, has always seen to the interests and needs of the non-Whites. In this respect the record of the National Party is much better than that of the United Party. Here I want to read an extract from The Star, Johannesburg, of 31st March, 1968, just to illustrate the typical difference in approach between the two parties. This extract is taken from a summary of the book “Benoni, Son of my Sorrow”. It reads—

Benoni’s chapter on Africans and other non-Whites in the town is a blistering condemnation of the sheer unconcern of various Benoni town councils—almost wholly English-speaking—towards the welfare and living conditions of its less privileged citizens. In 1931, when conditions were at their worst in the festering slum that was Benoni location, the infant death rate among non-Whites was nearly 100 per cent. In 1934 the wife of the Agent-General for India said after a visit to the location, “I was simply appalled by the distressing conditions there and would never have believed that a place where human beings were forced to live could be so bad.”

Further on in this article the following paragraph occurs—

The formation of an illegal squatters’ camp in the early fifties precipitated the development of Daveyton, one of South Africa’s first model African townships—a transformation in Benoni’s non-White affairs that was little short of miraculous and which was largely the work of the present director of non-European affairs, Dr. J. E. Mathewson. The council was compelled to do something, and Dr. Mathewson, working through official government policy, was largely responsible for planning and carrying out this scheme, which now accommodates 60,000 people and is a show-place for sociologists and visitors from overseas.

This, Sir, is the record of the National Party in so far as its guardianship towards the non-Whites is concerned. A good guardian must at all times be a good paterfamilias; he must guard against exploitation of the immaturity and inexperience of his ward to the detriment of that ward. Unfortunately it has now happened that malpractices have developed in our political setup, malpractices which are to the detriment of the non-Whites and which may create serious points of friction among the various race groups in the country. If this were to happen, it would be the non-Whites who would suffer most. And the existence of those malpractices are not only admitted by us on this side of the House. It has also been admitted by the Leader of the Opposition. Reference has already been made to what he said in this connection, and therefore I do not want to repeat it. The hon. member for Peninsula also said (Hansard, volume 18, column 2982)—

I will have an opportunity at a later stage to bring to the notice of the House some of the grossest abuses and malpractices which have been indulged in.

We in this House remember the unpleasant fight that day between the hon. member for Peninsula and the hon. member for Houghton when he pointed out what the Progressive Party had in fact done. The present hon. Minister of Defence challenged the hon. member for Houghton as follows in 1965—

I now challenge the hon. member for Houghton to get up and to ask for the appointment of a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate the funds of the Progressive Party and the way in which these funds have been spent amongst the Coloured people.

The hon. member for Houghton was not prepared to do this. This can mean only one thing, and that is that the hands of the Progressive Party were so dirty that they could not dare appear before a commission. The report of the commission of inquiry which has been submitted to the House abounds with proof of improper interference. I shall content myself with quoting only two proofs. On page 136 of the report one of the members of the Conservative Party says—

Ek het hulle daarop gewys dat ek, wat ons party betref, swaarkry omdat ons nie geld het nie en omdat ons nie kan kom waar ons wil wees nie. My mense is arm en hulle het nie geld nie. Hoe gaan hulle dan die geld kry? Hulle antwoord was dat geld by hulle geen probleem is nie. Feit is dat hulle man-ne daar wil kry wat die taal van die Progressiewe Party sal gaan praat en nie die taal van ons eie mense nie. Dit is wat ons wil verhoed. Dit bring ons mense in die ge-drang, saai net haat en nyd en sweep ons mense op teen die Regering.

And then it is still being said that there is no evidence to support this legislation. I quote further what was said by the witness on page 137 in reply to a question—

Would you then, of your own knowledge of the Progressive Party’s activities in the Peninsula, say that they have to a very large extent interfered with the Coloured electorate?—Yes, I would say so. One of our great leaders was a member of the party and he told me later on that he no longer wanted to have anything to do with them. He knew their aims and what they were after. He said they wanted to use the Coloured person merely as a tool and nothing else.

In his memorandum to the committee the Rev. Botha, who has been quoted several times on that side in support of their case, says on page 35 of the report that—

Dit behoef geen betoog nie dat die op-trede van die Progressiewe Party, as hy on-gehinderd toegelaat word om voort te gaan, beslis gevare inhou vir die goeie verhoudinge tussen die blankes en die Kleurlinge. Omdat hy geen kans staan om blanke steun te verwerf nie kan sy beleid ook nooit as moontlike praktiese politiek gesien word nie, ook nie deur die Kleurlinge nie. Wat hy dus aan die Kleurlinge voorhou, is ’n onpraktiese ideaal wat weens sy politieke onbereikbaarheid slegs frustrasie kan skep, terwyl hy die Kleurlinge verhinder om die voordele van die bestaande beleid te benut.

This was said by the person who was quoted a moment ago by the hon. member for Houghton in support of her case. This is what he has to say in regard to interference by the Progressive Party.

The good guardian wants his ward to have good friends, because good and well-meaning friends are necessary for the sound development of the ward. At the same time it is also the duty of the guardian to protect his ward against had friends, friends who seek the friendship of the ward only for their own profit and advantage. Since this side of the House now has concrete proof of the existence of such malpractices and of their adverse effects on the non-Whites, we shall be neglecting our duty as guardian if we do not take positive action to put an end to these abuses. In practice we find that when the guardian takes strong action against these so-called friends, these “friends” do not seek the fault with themselves, hut with the guardian. This is what we are experiencing in this House to-day. This, however, will not cause us to abandon what we are envisaging for the non-Whites. What real benefits do the non-Whites enjoy under the present political dispensation? What benefits do the non-Whites enjoy by being members of White political parties? Any right-thinking person will agree with me that it holds few or no benefits for the non-Whites. It will place the non-Whites in a subservient position for all time, in so far as realizing their political ideals is concerned. It will keep the non-Whites in a subservient position for ever and make them an appendix to white political parties. Under the proposed legislation the non-Whites will have to come forward themselves to undertake the organization of parties and election campaigns. This is part of the development we envisage for the non-Whites. It will create positive opportunities for the development of political leaders amongst the non-Whites, leaders who are lacking at present. It will enable the non-Whites to choose their own people as political leaders. These will be people who understand them, who speak their language and who will be able to present their case. It will prevent the non-Whites from being thrown about like a ball among political parties. Legislation to this end is supported by the same Rev. Botha in the memorandum which he submitted to the commission. On page 34 of the report he said—

Indien die bedoeling van die wetgewing teen „onbehoorlike politieke inmenging” positief daarop gemik is om die ontwikkeling van politieke partye by die Kleurlinge te stimuleer, sal dit moontlik uitvoerbaar wees, as nie verder gegaan word nie as om te verbied dat blanke politieke partye amptelik en met aanwending van hulle politieke organisasies aan veldtogte en verkiesings onder die Kleurlinge deelneem. Dan sal Kleurlinge self na vore moet kom om party-organisasies en verkiesingsveldtogte te onderneem. Die netto resultaat van so ’n maatreël sal wees dat Kleurlingleierskap in die politieke veld sal ontwikkel, omdat mededinging met en oorheersing van die blankes uitgeskakel word op amptelike vlak … As die bedoeling is om positiewe geleenthede te skep vir die ontplooiing van politieke leierskap onder die Kleurlinge, is niks drastieser nodig nie as om te verbied dat blanke politieke partye amptelik inmeng.

This is how the Rev. Botha puts the case and this is also the approach of this side of the House as far as this legislation is concerned. Since we have always been honest towards the non-Whites, we believe that we must enable them to stand on their own feet in politics.

Lastly I should like to refer you to the report of the Native Affairs Commission of 1905, when the political rights of non-Whites were also involved. The commission said—

It is true that there will still be political influences at work amongst the Natives, and party candidates will still compete with each other for their votes, but the commission has sufficient confidence in the political sagacity of the Natives to believe that they will not become the mere tool of parties, but will speedily realize their responsibility and appreciate the opportunity when returning a member for themselves.

This is what the Native Affairs Commission of 1903-’05 said. As far back as 1905 this commission saw the dangers of interference, but they felt that the Coloured people would perhaps be able to develop in order to resist that danger on their own. This has not happened in practice, and this is why this legislation is necessary. This side of the House will be neglecting its duty if we do not introduce this legislation.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down spent some time in a private argument with the hon. member for Houghton and the Progressive Party. I would not like to interfere in this argument in case the hon. the Minister brand that interference as improper. I will leave the hon. member and his argument with the Progressives and pass on to two things that he said which were also said by the hon. the Minister in his introduction of this Bill. Both these hon. members said that the Whites are the guardians of the non-white people. I have no argument with that at all; in fact I agree with this concept. They both went on to say that “the Nationalist Party has always, and will continue to, exercise this guardianship in a responsible manner”. This I deny. It has not happened in the past. It has stooped to such measures as the High Court of Parliament and the packing of the Senate. It has stooped to all sorts of measures to try in some way to hit at these people whose “guardians” they claim to be and to deny them rights to which they are entitled, entitled in this House. This Bill is the utter negation of the statements made by both those two hon. gentlemen.

Sir, when I started to think about what I would say to the House the first thought which I wrote down was that this Bill was a natural extension of the stupid and vain attempt of the Nationalist Party Government to force apartheid on South Africa.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Fortunately nobody is listening to you.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

This first thought of mine was borne out completely and utterly by the hon. member for Prinshof who in his speech this afternoon said that the object of this Bill was to implement what he called “aparte ontwikkeling” or separate development or apartheid, or call it what you will. He went on to say that notwithstanding the opposition of the Official Opposition, the Nationalists would carry out their policy. Sir, I want once again to pose this question to the other side of the House: How far have they got with separate development? Where is the separation? There is no development.

*An HON. MEMBER:

You are blind.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

They are prepared, as the hon. member for Prinshof has said, to carry out this policy notwithstanding any opposition, and they are prepared to do this even if it does mean, as they have done before, the rape of the rights of the Bantu, the rape of the rights of the Coloureds and, I would go so far as to say, the rape of the rights of any person who stands between them and the goal which they seem to have in the dim and distant future; this pipe-dream of theirs. As I said, this Bill is a natural extension of their policy of apartheid. To achieve this, in terms of this Bill, it is the intention of the Minister to compartmentalize the people of South Africa into four groups, into four watertight compartments, into four neo-political groups. I am satisfied—and I am sure that there are many others who are satisfied—that the vast majority of the people of South Africa do not want this compartmentalization. Sir, the non-Whites of this country already feel rejected by the white people. Under this Nationalist Government they already feel relegated to the status of under-privileged serfdom. Under this Nationalist Party Government they have no say in the Central Government. They also have no hope of a country of their own. Sir, this legislation is being introduced because of the pathological fear of that side of the House of the non-white people in this country, and because of their inherent inferiority complex. It is time that they overcame this; it is time that hon. members on that side grew up and faced up to the responsibilities and realities of life in this country. On the other hand we, the members of the United Party, recognize the inter-dependence of all the people in this country, and we recognize the right of all the peoples in this country to some representation in this House, which is the centre of government.

An HON. MEMBER:

All the peoples?

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

The hon. member heard me quite clearly. He must just listen instead of making a noise and then he might understand, if he is capable of understanding. All the peoples of South Africa are entitled to some representation in this House.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Why “some”?

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

The United Party will give all the population groups representation here.

An HON. MEMBER:

By people of their own colour?

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Under our policy, which I submit is the right policy, this Bill would be completely and utterly unnecessary. Not only would it be unnecessary but it would also be morally wrong, and therefore I reject this Bill. Sir, one cannot truly speak of independent racial or population groups in the country. As I said a few days ago in this House, this is a unitary State. Our history and the nature of our administration make independence for the various groups impossible, even if that independence were desirable. Sir, we are all common citizens of one land. Even the intense will of hon. members on that side of the House for separation has not resulted in one scrap of separation in this country.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

That is nonsense.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

If such independent development as they talk about had in fact been the traditional way of life in this country, we would have had one group less to deal with to-day in this Bill; we would not have had the Coloured group with which we are dealing here to-day. Therefore the real problem that we have to face is the one of interdependence upon one another and how to discharge our responsibility one towards the other. Such responsibilities—I want to make this quite clear—cannot be determined, as the Nationalist Government wants to do, unilaterally; it must be done by consultation, and therefore we ought to be concerned with the means of contact between these various groups and not the means of separation as planned in this Bill. We will have to learn how to share with the other groups in this country and how to lead and assist them rather than how to isolate and separate them. The primary testimony, when it comes to defining, as we are trying to do in this Bill, what constitutes interference, whether it is improper or otherwise, must come from those whose lives and rights are being interfered with. That is why I say that it cannot be decided unilaterally by this Nationalist Government acting on their own without consultation with those people whose rights they claim are being interfered with. In fact, this Bill provides neither for independent development nor for apartheid, nor for mutual co-operation. As I have said, it seeks to divide the peoples of South Africa; it seeks to cut off all communication; it prohibits any contact and discussion between them. It denies the more privileged people of this country the opportunity to lead and to guide and to assist the less privileged people in this country, and as such it constitutes a threat to the security of the country. Those less privileged people need the assistance and guidance of the white man who represents Western civilization in this country. They need that guidance if the peoples of South Africa are ultimately to attain their ordained fulfilment in this country as inhabitants of one happy country.

Sir, the hon. member for Prinshof had the temerity to say that this Bill would not cut off the dialogue between the non-Whites and the Whites. I deny that categorically. This Bill —and I say this advisedly— denies those privileges to all except the Nationalist Party. We heard the hon. members for Orange Grove and Durban (North) here on this point. I want to carry a little further the argument raised by the hon. member for Orange Grove. The hon. member for Prinshof accused him of reflecting upon civil servants. He alleged that the hon. member for Orange Grove had said that it would be the officials who would be interfering. But, Sir, this applies to every person. I submit that if the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration addresses a group of Bantu and suggests that they must establish tribal and territorial authorities, he is acting in the furtherance of the aims of the Nationalist Party and technically, in terms of clause 2 (c), he perpetrates an offence. Sir, I wonder why the provisions of clause 4 (2) were included in this Bill. Perhaps the hon. the Minister in his reply to this debate will tell us. The hon. member for Durban (North) has suggested a possible reason. I sincerely hope that that is not the reason and that there is some legitimate reason for the inclusion of this clause, but if the argument of the hon. member for Durban (North) is correct, then it places a very bad imputation on the intentions of the Minister and of the Government. The long title of the Bill talks about prohibiting interference by one population group in the politics of any other population group. [Interjection.] I wonder whether the hon. member who has just interjected can give us a definition of “politics”.

An HON. MEMBER:

It is something you know nothing about.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

It is not as well known as hon. members here would like to make out. The Oxford Concise Dictionary goes so far as to say that it is so wide of application that it is not worth discussing. Politics is everything; politics pertains to the life and the everyday existence of people, and not to the narrow, bigoted ideas that the party opposite has. How do we decide what is politics and what is interference in politics? Nowhere in this Bill is the word “politics” used, and I am certain that is because we have here a deliberate and blatant attempt by that Nationalist Government to mislead the people outside, as they have done before, by introducing a short title which says: “Prohibition of Improper Interference,” whereas in the long title it talks about the “Prohibition of Interference in the Politics”. These are all high-sounding ideals which everybody agrees with. This side of the House is not in favour of improper interference with anything by anybody else. But nowhere in this Bill is there any definition of “improper” or of “interference” or of “politics”, and nowhere in the Bill does it go so far as to say that interference is prohibited. And this word “interference” has a bad connotation. But what the Bill says is that the assistance of one person or one group to a person of another group is prohibited, and “assistance” is a word which has a good connotation and not a bad one like “interference”. I repeat that that was introduced by this Government with the deliberate intent of misleading the people so that when they knew we would oppose it they could then go to the “volk daarbuite”, to quote the hon. member for South Coast, and say that the United Party is in favour of improper interference in the affairs of one racial group by members of another group.

There is another point about this Bill. It places in the hands of that Minister gargantuan powers which no one man should ever have, and if I were in his shoes I would be scared. This Bill empowers him by proclamation under section 5 of the Population Registration Act to decide who, or which population groups shall take part in the affairs of which groups, as defined in the Act. We already have an anomaly existing in this country. In the Cape Province to-day Indians and other Asiatics, as defined in paragraph (iv) of clause 1 of the Bill, are presently enrolled and will take part in the election of members of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. But this Council is to represent the Coloured people as defined in paragraph (iii). This is what the hon. member for Houghton referred to just now when she referred to paragraph (i) line 6, where it says “from time to time”, because the Minister has the power to change it. If he finds that these Indians and Asiatics are “interfering”, as he calls it, or are influencing the elections of representatives of this Council, he can remove them by proclamation on his own and without reference to this House; he shall make the decision on his own and he can with a stroke of the pen change them, as the hon. member for Houghton said, from one group to another. That is what I meant when I said that we have here a Bill which gives the Minister gargantuan powers, and I say to the Minister: Beware. Such powers should not be in the hands of one man.

I want to conclude by paraphrasing Rousseau, when he said: “Man is born free, but everywhere he is in ‘legislative’ bonds.”

*Mr. T. N. H. JANSON:

Before I come to the positive aspects of this legislation, which is what I really want to discuss, I would just like to reply to a few matters which have been touched upon here and in regard to which I think a little clarity ought to be obtained so that they do not stand recorded from the point of view of one side only.

I was not a member of this Commission of Inquiry, but I have had the privilege of reading the Commission’s report. I was also present in this House when the desirability of appointing the Commission of Inquiry was being discussed, and I listened to what was said here. Then, too, I have never had anything to do with the election of Coloured Representatives, but I did have the privilege of listening to people who did have something to do with it. Now one can say it is the word of one person against that of another, and I do not want to form a judgment about that, but I do think it is necessary to obtain clarity in regard to one matter mentioned by the hon. member for Houghton as an accusation against the hon. member for Parow, who was a member of this Commission.

Perhaps the hon. member issued an unladylike challenge, but it is probably her duty and her right to try and defend a poor case in that way. She said that she challenged the hon. member for Parow to prove that the Progressive Party had ever had anything to do with those irregularities to which reference was made. I do not want to take the hon. member for Parow’s word against that of the hon. member for Houghton, but I do want to tell her what a certain Mr. Brink said when he was giving evidence before this Commission.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

He is a completely discredited man.

*Mr. T. N. H. JANSON:

I am only saying that this witness was heard by the entire Commission, and now I want to add, since accusations have been leveled against the National Party, and because the hon. member for Parow is a respected member of the National Party, that I want to bring it to the attention of the hon. the member that these questions were not put by a member of the National Party on the Commission, but by a representative of the Coloureds themselves, who probably knows more about the Coloured elections than even the wise hon. member for Houghton, who represents a white constituency and who did not fight an election amongst the Coloureds here. This is what the hon. member for Peninsula elicited from Mr. Brink under cross-examination. He asked—

Were you during the last provincial elections approached by certain representatives of a certain political party with a request to help them?—Yes. Which party was it?—The Progressive Party. Was it white people who introduced you? —Yes, it was the secretary of the party, a Mr. Ashley. Resident here in Cape Town?—Yes. Did you during the negotiations see any other leaders of the party?—No, only once, I think …

And he mentioned a name but I do not want to mention the name he mentioned. I shall read further—

I want you to tell this Commission what promises were held out to you for helping the Progressive Party?—They asked me to attest these voters’ cards. They would give me money for it, they said.
*Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Those are lies.

*Mr. T. N. H. JANSON:

I should just like to read further. I just want to say that I can refute what the hon. member for Houghton has said here from the evidence of a Commission of Inquiry which was appointed. Here it stands on page 137—

From your knowledge, do you know of any other instance where professional men like you have been brought down through the actions of the Progressive Party?—Yes, I know of several cases. One man got such a shock that he is paralysed to-day. He is a teacher, but I think he is still out of the profession.

[Interjections.] Sir, the truth of this can probably be ascertained—

Was he, too, prosecuted?—Yes, but I was told that the Progressive Party paid his fine. I also know of another man whose fine was paid.

Mr. Speaker, it is probably not necessary for me to read any further.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Lies!

*Mr. T. N. H. JANSON:

The only reason why I am reading it out, is because the hon. member for Houghton has recently made a habit of labelling any arguments from this side of the House, in the way she has just done, as “lies”. If anyone disagrees, if anyone does not subscribe to her opinions, it is all lies, and this includes evidence which was given before a Commission of Inquiry. [Interjections.] But if the hon. member for Houghton is making this objection on behalf of her party I want to agree with one thing hon. members have said about her, but otherwise not, and that is that in part she has stated the standpoint of her party honestly. But I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton, who is now opposing this Bill, to take this honesty a step further than merely making this fuss here in the House which enables her to get into the newspapers. I want to ask her simply to go and inform the voters, who are at present voters, of the consequences of her standpoint. I listened to her again this afternoon while she was hurling accusations across the floor of this House. She maintains that we want to determine the future of this country solely on the basis of colour. She added that in the beautiful utopia which her party wants to create, the colour bar is in any case going to be eliminated. May I now ask the hon. member for Houghton, on behalf of white South Africa, and also on behalf of that White-Christian South Africa which she ridiculed here the other day when she spoke of an “unholy trinity” when she ridiculed the dogma of Christians and the Christian faith in this House with her reference to this legislation as an “unholy trinity”, whether she will go and inform the English-speaking Christian South Africa what the consequences of her stand point are, and what her views are in regard to the future of South Africa. She said it was the National Party Government which wanted to form judgments on the basis of colour alone, and stated that she wanted to eliminate those colour bars.

