There is an old saying that a rose by any other name smells just as sweet. This is no rose, Sir, and I think that the amendment in this clause has fundamentally altered the odour of the particular measure that we have before us. The word “improper” has been deleted here and the word “political” has been substituted. I am concerned with the deletion of the word “improper” because when this Bill received all the publicity that it did receive and when the hon. the Minister introduced the Bill and outlined its history, a Bill which was sent to a select committee, which took evidence, the word “improper” was the kingpin upon which the whole of the concept involved in this Bill revolved. It was the kernel; it was not the milk in the coconut; the milk in the coconut is too liquid. This was something solid and substantial. Here was something which was the very reason for the existence of the Bill, and it was advertised as such. The hon. the Minister based the whole of his argument on the question of improper interference, whatever “improper” meant, but presumably it bad its usual meaning and we understand what that is. Here then was a Bill to deal with improper interference. It was put to us on this side of the House and to the public of South Africa that the Government was now taking steps to deal with improper interference by one racial group in the politics of another racial group. The hon. the Minister came forward as a knight in shining armour to show how he was going to deal with improper interference by means of this clause, and now, at one stroke of the pen, in the very last stages of parliamentary control over this Bill before it is passed into law, the Minister comes along and changes the whole substance of the Bill. The whole main principle of the Bill, the reason for its coming before Parliament, is now destroyed. Sir, in my whole parliamentary experience I have never seen a Minister destroy a measure of his own creation, his own concept—a measure before this House—so quickly and so absolutely as the hon. the Minister destroyed the concept of this Bill when he made the amendment to that one word. He destroyed this measure completely and absolutely. I go so far as to say that if we on this side of the House had tried to move that amendment it would have been ruled out of order as being contrary to the principle of the Bill; we could not have done it.

Order! The hon. member is now reflecting on the Chair.

I withdraw that, Sir. I have no intention of reflecting on the Chair. But the Minister does not leave that point blank in the title of the Bill; he puts in the word “political”, so that what we are faced with now, in terms of this amendment, is a Bill which is no longer called the Prohibition of Improper Interference Bill. That has been destroyed; it is like water spilt on the ground. This now becomes an Act for the Prohibition of Political Interference. I am not concerned whether the word “political” is defined or not; that is not my business, and you would probably not allow me to discuss it, Sir, but whatever “political” may mean—and it is not defined—the truth of the matter is that it is not improper, and there is nothing whatever now to show that it is intended to be improper or that it is considered improper or that the Minister thinks that it should be improper. We now have a Bill here which simply says that there shall not be political interference; not improper interference, but just “political” interference A measure which had force and point and substance, is now emasculated and it becomes a negative thing, just something to say that people shall not interfere in the political affairs of other people. Sir, I say that for very shame the Minister should withdraw this measure and come back to Parliament with something that has meat in it, something that has substance, point, meaning in it, or otherwise he should let it die the death which it deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I would not have stood up in the Report Stage to take part in the debate, but the hon. member for South Coast has made a direct attack on me as Minister. The first charge which he made by implication was that I had misled the House in my introductory speech, because it could allegedly have given the Opposition reason to suppose that what I actually intended in this Bill was to prohibit improper interference but not—if there is then a difference—to affect proper interference. Accordingly I do not want to blame the hon. member for South Coast too much now, because if I remember correctly, he was not here when I made my second-reading speech, but at the introduction and the second reading of this Bill I said certain things and I now want to quote to him what I did in fact say. It is not my fault if the Opposition cannot attach the correct meaning to clear words and statements. I began by saying—

But I went further and I repeated—

And what was the Bill called? What was its name?

Read the long title and you will see what it was called. I amended the short title because the Opposition’s only constructive contribution in this debate was to draw my attention to the fact that the long title and the short title of the Bill differed from each other in respect of the term “political interference”, but they blamed me, one speaker after another—just consult the Hansard for the fact that the meaning of the Bill was reflected in the long title, and that I was abusing the short title because there I referred to improper interference, while the long title only referred to political interference. To assist them, and to give greater clarity as to what was intended, I amended it, because a change had taken place in the entire set-up of political representation of and the exercising of political rights by the non-Whites. That is why I brought it into line, and it was the logical, consistent thing to do, not to prohibit improper political interference, but any political interference whatsoever. Because why, especially under the new dispensation, must there still be political parties which do not belong to the other race groups yet interfere with them? That is the explanation.

Amendment in clause 5 put and the House divided:

Ayes—108: Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. 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.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S. ; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Have-mann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. 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, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; 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.; Swiegers, J. G.; 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, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; 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.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; 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—36: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bloomberg, A.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lewis, H. M.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Amendment accordingly agreed to.

Bill, as amended, adopted.

(Third Reading)

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we come now to the third reading of this Bill. I want to place on record my thought that we in this House have reached the sorry state where a Minister has to bring a Bill of this nature before us, which he himself has indicated, as he did in his second reading speech, as hardly necessary in view of the fact that the Coloured representatives are going to be removed from this Parliament. This Bill was originally sparked off by the Government’s inability to attract the vote of the Coloured people or their confidence or support for the policy which the Government had enunciated for the Coloured people of this country. The reaction of this Minister and this Government to this first sign of hurt to their ego, makes me a little afraid for the future, and this is a point I want to express very strongly. They were threatened at Coloured elections by a rejection of their approach, of all the things they had built up for the Coloured people, where they had from time to time told us that the Coloured people supported them in this policy which they were presenting to them. What has happened? Their policy has been rejected by the Coloured people time and time again. So they had to come with legislation of this kind to make sure that what was threatened would not happen to their party.

Let us look at this Bill. It was designed in the first place, as the hon. member for South Coast has made so clear during the report stage of this Bill, and as the Government told us, to stop improper interference in the affairs of the Coloured people. This was the thing which sparked it off. Now we have even removed the word “improper”, and as my colleague said, this has changed the whole outlook of South Africa, of the Coloured people, and everybody else to this particular piece of legislation. What has emerged is that this Bill is no longer a bill to protect the Coloured people from improper interference, but a screen behind which this Government can hide to enable it to implement its policy, which it has decided to apply to the Coloured people, without the prying interference and the proper interference of the politically-minded people of this country and the politicians of this country. I think the hon. the Minister rather let the cat out of the bag in his second reading speech when he said that, in spite of the fact that it had rightly been said that this Bill might not be necessary any longer, in fact it was still necessary, because it would enable them to apply separate development “in the political field as well”. Now, this is something new: What is separate development “in the political field as well”? This Minister did not tell us. Why did he not enlarge upon this and tell us what they had in mind, because there are many queries in our minds. How can they have separate development in the political field when they have no field in which to develop? In what field are they going to develop? This question has been asked a thousand times and we have never had an answer. Where is the Colouredstan in which they are going to develop? This can be the only field. Where are they going to develop, where are they going to be subject to separate development, where are they going to formulate their own laws and govern themselves? Of course they are not going to do any of these things. They are going to remain under the command and the dictates of this Parliament from which their representatives are being removed. The whole thing as it has emerged is a sham, it is a screen behind which this Government can hide while they apply this particular policy to these people. I want to repeat what the hon. member for South Coast said. Under the guise of a bill to protect the Coloureds we are in fact being asked to put a stick into the Minister’s hand with which he can frighten away anybody who is inquisitive enough to look behind the screen and try and find out what this Government is doing as regards the political development of the other groups in South Africa.

This hon. the Minister himself said this Bill was not water-tight, and it is not. But it is the big stick with which to threaten anyone who ventures to question or query anything which the Government are going to do. I want at this stage to pay a tribute to the minority group on the Select Committee who refused to participate in the drafting of this legislation.

Order! That hardly has anything to do with the Third Reading. I have allowed the hon. member a lot of latitude in making general remarks, but he must come back to the Bill now.

I accept your ruling, Sir.

My hon. Leader during the second-reading debate said there was nothing in this Bill which could not in fact have been dealt with under the Electoral Laws, and of course my Leader was quite right. One wonders how we on this side of the House can possibly be asked to support a measure such as this which in clause 2 alone not only prevents the implementation of the policy of my party, the official Opposition in our Parliament, and not only destroys the continuation of white leadership in this country which the Coloured people want and South Africa needs, but it also presents us to the Coloured people in the light of a one-party state. I say this because when this Bill has become law we will no longer, according to its intent, be allowed to consult with the Coloured people and various other population groups into which this Bill divides us.

That is not so.