Now I would like to ask the hon. member for Houghton the following: Would she kindly go and inform the voting public that she is going to display fairness towards every member of the Coloured population and towards every member of the Bantu population, whom she has stated she is serving, and who ought, so she believes to enjoy the same rights. I am asking her to go and tell them that a council is not being appointed here to decide arbitrarily on a horizontal division of voters with a high intelligence, income or training, but that she will go and tell them the following: On the grounds of what the Whites are enjoying here, I demand that all non-white population groups should enjoy the same things. Let her go and tell this to the voters; this is what I want now, and, if I do not get it now, this is what I am going to get to-morrow. All non-Whites above the age of 18 years as in the case of the Whites; Bantu, Coloured, everyone is to have the franchise. Let her go and say this to white South Africa. Let her also go and say this to people who belong to the United Party and who at least still want qualified franchise. Let her go and say this to those people, and see whether she will make the grade on that platform, even in Houghton. Let her go and talk in Houghton about an “unholy trinity” to Christians living there, and then we shall see whether she returns to realize her ideals in regard to the devastation of a white civilization and of Christianity here.

For these reasons the hon. member for Houghton is opposing this legislation. With the best will in the world, I cannot comprehend the honesty of that standpoint even if there were other hon. members, even on this side of the House, who comprehend it. I maintain that the honesty of a political party should at least be tested in this way, i.e. that it should not only be prepared to accept the consequences of its policy to itself, but that it should also be prepared to explain the consequences of its standpoint to its voters. It has been stated of this side of the House that we have never explained the full consequences of our policy to our people. If we have never explained the consequences of the costs in connection with the apartheid policy of the Government, I am very certain that the United Party has not only explained it, but has also clouded the issue with the explanation they gave of it. The Governing party has explained those consequences to its voters, and has urged its people, and it is still doing so, to accept the responsibility for that. I am asking the Progressive Party to evince the same honesty, to inform the people of South Africa that they will implement this policy of theirs in all its consequences.

I want to go even further. I can really understand the concern felt by the hon. member for Houghton. It is a well-known fact that, if one wants to encumber another person’s case, one must cast suspicion on that person. If one cannot win a case on its own merits, disparage the other man’s case and ascribe ulterior motives to him. That is what has been done here, and unfortunately not only by the representative of the Progressive Party, but also by hon. members of the official Opposition. The hon. member for Houghton has not only done so to-day. When this legislation was before this House, she sought, in conflict with what the Coloured Representatives and others had stated, another reason for the legislation. She found one to her own satisfaction and announced to the world with great acclaim that the only reason why this legislation was being introduced was because the Government was afraid that there would be four Progressive Party representatives here.

*Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Is it true or untrue?

*Mr. T. N. H. JANSON:

I do not know whether the hon. member wants to know from me whether the assertion which I have just made is true or not, because I would be able to read out to her from Hansard what she stated. She stated that this was the reason why the Government was continuing with the legislation.

*Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Yes.

*Mr. T. N. H. JANSON:

The hon. member continues to say so. Let me tell the hon. member this. If the Coloured Representatives of the Progressive Party look after the interests of that party in South Africa in the way the hon. member for Houghton does, then I would welcome it even if there were 12 representatives of that party here. They would do that party untold harm. They would in any case so destroy the Progressive Party amongst the White public of South Africa that it would never rise again. I have no doubt that the hon. member for Houghton would in any case have succeeded in doing this on her own. Sometime or other before the next election we will have to take official leave of her, if she would only have the honesty to go and put her standpoint to the voters.

If it were true that the Government were afraid that there would be four Coloured Representatives of the Progressive Party here, then I can only suggest to the hon. member for Houghton that the Government most certainly has the right to protect the non-White population and the Coloureds from people who have been rejected by the rest of the electorate of South Africa, people whose only recourse now is to a sector of the population where they do not even belong. Has the hon. member for Houghton and the leaders of her party lost their self-confidence so completely and absolutely, as well as their confidence in the case which they would probably want to put to the Whites as well—because she does after all talk about the welfare of the entire South Africa—that they no longer see their way clear to letting those other hon. members who are looking for seats, stand in other constituencies? I am thinking here of Pretoria (West) or, if it is necessary, Witbank. Why do they not go and stand in White constituencies and subsequently come here to argue this case on its merits?

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Why do you not put up a candidate in Houghton?

*Mr. T. N. H. JANSON:

There will probably be opportunities for doing so in future, and I am certain the hon. member must say as much as possible of what she can say during this session and during the lifetime of this Parliament.

I want to come to the standpoint of the official Opposition. At the outset I want to say that I really cannot understand why such a great deal should be said this afternoon in regard to matters which do not appear in this measure at all. I do not want to go into all the details because I am convinced, as has been stated by other speakers, particularly by the hon. members who served on the Commission, that we are dealing here with positive legislation which has to serve to further the development and stabilize the autogenous, independent development of our various population groups, as laid down in our policy. Now I will be the first to admit, and I want to say this in my personal capacity, that probably not even this legislation is a perfect piece of legislation. No legislation is. I should just like to remind hon. members of the numerous laws which have been passed over the years and in regard to which it is still continually necessary to effect changes owing to the demands of the times. Not only the demands of the times, but also because incorrect provisions are sometimes written into such laws, and because the test of time has proved that certain aspects are wrong. But the principles contained in this measure is what should be implement according to the views of the voting public of South Africa. Firstly I should like to say a few things to the hon. member for Orange Grove, and also I think, to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) who has just resumed his seat. According to them a prohibition is being imposed in clause 2 (c) and “any meeting, gathering or assembly of persons”, and they have had a great deal to say about the words “of whom all or the greater majority” then belong to another population group. The hon. member for Orange Grove punned beautifully. In his usual manner he tried to make the legislation appear ridiculous.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

We are simply asking what “the greater majority” means; is it 80 per cent or 90 per cent?

*Mr. T. N. H. JANSON:

I shall explain it to the hon. member, if he would exercise a little patience. Before I dwell on one word, I just want to tell him that he should read further. The hon. member often puts me in mind—and I say this with respect for the Bible—of the man who is supposed to have said that one may not smoke; “it stands in the Bible”. Will we not find a prohibition of this nature in the Bible, that the word “it” does occur in the Bible. This is precisely the way in which the hon. member for Orange Grove always reads a thing. He misunderstands something completely because he refuses to read it to the end. In clause 2 we find the following words—“address any meeting, gathering or assembly of persons of whom all or the greater majority belong to any other population group or groups for the purpose of furthering the interests of a political party or the candidature of any person who has been nominated or may be nominated as a candidate for an election referred to in paragraph (b) …” That is the main point. A person may not address any meeting which has been convened for the purpose of furthering the interests of a candidature of a specific person belonging to another population group. If this definition could be improved on, and if the hon. Opposition wishes to help improve the wording of this legislation, clause for clause, then we can discuss the question of improved wording in the Committee Stage. We can then discuss the merits of this. [Interjections.]

I do not know why the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg is becoming excited now. I can say precisely the same thing to him as I have just said to the hon. member for Orange Grove, i.e. he did not read further than what was stated here either. I should like to know from the hon. Opposition whether they still adhere to-day to the attitude they adopted at the time of the debate between the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Peninsula? The standpoint was, inter alia, subscribed to by means of interjections from the hon. member for Yeoville when he tried to justify his Party’s standpoint. I want to make the assertion that the standpoint of the United Party in regard to this legislation is solely based on the fact that the Coloured representatives will leave Parliament after the next election, and that they do not want to discuss this Bill on its merits. They do not want to discuss the merits of the principles, and the merits of the clauses of this legislation. Otherwise it is inconceivable that, during the disclosure of certain information here by the hon. member for Peninsula and others, they should have adopted the attitude they did adopt in regard to the appointment of a commission. Then it is inconceivable that the United Party should have testified to its consent to the fact that elections could not be held at that stage and that a commission of enquiry into improper interference had to be appointed. Then it is inconceivable that the United Party should oppose this legislation since they did actually admit, by word and deed, as it appeared from the cross-questioning by their members on the Commission, that there was “improper interference”, regardless of what definition they wished to attach to that word.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Give an example of the improper interference, and state where it is mentioned here.

*Mr. T. N. H. JANSON:

I do not know whether the hon. member for Orange Grove was here when I was furnishing examples. More than that I cannot say. But there was improper interference here and if he refers to the evidence, he would probably find more examples. If we must quarrel over words, I now want to ask the Opposition what their intention was when they gave their consent to the appointment of a commission to consider the Bill on “improper interference”. Surely one does not say one is going to discuss “improper interference” without even knowing what you are going to discuss or for what purpose you are going to serve on the commission? Surely they have to accept that there was interference of such a nature that it could be termed improper.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

But this Bill prohibits all contact.

*Mr. T. N. H. JANSON:

That is not true. I want to deny categorically that this measure eliminates all contact between the various population groups. That is why it is being defined in this way in the title of the Bill, namely a, “Bill to prohibit interference by one population group in the politics …” The hon. member can tell me what the Oxford Dictionary, the Concise Dictionary, or other dictionaries say about that. But we do know what we are talking about. Why should we split hairs now? Surely we know what is involved here. By “interference” we mean that one political party is interfering in the politics of another population group. Hon. members can ask me for definitions in regard to that as well now, and my reply is as follows: Definitions will develop in the course of time and acquire the right nuance, the right connotation, to the satisfaction of the Opposition as well.

I want to conclude by saying that this legislation is not the negative measure the Opposition want to pretend it is. It has been stated by other speakers as well that this is a further implementation of the policy for which a mandate has time and again been obtained by the Government from the voting public of South Africa.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

When?

*Mr. T. N. H. JANSON:

I shall tell the hon. member for Transkei when. I cannot remember the precise date on which this took place, but the mandate was given during various general elections and again recently during the latest by-election. In that election —and hon. members are welcome to ask the new hon. member—a great deal was said about the policy of the Government. The mandate was recently reaffirmed in Pretoria (West). At that election members of opposition parties made all kinds of misrepresentations in respect of the National Party’s policy, but the Government received its mandate once again, and it has to carry out this task.

I would just like to furnish the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. the Opposition with a reply in regard to what they have said about contact now being broken. They have reproached this side of the House with having no feeling for the non-White groups. As an Afrikaans-speaking South African, and as someone who belongs to the Afrikaans church, I should like to ask the hon. member for Houghton the following question. I should like to ask her to inform me and the country what church has done more, through their contact with non-Whites, for the upliftment of non-Whites than the Afrikaans churches? The English Christian churches have also contributed their share. Since derogatory remarks are now being made in regard to these people on this side of the House who belong to those churches which are to-day working for the upliftment, for the welfare, for many other privileges which the non-Whites are enjoying, then I want to ask, before the accusation is leveled against this side of the House that we have no feeling for these people of other colour groups, that thought should be given to the history of South Africa. I see the hon. member for Houghton is shaking her head. I ask her to examine her own conscience and to ask herself: “I who have such a lot to say about the Coloureds, how much am I and my people doing personally for the social and other upliftment of the non-Whites?” I am not only talking about the individuals, the learned people, the top layer. In the general sense, what are they doing for the upliftment of the non-Whites? I am not only talking about holding political meetings where non-Whites are told how they are being wronged. I am talking about the duty to lead them along the road to independence, and teaching them that only along the road of obedience to a government, and of pride in what is their own, and development of what is their own, will they be able to have a far greater share in this South Africa and its future, and that it is in that way that they will be able to obtain a share with the government, in the best interests of Whites and non-Whites, for themselves. Before hon. members, and particularly the hon. member for Houghton, form judgments in regard to the motives of other people, it would be a good thing if they examined their own consciences and their own motives.

Mr. R. G. L. HOURQUEBIE:

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the hon. member for Witbank this afternoon a remarkable speech in many respects. First of all it was remarkable in that he spoke for 25 minutes and of that time he spent one quarter of an hour—I timed him—telling this House what he thought about the Progressive Party, none of which had anything to do with this Bill, except that he quoted from the Commission’s Report. It was also … [Interjections.]

An HON. MEMBER:

Another Progressive.

Mr. R. G. L. HOURQUEBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with these hon. members who are accusing me now, or who are suggesting that because I made this statement I am “another Progressive”. This is typical of these hon. members. They will sit there and listen to vicious attacks on an hon. member who has already spoken …

Mr. J. J. LOOTS:

It was not a vicious attack.

Mr. R. G. L. HOURQUEBIE:

… and they do not have the courage to realize and to accept that the hon. member for Witbank went much further than was reasonably justified. One can only describe his speech as a vicious attack, an attack which, in many respects, was quite scandalous.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member is going much too far. He must withdraw the word “scandalous”.

Mr. R. G. L. HOURQUEBIE:

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I am allowed to say that the hon. member has made a scandalous attack on another hon. member.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! No, the hon. member is going too far now.

Mr. R. G. L. HOURQUEBIE:

I will also say this of the hon. member for Witbank …

Mr. SPEAKER:

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

Mr. R. G. L. HOURQUEBIE:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I have given my ruling.

Mr. R. G. L. HOURQUEBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the word then. But I will say this about the hon. member for Witbank, and I did not want to say it. For a former dominee I think his attitude in the House this afternoon is, I cannot say “scandalous”, but I will say it is certainly reprehensible and it is certainly quite uncharitable.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.

The House adjourned at 7 p.m.

WEDNESDAY, 10TH APRIL, 1968 Prayers—2.20 p.m. ADDRESS TO STATE PRESIDENT The PRIME MINISTER:

Mr. Speaker, I beg to move as an unopposed motion—

That the following Address be presented to the State President:

We, the representatives of the people of South Africa in Parliament assembled, desire to convey to you our sincere congratulations on your election as the second State President of the Republic of South Africa. We assure you of our cordial co-operation in the exercise of the duties of the high office to which you have been called. It is our earnest hope and prayer that, with the blessing of Almighty God, you may long be spared in the service of our country and our people.
Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House would like respectfully to be associated with this motion, and I also have great pleasure in seconding the motion.

Motion put and agree to.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AMENDMENT BILL

Bill read a First Time.

FACTORIES, MACHINERY AND BUILDING WORK AMENDMENT BILL

Bill read a Third Time.

SEPARATE REPRESENTATION OF VOTERS AMENDMENT BILL (Third Reading) *The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

This Bill has emerged from the Committee of the whole House without any changes and without any amendment. So far as we are concerned it has the same weaknesses that it had before; it has the same defects and it is just as unacceptable as it was when it was read a Second Time in this House. Accordingly I move the same amendment, namely—

To omit “now” and to add at the end “this day six months”.

Sir, the debate to-day should be directed mainly, of course, to the effects of this Bill in an attempt to prevent its finally going on to the Statute Book. I want to suggest that this Bill is going to have three main effects, all equally disastrous for South Africa and the cause of racial amity. The first of those effects is that this Bill is a further unjustifiable diminution of the political rights of the Coloured people. The second effect is that it is a further political betrayal of the Cape Coloured people and the third is that it will lead to a further alienation of the Coloured group from the White group in South Africa.

Sir, I would like to deal with each of those effects individually, starting with the first one, namely that it is a further unjustifiable and unjustified diminution of the political rights of the Cape Coloured people. When I say that there is a diminution, we have to ask ourselves what the position is to-day. The position to-day is that the Cape Coloured people are represented in this House by four representatives who are elected on a separate roll by the Cape Coloured people in the Cape Province. The Cape Coloured people in Natal who were registered on the Common Roll still have the right to vote for members of this House. The Cape Coloured people in the Free State and Transvaal had no political rights, except if they were prepared to be treated as Bantu for the purposes of the old 1936 Act by which senators were elected. That Act has fallen away, and they have no political rights at all. They represent a very small proportion of the Cape Coloured people in the Republic of South Africa.

Sir, that is what they have at the present time. They have also a Coloured Council with a number of nominated and a number of elected members whom they are entitled to elect on a basis of manhood and women-hood suffrage over 21 years of age throughout South Africa. That is what they have now, but what are they going to get after this Bill? After this Bill they are going to lose a say in the Central Parliament of the Republic of South Africa; they are going to lose a say in the Parliament which has the power in South Africa, the Parliament which controls the destinies of all the peoples of South Africa, whether they be Black, whether they be Brown or whether they be White. In lieu of that they are getting under another Bill a council with more powers. That council will not be entirely elected: it still will not have the right to tax, and it is still going to be elected by an electorate which, as to a portion, will be illiterate. Its functions are going to be largely advisory and administrative. No legislation can be introduced into that council without the consent of the Minister of Coloured Affairs and when it is passed it can be vetoed by the State President. That council and the Coloured people will have no say whatever in respect of powers which are not delegated by this Parliament to the Coloured People’s Representative Council. In other words, they will have no say over a large field of matters which concern every citizen of South Africa. I have no doubt that I am entitled to claim that this is a definite diminution of their political rights. I know I am going to be told that in fact the vote for this Parliament was only exercised by some 33,000 Coloureds who took the trouble to get themselves registered as voters in the Cape Province, but what is the potential? Surely the potential is many hundreds of thousands on the qualifications as they are at present. Surely those many hundreds of thousands, if they took the trouble to be registered, would have been representative of the majority of the Coloured group in South Africa.

Hon. members opposite are saying that for the first time we are extending the vote to Coloured men and women throughout South Africa, but in the first place we are not doing it for the first time. They did it in 1964, so there is nothing new as the result of this legislation. But the point that has to be made is: What is the good of a vote for a member in a council with limited powers as opposed to a vote for a member in this House, as they have at present, which has completely sovereign powers over the whole of the Republic of South Africa? Not only is there a diminution in their political powers, but I have said that that diminution is unjust and unjustified, because why is it being done? It is being done, we are told, because the Coloured people were exploited by certain European political parties for their own political ends. It seems to me a strange type of judgment when you punish the person who has been exploited, and the person who does the exploiting goes scot free. Surely if people are exploited you attempt to protect them and to assist them in order that they may exercise their political powers more freely and without interference. But you do not take away their political rights.

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Then we would have imprisoned half of the United Party members as well.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

The hon. gentleman is making one of his typically facetious remarks. I want to say that anything I learnt about funny business during elections I learnt by bitter experience from the Nationalist Party. When it comes to talking about electoral tricks, the hon. gentleman on that side of the House had better keep quiet. [Interjections.]

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! These interjections are doing the debate no good.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Therefore I say that if regard is had to the evidence that was brought before the Commission on Improper Interference, which dealt with the exercise of the political rights of the Cape Coloured people, there is no justification whatever for their removal, because that evidence showed that what malpractices there were, were malpractices covered by the Electoral Act, and if that Act were properly applied those malpractices could easily be eliminated. Therefore I say that this Bill will have the effect of unjustifiably and unjustly diminishing the political rights of the Coloureds in the Republic.

Secondly I believe that this Bill is a further political betrayal of the Cape Coloured people. Those of us who have been in politics for some time will remember that there was a time when the Coloured vote was sought by all parties, when they were on the Common Roll. One remembers how their vote was sought in the 1930’s in order to get the necessary majority to place the Bantu voters on a separate roll. One remembers the promises made to them that if they assisted the white man to place the Bantu on a separate roll, then that form of apartheid would not be applied to the Coloured people. But what happened? That promise was broken. Attempts were made to break it, not only constitutionally, but also unconstitutionally. It was a particularly sad chapter in our history in respect of the votes of the Cape Coloured people and their political rights. What emerged was another promise to the Cape Coloureds, the promise that they would get something better than they had had in the past, namely representation in this House on a separate roll, representation here by people elected by them alone who would look after their interests. We have heard from members opposite in many debates, and particularly on the public platforms, how well this system works and what it has done to improve race relations between the Coloureds and the Whites in South Africa.

What has happened now? Despite the fact that it worked so well and improved race relations, suddenly we find that a new type of council is going to be given to the Coloured people, and when we ask questions as to what happens to the representation of Coloureds in this House we are told that there is no intention whatever of abolishing that representation. Sir, you have heard many references to debates in this House on that subject and I do not propose to weary you by once again quoting from Hansard what assurances were given. But there were very definite assurances given by the then Minister of Coloured Affairs and the then Prime Minister. Those assurances were given as late as 1966, by responsible people in South Africa, and they were reiterated in this House in 1966 by the present Minister of the Interior in reply to questions put to him by me. The hon. gentleman said quite clearly that there was no intention whatever of removing the Coloured representatives from this House. I do not think it is necessary for me to read that portion from Hansard because my time is limited.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

What day was it?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

It was the 26th August, 1966. The hon. the Minister said—

Apparently the hon. member wants to create a doubt …

I was the hon. member referred to—

… that the Government has certain plans or ideas and that the Coloured representatives and certain White political parties who are also interested in these elections are being kept dangling on a string, but the mere fact that no statement is being issued ought to enable any person with sound common sense to deduce that things are going to take their normal course. There is going to be an election. I can say further that the Government is not going to tamper with the form which Coloured representation takes in this House. If the Government intended changing this representation, it would have been its duty to inform the nation about this well in advance and in good time, but if we have no such intentions, surely it is not necessary to do that.

That was on 26th August, 1966.

*Dr. G. F. JACOBS:

Then he talks about a conscience.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

That bore out the statement made earlier by the Minister of Indian Affairs, to which attention has not yet been directed. It is in Hansard of 21st May, 1963, col. 6434. The then Minister of Indian Affairs, who is now the Minister of Community Development, said this—

As far as the Coloureds are concerned, their particular position has to be taken into account, namely that they previously had political representation in this country which we do not want to deprive them of. In spite of the fact that they have been placed on a separate voters’ roll, they retain their representation in this House. *Dr. Steenkamp: For how long? *The Minister of Indian Affairs: That is not relevant. I am saying now that because they enjoyed representation here before, they will not be deprived of it. But now the hon. member again starts doubting. There is no idea of taking it away. If perhaps one day the Coloureds themselves were to ask for it, one could consider it. But of our own volition we will never consider depriving them of their representation in this Parliament. That is a right they have had and which we will not take away from them.

I repeat the Minister’s statement—

But of our own volition, we will never consider depriving them of their representation; in this Parliament.

I want to emphasize that, because here is as clear a statement of policy as one could have. There was no indication that that policy had been changed. Even when the original Improper Interference Bill was introduced in this House, and opposed by me at first reading, that Bill contained provisions ensuring that its general content would not apply to the representatives of the Cape Coloured people who were still in the House and who were obviously meant to remain in the House. Now we are told that despite all those assurances in fact plans were being made by this Government, by this party in power, to deprive the Coloured people of their representation in this House. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, will those people not feel betrayed, and will they not have the right not to accept the Government’s word on anything, when they have been given assurances over a period of years and they now hear from a responsible Minister that, while those assurances were being given, in fact the Government was already planning to remove their representation from this House? What a tragic chapter in the rather sordid history of the representation of the Coloured people in this House.

The effect of this Bill is that the Coloured people, the most developed non-White group in South Africa, are in fact going to be in a poorer position than the Bantu people in South Africa. Is it small wonder if they feel betrayed, if the result of this legislation is that the Coloured people feel they have been betrayed? I go further. Is the result of this Bill not going to be a further alienation of the Coloured group from the White group? Look at the blueprint of which this is now a facet. The blueprint is such that it will cause the Coloureds and the Whites to grow apart in the political sphere. The only political contact in future will not be in this House. The only political contact with the Coloured people will be through the Minister of what is going to be called Coloured Relations, reporting to this House and perhaps some unspecified method of consultation about which we know nothing at the present time. How will we know what those people are thinking? How will we know what their aspirations are? How will we know what they feel about important matters which affect South Africa? The only contact will be through one Minister, who may or may not attend sittings of a council as opposed to having representatives in this House speaking for their own electors whom they have to satisfy if they wish to be returned to this House again.

I go further. I said it will alienate the Whites from the Coloureds. Already with this legislation we are taking a step contrary to the weight of the evidence given before the Commission on Improper Interference. Not only is it against the weight of the evidence but it is clearly against the wishes of the majority of the Cape Coloured people. The hon. the Minister for Coloured Affairs himself admitted in this House that it without doubt would hurt a section of the Coloured people. In essence what is being done now is contrary to the ultimate idea of the star witness for removal of the Coloured representatives from this House, namely Dr. I. D. du Plessis, who said, because they live with us in the same territory, ultimately we will have to have an umbrella body in which Whites and Coloureds take responsibility for the future of South Africa. Why remove this representation here then when this body can act as that umbrella body?

Dr. C. P. MULDER:

We will never reach that body; we do not want it.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

The hon. gentleman says they will never reach that body, in other words, the witness upon whom he is relying and upon whom he is building his case, disagrees fundamentally with the policy of this Government in respect of the Coloured people.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

No, he said they never wanted that body. [Interjections.]

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I am very clear on what Dr. Du Plessis said. Dr. Du Plessis said he favoured the removal of Coloured representatives from this House, but he said because Coloureds and Whites live together within one territory, ultimately you would have to have some sort of umbrella body where they took joint responsibility for the future of South Africa. What is happening now is that with the removal of these representatives here, growth points are being established for the Cape Coloured people which will not only tend to alienate them from the White people but are going to be causes of friction in the future, causes of friction for a number of reasons. This House is going to have to vote the funds made available to the Coloured Council which has no taxing rights. If they do not get what they want how are they going to feel about it? Nobody is here to plead their case, nobody is here to say “You are not treating us justly or fairly”. This is going to be one of the biggest causes of friction.

But I go further. Because the Whites and the Coloureds are inextricably linked economically, attempts to separate them politically must tend to cause friction, because their economic interests will tend to be the same and they will be controlled not by the Council but by this House, in which the Coloured people have no say and no representation. The result inevitably is going to be friction and an alienation of the White group from the Coloured group as a result of this legislation. And all because of the Government’s inability to apply the Electoral law in such a way as to avoid abuses under the Act. Those are three long-term effects which, in my submission, are good reason for not passing this Bill. But there are short-term effects as well. One is that there is already a vacancy in one of the Coloured seats, and under this Bill that vacancy is not to be filled. In other words, we are discriminating between one group of Coloureds and another; one group that was entitled to representation here and is being deprived of that representation by the death of its representative. Is that likely to lead to good feelings? Is that fair and just towards the Coloured people? That is something that should be avoided.

Then we are again prolonging the length of term of office of those representatives in this House at the present time. That period has already expired; the time has come when they should be consulting their electors again. It is not easy for them to keep contact in the way contact should be kept. What objection is there to having an election and ensuring that as long as Coloured representatives are here they are truly representative of the people?

I think when one looks at this Bill then one cannot but conclude that it represents a watershed in thinking, a watershed in the thinking of those who want from all the groups in South Africa one loyalty to one Government and one State, and those who differ and who want to push this theory of separate development to the ludicrous position of having separate and perhaps alienated and perhaps warring nations within one territorial unit. While we are taking this step to-day, I think we must appreciate that, while hon. members may not realize it now, in fact in future they will find that they are derogating from the dignity and from the value of the White man’s word to the non-White in South Africa.

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

Mr. Speaker, in the course of my speech I shall deal with each of the three main points which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned here and which he regarded as the three most important reasons why his Party cannot support this legislation. I want to deal with lesser points first. The hon. member made a great fuss here because we as Nationalists had traversed the country and had praised the present dispensation which has obtained since 1956, and had said that this dispensation had brought so much good to the Coloureds, that it was such a great improvement and just the right step as compared with the common voters’ rolls. We admit that we said these things. We have said that it was a great improvement. This dispensation at least created a ten-year period of calm which afforded this Government an opportunity of doing a great deal of constructive upliftment among the Coloureds. But that good was not done by the representatives sitting in this House. It was done despite their presence here. Every positive measure piloted through the House by this Government to achieve this work of upliftment and to bring about this good for the non-Whites, they slavishly opposed tooth and nail along with the United Party.

Furthermore, I want to make the admission to-day that this dispensation could probably have continued to exist for a considerable time if matters had taken their normal course, but certain events occurred of which the Leader of the Opposition is fully aware. There were disturbances. The present dispensation was upset through the actions of these people, firstly because the United Party allowed the hon. member for Karoo to interfere in the Coloured elections with political motives, an example which was followed by the Progressive Party. That upset this dispensation. It meant that this Government had to make a reappraisal of the present dispensation. If the hon. the Leader and his Party and the Progressive Party are to-day shedding tears they have only themselves to blame for our coming forward at this early stage to put an end to the present dispensation.

The hon. member said that we were now severing all links here. The hon. member conveniently forgets that at the right time, after consultation with the Coloureds, an adequate link will be created whereby the Government will learn how the Coloureds feel about their affairs. The hon. member made a point of it and tried to level the reproach at us that we were discriminating against certain Coloured voters who would in any case still have political rights until 1971, in that we were not filling the vacancies. When it suited the hon. member, when it suited his political purpose, when his Party was threatened by the Progressive Party and when it was politically expedient for him, he mustered his Party to vote for discrimination in not filling this vacancy until 1969. A great deal has been said throughout this debate, and by that hon. member as well, about solemn assurances and promises which were made to the Coloureds. The second leg of the hon. member’s argument again deals with this. He said that there had been a betrayal of the Coloureds, by which he meant that certain solemn assurances had been given by this side of the House through the years and that we had not honoured them. Is it fitting for this hon. member and his Party to point a finger at others in this House? Who has given the Coloureds more solemn assurances and promises since 1956 in respect of their political rights and then summarily broken them than the United Party? Every accusation made here by the Opposition I can simply throw back at them. It has been alleged here that the late Dr. Verwoerd and the hon. the Minister of Defence gave certain solemn promises.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

Is it true or not?

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

I want to take you along another course to-day. I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that since 1910 the Coloureds in this country have slavishly accepted the United Party as their political home. Since 1910 they invariably voted for the United Party and its predecessors at every election, until the latest Provincial Council election. Then the Coloureds suddenly turned their backs on the hon. the Leader’s Party and went to seek their political salvation with the Progressive Party. What drove the Coloureds into the arms of the Progressive Party? Is it not because the Coloured population were deeply disappointed and disillusioned in the United Party in respect of all the promises which had been made to them since 1956 and which were subsequently scandalously broken one after another by the United Party? That is the reason why the Coloureds were driven into the hands of the Progressive Party. It is because they are disappointed and disillusioned in the United Party, on which they placed all their political hope in the past. Can we blame the Coloured population for writing off the United Party Opposition?

Can one accept the word of a political party which opposes this National Party with an argument that it is abolishing the Coloured representatives in this House while certain matters are being discussed in this House which concern the Coloureds and which will not be discussed in the Coloured Council and about which no decision will be taken in this Council; while the United Party has just announced a policy whereby they want to abolish the Coloured representatives in the Provincial Council; while the Coloureds have as much interest in certain matters which are dealt with in the Provincial Council as the Whites of the Cape Province or any other province? The Provincial Council has the sole authority in regard to the health services of the Coloureds in the Cape Province. These health services will not be discussed in their own council. What is the United Party’s argument for wanting to discriminate in this way against the Coloureds? Must we accept it as being political opportunism? Must we accept that the Coloured representatives in the Cape Provincial Council should be abolished merely because they are two members of the Progressive Party and not two members of the United Party? How can one accept the word and the political integrity of a political party which acts so inconsistently.

Everything said here lately may be said, but two things we cannot get away from. Two basic facts are as plain as a pikestaff. Even the United Party ought to concede these to us. The first is that the National Party has always adopted the attitude that the present political dispensation could not be the culmination of the political rights of the Coloureds. We have always admitted that. We admitted it to the malicious delight of the Opposition, which taunted us in this House and elsewhere from time to time and which contrasted our policy in respect of the Coloureds with our Bantu policy, which has been mapped out far into the future. We admitted that the present political dispensation was not the omega as far as the Coloureds’ political rights in this country were concerned.

The second point which is very clear is this. The National Party’s point of departure in respect of the extension of the political rights of the Coloureds was always in a direction away from political integration. That is the direction in which we moved when we placed the Coloureds on a separate voters’ roll. That is the direction in which we moved when we established the Coloured Representative Council. We are now moving in the same direction by severing this last link of political integration. While saying and doing this, we again admit that what we are now doing is not the omega of the Coloureds’ political rights in South Africa. But in taking this step we are remaining true to the basis of our Party’s policy of separate development in every sphere, including the political sphere.

We sincerely believe that what we are doing to-day is for the good of the Coloured people, for whom we are acting as guardians in this country. We believe that this is the road along which we should lead them for the present, and what is to happen later the future will show us. With this legislation we are standing on the threshold of a new political dispensation in South Africa, a dispensation which, when it comes into operation at the expiry of the term of this House, will for the first time bring about the position in South Africa that each race group in this country will be allotted its own political institution. Admittedly they will be political institutions which will not be equal in power, but they will offer sufficient scope for everyone to practise his own politics and to pursue his own political ideals which will be beneficial to his own population group.

This new dispensation will therefore make it possible for the Whites to have for the first time in history a parliament the members of which will be elected by Whites only, a parliament which will be free of any form of political integration. For the Coloureds it will mean the end of a dispensation in which a small number of Coloureds for many years shared political rights with the Whites and always were the political camp-followers of White politicians and always got the shortest end of the stick. It has been a dispensation which embodied a great element of frustration, disappointment and humiliation for many Coloureds as human beings, because since 1910 they have never been considered good enough as persons by any Government to sit in this House. Their vote was good enough for this House, but their persons were never good enough.

We are coming to the end of a dispensation in which the Coloureds had a semblance of political power which was never anything but a semblance. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that with this legislation we were depriving ourselves of the privilege of hearing the voice of two million people in this country. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also put it very clearly in one of the points he mentioned. We have never been able to hear the voice of the Coloureds through the medium of these representatives. I say that it was a semblance of political power, and I say it because the Whites and the white political parties which through the years applied the Coloured vote for their own purposes, dealt so unilaterally and autocratically with it that the Coloureds merely became a passive political football. The best evidence in support of this statement of mine is the evidence of the hon. member for Outeniqua before the commission by way of his memorandum and his oral evidence. The hon. member for Outeniqua knows the United Party. The hon. member was an organizer of the United Party. He was the personal secretary and confidant of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in his constituency. He knows more about the relationships between the Coloureds and the United Party than any hon. member on that side of the House. The hon. member for Outeniqua said in evidence before this commission that, firstly, at each election the United Party, without consulting the Coloureds at all, simply foisted white candidates upon them. It was done quite unilaterally. The voice of these people was never heard. When they wanted to make their voice heard, when there were movements among the Coloureds to put forward white candidates for nomination, they were ruthlessly treated by the United Party, slighted and disregarded. Secondly, the hon. member said in evidence that his connection with the United Party made it virtually impossible for him to make the voice of his constituents heard in this House. He was so ruthlessly subjected to the caucus whip of the United Party that it became impossible for him to make the voice of his people heard in this House, so much so that he could no longer endure it within that party. What can be said of this hon. member, can just as well be said of other hon. members who sat in this House from time to time. [Interjections.] Although some of these hon. members sat here as independents, all of them were members of the United Party, all came here on the ticket of the United Party. They all sat here by the grace of the United Party. The hon. members could never free themselves from the United Party. Even the hon. member for Peninsula, who has many virtues, cannot free himself from the pressures of the United Party. On account of political expediency, owing to their connection with the United Party, these people, who represented the semblance of power which the Coloureds had, could not act on behalf of that national group in this House. Furthermore, because of the set-up, which was beyond the control of these hon. members, it was simply impossible for them to make the voice of these people properly heard here, because the constituencies were so extensive that the members could not make proper contact. Therefore I can state here to-day that because of the fact that the hon. members were not asked and nominated by the Coloureds to represent them here, the fact that owing to circumstances they did not have contact with their voters and therefore could not speak for them here, and the further fact that they were only four in a Parliament of 170 and could exercise no political influence, they were useless instruments, simply political white elephants in an obsolete system.

With this legislation we are coming to the end of an obsolete political dispensation for the Coloureds and we are substituting for it a more practical, effective political instrument, namely the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. I say that we are coming to the end of a dispensation which afforded the Coloured little opportunity to develop his own political thought, to realize himself politically and to make himself felt in his own field in the interest and to the benefit of his own people. This is bringing us to the end of a dispensation which meant a large measure of disappointment and resentment for the Coloured leaders. I want to read to you what the chairman of the Coloured Advisory Board, Mr. Tom Schwartz, said in respect of the dispensation which is being terminated by this legislation to-day. He said—

The policy of the partial integration of the Coloured people which has been followed in this country for many years, has failed to bring the Coloured people any substantial benefits. It does not matter where you examine it—in the political field or on the civic level. The Coloured people were mostly treated as poor relations who were always kept in the background.

[Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, if you throw a stone into a bush, and the dog whines, you know that you have struck it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asserted that we were taking this step in spite of the weight of the evidence. This assertion was already dealt with very thoroughly on a previous occasion, and although I do not want to indulge in repetition, I nevertheless merely want to state three facts. I venture to say that with this legislation we are giving expression to the feelings of the majority of the organized Coloured political parties in this country. Although none of them put it like this in their memoranda, they made it clear in no uncertain manner that they expected this commission to recommend that the Coloured Representatives be removed from this House. They further made it clear that they would not shed any tears if this were in fact done, because these representatives were of no use to them and were often a source of embarrassment to the Coloureds. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, if only the hon. member would stand up and say what he wants to say, properly, instead of carrying on here like a chatterbox …

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

Did the Coloureds not ask for their own Coloured representatives to represent them in this House of Assembly?

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

One Coloured political party did ask for it. I am speaking of the majority, the preponderent majority. [Interjections.] After all, hon. members of the Opposition want to know what the weight of the evidence was. Well, I am dealing with it. The weight of the evidence furthermore proves that the Coloured population regards the present Coloured Representatives in this House as representing the Coloureds for a transition period only. They believe that when the Coloured Council eventually comes into being, that council itself would ask that these people be removed. This is clear from the evidence. Nor is this the first time that this idea has come forward. As far back as 1963 it was the subject of debate in the present Coloured Advisory Board. This debate followed upon the introduction of a motion by a very prominent member of the board and a personal friend of the hon. member for Karoo—board member Kemm of Kimberley. His motion was widely discussed at the time. Therefore I say that this is not the first time that the organized Coloureds have expressed this idea.

We are taking this step because we know that the new dispensation will open new doors to the Coloured population. In the past it had only a semblance of political power. Now, for the first time in the history of South Africa, it is receiving real and effective political power and say in connection with certain matters concerning its own group. Admittedly these powers and this say are as yet limited to a defined field, but it should be pointed out that the Coloureds are receiving these powers and this say in specifically those matters which are of extreme importance to them in their daily lives, in their daily weal and woe, also for their socio-economic upliftment. This legislation incorporates the possibility that the proposed Coloured Council will be able to receive additional powers from time to time—in proportion as the Coloureds are ready and ripe to take over such additional powers. For the first time the door is being opened for Coloured leaders to come to the fore. We have seen how this national group has already produced leaders, leaders who have made their mark on the basis of separate development; in all other spheres—in the ecclesiastical, educational, cultural and sporting spheres. In these fields the Coloureds have already produced leaders, leaders who have made their mark and have risen above their people. In the political field, however, this has not yet happened. But now, for the first time, this national group will also get the opportunity to produce leaders in the political field instead of the frustrated political agitators we have had in the past. What is also of the greatest importance, and as such I cannot over-emphasize it, is that on the basis of this beginning, it is being brought within the power of the Coloureds themselves to plan their own future place in politics in collaboration with the white rulers of this country. In contrast with that their political fate in the past was determined by the Whites alone. This parallel development in the political field, a development in which the Coloureds are now also going to share, places the Coloureds, as someone expressed it so aptly years ago, outside the political danger zone. In addition it makes the Whites feel themselves free to work more readily than in the past for the upliftment of this population group. It makes it easier for the white rulers of this country gradually to transfer more and more powers to the Coloureds, because the position of the Whites can no longer be endangered by this. At the same time it enables the Coloureds to exert themselves politically in the interests of their own population group. In brief, this step opens new horizons to the Coloureds; fields are being opened to them which the masses could never enter in the past. This has always been the privilege of only a small group. I say that this step opens new fields for them to enter. Under a policy of integration this would never be possible. Opportunities are now being created for them which they would never get under the policies of the Progressive Party and the United Party. This new dispensation will, as Mr. Fortuin once said, enable the Coloured to make his own socio-economic bed and to sleep under his own political blanket.

With this legislation we are to-day creating a new dispensation for the Coloureds. We are doing this with a clear conscience because we have never sought to derive political advantage from the Coloured vote; we have never abused the Coloured vote and we have never tried to ride into Parliament on the backs of the Coloured voters; we never made election promises to them. On the contrary, the National Party has always dealt fairly with the Coloureds and has thereby won their respect and esteem. This will be the position in future as well.

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

I have only a limited time at my disposal in this debate and, consequently, I do not intend wasting very much of that by becoming involved in a political argument with the hon. member for Parow. However, I feel I must deal with one matter raised by him in the course of his lengthy address in this third-reading debate. I was amazed to hear from him that one of his justifications for this Bill is the fact that since 1910, so he alleges, the Coloured people had supported the United Party and “had found themselves at home with the United Party”, to use his own words.

Thereafter, he went on to say, they stopped supporting the United Party and then proceeded to support the Progressive Party. In effect the argument advanced by the hon. member for Parow means that if the Coloured people had chosen to support the Nationalist Party and not the United Party or the Progressive Party, this Bill would never have seen the light of day. That, in effect, is the argument raised by the hon. member for Parow. If that is correct, then I think we have reached a disgraceful state of affairs. When the Coloured people, in exercising their democratic rights as citizens of this country, decide to vote for a party or for an individual of their own choice, they are precluded from doing that under the threat of abolishing their democratic rights. But if they were to support the Nationalist Party, then this Bill would never have been introduced. Sir, I think the country and the world will be shocked to hear an argument such as that advanced here by the hon. member for Parow.

Sir, I wish to record my final protest against the passing of this Bill, and particularly against the main effect of the Bill, which is the abolition of Coloured representation in this sovereign Parliament of their own country. Nothing has been said on the Government side either in the second-reading debate or in the committee stage or indeed by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, which has made me change my mind in regard to this measure. No justification whatsoever—I repeat, no justification whatsoever—has been submitted to this House for abolishing a form of representation in Parliament which the Cape Coloured people have enjoyed in this country for over a century, or for breaking the pledged word of the white leaders of the nation, repeatedly given to our Coloured citizens over these many years. I say that this Bill —and I say this despite what the hon. member for Parow and others on the Government side have said—is in defiance of the overwhelming representations which were made to the Muller Commission for the Coloureds to retain some voice in our central Parliament. The only reason advanced by the Government for this Bill is that it has now found a new solution for our Coloured people. Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister himself indicated during the course of one of these debates that the Government would not have embarked on the step of abolishing Coloured representation in Parliament unless it had some other solution, to use his own words, to give them something in place of the rights which they were losing. This is the hon. the Prime Minister’s reason for the Bill we are discussing this afternoon.