This is what the Bill provides. The hon. member for Prinshof says that this is not so. I sincerely hope that he will get up and tell me how this is not so. I should like to know that. There will be only one party which can discuss the political future of the Coloured people with the Coloured people, and that is the governing party. That in turn is the Nationalist Party. How else does it work? Let the hon. member for Prinshof tell me how else it works. Let the hon. member for Prinshof tell me how the United Party will then in fact consult with the Coloured people, the Indian people or the Bantu people and find out what their political requirements are, to ensure their political future or any other aspect of their future. I defy him to tell me this in the light of the measure before us. I want to repeat, that when this Bill becomes law, the various groups other than the Whites can only discuss their political futures with the Nationalist Party. I want that recorded because this is the position.

In addition this Bill also has shortcomings. For example, it fails to define what a political party is. A political party is mentioned in this Bill, but what is a political party? I do not know. During the course of this Bill through the House we on this side of the House have tried to find what is meant by being a member of a political party. My hon. Leader asked this question and received no reply. That is just one of his shortcomings. This hon. Minister has moved an amendment to the short title of the Bill. He has removed the word “improper” and put the word “political” in its stead. But I want to ask him what political interference is. I do not know. This Bill does not tell me, the courts or anybody what this means. I take it from the hon. the Minister’s mumbling that he does not want me to know. I do not think he wants anybody to know because I doubt very much whether he knows himself. I am sure that he does not. He wants to be free to place whatever interpretation suits him and his party on those particular words. That, I believe, is why he has not gone to the trouble of defining those words in the Bill.

But let us go a little further. Clause 2 (c) with which this hon. Minister is extremely satisfied because he has moved no amendment to this Bill, stops anybody from addressing gatherings. This is what it says:

No person who belongs to one population group, may—

This is not worth the paper it is printed on. I am not a lawyer, but when I read that, it becomes obvious to me that although the Progressive Party said goodbye to multi-racial meetings, they can have as many as they like, provided they allow one non-White to every White to enter the hall in which the meeting is held. They will then have equal numbers of each group. What can this hon. Minister then do to stop them? He can do nothing because there is not a “greater majority” of any particular group. If they are equal, there cannot be a greater majority. There can even be more non-Whites than Whites at that meeting and anybody can address them. This hon. Minister will then still not be able to do anything about it because what does “a greater majority” mean? It does not mean anything at all. This is the half-baked legislation which we in this House are asked to accept.

But let us go even further. What about the anomalies arising from the Mixed Marriages Act whereby this Government allows a man and a woman to marry although they may belong to different population groups. But this Bill will make it a criminal offence for them to talk politics with their own friends because the balance might not be right in the group of friends they might have with them at any particular time. This is just one stupid outcome of this Bill. But I cannot go into this matter ad infinitum. What thought has this hon. Minister given to this aspect—none whatsoever. I am prepared to put it to this House that he has not given it any thought at all. I am even prepared to go further and say that I do not think that he cares.

Clause 3, in trying to prohibit the inflow of money for use by political parties into this country, something with which we agree, is so worded that it is going to create situations which have never even been thought of by this hon. Minister, situations which he has never taken into consideration. It is going to lead to confusion and results which he never intended. It is going to interfere in the rights of churches and other organizations. It is going to have an effect which even this hon. Minister can never imagine even in his wildest flights of imagination. Then to this half-baked undefined Bill, this hon. Minister has put the final touch, by applying very severe minimum penalties. He has applied penalties to matters which he is not prepared to define. He has provided for enormous fines and terms of imprisonment or both in respect of a crime which he is not prepared to define. I want to give you one example of this, Mr. Speaker. He has laid down, for example, that certain people may not belong to a political party, but he has not defined a political party. They will nevertheless commit an offence if they belong to a political party which falls within the terms of clause 2 (a) of this Bill. How do they know whether they are going to commit an offence or not? How do they know whether they are going to be subject to these particular penalties or not? This Bill is so unpractical that I do not know how to describe it. This hon. Minister has also failed to describe it to us. I take it therefore that he is in the same position as I am. But he still wants to push this Bill through the House. I cannot understand his reasoning.

Let us consider what the effects of this legislation are. I shall no longer criticize the provisions of this Bill because I could go on for ever showing its absurdities. What are the effects of this Bill going to be? It is going to further estrange the population groups in South Africa from one another. This is a fantastic situation because we all live together, work together and are economically interdependent. From time to time we as the Opposition are approached by people in this regard. Here in Cape Town a Post Office employee came to a member of this side of the House and asked him whether he could not do something about the conditions of service of his non-white assistant. What is his position going to be because to effect any change in that situation, he must approach it politically because politics govern the conditions of service of that man’s employment. Because they are political he has approached a politician to get something done about it.