That solution, Sir, was the expansion of the Coloured Persons Representative Council, with authority to deal with limited matters affecting their own people. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has put to the House very succinctly this afternoon what limited powers this enlarged Coloured Representative Council will have. I say that this so-called solution, this Coloured Peoples Representative Council, enlarged as it is going to be in accordance with Government planning, can in no way be regarded as being equivalent to a voice for the Coloured people in the central Parliament of their own country, and the Government knows this. The proposed Coloured Council can in no circumstances compensate the Coloured people for losing some say in the sovereign Parliament of their own country. Sir, the establishment of this alternative form presupposes that our Coloured people are a separate and separable racial group and that as such they are to have completely separate political arrangements. That is really the basis of this whole approach. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Randfontein acknowledges that that is the basis.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Is that your main objection to it?

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

No, it is not my main objection, for the reasons that I am giving now. I am glad though that the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Randfontein acknowledge that this new solution presupposes that our Coloured people are a separate and separable racial group and that as such they are to have completely separate political arrangements. Sir, I say that that in effect puts the Coloureds in the same category as the Bantu in this country. But there is a great distinction the Government has overlooked. In the case of the Bantu, as has been said so often here, they have their own homelands; they can proceed to develop their political rights until perhaps one day, who knows, they may have parliaments of their own.

An HON. MEMBER:

Yes, and they may fly to the moon.

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

The Coloured people, unlike the Bantu, have no homelands of their own. Their homelands are inter-mixed with the homelands of the white people of this country. Their way of living, their languages and their religions are all ours. They are the only westernized section of the population in South Africa who could be likened to the white people of South Africa. Sir, these facts that I have mentioned this afternoon including the fact that you cannot separate the Coloureds from the Whites and put them into a water-tight compartment as the Government intends doing under this Bill, was acknowledged and admitted by the white leaders of the nation over many years. We have heard here time and again of public assurances given in the nature of solemn pledges by our national leaders, by men like the late Gen. Smuts. Gen. Hertzog, Dr. Malan, Mr. Strijdom, Mr. Havenga, and Dr. Verwoerd, all now of revered memory. Those assurances were given by them repeatedly to the Coloured people and to the country and to the world at large that come what may the Coloureds would always have some voice in the highest forum in their own land. Let me deal with the departed first. I say that these men would turn in their graves if they knew how these solemn undertakings and solemn pledges have been broken and repudiated. But, Sir, what of the assurances given by living members of the Government, by present Cabinet Ministers? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon has quoted assurances given by members of the present Government to the Coloured people and to the world at large that their political rights, in so far as representation in this sovereign Parliament of South Africa is concerned, would not be abolished. What about those solemn promises? What faith can we expect the Coloured people to have in any future promises and assurances given to them by the white leaders of our nation? I agree with the statement made here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the Coloured people will regard this Bill as an unjustified diminution of their meagre political rights. Many of them have already indicated this, but out of sheer frustration they are not taking any action at the present moment. They regard this as an unjustified diminution of the meagre rights they still have left in this country. I agree with what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said, namely that this measure can only have the effect of further alienating our Coloured citizens from the white people of South Africa. It can only have that effect; it cannot bring them closer together. It can only have the effect of alienating them more from their fellow white citizens. I am sure that as time goes on the Coloured people will more and more resent the steps which have been taken against them by this Government in depriving them of some form of representation in their own Parliament. They will regard this Bill as a betrayal of their rights as citizens of South Africa.

Sir, as I have said, I have a limited time and I wish to give others an opportunity of taking part in this short debate, but I want to conclude by saying that for my part I regard this Bill as a retrogressive one and as inflicting a great injustice upon our Coloured citizens and I record my emphatic protest against the passage of this Bill.

*Dr. C. P. MULDER:

The hon. member for Peninsula who has just resumed his seat tried to make us believe that the Coloured population group as such is supposedly not a separate population group, which should be developed separately, and his entire argument is based on the idea that this population group, because it is so close to the Western civilization in respect of language, culture, traditions and religion, should be brought closer to the Whites. Now what I want to say to the hon. member is simply this. One’s choice is very clear and simple. One either accepts that one has in South Africa one nation, with one fatherland and one loyalty, as the United Party feels. In that case this Parliament becomes the political home of each one of those population groups. Then each one realizes itself fully here, and if one believes in democracy, one must eventually bow to government by the majority. That is the one alternative. No artificial measures or “checks and balances” will ever prevent the majority from ultimately governing if one gives all the population groups in one fatherland the same political rights, for if that were not so democracy would no longer be a democracy. That is the one choice. The other one is that you say that you regard this as a union of a multi-national community, in which various nations exist, and where one gives each nation its own territory and its own development according to its own ability. Then this is the political home and the political realization of the ideals of the Whites and of the Whites only, and then there is no place in this Parliament for any other population group, Bantu, Indian or Coloured.

It is as clear as daylight, and that is why we have chosen to follow this course. I am not impressed by the hon. member’s standpoint in regard to the language of these people. I reject completely the idea that the Coloureds must be regarded as brown Afrikaners. There is no such concept. The fact that they use the Afrikaans language or belong to the same creed makes no difference at all. The Germans and the Austrians speak the same language and share the same religious beliefs, but they are most certainly not one nation. The English-speaking people in Britain and in New Zealand, and in Australia or Canada are not one nation, although they speak one language. Let us reject at once this make-believe story that the Coloureds are brown Afrikaners. The Coloureds are a nation on their own, and they must be led in that direction. The Opposition can argue until they are blue in the face, but these are the facts.

When a hurdler tackles the 110 meters hurdles, he does not start off and keep his eye on the last hurdle he has to jump. He takes each hurdle as he gets to it. If he were to keep his eye on the last hurdle from the start, he would stumble over the first. That is why all Governments in this country have adopted the attitude that they will cope with each problem and overcome it step for step as things develop. I want to state at once that here we have two opposing points of departure. We have the points of departure of the United Party and all of those who are inclined to the left, such as the Progressive Party, the Liberal Party and the Communist Party. Their standpoint is very clear, as I stated a moment ago. We have one fatherland here for all, and whether the tree which grows out of that soil has other leaves from time to time does not make any difference because it bears the same fruit every time, i.e. the fruit of ultimate total integration. This must be the case, because a fruit tree must be true to its origins. It is as clear as daylight, and this is how the United Party and all the other leftist parties have consistently viewed the colour question, whether in regard to the Bantu, the Coloureds or the Indians, i.e. that they are gradually working, step for step, in the direction of ultimate total integration. Nobody wants to have it immediately, but in their field as well, they are clearing each hurdle as they come to it. At the outset now they only want six representatives here, and a few in the Other Place. That is the first hurdle. The second hurdle is to increase that number here, and ultimately they must be Coloureds, and later on Bantu must sit here. They are clearing one hurdle after another, and when they clear the last hurdle on their way to integration, then one will have an integrated Parliament and one beautiful fatherland for all in which the majority will have to govern; otherwise democracy is not worth the paper on which it is written down. That is the one direction.

The other direction is equally clear. That is the direction which the National Party chose from the beginning and in its field as well it has also cleared one hurdle after another. Initially it began by saying “We will first separate the races from one another”. I want to state clearly that before 1929 the National Party had paid so much attention to what was at that time the predominating question, namely the Bantu question, that the leaders before 1929, Dr. Malan and General Hertzog, were prepared to regard the Coloureds as an ally of the Whites against the Bantu. History makes this quite clear; it becomes apparent from numerous speeches. They reached the stage where the line could be drawn, politically at least, according to the standpoint Bantu against non-Bantu. In those years the situation gradually developed where they even wanted to expand the Coloured vote to the north, and to the Coloured women. But it was very clear that they began by unraveling the intertwined ethnic groups, and that in the process they recognized in the first place that the Bantu, with their weight of numbers, would create problems, and that is why they wanted to range the Coloureds on their side, if that was practicable. That was the first hurdle they overcame. [Interjection.] No, hon. members must not interrupt me now. This was followed by the next step. At the election in 1929 it became very apparent, and I can quote from Hansard to prove this, that the Coloureds did not intend to choose the standpoint of the Whites. I am not talking about the National Party, but about the white man. A man such as the Coloured leader, Dr. Abdurahman, stated very clearly at that time that they would never leave the Bantu in the lurch. That was a clear sign and it caused the National Party leaders of that time to say: We are handling the matter incorrectly. The next steps followed upon that.

That hurdle was cleared, and then the next one presented itself. On 1st October, 1931, the following resolution was rejected by the Congress of the Cape National Party at the Congress at Kimberley: “The Congress is of the opinion that the time has come for the Coloureds to be granted separate representation in the House of Assembly, and in the Provincial Council”. But during this period of searching for a standpoint to adopt the light slowly began to dawn, and only a year later, in 1932, the following resolution was adopted by the National Party Congress at Stellenbosch: “The Congress requests the Joint Parliamentary Committee for Native Legislation, and in the last instance the Government, to give serious consideration to the desirability of separate constituencies for both Whites and Coloureds, as distinguished from Natives”. Here is the clear dividing line. Here the cries of the past for increased franchise for the Coloureds and the extension of the Coloured franchise to the north, all came to an end. Here the standpoint of White against non-White, and not that of Bantu against non-Bantu, was adopted. This was the turning point. But not only that. In the Free State as well, while General Hertzog was Prime Minister and present at the Congress, a resolution was adopted on 21st October, 1932: “The Congress is of the opinion that the Native legislation of General Hertzog should make provision for separate constituencies for Coloureds, but that they should be represented in Parliament by white representatives”. The road is clear. The Coloureds are now being separated from the Whites. They are to receive separate constituencies and are to be represented separately here by Whites. The first hurdle has been overcome, and now the party is proceeding to the next hurdle in its way.

As far back as 1938 we already had an election manifesto of the Re-united (Herenigde) National Party with the late Dr. Malan as leader, which provided as follows: “In addition the party envisages the logical application of the segregation principle in regard to all non-Whites as being in the best interests of Whites and non-Whites, and undertakes accordingly to introduce legislation for separate representation of enfranchised Coloureds in our legislative bodies.” Once again it was provided that the Coloureds would now have to be separate in our legislative bodies. But the standpoint of the National Party has been very clearly formulated. Its victory 20 years ago, in the election of 1948, came as a result of its unequivocal standpoint. Do you know, Sir, what the standpoint of the National Party was with which it received a mandate in 1948 from the voters to take over the Government? Have you ever read the manifesto of the 1948 election?

*Dr. G. F. JACOBS:

That was when you wanted to repatriate the Indians.

*Dr. C. P. MULDER:

I am not talking to the hon. Indian for Hillbrow; I am now talking to the people who … [Interjections.]

Mr. G. S. EDEN:

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member permitted to call the hon. member for Hillbrow the “hon. Indian from Hillbrow”?

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! Did the hon. member call the hon. member for Hillbrow an Indian?

*Dr. C. P. MULDER:

If I called him an Indian, then I withdraw it. I did not intend to call him an Indian. I actually meant to say “the hon. Indian-possessed member”, because that is what he is. That is what I really meant. For we are now discussing Coloured affairs, not Indians. It was his party, not mine, who gave the Indians the franchise in 1946.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member quite clearly referred to my friend as “the hon. Indian from Hillbrow”. [Interjections.]

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member for Randfontein may proceed.

*Dr. C. P. MULDER:

In 1947 the Sauer Commission, on instructions from the National Party, instituted an investigation into the entire Colour question. The following persons were members of the commission: Mr. P. O. Sauer (chairman), Mr. M. D. C. de Wet Nel, Professor Dr. Gerdener, Dr. E. G. Jansen and Mr. J. J. Serfontein. They were all men who played a very important part in politics and in public life. Section D of their report dealt specifically with the Coloureds, and I shall read out a few points from that report. One can see how far-sighted those people were as far back as 1947, and in what light they at that time viewed the Colour problem. We are still carrying these proposals, made at that time, into effect to-day. Point No. 8 of their report dealt with a government department for Coloureds, and read as follows (translation)—

With the purpose of encouraging the sound development of the Coloured community a separate Government department for Coloured affairs will be established.

This was recommended by this commission as far back as 1947. Such a department was subsequently established. Point No. 9 read as follows (translation)—

Coloured Persons’ Representative Council —A Coloured Persons’ Representative Council for the Cape will be established. It will consist of (a) Representatives elected by the Coloureds on a constituency basis; (b) The head of the Department of Coloured Affairs; and (c) Additional members appointed by the Government.

In those days such a body was already being envisaged, although in a limited sphere. It was not the intention to expand it to the North. It would operate in a restricted sphere, specifically for the Cape. Point No. 10 read as follows (translation)—

This Council will be representative of the Cape, and will have advisory powers.

The following was point No. 11 (translation)—

The present qualifications for franchise for Coloureds will be made applicable to voters of the Coloured Council.

It would be quite limited. Then point No. 12 (translation)—

In view of the fact that the present system of voting by Whites and Coloureds for the same candidates in the House of Assembly and Provincial Councils leads to all kinds of friction and malpractices, it will have to be abolished.

They proposed that the common voters’ roll would have to be abolished. Now I want specifically to read out what point No. 13, i.e. “Representation in Parliament” was. Listen carefully now to what the Commission recommended as far back as 1947 (translation)—

As long as the Natives have representation in the House of Assembly it will not be appropriate to give the Coloureds representation in the Senate only, even though that may perhaps be the most desirable body for them, consequently the Coloureds will be represented by three Whites in the House of Assembly, who will be elected by the Coloured Persons Representative Council.

That was our attitude in 1947. They cleared the hurdle as they saw fit to do so at that time. We now have a set of entirely new circumstances. I am not concerned about the hon. member’s argument at all. At that time already it was very clearly stated that the Coloured Representatives would only have a seat in this House because one could not give the Coloureds different or poorer treatment than the Bantu, because in those days the Bantu still had representatives here. As long as the Native Representatives still had a seat here, we could not give the Coloureds anything less, and that is why it was our standpoint that the Coloured Representatives were provisionally to remain in this House. However, they were not, as the hon. members desired, to be elected by the Coloured voters, but by the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, acting as an electoral college. Those were the recommendations of that commission. I can quote further from the report, but I am not taking this matter any further. I only want to mention that it was also recommended that a restriction be placed on those Coloured Representatives. The three representatives sitting here would, according to that commission, not have been able to vote on the following matters. They would not have been able to vote on a motion of confidence or no confidence in the Government, on a declaration of war, or on matters affecting the extension of the franchise of non-Whites. In other words, they were, according to this recommendation, not unrestricted, full-fledged members of this House. They were people who were confined to the interests of their own people and they were specifically excluded from these three spheres. They would have no say in regard to these three spheres.

That was the policy of the National Party at that stage. That policy was embodied in an election manifesto in 1948. On that manifesto this party came into power. The voting public of South Africa subscribed to this programme in 1948, as they saw it at the time. We have continued to build on that programme, have cleared that hurdle and have subsequently progressed to the next one.

I now want to come to the hon. members who are continually reproaching us with supposedly having broken faith with those people. They say we promised the Coloureds certain things, and that we have not fulfilled our promises. I now want to state categorically that a nation is not an inanimate body. A nation develops and grows from day to day. One cannot lay down anything which will remain fixed and unaltered for all time. Nobody can, and nobody will, do a thing like that. One must determine one’s direction, and one must move in that direction, step by step as it develops further. Our direction has been laid down so clearly that we have no doubts concerning it at all. On the contrary, if hon. members opposite can prove to me that we have deviated from that direction, that we have gone off course, then I would admit that they had a case. But what we are doing here to-day and what we will still do in the future will merely be further steps in the same direction, which was mapped out from the very beginning. Each leader, as he came forward, did what he had to do in the circumstances then prevailing. The next leader comes forward, his circumstances are different, and he can go further. But the road and the course they follow are absolutely the same. The same can also be said of the United Party. Former party leaders have never had sufficient courage to say that the Coloureds would be represented here by Coloureds. But this hon. Leader has seen his way clear to doing that. He has progressed further on the road to integration. He has taken the next step. He has seen his way clear to doing that. Those who come after him, will be prepared, if their course is to proceed in this way, to go further and to afford representation here according to numbers. The cry has already been raised by them that there should not be merely ten, or a few representatives for those people here. They maintain that the number of representatives should be determined according to the numbers. They are therefore doing precisely the same thing. That is why I say that we are going further along the road we have adopted, and each Prime Minister is going further, step by step. I want to state at once that we need have no doubts concerning these standpoints. Advocate Strijdom, as Prime Minister, proceeded unyieldingly. Eventually he went so far as to enlarge the Senate in order to accomplish legally what he had to accomplish, i.e. to get the Coloureds on to a separate voters roll. He did not even abide by the court’s decision. He had a mandate from the nation, it was the will of the nation, and nothing dared stand in its way, neither the Opposition nor the judiciary. So we can take one leader after the other. I am now coming specifically to Dr. Verwoerd. I am not going to repeat the entire story. It is true that he stated here on one occasion that the Coloured representatives were here and that they would remain here. When he was asked “For how long?” his reply was “Must I say forever?” Now what must one deduce from that?

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Read what he said. [Interjections.]

*Dr. C. P. MULDER:

I do not want to cause Dr. Verwoerd any embarrassment now, but in simple Afrikaans it means that nobody can say that this will be the case forever. Nobody can say that. I want to go further and quote from Hansard what Dr. Verwoerd said in this regard. I am quoting from Hansard of 24/1/1961, Vol. 106, col. 89, where Dr. Verwoerd said the following—

I am not alleging that we have said the last word in the political sphere. What I do say is this, that we have indicated the trend of development within their own circle very clearly and that we have undertaken a great deal in respect of their upliftment and the improvement of their circumstances …

That is the language Dr. Verwoerd used in those circumstances. That is not all I want to quote. I also want to quote Dr. Verwoerd in another field, namely when he was discussing this matter on 10th April, 1961, when he gave an over-all picture of how he viewed the entire situation. I am quoting from Hansard, Vol. 107, col. 4191—

I accept firstly that in our State we will have to give the Coloureds opportunities for development firstly by means of their own local government …

We began with that, with local governments—

… and secondly by way of managing the sort of thing now falling under the control of the Provincial Councils …

That is the legislation we now have in mind. They are going to be given control over education; they are going to be given welfare services; they are going to be given local government, etc., according to this legislation now before us. They are going to have control over all those matters. That is the next step. I quote further from what he said as far back as 1961—

… namely their own municipal affairs, the education of their own children and similar matters.

In those days he had already envisaged what we would now be doing here. He stated further—

Thirdly, I accept that within the white state, and therefore within the same borders, an institution should be established or a method should be evolved …

He stated that “a method should be evolved”. That hurdle still lay ahead, he did not want to try and clear it at that time. He cleared the hurdle in front of him. But he saw that he would be confronted by a hurdle, and he stated it in this way, that “a method would have to be evolved to give the Coloureds further rights of self-government over their national interests. The time to decide precisely how and in regard to what this must be done can wait until the development has progressed to that stage”. Where can you find a clearer statement that the matter had not yet been finalized, and that he left it to future Ministers to act judiciously when they reached those problems, in the light of prevailing circumstances, but always along the same course? This is the course of further separation, the recognition of each nation as an identity on its own. I also want to quote what the former Minister of Coloured Affairs, Mr. P. W. Botha, said. He discussed these matters very clearly. I am quoting from Hansard of 10th April, 1964, col. 3996—

No arrangement in respect of a nation’s political course of development is cast into final form at any particular period. A nation is a living organism which from time to time undergoes new processes of development. Where we therefore have four main population groups in Southern Africa, namely Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Bantu, we shall from time to time have to examine our instruments for mutual consultation and revise them as South Africa and its various peoples develop in the basis of diversity and their differences from each other.

Where can one find it stated more clearly than this? The course is the same. The course has not been deviated from in the slightest. The course remains completely steadfast.

But I want to go further. We are now discussing the abolition of the representatives here. The hon. member for Durban (North) envisaged it for us. He not only envisaged it, he also recommended it to us on a former occasion. On 15th April, 1964, when we were discussing the powers which are being given to the Coloured Persons Representative Council, he said something which I shall quote in a moment. He referred to the Coloured Council. First of all he said that they would have no powers, and that they would be granted no authority. He stated that they were an emasculated debating chamber, and a lot of other things. To strengthen his argument he referred to the representatives in this House. Then he said, col. 4260—

How do these Coloured representatives fit into this beautiful picture of a Coloured Council? Will the hon. Minister in his reply tell us what the purpose is going to be so long as this Council exists. What are they going to do? Why do you have them sitting in this House if you are going to consult with them only through this Council? What is the purpose of any Member of Parliament? He is here in this House to represent the interests of the people he represents, his constituents. And the Coloured Representatives are here to represent and to sneak for the Coloured people of the Cape Province. What is their function going to be after this?

He asked what their function was going to be. In other words, he asked why we wanted to have those people here. The Coloured Persons’ Council is there which will Have all the powers. What will then become of these people? Why must they be here? The implication is that they may as well be abolished.

*Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

I shall reply to that.

*Dr. C. P. MULDER:

Yes, the hon. member has to reply to that, because he is not the only hon. member who said it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also envisaged this for us. Referring to the powers of the Coloured Council in the same debate on 30th April, 1964, col. 5230, he said the following—

This is the foundation which is to lead to a commonwealth arrangement. Sir, when we come to this commonwealth arrangement, who are representing the Coloured people—the people coming from this Council or the Coloured Representatives elected to this House?

He then went further. He stated that the Executive Committee of the Coloured Council would also have access to the Minister in the same way as these members have direct access to the Minister. He stated it very clearly, as a practical politician would, col. 5232—

It seems inevitable that there will be a conflict. It seems inevitable that the one will try to act as the official machine and stand on its position, and that the other will be moved out … The stage will be reached where these Coloured Representatives will be told, perhaps by members of that Coloured Council, that they no longer represent the Coloured people but that the council represents them.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition indicated to us the inevitable conflict, but now they have not yet adopted an attitude in regard to the other Bill which the hon. Minister for Coloured Affairs has introduced. We are curious to know whether they are going to accept that Council. In the light of their attitude towards this Bill they may not support that Bill. They dare not support it. One after the other they told us that if we gave the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council increased powers, and developed it further, then it would inevitably lead to a clash between that Council and this House. The hon. members of the Opposition are now asking us to retain these members. Since they are asking us to retain them they must be honest and consistent and also ask that no more powers be conferred upon the Coloured Persons’ Council, because they would then be causing a conflict between these two bodies. If they want to be consistent therefore they must oppose this Bill, and the other one as well. They must oppose this Bill and state that these people should be retained, but they must also oppose the other one and state that they wanted to keep these people here. Consequently the powers of the Coloured Persons’ Council must not be expanded, because that will cause a conflict between the Coloured Persons’ Council and the Coloured Representatives in this House. That is as logical as anything could be.

I want to go further and state that every Minister has seen his way clear to overcoming the hurdle which confronted him. I have quoted and made very clear Dr. Verwoerd’s standpoint in regard to this matter, i.e. as Dr. Verwoerd saw the position at that stage he had no intention at that stage of abolishing the Coloured Representatives in this House. He made a statement to this effect, but he did not bind himself perpetually to that. I made two other quotations from which it became quite apparent that he had stated that that was not the last word in this matter. It would continually have to be reconsidered in the light of circumstances as they presented themselves. We then found ourselves with a new Prime Minister and a new dispensation, and what standpoint did the present Prime Minister adopt right at the outset of his premiership? He was elected on 13th September, 1966, and on 22nd September, nine days afterwards, he was asked by the Leader of the Opposition in this House what his standpoint in respect of the Coloureds was. This was the standpoint of our present Prime Minister in regard to the Coloureds at that stage, col. 2657—

I am indicating a road for the Coloureds to follow, a road removed from the Whites, not because the Whites are necessarily their betters because the policy of apartheid is not based on that; the policy of apartheid has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority; the policy of apartheid has nothing to do with riches or poverty, or with education or illiteracy—the policy of apartheid has as its basis the difference existing amongst ethnic groups. I am indicating a road for the Coloureds to follow which is their own. It is true that at this moment I cannot say—and it would be foolish of me even to try and do so— where that road will lead to. I can only indicate a direction and a course.

In addition he stated very clearly—

We have discussed all these matters, and that matter will be discussed again because in that case too the last word has not yet been spoken.

There we also have, stated very clearly, the course of the hon. the Prime Minister, who has indicated that we are dealing with a situation which is continually changing and that in this sphere he is indicating a course removed from the Whites. That is precisely what we are now doing. Subsequently the commission of inquiry was appointed. That commission heard evidence and brought out a report. The majority on that commission stated that the Coloureds preferred, in the first place, that the Coloured Persons Council should be developed as a council. That Coloured Persons Council is going to come into conflict with the present Coloured Representatives; we therefore have no alternative but to abolish the present Representatives. It is on that basis that we are now clearing the next hurdle.

There is still one hurdle which lies ahead for us. That is the question which members are continually putting to us. Where are you going with this Coloured policy? I want to state very clearly now that we will clear that hurdle when we come to it. In the same way as we would not, 20 years ago, have been so foolish as to have said how we were going to clear this hurdle, so we cannot state to-day what we will do then. But the road is very clear. The road has been mapped out and we believe that each race will develop in its own political sphere. The door has not been closed to a political as well as a geographical home for the Coloureds when the time for that arrives.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Randfontein quoted something that my hon. Leader and I had said in the debate on the Coloured Representative Council Bill in 1964. What the hon. member forgets, is that we were trying to find out what the Government in fact had in mind at the time in relation to the Coloured Representatives, and right through the piece the Government was questioned on the subject as to what they had in mind. Indeed there were some hon. members on this side who did not believe the assurances that were given about continued Coloured representation here, because of the pattern that at that time had developed, where all representation in this House by any other race groups had already disappeared. So it was that we pressed for assurances. I want to remind the hon. member of this. I am sorry that the hon. member chose to quote the Minister of Defence in this debate, as if he were a person whose word meant anything at all when assurances were given. It is a pity he did that, because during that very debate the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said to the Minister of Defence, then the Minister of Coloured Affairs—

We do not believe that the hon. the Prime Minister will rest before he has reached the logical point of his policy, where those members are put out of the House of Assembly. If that is not so, then we ask the hon. the Minister who is in charge of this Bill to give us his solemn assurance—note those words, Mr. Speaker, “his solemn assurance” —that it is the policy of the Government that the members representing the Coloureds will be a permanent part of the future which the Government envisages for the Coloureds.

Could this be more clear, “a permanent part”?—

If he cannot give that solemn and clear assurance, it will be all the more reason why we cannot support this Bill.

To that the then hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs replied: “I give it now.” Nothing could be clearer than that. But more than that …

Dr. J. C. OTTO:

You did not support the Bill.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

That is not the point. The hon. the Minister gave his solemn assurance that the Coloured representation here would be “a permanent part”. Then, worse than that, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout then asked the hon. the Prime Minister, the late Dr. Verwoerd—

Will the Prime Minister also tell us that he no longer stands by what he said previously?

To that the hon. the Prime Minister replied: “I have already said it here.” And then, so that there would be no doubt about if whatever, when the then hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs replied to the debate, he said—

This brings me to a further point which was first raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in particular, as well as by the hon. member for Gardens. They advanced another argument in this connection. They used the argument that, in creating this council, we were simply preparing the way for the destruction of the present system of Coloured representation in this House, that the four Coloured representatives would eventually disappear. Sir, I said by way of interjection, while the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was speaking, that I wanted to give him the assurance that that was not going to be done. But he was not satisfied with that. He wanted an assurance on that point from the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister, who was sitting here, repeated that assurance. The hon. member nevertheless continued with his story.

[Interjections.] Of course. It runs counter to everything the hon. member for Randfontein has in fact said. But if we are going to quote, and we are all going to be men of honour, let me quote from a speech by another hon. Deputy Minister, which was made after the present hon. Prime Minister became Prime Minister. It was on 29th March, 1968, and it is the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. I am indebted to my bench-mate for pointing this out to me. He went to Klerksdorp in the place of the Minister to speak on the occasion of the induction of the first Bantu magistrate. He said—

As to this event, it is well known that the bona fide intentions of the Government of the Republic of South Africa have often and repeatedly been questioned and criticized in the past. But the new milestone that we have reached to-day will clearly illustrate that the Government has always carried its express intentions and promises into effect as will be evidenced here to-day.

It is a remarkable event that that speech was made on 29th March, and the disgraceful performance of the hon. the Minister in this House was on the day before.

Mr. B. PIENAAR:

What does it prove?

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

It proves that the word of this Government can no longer be regarded as worth anything at all. The hon. member asked a question and then he runs away. He knows what the answer is. Let me say to this hon. member and to the hon. member for Randfontein, who spoke so piously about Coloured rights, about what this Government is going to do, and all about this new deal they have introduced. If he really believes that Coloureds believe that and if he is prepared to say that the evidence of the Commission was that they wanted this, I suggest to hon. members that, when this Bill goes to the Other Place they should amend clause 3 and make a provision for the filling of vacancies. Then they, as the Nationalist Party, can fight the seat of the late Mr. Tossie Barnett on that deal. That would be fair. If they could win it, they would have some ground upon which they might say that the Coloured people accept this position.

The hon. member talked about a “veelvolkige gemeenskap”. We were all present today and heard the State President’s speech. I distinctly heard the State President saying both in English and in Afrikaans that we were a multi-racial nation.

Dr. C. P. MULDER:

For the time being. [Interjections.]

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

As regards the State President I do not want to ask the hon. member whether he has had a private discussion about this matter. [Interjections.] How can the hon. member for Randfontein pretend that the State President said something else? This is as bad as what happened with the hon. the Minister of Defence, if not even worse. I do want to say also, so far as all these wonderful thoughts are concerned, and these “skeidings” that we are going to have, that I was also very impressed to-day with the impressive ceremony, by seeing, lining the streets, Coloured troops with guns.

Dr. E. L. FISHER:

But only for the time being.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

If we are as the hon. the State President said—and he is quite right—a multi-racial country, then this Bill is not going to help us govern such a country. The hon. member talks about a mandate. When did they last have a mandate? The last time they had a mandate was in 1966. In 1966 there was an election.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member should not refer to anything that happened in connection with the State President’s inauguration. [Interjections.]

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

You are making deductions from the State President’s address which are absolutely untrue and unfounded.

*Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

What is untrue?

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Your deductions from the State President’s address. It is scandalous.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Nonsense. The hon. the Minister talks about …

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order!

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

On a point of order, Sir, the Minister of the Interior now says that there was a “skandalige” statement made here.

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The deductions are scandalous.

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Yesterday it was ruled by Mr. Speaker that the word “scandalous” could not be used if applied to a member’s speech. I ask you to ask the Minister to withdraw that statement, Sir.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Will the hon. the Minister withdraw the word “scandalous”?

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

If that is the ruling, I withdraw that word.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

The hon. member for Randfontein talks about a mandate. But when last did they get a mandate? In 1966 they last had a mandate, but what was the nature of that mandate? There was a solemn assurance by the Leader of the Nationalist Party that the Coloured representation in this House would be a permanent part of the political future they had in mind for the Coloureds. [Interjections.]

But I want to come to another point. I raised this point before but this is the first opportunity I have of dealing with the Minister’s reply thereto. This concerns section 29 (2) (b) of our Constitution—for which Constitution, I appreciate, this Government has very little regard. This particular section provides—

When nominating senators, the State President shall have regard further to the requirement that at least one of the two senators nominated from each province under this section shall be thoroughly acquainted, by reason of official experience or otherwise, with the interests of the Coloured population in the province from which the said senator is nominated, and that the said senator should be capable inter alia of servingas a channel through which the interests of the said Coloured population in that province may be promoted.

I asked the Minister what was going to happen to these senators; whether a change was contemplated. His reply was that they were going to remain. They were just nominated senators, he said; Government senators.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

What you have quoted from the Constitution refers to the one senator.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Oh no! Mr. Speaker, this is the third time I have explained this but the hon. the Minister is not yet with me. I am definitely not talking about the one senator. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that the one senator he refers to is the senator appointed under the Separate Representation of Voters Act. The appointee of the Government was Senator Olivier. He died about two years ago and has never been replaced and will never be because his office disappears in terms of the Bill now before us. But this part of the Constitution, the part I have quoted, is not repealed by this Bill. This provides that these senators should not only be aware of the interests of the Coloured people but they should be able to serve as “the channel” through which the interests of the Coloured population may be promoted. Well, the hon. the Minister said they are going to remain. Well, if they are going to remain … The Minister went further and said we were going to have new channels …

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

They do not represent the Coloureds. They are appointed only on account of their knowledge of Coloured affairs. They must be able to serve as a conduit pipe.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Yes—they must be capable of serving as a conduit pipe for the promotion of the interests of the Coloured people in the Senate.

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

They do not represent the Coloured in the same way as the Coloured Representatives here in the House of Assembly.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Let me point out to the hon. member for Prinshof that these senators are appointed on the understanding that they are capable of promoting the interests of the Coloured people. Well, this is quite contrary to everything the hon. the Minister said —that he wants complete “skeiding” here; that he does not want any Coloured Representatives in Parliament, because he was now going to provide a new parliament for them and, consequently, there was no need for them to be represented here. Furthermore, he said, this was not the place where their interests should be promoted. That place was the parliament they were going to get, he said. But if that is so, then I ask him again, what about the senators? He says they are going to remain. Are they going to be chosen in such a manner that they can serve as the channel, even “a channel”, for the promotion of Coloured interests? We should like to know this. The Government has gone to the trouble of abolishing the one senator appointed in terms of the Separate Representation of Voters Act. But what about these four senators? What is going to happen to them? If the position is what the Minister stated it to be yesterday then this is a most shameful state of affairs, in that the Government never had regard to this particular provision of our Constitution when they appointed these senators. That is what it means —either one or the other: Either a complete anomaly and contrary to the principles enunciated by the Minister under this Bill, or they have been appointing people without having any regard to this particular provision of our Constitution. Therefore, I hope the hon. the Minister is going to get up and tell us what he is going to do.

Mr. W. V. RAW:

They are supposed to promote the interests of the Coloured people.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Yes. They are supposed to be not “a” channel but “the” channel for the promotion of the interests of the Coloured people in the Senate. Now the representatives representing the interests of the Coloured people in this House are being removed leaving this provision in our Constitution whereby their interests may be promoted by senators in the Senate. What absolute nonsense is this? Is the real answer not this, that the Government has no regard at all for our Constitution? You know, Sir, the oath taken by the State President to-day lays the obligation upon them to inter alia uphold our Constitution. Well, it is a great pity that members of the Cabinet do not have to take the oath. The hon. the Minister of the Interior has not tried to reply to my point, except to say they were “somaar Government nominees”. Apparently we do not have to worry about them. But we have a Constitution. The Government has taken out of this Constitution several sections—like a hen in a farmyard they peck out all the little bits where reference is made to the Separate Representation of Voters Act. But this part they left. So, we should like to know what the position is. If they are to remain, as the hon. the Minister says, on what basis are they going to remain? And how are they going to promote the interests of the Coloured people when by the Prevention of Improper Interference Bill, a bill which is now also before the House, they are going to be prevented from properly consulting with the Coloureds. This House is in the process of dealing with this Bill, and if it becomes law these senators will not be allowed to go and address the gathering of Coloureds without committing an offence. They would be committing an offence if they addressed a meeting where of the people attending the Coloureds were in the majority.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

You can raise that point when that Bill is discussed here.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

I have done so already, and we are awaiting the Minister’s reply.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

We are not discussing that Bill now. I shall reply to you when that Bill is discussed.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has considered this point at all. Here we have a complete anomaly. The Minister said they were going to remain. We should like to know why the Senate should have people to promote the interests of the Coloureds, while in this House, this most important House, they are not going to have the benefit of someone to promote their interests. There is something wrong here and I hope the hon. the Minister is going to explain it.

The Minister as well as other hon. members have spoken about a “growth point”. Well, the Coloured Representatives in this House can never become such a growth point, in the same way as the Native Representatives could never and did never become a growth point.

Dr. P. G. J. KOORNHOF:

But surely they can become a political growth point.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

No, they cannot become a political growth point, not if one has as one’s philosophy what we have as a philosophy and to which this Government even comes so close sometimes—that is to say, separate councils for the different race groups with those councils having power to take part in government.

I do not take part in government—I am merely part of the consultative process. But they take part in government; they have the civil servants and the courts dealing with those matters which concern them. But this Parliament is the parliament which must govern them all—call it “veelrassige”, “veelvolkige”, or what you like. No matter how you describe it, you must have a parliament to govern them all and that is this Parliament.

Dr. P. G. J. KOORNHOF:

May I ask a question? If you have six Coloureds in this House to represent the Coloureds, and that number becomes 12. or 15, will you still say that that is not a political growth point?

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

I am glad that the hon. member asks that question. It is not a case of “if that number becomes 12 or 15”. They will not become. [Interjections.]

Dr. C. P. MULDER:

Never? Are you prepared to say “never”?

Dr. P. G. J. KOORNHOF:

Let us assume then that the number increases to that extent.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

There were three Native Representatives in this House from 1936 to 1959—through a succession of United Party and Nationalist Party governments. The fact of the matter is that this Parliament was not prepared to grant an increase and so those three representatives sat there for 23 years and performed a very useful service inasmuch as they informed this House as to what the feelings of the people they represented were. If they did not represent their feelings here, they would not have been elected, and there were regular elections. Precisely the same applies to those hon. members who are Coloured Representatives here. The growth point is where you can exercise power; where you can take part in government. They are here merely as part of the consultative process; they are here as representatives of their people to tell us, the sovereign Parliament which makes the decisions for them, what their people think of the bills that we pass and of the motions before the House and what their complaints are. In doing that they fulfil a most useful and a most necessary and important function.

Dr. P. G. J. KOORNHOF:

And if they do become more?

Dr. E. L. FISHER:

How can they become more—lay eggs?

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Let me ask the hon. member for Primrose a question: Why did the three Native Representatives not become more under the United Party regime? Why did they not become more under the Nationalist Party regime. They sat here for 11 years under a Nationalist Party Government and for a longer time they were here under a United Party Government. May I ask the hon. member why their numbers were not increased? The answer is very simple and that is because this Parliament did not increase their numbers. We go even further than that and we give even more guarantees than that. But this is not the point. Here you find this confusion. How can it be a political growth point? What is their participation in politics here? Surely they are merely here as representatives to say what the feelings of their people are. Let me ask the hon. member whether he considers that I am part of the Government of South Africa?

Dr. P. G. J. KOORNHOF:

No.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Of course, I am not. The people who govern the country are the members of the Cabinet, the executive, the Civil Service. We are here to legislate for the country; we are here to criticize and to scrutinize what the executive and the Government does, but my personal function here is purely consultative. What does the hon. member think happens when Parliament goes into recess? Is the country governed or is it not governed? Who governs it then?

An HON. MEMBER:

That is not the point.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

That is exactly the point.

An HON. MEMBER:

You are not part of the Government.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Sir, there is a confusion of ideas here and this is what is so dangerous. The hon. member for Primrose who is an educated member, even though he went to the wrong university, confuses Government and Parliament and he is confusing consultation with the Government with consultation with Parliament, and they are two different things. I am not part of the Government, but I am a Member of Parliament, and when I make my decisions in this House and exercise my mind, I would like to have the benefit of knowing what the Coloured people think, what the Indian people think and what the Bantu people think because that is very important in exercising my judgment as a Member of Parliament as opposed to a member of the Government. It is very important for me and it is very important for that hon. member too.

Dr. C. P. MULDER:

May I put a question?

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

No, I only have about a minute left. The hon. member for Randfontein, talking about Parliament and the attitude of hon. members towards it, said that they were not going to be affected by the courts; that they were going to have no interference from the courts or from the Opposition. Sir, that is just typical. No interference from the courts!

Dr. C. P. MULDER:

I did not say that.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

I am sorry, Sir, I understood the hon. member to say that they were going to do this without opposition from the courts or from the Opposition. Of course, he said that and that is typical.

*An HON. MEMBER:

You refuse to accept anybody’s word.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

He was thinking back to the ugly days of 1951 …

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 68.

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The hon. member for Durban (North) did something here to-day about which I want to express my strongest displeasure, and that is that on this day of the inauguration of a new State President he dragged an address by the State President to the whole nation into a political debate for political purposes. The hon. member made deductions here which he was not at all justified in making from what the State President had said, and I am going to rectify that by saying that the State President is the President of the whole nation of the Republic of South Africa. He said that and he repeated that and that is the position. Secondly, the State President emphasized the fact that the population of the Republic consisted of various race or population groups. He even referred to Coloureds and Indians and Bantu, and in that sense no one can deny that we are a multi-racial country. In other words, we are a multi-racial country because we accommodate various race groups, various population groups, in our country, but it is wrong to pretend here that the State President has set the pattern for the United Party.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I do not know what the discussion is about, because I was not in the Chair.

*The MINISTER:

Mr. Speaker, after the hon. member had made the statement, his attention was drawn to the fact that it was not at all permissible to bring the person of or the address by the State President into this debate, and I am going to say no more in this regard.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I just want to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that we have a special rule which covers this matter and which I should like to read to this House—

No member shall use the State President’s name irreverently or for the purpose of influencing this House in its deliberations.

I hope that this discussion will not be taken any further.

*The MINISTER:

I just want to bring it to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that something like that has happened and that I too want to register my strongest protest to that.

Mr. Speaker, I do not like to indulge in personalities, but the hon. member is one of the members on the Opposition side whose parliamentary experience is insufficient to justify him having such a high opinion of himself and acting in such a haughty manner in this House. If I, as an older Member of Parliament, were to give him any advice, I would tell him something which one would not like to tell anybody. The impression he creates here as a person, not only amongst us on this side of the House, but also amongst many members on this side of the House, is that if they— and I include myself—could buy him at their price and sell him at his price, they would become wealthy overnight.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Where do you get the idea that that is the point of view of members on this side of the House?

*The MINISTER:

I say so. [Interjections.] I shall not allow hon. members to put me off. The way in which that gentleman carries on does him or this House no credit. Somebody should tell him that, and I have now done so.

*An HON. MEMBER:

What a Minister! …

Mr. W. V. RAW:

They could sell you at a penny a dozen.

*The MINISTER:

The hon. member put one question to me which dealt with the Senators who may be nominated in terms of the Constitution by the governing party by reason of their knowledge …

*An HON. MEMBER:

Shall be nominated.