That is nonsense. You are always talking nonsense.

The hon. member for Prinshof says “Of course that is nonsense”, but of course, he is absolutely wrong, because we, in this House, are politically discussing the particular aspects of employment and the change of those conditions in the Post Office. He must not sit there mumbling on the back bench.

Ask your learned friend next to you.

He must come into this debate and deal with these points. Mumbling does not answer them.

But, Sir, I want to repeat: We are going to further estrange the population groups of which our country is constituted. One cannot separate them unless they live in different countries. How does one separate their politics, because this Parliament is supreme and it lays down the laws by which every population group in South Africa at the moment has to abide. It governs their whole life. How does one sort this out? How do we stop them from interfering, one group in the affairs of the other, whether it is proper or improper? Laws cannot make it improper, and laws cannot stop it. What else is it going to do? In my opinion it is going to subject South Africa to criticism, not only internally, but in the outside world as well, and unnecessarily so, and I stress the word “unnecessarily”, because this Bill is not necessary. What is going to flow from this Bill is unnecessary. The criticism that we are going to have as a result of passing this Bill, is quite unnecessary, and South Africa does not deserve it.

In my opinion, this is the Bill that should never have been.

It embodies in my opinion some of the most mixed up political thinking that I have ever had to study, talk on, and listen to. I believe sincerely that South Africa could do without this Bill and the thinking behind it, and we shall vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, still tried at this late stage of the debate on this legislation to hang a political smoke-screen over the whole matter. I think that we could have conducted this third-reading debate, which relates to the effect of this legislation, with much greater ease if the hon. member for Umlazi had attended the Committee Stage of this Bill. But it is evident that the hon. member was not here. The hon. member paid no attention to the straightforward interpretations which were debated here over and over again. Now he comes along with a lot of generalities. As has happened before in this House, the hon. member came forward with a lot of irresponsible statements, which will neither do his party any good nor promote the cause which he advocates.

When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made his speech at the time when this matter was referred to the Select Committee, he clearly stated that he was aware of malpractices, particularly as far as registration was concerned. Now it will probably not be unkind of me to accept by implication that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the other hon. members must also have been aware of the problem in this connection, and also the problem of interference. But throughout these days, and also in the discussion of the effect of this entire Bill, these hon. members have seen no problem and have not been prepared to make any contribution towards solving this problem.

We say that it can be done under existing legislation.

I am coming to that. But surely there must be obvious reasons for this attitude on the part of hon. members of the Opposition. Why then can no solution be seen in the effect of this Bill to the problems confronting us? When it suited hon. members of the Opposition, they unanimously supported the reference to the Select Committee. When they would have received the hiding of their lives if they had had to compete with the Progressive Party at that stage in the by-election to elect a Coloured Representative, the hon. members opposite were as yet unable to bid against the Progressive Party. But what has happened since then? Since then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and his associates achieved a considerable victory at their central congress, and from that day onwards we have had an intensified integration policy from the United Party. And now they can not only speak the same language as the hon. member for Houghton, but they can also bid against the Progressive Party. That is why they can see no advantage for the non-Whites in the effect of this Bill. That is why they are not prepared to assist us in solving this problem.