*The MINISTER:

… yes, who shall be nominated by reason of their knowledge of Coloured affairs to serve as, inter alia, channels for the Coloureds to the Senate and in that way to Parliament. The hon. member asked what was going to happen to them. I told him the other day that they were going to remain, because they were not representatives of the Coloureds in the sense in which the Coloured Representatives in this House who had been elected by the Coloureds were representatives. They are nominated by the Government and this Bill does not affect them at all. Hon. members of the Opposition complained a great deal and made much of the point of view that the voice of the Coloured would never again be heard in the democratic Parliament of South Africa, and then asked in the same breath that we should also remove that channel which we had created under the Constitution. They were blowing hot and cold.

An HON. MEMBER:

We merely pointed out the anomaly.

*The MINISTER:

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who opened this debate this afternoon, mentioned three reasons for their opposition to this measure. He said it would be an unfair diminution of the political rights of the Coloureds. That may be his opinion. As regards this point we differ from each other, and the entire United Party Opposition differs from the Government. We do not believe that this will be a diminution of political rights, because the rights which the Coloureds had, even when they were on the Common Voters’ Roll, were exercised by a small number and were sham rights. That was evident from the evidence given before the Commission when, with one single exception, no witness said he wanted to go back to the old, Common Voters’ Roll. That was the overwhelming weight of the evidence. But even before this commission sat, the United Party had been promising the Coloureds throughout the years that it would restore them to the Common Voters’ Roll if the United Party were to come into power one day, but in terms of the new policy approved at their congress in Bloemfontein but which has never been put to the test before the nation, the United Party accepts separate voters’ rolls, in other words, representatives for the Coloureds who will not be elected on the Common Voters’ Roll. And they are the people who want to accuse us of breach of promise! Sir, if we want to accuse one another of breach of promise, we really should advance better facts than those, than the kind of so-called fact advanced by the hon. member for Peninsula in reply to the hon. member for Parow. The hon. member for Peninsula drew his own conclusions and put up his own puppets which he then proceeded to knock down. In to-day’s debate the accusation was repeated that we had committed a breach of promise. The other day I read to this House a long quotation from a speech made by Dr. Verwoerd. I now want to read from Hansard, Col. 4246, what Dr. Verwoerd said here on 7th April, 1965, after he had spoken of the problem of minority groups in a Parliament in which the majority of another population group was governing. He said—

If we look at this matter from the point of view of justice therefore, we must look at it from every angle. We must ask ourselves which people are going to benefit and in what way you can best serve the interests of everybody, even if it means that the one gets slightly less than the other. That is the honest and right way to view this matter.

He said that during the discussion of the Vote of the Prime Minister, and on the same day, 7th April, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke. The United Party made out here that they had never heard any speech by any Prime Minister of the National Government—the hon. member for Peninsula said this as well— that the National Party had ever given any thought to a change in Coloured representation in Parliament. Where did he get his particulars from? This too was a puppet which he himself had set up. He came to conclusions which he had no justification in drawing. But after Dr. Verwoerd had spoken these words, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said the following in Col. 4264 of Hansard of 7th April, 1965—

The hon. the Prime Minister of course still owes us a reply to various questions. Nobody objects to the Coloureds in a Coloured residential area having a council—such as a municipal council—with the assistance of which they can make decisions in regard to local matters. But after this evening we also know that under the policy of this Government the Coloured will never have any say in the making of the laws which affect all the important things in his life.

On what grounds did he say that? Because he had deduced from what Dr. Verwoerd had said, as he understood it, that Coloured representation would possibly disappear from this House some day, because only in that case would he have known “after this evening” that the Coloured was not going to be given further representation in this the highest council. The United Party makes out that it has never understood the policy of the National Party as it has developed from the beginning up to the present time.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also spoke of a breach of promise and said, inter alia, that I too had broken my promise, because I had given this House an assurance in 1966 in reply to a speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Now, the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition dealt with, as he put it, an uncertain situation which had arisen. That speech was made on 26th August, while the term of office of the Coloured Representatives was to expire on, I think, 25th November. In pursuance of reports in the Press—and the Leader of the Opposition referred to the Afrikaans language Press in particular—the Leader of the Opposition said something was going to happen; we were going to take steps to put an end to those anomalies and improper interference. He then said that he was of the opinion as a result of what he had read in the Press, speculations which he thought had been inspired by the Government, that time was running out for me as Minister of the Interior to tell this House what our intentions were, because we were approaching an election of Coloured Representatives and the Coloured Representatives did not know where they stood or in what way they would be affected by the legislation against political interference. Consequently he wanted to know what we intended doing in respect of that legislation. I replied to him not only in respect of that legislation, but also in respect of the pending election, because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had said the following—

The matter has already been raised by the hon. member for Peninsula, a Coloured Representative, but so far there has been no reaction from the Government side, and it seems to me a most unhappy state of affairs that these rumours should be allowed to persist at a time when the election for Coloured Representatives should be already in sight … I believe, and it seems to me a very unsatisfactory state of affairs that the Coloured people should be beset by rumours coming from sources believed to be Government-inspired as to the question of who shall be eligible to be candidates for election and in fact as to whether those elections (of 1966) are going to take place as laid down by the law.

My reply to him was the following—

But the mere fact that no statement is being issued ought to enable any persons with sound common sense to deduce that things are going to take their normal course. There is going to be an election. I can say further that the Government is not going to tamper with the form which Coloured representation takes in this House.

What I had in mind was the elections which would have taken place in 1966 if the Opposition had not approached the Government through the hon. member for Peninsula to discuss this matter and to see whether an agreement could not be reached to refer it to a Select Committee. Those are the facts, but what I reject and deplore is the fact that even distortions and misrepresentations such as those were used in this House in a serious debate such as this.

An HON. MEMBER:

Read the next two sentences.

*The MINISTER:

No, my time is very limited and we shall have another opportunity of discussing this. I do not want to be put off my stride. The fact of the matter is that we are dealing with serious legislation. Here we are dealing with negative legislation, if one views this Bill on its own, but we must not forget to view this legislation in conjunction with the other legislation which appears on the Order Paper and of which hon. members are aware. This Bill, viewed on its own, will naturally present a very slanted and ugly picture, and during this debate the Opposition tried to paint the ugliest all-round picture imaginable of the relations between the Government and the non-Whites, the Coloureds in particular. The fact of the matter is that we are in direct conflict with each other. The United Party and the Progressive Party may be grouped together for the purposes of this legislation, and we are in direct conflict with each other, because what the United Party envisages for the political future of the Coloureds and for their development in the political sphere, is in direct conflict with what the National Government envisages for them. The United Party, as Opposition, realizes that here they have an opportunity and that they have to make the best use of such an opportunity, even if they have to make use of misrepresentations and distortions as well.

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

On a point of order, Sir, is the Minister entitled to speak of “distortions”?

*Mr. SPEAKER:

I am listening to the hon. the Minister and if he uses a wrong word I shall call him to order.

*The MINISTER:

The Government’s policy of parallel development of each separate population group along its own lines which will give each population group, inter alia, political identity and recognition is in direct conflict with the policy of the United Party which may be summarized very briefly and to the point in a reply given by the hon. member for Yeoville in a television interview with Mr. Robin Day of the B.B.C. on 15th June, 1964. Mr. Day told the hon. member for Yeoville that he was of the opinion, inter alia, that there was no big fundamental difference between the United Party and the Government, to which the hon. member replied—

I think there are many fundamental differences. But the chief one in the South African context is that our Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, believes that South Africa is not a multi-racial state. Indeed, he says that no multi-racial state can exist anywhere in the world. Whereas we, all our thinking, departs from the knowledge that South Africa is in fact a multi-racial state and will be that for all time.

Mr. Day then asked—

Then does the United Party envisage that there will be one day black M.P.s in the National Assembly in Cape Town?

The hon. member for Yeoville gave the following reply—

Our leader, Sir De Villiers Graaff, stated very clearly that whereas on our election we will give the black people of this country representation in Parliament by white people, he accepts, and we all accept, that that is not a permanent situation, that it will change, and the future Parliament will allow black people to come into Parliament.

There one has the difference between the United Party and us in a nutshell, and that is why we shall never be able to see eye to eye as regards the basis of and the principles contained in this Bill. I say that they closed their eyes to anything but the negative aspect of this Bill and tried to emphasize that only and that they did not pay any attention to the channels which we said we would create after consultation with and discussions between this Parliament and the new Coloured Council, the Council which will represent the Coloureds throughout the country on a much wider basis than that of the representation they have at the present time. We shall consult with them in respect of channels which can and must be created, and then we shall judge. They omitted to mention that.

Now, in conclusion, in the few minutes at my disposal I want to say that when we look back at the effect of this Bill in five years’ time we shall clearly, even more clearly in the distant future, see it towering as one of the brightest and proudest beacons erected by the white man for the Coloured on the road of development, in the political sphere as well, along his own lines. Later this will be done for the Indian as well. This is my sincere conviction, since everything we did was opposed, but everything we did proved that they were wrong when they said that we were causing the feelings between Whites and non-Whites to deteriorate. I maintain that there has never been better co-operation and more loyalty, greater satisfaction and more peace and a better understanding of one another between the white Government and the non-white population groups in this country than to-day.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—107: Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A. ; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. C.; Steyn, A. N.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—37: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lewis, H. M.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

The House adjourned at 5 p.m.

THURSDAY, 11TH APRIL, 1968 Prayers—2.20 p.m. PROHIBITION OF IMPROPER INTERFERENCE BILL (Second Reading resumed) Mr. R. G. L. HOURQUEBIE:

Mr. Speaker, two days have elapsed since the first part of the debate on this Bill. We have probably reached the halfway stage in this debate and I believe it is an appropriate point at which to reassess some of the things which have been said in this debate. I want to begin by drawing attention to two misrepresentations of the effects of this Bill which have come from speakers on the Government side. Firstly, all Nationalist members who have spoken in this debate, from the Minister downwards, have spoken as if this Bill affects the Coloured group only. They have based their arguments, to justify this Bill, on what has or has not happened to the Coloured group in the past or what should or should not happen to the Coloured group in the future. This is a serious misrepresentation. The Bill, if it is passed by this House, will affect every non-white group in this country. I propose to deal with that aspect more fully, but I wish firstly to mention the second misrepresentation before doing so.

The second misrepresentation emanated from the hon. member for Parow, who was of course the Government’s leading speaker on this Bill after the Minister. The hon. member for Parow stated that this was a fairly straightforward little Bill which simply dealt with political activity in connection with election campaigns. Sir, this Bill has far-reaching implications which go much beyond pure electioneering. In fact, if this Bill becomes law I do not think it would be an exaggeration to say that it would be a sad day for South Africa, because on that day this Nationalist Government will be withdrawing after over 300 years the influence, the leadership and the guidance of the white man over the non-white groups in this country, and I will explain why I say this. But let me point out first that we, the Whites, have for over 300 years in this country provided leadership, guidance and influence to the non-white groups in every sphere—and I want to emphasize this—in the economic sphere, in the cultural sphere, in the spiritual sphere, and particularly in the political sphere. This, of course, does not imply any domination. The non-white groups have throughout this period had the opportunity of developing in these particular spheres in the particular ways in which they have wished to do so, subject of course to the various restrictions imposed by the Nationalist Government. But in the main, for over 300 years we, the Whites, have provided this leadership, influence and guidance, and I emphasize particularly in the political sphere, which is perhaps the most and certainly one of the most important of the spheres I have mentioned.

After this long period the Government now proposes to withdraw this influence, and it is important that the people of South Africa, “die volk daarbuite”, which this Government is so fond of referring to in the debates, should realize the way in which the policy of separate development of the Government is beginning to develop, because this Bill emphasizes a fundamental difference in outlook and in principle and, I might add, in policy, between the Nationalist Government and ourselves.

The hon. member for Parow, and I think also the hon. the Minister, the hon. member for Witbank and several other speakers on the Nationalist side have all emphasized that this Bill is necessary in order to carry out the policy of separate development. They have emphasized that this is one of the main objects of this legislation, and in view of this it is necessary for the people of South Africa to study what in fact is happening under this Bill under the name of the development of the policy of separate development of the Government. It is necessary for the people to realize that under the present Prime Minister it seems to be becoming increasingly clear that the development of this policy is necessarily having the implication of the withdrawal of the influence of the white man over the non-white groups more and more. In other words, they are being told: “These are your areas, you get on, you do what you like there, and we do not care what you do in these areas.” In fact, I think the Prime Minister said that in relation to the Transkei. A representative of a very extensively read overseas magazine interviewed the Prime Minister and asked him if he was not afraid of the possibility of communist influence in these areas, and, according to this article, the Prime Minister said that what happens in their own areas is a matter for them and is not the concern of the South African Government. This Bill which is before the House is in line with that thinking, and I suggest that this is not only an undesirable development which is now taking place, but a very dangerous development.

In view of the fact that some speakers on the Nationalist side have suggested that this Bill has only to do with political activity during election campaigns, I should like to refer to some of its clauses.

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

Who said that?

Mr. R. G. L. HOURQUEBIE:

Who said that? The hon. member for Parow said that.

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

Show us that in Hansard.

Mr. R. G. L. HOURQUEBIE:

It was pointed out by my hon. Leader that under clause 2 (b) and possibly clause 2 (c) it would not be possible for the United Party to put into effect its policy of having the non-white groups of South Africa represented in this House through Whites, in the case of the Bantu and of the Indians. It was conceded by the hon. member for Omaruru that this is indeed the case. Well, now, this in itself shows one of the serious implications, the far-reaching implications, of this legislation, but it is not the complete story. This goes even further. If you will look at clause 2 (c), Sir, you will see it is in two parts.

The second part which is contained in line 13 and the following lines relates to the candidature of a person which naturally means candidature in connection with an election campaign. I can see that part of the clause is related to elections. But the first part has nothing to do with election campaigns. It is not confined to elections. It is a general clause which prohibits the addressing of meetings, gatherings or assemblies of persons of whom all or the greater majority belong to another population group for the purpose of furthering the interests of a political party. It has been suggested by some of the members on the other side that because of these words “for the purpose of furthering the interests of a political party”, this clause is somewhat confined. But let us test this. In fact, it has already been tested but we are still waiting for a satisfactory answer to that question. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put this very pertinent question to the Government. When this Bill is passed, will or will not the United Party be able to address gatherings of non-white groups for the purpose of explaining the dangers of Nationalist Party policy and why we believe that the implementation of those policies is not in the interests of either the white population group or the non-white population group in certain respects and for the purpose of explaining our own policies in answer to those that we may wish to criticize? I would suggest that surely there is not one hon. member on the other side of the House who will deny that it is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable right under a democratic form of Government for the Official Opposition to put its policies to the various groups which happen to inhabit South Africa. They must surely concede that that is a perfectly legitimate democratic right. They must also concede that it is a perfectly reasonable and democratic right to explain to the various non-white groups in South Africa why we believe that certain of the Nationalist Party policies are a danger to the country and to the respective non-white groups. It is therefore very important indeed that we should have a very clear answer to this question. Will this, or will it not, be permitted once this Bill is passed? We suggest that it is so widely worded that this could be prevented. If that is the case then we have further clear proof of the extremely far-reaching implications of this legislation. I would emphasize that we do not wish to have to go cap in hand to some Minister to ask permission to do this. We claim that this is a right which we have and that we should be able to exercise responsibly that right without having to obtain permission from some Minister or Government Department.

Now let us examine the reasons which have been given us for introducing this far-reaching legislation. It amounts to this only, namely that there have been malpractices in certain elections, particularly in the Coloured elections for the Cape Provincial Council. We have heard a lot in this House from various Nationalist Party speakers about the extent of these malpractices. But one of the things we have not been given is some concrete proof that this is so extensive that it cannot be controlled under the Electoral Act as it reads at the moment. That is not so. The kind of malpractices which have been referred to in this House and which were raised before the commission of enquiry, were malpractices which could be described as bribery relating to the registration of voters. That was the main complaint. It is interesting to note that that complaint will not be controlled by this Bill. Not one of the sections in this Bill relate to registration of voters, so that it will not control that malpractice. That malpractice I would point out, if it is rife, as some of the hon. members have suggested, can easily continue whether there is so-called interference by other population groups or not. But this is not really the main point that I wish to make in relation to these malpractices.

The point that I wish to make is this. The electoral officer gave evidence before the commission and he did not suggest that malpractices were so bad that they could not be controlled under the legislation as it exists. But I go further. If in fact it is difficult to be able to find the evidence which will enable a conviction in the courts, there is a simple solution. The electoral law can be amended to tighten it up so that it will be possible to charge and convict those who are responsible.

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

Your own leader was worried about improper interference.

Mr. R. G. L. HOURQUEBIE:

Yes. I now come to this very interesting point. We have heard something else during the course of this debate. We have been told that another reason to justify this Bill, is that there has been improper interference by the white group in the elections of the Coloureds. Let us look at this. First of all, not one example of improper interference has been mentioned. The nearest that the Nationalists have come to giving us any cases, has been to quote cases of malpractices. That is all. There has not been one example of improper interference.

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

What did your Leader say about it?

Mr. R. G. L. HOURQUEBIE:

Now just you wait a minute. I shall explain that. I am coming to that.

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

[Inaudible.]

Mr. R. G. L. HOURQUEBIE:

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Prinshof would just stop interjecting for five minutes, I will come to his very point. I am leading to that. The first point I make in this regard, is that no evidence has been given of any improper interference, nor has it been explained to the House what the Government would regard as interference, let alone improper interference.

Dr. E. L. FISHER:

Why did they not do anything about it when it happened?

Mr. R. G. L. HOURQUEBIE:

Yes, exactly. It has been pointed out that they had it in their power, if there was improper interference that they knew about, to lay charges.

The hon. member for Prinshof, certainly, and I think the hon. members for Parow, Witbank and others have said that my hon. Leader admitted that there was improper interference, and that is why he agreed to a commission of enquiry. This is quite wrong. It has been emphasized by the Leader of the Opposition on several occasions that this is wrong. The reason why he agreed to refer this matter to a commission of enquiry was that he conceded that there were malpractices in so far as the electoral roll was concerned. This was the reason, and this has been emphasized by … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Prinshof is continually interjecting …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! That is improper interference!

Mr. R. G. L. HOURQUEBIE:

He has asked me to deal with this point and now when I do it he is keeping up a running commentary. However, this is the point I wanted to emphasize, because several hon. members on the other side of the House suggested that we on this side had admitted that there was improper interference. At no stage did we do such a thing. I should like to know from hon. members opposite what improper interference— apart from these malpractices in regard to registrations—has been taking place, and they claim it has. I should also like to know from them why that cannot be dealt with under the Electoral Act. And please let them tell us what they mean by “improper interference” and by “proper interference”. In this connection let me say, that we had a most curious speech from the hon. member for Omaruru. You, Sir, are aware of what he said. He said there had all along been interference in the political affairs of the Coloureds on account of the fact that they had all along been represented by Whites. In other words, the fact that they, have been represented by Whites, and that in terms of legislation introduced by the other side of the House and passed by this Parliament, constitutes interference. Well, if that is what they regard as “improper interference”, it is all the more reason why we should clearly what they mean by “interference”. In our opinion this cannot possibly! constitute interference, improper or otherwise. The hon. member for Omaruru described this as “proper interference”. So, let us hear from the Nationalists what their definition of “improper interference” is, because if they are trying to justify this legislation on the grounds of what they regard as “improper interference”, surely they must tell us what that “improper interference” is.

Mr. Speaker, we have had other curious things happening in this debate. But we are getting used to that. During the present session of Parliament particularly we are getting used to the situation where the Nationalist Government says what it does not mean and then again means something else than what it says. Let us have a look at this Bill. They say this Bill is to deal with interference. With that I have already dealt. I have said, as other hon. members have said, that there is nowhere a definition of “interference”. But there is something even more curious—not only is there no definition of “interference”, but nowhere in the text of the Bill is the word “interference” mentioned. The word appears only in the long and short titles. I am sure the hon. member for Prinshof will be the first to concede that the long and short titles of a bill do not constitute the Act. It is the clauses which constitute the Act. But if one looks at the clauses of the Bill, from clause 1 to clause 4, you will find the word “interference” nowhere. But there are certain other curious things. It has already been pointed out that there are no definitions of certain important words either —for instance, what is meant by a “political party”, by “an agent”, by “improper interference”? We have been told that it is not necessary to define these things. We have been told by the hon. member for Omaruru and I think also by the hon. member for Witbank that everybody knows what these things mean. But if that is the reason for not including things in an Act of Parliament then it is surprising to find definitions at all in any Act of Parliament.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

How otherwise would they know what a Coloured man is?

Mr. R. G. L. HOURQUEBIE:

There is a definition in this Bill of the various population groups. Well, if we have to draw an analogy between the argument in favour of the absence of a definition of, for instance, “improper interference”, and this then one might as well say that everybody in this country knows what is meant by the “Bantu group”, by the “Coloured group’, etc. Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad Bill indeed. I want to conclude by repeating what I said at the beginning— that if this Bill is passed it will be a sad day for South Africa because the effect of it will not be that suggested by hon. members on the other side of the House. In truth, the effect is—whether they like to concede it or not—the withdrawal after more than 300 years of the influence, the guidance and the leadership of the white man over the non-white groups in this country.

*Mr. L. F. STOFBERG:

The hon. member for Musgrave suggested that this side of the House had been guilty of a misrepresentation in that, strictly speaking, mention had only been made of the Coloured people. He went on to ask why the Bantu had not been mentioned as well. But surely the Bantu have made much more progress with their own political institutions along the road of separate development. For this reason we are already further removed from the Bantu and from interference in their politics than in the case of the Coloured people. But it strikes one that the hon. member went on from there and himself dealt exclusively with the Coloured people. He furthermore suggested that the non-white community was now going to be deprived of White influence and leadership after 300 years. But this is not true. That influence will continue to operate. At the same time however, we should allow the non-Whites to exercise their own influence to an increasing extent and to decide for themselves to what extent they still want to be led. In addition the hon. member complained that the Government were now making it impossible for the United Party to implement their policy. He asked, for example, whether the United Party would be allowed under this legislation to address non-Whites on the dangers it sees in the policy of the Government. I presume the hon. member also wants an opportunity of informing the non-Whites about the good things done by this Government for the non-white race groups. But the non-white race groups are being emancipated—to a much larger extent than was the case in the past. As they make further progress along this road, they may decide for themselves what is good for them and what is bad. It is not necessary for the United Party to tell them this. They are most certainly no longer tied to apron-strings to-day to the same extent that they were during the past 300 years. We have made progress and we have made a very great deal of progress.

However, I want to return to an argument used by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and several members on the Opposition side, namely that this legislation will make it impossible for the United Party to implement its policy. They said that this was an undemocratic measure, and in The Cape Times newspaper commentators wrote that it was a totalitarian measure. Mr. Speaker, this is nonsense. All the United Party need do is to convince the white electorate of the wisdom and the desirability of their policy, and then they will be able, if they get into power, to pass all the measures required to implement their policy. As a matter of fact, it is not necessary for them to convince the non-Whites of the wisdom of their policy. They need do much less; they need only convince the white electorate. But what is happening? In the by-election at Worcester the United Party never propagated its policy, not even to the white electorate. In fact, they kept quiet about their candidate being a member of the United Party, and now in Swellendam we are finding this to a superlative degree. I have the privilege of going to address a meeting there to-night and I am looking forward to it. But do you know, Mr. Sneaker, that inquiries clearly show that the United Party speakers are not even putting their policy to the white electorate in Swellendam, and if they do not have the courage to put it to the white electorate, why do they still want to put it to the non-Whites? The fact of the matter is simply that the Whites have tired long ago of their policy and that the non-Whites have also begun to tire of their policy, but that the United Party have not noticed it yet; they do not realize yet that it is not necessary to put their policy to the non-Whites. But, Mr. Speaker, surely all the mass media remain; there is the Press, for example. The non-Whites are developing; almost all of them are literate to-day. All the mass media remain at the disposal of the Opposition; there are the newspapers. They may state the bad aspects of Government policy—if there are bad aspects; I have never been aware of any —and the good aspects of Government policy and all the non-Whites may read it. The object of this Bill is evident from the clauses, and there is no need to quibble over legal niceties here, as the hon. member for Musgrave did, and to ask what a political party is. He knows what a political party is and the courts will know this even better than he does. The object is crystal clear from all the clauses. What is involved here is, that there must be no party-political interference by one race group in the political activities of another race group. This is the single, clear object that clearly shines forth from this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members on the other side are shying away from what is happening in the U.S.A. I should like to bring it to their attention again. It has often been said in the past that the Coloured people is a population group which occupies about the same position in our society as the Negroes in the U.S.A. I do not agree with that statement, but I leave it at that for the moment. The fact of the matter is that there is total integration of the Negro into white American society in the political sphere to-day. There is maximum reciprocal interference in each other’s political activities to-day. No one will deny this. It has, in fact, gone so far that the Presidents of the U.S.A., particularly since the late President Kennedy, have had to woo the Negro vote on a large scale in order to get into power, and anybody who fails to appreciate this hard fact in the American political society, does not understand what it is all about in American politics to-day. What we in South Africa, and I think people in large parts of the world, cannot understand, is this: Just about at the time when every integration measure had been placed on the Statute Book in the U.S.A., when the integration heaven had to descend upon the U.S.A., what happened then? It was everything but a heaven; it was one “long, hot summer of discontent” after another. And what is the position to-day? After the death of Martin Luther King, we read a striking report on the front page of one of our daily newspapers this morning to the effect that 37 people have been killed, that 110 cities have suffered racial violence, that 4,000 people have been injured, that 16,000 have been arrested and that damage to an amount of 27 million dollars has been caused. And this in a community where there is total integration and maximum interference by one race group in the politics of another race group.

Sir, the hon. member for Houghton is not here to-day, but many kindred spirits of hers are. What is the position? The hon. member told us not to judge the events occurring in the U.S.A. too harshly. She said it was only a transitional stage. Mr. Speaker, I will not accept this and nobody will accept it. How do the hon. member for Houghton and her associates explain the rise of the Black Power movement in the U.S.A. which is demanding five states for the Negroes? This is not a transitional stage; it is seeking a new solution for an old problem on quite a different basis. I should like to hear how the hon. member for Houghton and her liberal associates in the United Party as well explain this phenomenon. I want to make it very clear that we on this side are not rejoicing at what is happening in the U.S.A., but we and the rest of South Africa would be foolish not to learn the lessons to be learnt from this state of affairs.

Mr. Speaker, it appeared time and again from this debate, and also from the speech of the hon. member for Musgrave, that they take the view that South Africa is “a nation of 18 to 19 million people”. The Cape Times speaks of a “nation of 20 million” these days. They say that there are in fact cultural and racial differences, but they emphasize the “fact” that we, as they put it, are “a nation of 20 million people”. We on this side of the House reject that view completely. We say that South Africa is a multi-racial country. There are various races living in South Africa; it is also a multi-national country and we cause the accent to fall on nationhood for the various nations and national groups. This is our point of departure, and it is therefore absolutely essential that one should act accordingly when dealing with political institutions and political life. If we want our various nations and national groups to develop separately, then they must also be separated politically. Total separation is out of the question for the time being. In a country where we are still living among one another, where we come into contact with one another, where we try to influence each other reciprocally in a fruitful way, total separation is out of the question for the moment, and what is of primary importance is that individual political institutions will only be able to develop to the extent to which each nation or national group is allowed to develop them itself and to seek its own political salvation in its own group.

If one looks a bit further north in Africa, what does one find? We see independent Black nations in Africa, and they are unfortunately not allowed to develop their own political institutions as they would like to do it. They are being harassed; there is unprecedented interference in their affairs, not only by communist countries, but also by Western European countries and America. Their political life and their economic and other activities are being interfered with. In this connection it is in the interests of our foreign relationships that we demonstrate to the rest of Africa that we are going to apply the principle of non-interference in one another’s political life, also in respect of our own nations and national groups, in Africa, and to that end the Bill now before the House is a brilliant measure.

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

Are the Coloured people South Africans or not?

*Mr. L. F. STOFBERG:

Yes, they live in South Africa; they are South African citizens.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Are you so stupid as not to know that?

*Mr. L. F. STOFBERG:

The United Party, through its Leader and several other speakers, also said that this legislation was incompatible with white leadership. Sir, this is totally untrue. It is only incompatible with the type of white leadership that hon. members on the other side want to give the non-Whites in South Africa. It is not incompatible with the type of white leadership that comes from our side. This is in fact evident from the history of that side. Their concept of white leadership in the political sphere used to be that the most well-to-do and best-educated non-Whites were to be skimmed off the top and placed on a common voters’ roll; then you enlist their support and in doing so you tell the non-Whites how bad the other Whites are and that they should not vote for them, and you impute various evil motives to the other Whites with their good intentions towards the non-white national groups in South Africa. Then many of the non-Whites vote for you and you have exercised white leadership. If, in spite of that, you do not fare very well at elections, you set up night-schools and once again exercise white leadership in the political sphere. This is the kind of thing which this Bill wants to stop. When that dispensation had passed, a new dispensation arrived. Hon.-members on the other side are now stating that it is necessary for the various non-white national groups to be represented by Whites in this Parliament. In respect of the Coloured people they make an exception, and in respect of the Bantu the hon. member for Yeoville made a striking exception overseas, and the possibility is not excluded that the Indians may also be represented in this Parliament by Indians. That all this is to be done in a completely undemocratic way with no reference whatsoever to the size of the various national groups, is of course not very important to hon. members on the other side. No, that state of affairs, that picture presented to South Africa by hon. members on the other side, that integrated political world where they want to take us presently, we on this side totally reject, because this evil practice, which has been confined mainly to the Western Cape up to now, will be extended to the whole of South Africa under their dispensation. Then large-scale malpractices will no longer be committed in respect of the Coloured people alone, but will be extended to all the race groups throughout South Africa, and how much damage will not be done then? Who is to say that a second U.S.A. might not possibly be created in South Africa by that? No, people who do not appreciate the fact that cultural differences, differences in descent, background, ideals, the preservation of what is good and noble in the life of every nation, all the so-called spiritual possessions, play a decisive role in the politics of every nation, are not only naïve, they are stupid, because it is written that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word from the mouth of God. And in a country such as South Africa, with its own particular problem, this legislation is an absolute prerequisite for peace among our various races, nations and national groups.

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

The hon. the Minister of the Interior has urged this House time and again not to deal with each of the Bills which the Government has introduced in regard to our Coloured people in isolation. He has maintained that the Bills should be considered as a comprehensive whole, as a Government blueprint of the plans the Government has in mind for our Coloured citizens. Now, this afternoon I propose to take the hon. the Minister’s advice, and I propose examining this Bill as part of the pattern of the blueprint which the Government has in mind for the future development of our Coloured people and their political rights.

Having done that, and having examined this measure in the light of what has already been accomplished by the Government in relation to our Coloured people, I have come unhesitatingly to the conclusion that there is really no necessity for this Bill. I repeat that if this Bill is not viewed in isolation, as some of the previous speakers have done, but is examined in conjunction with the other measures which have already been introduced by the Government, as the Minister has urged us to do, then I say that this Bill is wholly unnecessary, and I hope to show the Minister why I have come to that conclusion.

Let us for a moment pause to examine what the Government’s intentions are in regard to the Coloured people and what they have already accomplished in that regard. In the first instance the Government has introduced legislation abolishing all Coloured representation in Parliament from the date of the dissolution of this House of Assembly. It has, in addition, prohibited the filling of any vacancy in the present Coloured representation in this House. In other words, the Government has effectively closed the door to any future election by the Coloured people of any white persons, or indeed, of any person to represent them in Parliament or in the Provincial Council. That door has already been effectively closed by legislation which the Government has already introduced, some of which has already been passed by this House. The Government has thus succeeded in effectively separating the Coloured people politically from the white people of this country. No further mixed elections, in the sense of Coloureds electing Whites to represent them in this Parliament, can now take place. They will certainly not take place after 1971, when by effluxion of time the life of this Parliament ends, and they certainly will not take place, in view of the decision of the Government in regard to any casual filling of vacancies. So, to all intents and purposes, the door has been closed to any future elections by the Coloured people of white representatives either here or in the Provincial Council. In the light of what has already been accomplished, one really asks oneself what is the necessity for proceeding with a Bill of this nature which seeks to prohibit one population group interfering with the politics of another group. As I say, the Whites are already separated from the Coloureds in the sense that there are no joint elections and they cannot be elected by the Coloureds in future.

I want to say immediately that I could understand the Government proceeding with this Bill if there were still to be elections in South Africa amongst the Coloureds for their representation by Whites, or Coloureds, if you like, to Parliament or to the Provincial Council, but even then I suggest that basically it is wrong for the Coloured people not to have the utmost freedom in their discussions and their selection of the representatives of their own choice. But there might at least have been something to be said for the Government introducing a Bill of this nature if these elections were still to take place. But these elections are no longer going to take place. In the light of the abolition of the future representation of Coloureds in Parliament and in the Provincial Council, I am at a loss to understand the necessity for this Bill. I think it is wholly unnecessary.

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

What about the Coloured Council elections?

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

I shall come to the Coloured Council in a moment. What are you afraid of? That the Coloured Council may elect people who do not support the Government’s policy? What are you afraid of? Why should they not have the benefit of advice? [Interjections.] Do not put a stranglehold on them. Let them have a free choice. If they want to get advice, why should they not have the opportunity of getting that advice? This shows the extent to which the Government is going. I have already pointed out that in regard to representation in this House and the Provincial Council, there can be no interference because there will be no more elections. But my hon. friend over there, who seems to take an extraordinary interest in this matter, is now afraid of interference in the Coloured Council. I say he can well afford to allow the Coloured people to take care of themselves in regard to their Council. Just as much as they do not want interference from members of the Nationalist Party, so they will not want interference from anybody else.

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

That is exactly what you want.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order!

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

Sir, I am prepared to sit down and allow these hon. gentlemen to make a speech. I say the Coloureds can be left to take care of themselves. Why should they be prohibited from seeking the advice or the assistance of a political party whose members are of another population group? What harm can there be if genuinely the Coloureds wish to get the advice of a member of the Nationalist Party in regard to a political issue?

Mr. J. T. KRUGER:

They can still get it.

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

The hon. member says they can still get it. They cannot still get it. The hon. member has not looked at the Bill. Clause 2 starts off with the words, “No person who belongs to one population group, may …”, and then sub-section (c)—

… address any meeting, gathering or assembly of persons of whom all or the greater majority belong to any other population group or groups, for the purpose of … the candidature of any person …

I ask, what harm can come of it if the Coloured people genuinely want to get the advice of a member of the Government party or the United Party or the Progressive Party, or an Independent for that matter? What harm can come of it? Why should they be denied the privilege of hearing the political views of a public person who happens to be a member of another population group and who may be a member of another political party?

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

There is nothing that stops them from doing that.

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

Will the hon. the Minister look at clause 2 (c)? Clause 2 starts off with the following words, namely, “No person who belongs to one population group, may …”, and then sub-section (c)—

… address any meeting, gathering or assembly of persons of whom all or the greater majority part belong to any other population group or groups, for the purpose of furthering the interests of a political party …
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

You must stress the words, “For the purpose of …”

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

…“… or the candidature of any person who has been nominated …”

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

If he does not do it with that purpose then he can address them.

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

Assume I am invited to address a Coloured gathering. I have served and I claim that I have loyally served the Coloured people for many years, long before 1958, when I was nominated as their representative under the Separate Representation of Voters Act. I represented them in a constituency going back to 1945 when I came into Parliament, and prior to that, from 1930 onwards in a constituency where there was a tremendous number of Coloured people. I have established bursaries for them, I have given them scholarships which are still maintained on an equal basis to all the European scholarships and bursaries that I have established. Why then, if they ask me to come and address them on a matter which may be of political significance, or on an educational matter on the basis of the Government’s education policy, and I happen to be a member of the Progressive Party, am I prohibited from doing so?

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

No, you are not.

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

If the hon. the Minister gets the law advisers to look at his Bill he will see that I am not permitted to speak to that gathering for the purpose of furthering the interests of a political party. I may even want to support the Government, but I cannot do that.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

No, you cannot do that.

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

I may want to support the Opposition, but I cannot do that.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

You cannot do that.

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

I may want to support a candidate, and I cannot do that.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

You cannot do that, that is interference.

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

Suppose I wish to address a gathering to tell them that Mr. Tom Swartz is a worthy and excellent candidate; that he is an ardent supporter of the Government; that he wholeheartedly supports the Government policy of apartheid, and that I urge them to vote for Mr. Tom Swartz …

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Then you are interfering with their political affairs.

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

Why should I not address them? If they invite me to address them and they believe I can give them the benefit of my advice and my experience, and I genuinely want them to support Mr. Tom Swartz, who is a supporter of the Government, why should I be precluded from doing so? Why should I be committing an offence—and that is what I am doing—if I urge them to vote for Mr. Tom Swartz?

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Then you must not accept the invitation.

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

I say they should not be denied the privilege of hearing the political views of any public person who happens to be a member of the other population group and who happens to be a member of a political party. Is it right that they should be prohibited from receiving the advice and the guidance of any white political party or person if they wish to obtain that advice? If they ask for it, why should they be hamstrung and be denied the opportunity? Is it right that they should only be allowed to hear the political views of the Government of the day, because that is really what the hon. the Minister is saying. Through the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs they will only have the opportunity of hearing the Government point of view in that regard.

Surely the Government realizes that the future progress and the future prosperity of South Africa is dependent upon all sections of our multi-racial population playing their respective roles in the national life of our country. We are dependent upon all sections. These sections of the people comprise, as we know, the white members of our population, the Bantu, the Coloureds, and the South African Indians. Is it not fundamentally wrong for us to close the dialogue between all these sections of our South African nation? That is what this Bill is seeking to do. It closes the dialogue between every section, the different sections, of our South African nation. Does the Government not realize that for the future peace and progress of our country every section of our nation must make its contribution? Our industrial and economic progress depends upon the contribution that every section of our nation is prepared to make for the common good of our country. It is quite obvious that there will have to be extended by the white people of South Africa over the years to our non-white people every assistance, every encouragement, every guidance and help that we are able to give them so as to enable them to take their full place in the economic and industrial development of this country. This assistance and guidance and encouragement can only be given by responsible white leaders giving their honest opinions on important day to day issues which arise to their fellow-citizens, otherwise this country can never progress. It can only progress if the white leaders—and when I talk of white leaders I do not refer to the Government leaders only, but white leaders of all political shades in this country—give the benefit of their honest opinion to their fellow-citizens, the non-Europeans. The future prosperity of our country demands that we, the white people of South Africa, should give the non-white people the benefit of our advice and our guidance and our leadership in the public affairs of our country. I say that is the only way to racial peace in South Africa.

As I see it, this Bill in effect will prohibit any such action. It will prohibit all white political parties or indeed any member of any political party from addressing any meeting or gathering or assembly for the purpose of furthering a political party’s point of view or criticizing the Government, or doing anything of that nature. Because that will fall foul of the provisions of this Bill. As I see it, this Bill will prohibit white leaders from advising or influencing non-white people in regard to any political issue, or even from explaining any of those political issues. He will not even be allowed to explain any political issues. He will not have the opportunity of helping the Coloured people in their many difficulties which will confront them now when these new measures are passed. It must be remembered that the Bill does not provide a definition of “a political party” or “political affairs”. To my mind the provisions of the Bill are all-embracing and are wide enough to embrace all aspects of the economic, industrial, commercial, as well as the social and political life of our citizens. It is all-embracing. In effect, therefore, this Bill will prohibit what has been regarded as a traditional right in this country, a right which I suggest is fundamental to any democratic country, and that is the democratic right to allow all citizens to interchange their individual opinions and to become part of the body corporate. That democratic right envisages that all citizens should have a voice in the political affairs and the body politic of their country. They should have a voice in it. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I know of no civilized country, other than communist countries, where this free dialogue between all sections of the population is denied them.

The proposal in this Bill is violent change from the democratic rights which our citizens have hitherto enjoyed. It is a change which I suggest will find abhorrence and opposition throughout the civilized world because it is contrary to every concept of democracy as we know it. It is contrary to every concept of democracy. I repeat that one of the strongest cements of democracy is that there should be freedom of discussion on all issues between all sections of the nation, rich or poor, and irrespective of colour, creed or religion. This right should not be lightly surrendered. A wise Government should look to it that this inherent and basic conviction should not be compulsorily surrendered. That is what the Government is doing in this Bill. They are forcing the citizens of this country to comply compulsorily with a new outlook which is entirely foreign to the old traditions of this country. I would remind the hon. the Minister and the Government generally that enforced discipline can never have the moral value of self-discipline. Leave it to the Coloured people to decide for themselves if they want advice or guidance or if they wish to hear the point of view of any particular party or individual. Leave it to them to decide this. Do not discipline them in this connection. That is what this Bill is seeking to do. I feel that the Government should pause and consider whether the benefits which are likely to result to our country from an interference of this nature in the basic rights of our people are sufficiently important to warrant the adverse criticism that we are bound to receive for attempting to break a universal and basic principle of democratic law. Any attempt to curtail the opportunities of our citizens and their political independence is undoubtedly likely to do more harm to our country than good.

I see this Bill in that light. It will produce a strong feeling of injustice. It will greatly lessen the respect and reverence of our citizens for our laws. Above all this is a law which cannot successfully be enforced. I suggest that it might impinge upon the national work of bodies which have been in existence for generations and which have been engaged in work concerning the welfare of our South African nation. It might affect the work of I these national bodies. The Muller Commission of which I happened to be a member actually gave the most careful consideration to the principles contained in the original Improper Interference Bill. We sat on this matter and argued it out almost ad nauseam. All of us unanimously came to the conclusion that the Bill in its form then should not be proceeded with. Why did we feel this way? We all felt that it was not a practical measure and that it would be almost impossible to give effect to the basic principles contained in that Bill. I see very little change between the basic principle of that Bill and the measure at present before this House.

Much time was taken by us in discussing amendments to that Bill but in every instance we felt that the suggested amendments were also impracticable. They were certainly not suitable for legislation. We felt that you cannot regiment our people on the lines that the Government is seeking to regiment them in terms of this Bill. To my mind this present Bill is likewise not suitable for legislation. The very basic principle envisaged in this Bill of prohibiting a member of one population group from taking part in the politics of another population group is repugnant to everything we have stood for in this country for generations. It is repugnant to every tradition we have known in this country. In South Africa it is essential for the progress of our country that there should be a continued dialogue between every section of our multiracial population. When one speaks of politics, I repeat that the term is wide enough to embrace practically every aspect of our lives in this country. The basic principle of this Bill is to prohibit interference by one population group in the politics of another population group. What is politics? The term politics could be interpreted in the widest possible sense.

It could embrace every aspect of the good and common welfare of the South African community as a whole for which this Parliament legislates. It could include every social, economic and moral code for which Parliament legislates. That is how widely the term politics could be interpreted. It could include practically every problem involving every social and economic aspect of our daily lives. In all conscience I ask whether it is right that we should legislate to prohibit the right of free discussion and free dialogue between our different population groups in this country. If this Bill becomes law it would mean that not only the Whites could not converse with the Coloureds on any of these matters which affect the good and common welfare of our South African community, but it would also mean that the Coloureds could not converse with the Whites or the Indians nor could they converse with the Bantu. None of those sections of the community could on the other hand converse with us. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine anything more ridiculous than what is envisaged in this Bill? This attempt by the Government to separate politically every population group in this country into watertight compartments—and that only can be the result of this Bill—is so ridiculous that it can only bring ridicule and contumely upon our country.

We must remember that every group in South Africa is economically inter-dependent. At this point my remarks apply particularly to the remarks made by the previous speaker, the hon. member for Worcester, when he spoke about the different sections of the South African population. In South Africa every section of our people is economically interdependent upon the other. If that is so, and the Government has acknowledged this, then I ask how is it possible for us to relegate a section of the people to and keep them in a watertight compartment politically? How is that possible? It is something that I suggest is impractical and something which is going to cause a great deal of unnecessary disturbance in this country.

Mr. J. J. LOOTS:

What happens if you pursue that logically to its end?

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

What are you afraid of? As I have already pointed out, the Government has passed laws prohibiting the Coloured people from sending representatives to the highest forum of the land. What therefore are we afraid of?

Mr. J. J. LOOTS:

[Inaudible.]

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

But you can never stop the economic integration. It is something that simply cannot be stopped. It is something which exists and will exist for all times. [Interjections.] Every sensible man in this country whatever his political views realizes that every group in South Africa is economically interdependent. I, therefore, ask how it is possible to relegate them and keep them in watertight compartments. Surely for the common welfare of our country it is necessary that we should encourage free discussion on all matters between our different population groups. It is only by these means that the white people of South Africa will be able to give help, guidance and leadership to our non-white citizens. If the non-white citizens of this country wish to obtain advice from some of our white leaders, irrespective of the political party these white leaders belong to, they should have the free opportunity of obtaining that advice. Over the years we have had outstanding work done by many institutions in South Africa for the common good of our country. Time does not permit me to mention the names of these many institutions which have done such excellent work. These institutions are not party-political bodies. None the less it has been necessary for them in carrying out their good work to discuss and to take notice of and to criticize, if necessary, in many instances political issues, whether they came from that side of the House or this side of the House, in order to give the benefit of the best advice to the different racial groups in our country. There is a grave danger under this present Bill that these established institutions which have earned for themselves over the years outstanding distinction in our country, will no longer be able to function properly. Is it wise for us to hamper them, by this impracticable law, in the good work which they have done for generations for the common good of South Africa?

In view of what the Government has already done to emasculate the future political rights of our Coloured citizens which, after all, was the original intention of this Bill, is there any real necessity for the Government to proceed with this measure? I feel that this is a principle which cannot really be given effect to and that it is not suitable for legislation. I am therefore strongly of the opinion that this Bill should not find its way on to our Statute Book.

*Mr. N. F. TREURNICHT:

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the argument of the hon. member for Peninsula and it struck me that he began and ended with the same hypothesis, namely that he saw no necessity whatsoever for this Bill. He pointed out that an end is being made to the old dispensation of white representatives for the Coloured population in this Parliament. If one calls to mind the testimony which the hon. member has on occasion given here about persons in the Progressive Party going out of their way, and doing things which were quite scandalous, to canvass support amongst the Coloured population, it is surprising that he is so calmly pointing out to-day that there is no necessity to continue with this legislation.

Mr. A. BLOOMBERG:

That refers to the electoral laws and you know that.

*Mr. N. F. TREURNICHT:

The hon. member wants to imply by that that where in the future we shall have a new political dispensation for the Coloureds, in terms of which the Coloureds will have their own representative council and their own elections, they will be spared these kinds of activities and safeguarded from this kind of inundation and onslaught. It is impossible for us to say at present who it will be. The past has shown, also in the Transkeian elections, that there are always Whites who will try in all kinds of ways to sow discord and political unrest wherever such an election takes place in a underdeveloped population group. It happened in the Transkei. In the past we saw that it also became a very real question in the development of Coloured politics. We are thus convinced of the necessity of continuing with this legislation. It is clear from the argument of the hon. member for Peninsula that he views the future of South Africa and its various population groups along the lines of integration, economic and political integration.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Co-operation.

*Mr. N. F. TREURNICHT:

As far as that hon. member is concerned, it is definitely not only co-operation. As far as he is concerned, it is integration on all possible levels. Since we take a different view of this matter, and since we would rather see the development of a policy of separate development—a four-stream policy for our various population groups—it is essential therefore that we afford the various population groups an opportunity to develop their own political thought and to find their own orientation. It is very easy for us, as Whites, who have a political past and who have political experience, to say that we should allow them a “free choice” as the hon. member said. We read the various newspapers with the various divergent political views; we hear radio reports; and we listen to people who represent and put forward various viewpoints. However, we are capable of arriving at our own conclusions, making our own deductions, putting forward our own standpoints in opposition to that. However, where one has an underdeveloped population group—in our case an underdeveloped Bantu population group, Coloured population group or Indian population group—it is quite a different matter.

There it is no longer a free dialogue across the colour boundary. There it is no longer a free exchange of ideas. In practice it amounts to a political onslaught of the more developed and more capital powerful population group upon the lesser developed and poorer population group. This is the lesson history has taught us time and again. I do not agree with the hon. member when he says that we must leave the way clear for free discussion and free exchange of opinion. In our country we see no future for the development of a sound political opinion amongst our underdeveloped population groups if we were to allow this so-called free exchange of opinion. The underdeveloped population group in South Africa actually has no message for the Whites and he has no desire to influence the Whites in any direction. But it is unfortunately the case that there are many white persons, and that there are from time to time white political parties whose ideal and whose aim it is to woo and rope in certain non-white groups, not for the purposes of non-white development or to achieve non-white objectives, but for their own objectives and political ideals. That is why the result of that type of activity always leads to unpleasantness, and creates a measure of political disorder and the corruption which usually goes hand in hand with that, as well as a measure of political unrest and tension.

In recent years, in recent decades, it was stated time and again that South Africa was sitting on a powder keg. The Opposition has asserted time and again that the policy which we are developing, is leading up to a tremendous explosion one day. If we take stock of the world situation to-day, we shall see that a country such as the U.S.A., as was rightly stated here, still has free exchange of opinion, that free transfer of people’s opinions and thoughts. If we look at America to-day, we must admit that it seems much more likely that the most powerful nation in the Western world to-day is sitting on a powder keg, because that free exchange of opinion, that free influencing of people, even on the highest level, has not really widened the political scope for that underdeveloped population group. It has not really led him along the road to self-realization, but rather along the road to frustration. Let hon. members who express these ideas here this afternoon, give us an intelligent explanation as to why that situation is prevailing in the United States of America to-day. Why did this nation with all its goodwill towards its Negro population as well, with everything they could make available, not succeed in creating peace and order in the United States?

But there is another side to the matter. Let us now discuss this matter with reference to South Africa. How is it possible that this policy, which has always been belittled, the prospects of which have always been presented as gloomy and dangerous, has resulted in our having this measure of peace and order and even good relations between the various population groups in South Africa to-day? We need attribute it to the achievements of one or other political party. But let us try to account for this fact for which, surely, we are all grateful. How is it possible that in a country such as South Africa, with a white minority, there is peace and order and even good relationships between the Bantu and Whites, and Bantu and Coloureds to-day? Will one of the hon. members on that side not get up and try to explain these two opposites to us? There must be an explanation somewhere.

We must surely be able to account for this fact in an intelligent manner. Therefore we say to them that there are other approaches to this matter which could possibly yield better results than the approach of hon. members on the opposite side of the House. We see in this Bill the evolution of separate development, in the political spheres of activity of the underdeveloped non-white population groups. We see in this Bill a proper adjustment of a political relationship which must contribute to creating order and peace in the political sphere as well. It thereby creates an opportunity for each specific population group to undertake its own political development. Why is one population group so eager to convey its opinions, its views and its ratiocination to another population group? That is why we must make provision for that. The past has taught us that it is not as innocent as the hon. member for Peninsula has stated it to be here, but that it can have extremely prejudicial results, and that it can even result in practices which are not only prejudicial but also disgraceful.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

You make me laugh.

*Mr. N. F. TREURNICHT:

This Bill makes provision for the protection of the underdeveloped group against the political domination of the more developed group, the rich, the well-organized group, the group well provided with capital. Since the hon. member for Houghton finds this so amusing, I can tell her for her information that it is none other than her Party which demonstrated this practice and which demonstrated why restrictions should be imposed on the rights of political parties to intervene in one another’s affairs, because all underdeveloped population groups are defenceless on the political level against such practices. From the Commission’s report it becomes quite apparent that Coloured political leaders inform you that they are powerless when certain politicians or agents, representatives of certain political parties, move among them, because they can make one person a present of a shiny motor car and pay the travelling expenses of another; they can make people and material available to further their own interests. The Coloured leaders inform one that they are powerless against this kind of activity. They say to you: “We are poor; we do not have those means at our disposal.”

Mr. Speaker, it is one of the main reasons why one encounters this type of political activity and why there is this constant anxiety to convey one’s opinions in a so-called free exchange of ideas; this is one of the reasons why it should rather be restricted, it is not so much in the interests of the Whites. Our white population is quite capable of furnishing a reply to that free exchange of opinion and ideas of the United Party and the ideas of the Progressive Party. They have been furnished with that reply time and again and they know what it is. But they fasten onto the situation of the underdeveloped population groups—in this case the Coloured population group—and they carry these people along with them. Since we have now broadened the political sphere of the Coloured population group, since we have now extended the Coloured electorate from 30,000 or 40,000 to 700,000, one can imagine how these people will now use means of mass communication and their monetary power to carry the whole population along in a specific direction. Because these people can be influenced. They can be persuaded. They are inclined to listen to the opinions of these people. Therefore we adhere to the view that this free exchange of opinion is completely unnecessary, but, on the contrary, that we should keep an eye on it because it embodies so many results prejudicial to good race relationships in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I want to continue by indicating that the Coloured political leaders are requesting protection in this specific field. They are faced with the problem that their own people are slow in affording them recognition. It is often said amongst Coloureds: “I do not readily listen to him because he is also just another Coloured like myself.” This is one of the problems of the Coloured leader, to be acknowledged and respected and accepted by his own people, and we must help these people to develop leadership. We need not decide who the leaders are to be; the Coloured population itself will decide about that. But we should at least prepare the way for them by saying to the Coloured population, “The people who in future must guide you politically, are not the Government or any white political party; but your own people”. They can make enquiries; they read newspapers; they read about what is happening in this House. The Coloured leaders must be granted to the Coloured population as leaders who will lead their own people. Mr. Speaker, I have already said that it is our duty to protect those Coloured leaders, who must struggle for recognition by their own people, against forces which they find are too much for them. We have had a demonstration of what monetary power can entail and how effective it can be. Those people also have the problem of apathy amongst their own people. Their people are not yet politically conscious as the Whites are. They have difficulty in winning the interest and co-operation of their people. Through the years they have become so accustomed to the Whites doing things for them. Therefore we must in this respect, because of the apathy of many Coloureds, protect their own leaders and in time place them in a position to develop that leadership and to extend their influence. Another thing, these people are inexperienced as politicians; they are actually in a pioneering stage, and they acknowledge it in so many words. I should like to quote a few sentences from what Fortuin, a recognized Coloured leader, has said. He states—

The large majority of the Coloured people have wisely and diplomatically accepted a more modest place in the present South African scheme of things. They fully realize that there is still a long social and economic leeway to be made up before the Coloured people as a whole can rightly claim equality with the Whites.

And then he says—

On this road to self-mastery of their destination the Coloured people will need a breathing space in order to have a real, new and fresh start with the blessing of their sympathetic White compatriots.

The hon. member for Houghton and her supporters are all of them well-disposed white guardians of those people; we must accept it as being so. But this man expresses a thought and a desire they have to stop a while and take stock of the political world round them. They would like to find and adopt their own course. He states—

Such a blessing is absolutely essential.

Then he says further on—

These false friends …

He refers here to the people who previously repeatedly interfered and evinced interest, never to return to them again.

These false friends …
*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

Such as the hon. member for Karoo and others.

*Mr. N. F. TREURNICHT:

He says—

These false friends, who seem to know more of Coloured domestic affairs than the Coloureds themselves, must stop imposing white representatives on the Coloured people. We know, them, and so does the Government.

In this article Fortuin puts it clearly that they look forward to a little calm and peace entering Coloured politics; that they will have an opportunity to adopt their own course, to organize their own people, because there is a tremendous field lying fallow for them. If we call to mind the great extension to the Coloured voters’ roll as a result of legislation at present before the House, we see that tremendous possibilities lie ahead for these people, and we can imagine what chaos and disorder would result if white politicians with their organizations and their money were to enter this political field. [Quorum.] I say that we can imagine what chaos would result in circumstances where we are now opening a wider political field for the Coloureds and are extending the Coloured voters’ roll from 30,000 or 40,000 to 700,000, if these people who in the past showed so much interest in the voices of the Coloured population, should enter that sphere and if, with a view to the election of Coloureds to the representative council they begin to move heaven and earth to implant and have propagated some or other political viewpoint there; then such a representative council can only be a council which sows unrest instead of planning for progress for the Coloured population. In the last instance it is for us a question of sound personal relationships. We see it very clearly in this Bill; one of the essential objects of this Bill is the creation and the preservation of sound personal relationships. If we see what it is costing the United States to-day by way of arson, destruction of property, unrest, discord and violence, we cannot be thankful enough that a measure of peace and order has been created in our country. The policy of the National Party and the National Party Government has made a tremendous contribution to this. The Coloured population has developed a great deal in the social, economic and professional fields and we must guard against their being plunged into an era of political strife fanned by white interest groups which in the first place do not have the development and the progress of the Coloured population of South Africa in view, but who do envisage the inculcation of certain ideas. As it has always been throughout history, conflict has led to destruction; war has destroyed and devastated, but peace creates an opportunity to develop. We in South Africa must exert all our strength to create and promote peace, and it is along the road of peace that notable progress will be made not only by the Whites but also by our Coloured and Bantu populations.

Mr. G. S. EDEN:

I was astonished this afternoon to notice how little interest the Government side is showing in this debate. A few moments ago we had to call for a quorum. This legislation is the golden apple, the future for the Coloured people, and the hon. gentlemen who are responsible for the legislation cannot even find the time or the inclination to listen to what has to be said about this Bill.

The bulk of the arguments advanced by Government speakers has been based on the evidence and the statements of four people, of whom three, Swartz, Dollie and Fortum, are executive members of the Union Council of Coloured Affairs. But in every case they had to speak in their private capacity because they had no mandate of any kind at all from the Coloured community, nor from their Council, to put forward any suggestions or ideas affecting the Coloured people in regard to the Bills this House has been discussing during the past few days. Therefore one must look into the question and find out why the Union Council of Coloured Affairs does not support the legislation, or even the idea that this legislation should be introduced.

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

They support it. They do not want interference.

Mr. G. S. EDEN:

They do not support it. I have gone to considerable trouble to ascertain what the position is. This Council is being quoted and I think the time has come for us to look into the bona fides of the people who have been quoted by the Government and the reasons and the arguments they have advanced for this attitude and their actions towards the Coloured people.

The hon. member for Piketberg spoke about conditions in the U.S.A. It is not the first occasion on which the tragic events taking place in that country have been mentioned. I would just like to say that all hon. members must know that a tremendous amount of good has been done in the United States over many years, and that they are attempting something which this Government would never attempt. The result is that we find the Government side more or less happy about the tragic events taking place in the U.S.A.

An HON. MEMBER:

We are not happy about that.

Mr. G. S. EDEN:

If the Government side is not happy about these events they would say so and we would not have the matter thrown across the floor when we are dealing with this section of our community which has done nothing throughout their long history to deserve the legislation being thrust upon them. They have not asked for it; they have not been consulted in any shape or form, and they are entirely the innocent parties in regard to the actions of the Government over many years. The hon. member for Piketberg says he would like to know why the Coloured community are so happy here. The reason is that they are law-abiding people. The Coloured people in this country have never been involved in serious strikes or lockouts or revolution. They have always been on the side of law and order throughout the history of this country and in every aspect of their daily lives.

Several Government speakers have quoted from as far back as 1915 to show what they had in mind to do with the Coloured people. We had quotations from various congresses they held, in 1921 and in 1932, until we got to 1948, when we heard about the enforced agreement with the late Mr. Havenga. Up to that stage we had the Nationalist Party interfering quite regularly and steadily in all fields and on all fronts in regard to the Coloured people, having in mind this one ultimate objective, which was to get the Coloured community out of the way, because they realized that the Coloureds, being an intelligent and civilized group and a politically conscious group, were politically dangerous to them. Events over the years have shown that the Coloured people’s assessment was correct. They did not support the Government, do not support the Government, and will not support the Government. Elections have been fought on that score, and while we had the late Mr. Havenga in the Nationalist Party, the Government was kept in moral harness and could not do anything. So we had these assertions in regard to the future of the Coloured people in Parliament, and there was no mention at all of anything proper or improper. Then we had the position arising that the police were notified of certain irregularities in terms of the Electoral Act, and certain prosecutions followed. The innocent parties in all those cases were the voters themselves, but that has been grasped at by the Government as a reason once again to victimize these innocent people who only want to live with us in peace and harmony as they have always done, to do their jobs and to be loyal citizens of South Africa as they have always been. The other day we heard the disclosure of what I call the great deception which has been going on for years and culminated the other day when we had the statement which is at variance with the beliefs of everybody who knew the late Prime Minister in any way at all. Strangely enough, the Coloured community themselves do not accept any stories that Dr. Verwoerd was anything else but honourable and upright and a friend of theirs. No Coloured man whom I have met, and I have met many, will accept anything contrary to that belief. So one must only think that now that the man is dead it is easy to deal with the matter. Because you know, Sir, there is a method which is quite popular in certain countries. I recall the time when Josef Stalin built himself up into a figure of such high international and domestic repute that when he died his successor had difficulty in filling his shoes. We had the spectacle of those who had been around the late Stalin steadily talking him down. They went further and even did away with statues and pictures of him. I would hesitate to make comparisons with that particular nation, but when one looks at the proposition which has been put before this House in the form of these three Bills, which constitute the great deception, one must realize that the Nationalist Party has done exactly the same as was done in Russia. They have brought a man of tremendous stature into disrepute by dragging his name into a debate here and calling, as I said before, a dead man to witness. It is something which will take many a long day for the people concerned to live down.

The members of this Commission found that there were no grounds whatsoever for this type of legislation; there was nothing which could not have been handled in terms of the Electoral Laws and still could be, if anything of that kind happens. When the report was published I was very interested to see what the electoral officer had to say. He said that he had had no complaints. When one examines the Electoral Laws in terms of the so-called improper interference, one must realize that the case made out was a flimsy one, because action was taken, correctly, and the responsible persons were punished. It is the great weakness of this Bill, that we are seeking to deal with groups of persons as a political party when we should deal with individuals as individuals. If an individual breaks the law he must be prosecuted, and he is prosecuted. So, as I see it, I must join with those who oppose this Bill. It is not necessary and seeks only to do the impossible. It seeks to compartmentalize thought, suggesting that the Coloured person is a separate type of individual with a different attitude and a different political ambition. But that is not so. The Coloured people are the same as you and I, Sir. These people are capable; they are educated. Many of them are backward, but there are also many backward people among the Whites. As was said by the hon. member for Randfontein, we now want to unscramble the egg. That is like the man looking for the philosopher’s stone. Nobody can unscramble an egg. The hon. member for Randfontein can say that we are a multi-racial country for the time being, but he is now setting us on a road of which he does not know the ending. Not a single speaker opposite has given any indication of where this is going to end. They do not enlighten ns because they do not know themselves. The hon. the Minister seems to be listening with the back of his head.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

That is just as well.

Mr. G. S. EDEN:

The hon. the Minister has been saying across the floor by way of interjection during the whole of this debate that this will not apply and that will not apply, but the Bill talks about a meeting or a gathering or an assembly of persons. The definitions of these things are quite clear in the statutes. I would like the hon. the Minister to know that a gathering, which is prohibited here, consists of three or more people, which means that a man like myself representing a political party and representing Coloured persons in that political party who think as that party does, is prohibited in terms of this Bill from talking to his own constituents. Sir, it is a fantastic state of affairs that an elected member of Parliament is not permitted by law to talk to his own constituents.

I want to give a few examples. Let us say, for argument’s sake, that a group of Coloured men decide that they would like to form a political party, and being energetic, they decide to put up candidates. So they, approach persons of the calibre of the hon. member for Peninsula and other knowledgeable men, and ask advice. This is illegal in terms of the law as it stands. It is no use the Minister saying that nothing will happen. One has only got to have one informer—and there are plenty of them about—for a charge to be laid, and if no charge is laid the matter may be