In actual fact they displayed only two lines of thought. The one was that in the Electoral Laws and their application they saw the alpha and the omega of the solution to all political exploitation of our non-Whites. “Change the Electoral Laws, and all these problems would be solved immediately.” They also displayed a second line of thought in that they competed with one another, as was done by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, as to who could level the strongest reproaches at the Government about the so-called injustice being committed against the non-Whites. But, Sir, that is surely not the case? It is this Government which has at all times tried to keep its finger on the pulse of the needs of all our people. It is this Government which in the effects of all its laws over the past 20 years has constantly sought the greatest good and the best for our people. But can I then expect hon. members opposite, who are members of a party which blows hot and cold, to make a positive contribution in this delicate matter? Surely I cannot. On the one hand, as I have already said, hon. members compete with one another as to who can fling the strongest reproaches at the Government in respect of the so-called injustice which will be done to the Coloureds by this law and its final effect. On the other hand one hears the incessant lament about the so-called “hand of White leadership” which will now be taken away from our non-Whites. We heard it here again this afternoon. The hon. member said the population groups would now become alienated from one another, and that our name would not be enhanced in the outside world. Now I wonder, if hon. members think fit, in the light of their intensified integration policy, to oppose the effect of this Bill, will they think it very uncharitable of me if I ask them: “Do you endorse the responsible statements made by the Leader of the Progressive Party in the past few days?” Do they agree that the following question must be asked: “Will it be a crime to oppose apartheid?” [Interjection.] The hon. member can stand up just now and say whether he is prepared to repudiate those insane and foolish statements. I may also ask hon. members: Do you support and are you prepared to justify a statement made by another leader of the Progressive Party, i.e. that the Coloureds must now make martyrs of themselves to combat the injustice which will result from this Bill? Hon. members will in a moment have the opportunity of replying to this. No, Sir, it has always been the ideal of this party to lead all our population groups, White and non-White, in such a way that there can be a future for each of them in this country and that each can see a good future for himself in this beautiful country of ours. It has been said several times that this party is forging ahead, is alive and dynamic, and that the United Party is standing still and dying. If we analyze the objections so far made against this measure, we shall find that the statement that this party is one which is forging ahead because it keeps its hand on the pulse of the needs of all our people, is fully substantiated. The suggestion was made, and the hon. member for Umlazi repeated it this afternoon, that the provisions of this Bill are either too vague, too obscure or, by implication, go too far, are too drastic. But that is not true. Here we again have the old story with which hon members opposite come to light whenever this side of the House introduces progressive and modern legislation. This was their attitude when the Group Areas Act was originally debated; this was their attitude towards all amendments to that Act. And how much poorer would South Africa not have been to-day if that legislation had not been placed on the Statute Book? It was also their attitude in respect of the Community Development Act. In that legislation the Government set as its ideal that our people should not only be housed, but also be developed in sound, separate communities. Therefore this refrain, which was again sounded here this afternoon like a long, false note, made no impression on the Government. It proceeded with those legislative measures, and to-day they appear on the Statute Book—all beacons on the Government’s road as it has progressed with its ideal of leading and strengthening all our people in this beautiful country of ours to the best of its ability. This refrain that this legislation is either too vague or goes too far is the refrain of a party which has long ago forgotten the ideal of governing this great and beautiful country, a party for which the ideal of governing is only a fictitious one, a party which has ceased to think and is dying. The hon. member, and others who like him spoke against this Bill, would have been more convincing and would have achieved more, and hon. members who are still to take part in this debate, would be able to do so more fruitfully, if that hon. member and his colleagues mentioned their real reasons for opposing this legislation so vehemently, i.e. they should have taken us into their confidence and said that this legislation, in its final effect, would ring the death-knell over the integration policy of the United Party. In the first place they cannot see how, after this legislation has been placed on the Statute Book, six Coloureds can sit in this House and, secondly, how eight Bantu representatives can sit here. Now I want to challenge hon. members opposite to repudiate the evidence given by the hon. member for Karoo. The Prime Minister has already challenged them to do so, but they have not been prepared to do it. But we cannot properly discuss important legislations such as this, with the important effect it will have on our future national structure, if hon. members opposite fail to state their point of view clearly and honestly. Under their policy eight Bantu will eventually sit in this Parliament, and because this legislation rings the death-knell over that, there is this tremendous opposition by the United Party and the hon. member for Houghton to this measure, even at this late stage.

Another point in connection with the resistance offered by the Opposition to modern and progressive legislation is that they are not consistent. A few weeks ago we discussed here the question of control over the issuing of licences. The hon. member for Umlazi will recall that. We said that the Minister should be granted certain powers as far as the issuing of licences is concerned. But once again the hon. member for Umlazi said that that was going too far, that it was too drastic. For the sake of interest I looked up in the past few days what legislation the United Party Government had placed on the Statute Book in the last few years of its existence. What does one find? You must remember, Sir, that the hon. member for Umlazi’s main objection to that legislation was that it went too far, that it gave the Minister too much power. But in section 8 of Act No. 7 of 1946—an Act, therefore, which the United Party Government placed on the Statute Book —we find that …

You should look at the Order Paper and realize that we are discussing the Prohibition of Improper Interference Bill now.

The hon. member should listen for one moment, and he will learn something. Section 8 of that Act, as I was going to say, provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law contained, no trading licence shall be issued or trade carried on without the written permission of the Minister. I want to repeat that when the hon. member criticizes a measure such as this, the wholesome fruits of which we shall still pick in this country, he should at least be consistent. One can expect that of him.

Another assertion made in connection with this legislation is that the white man is now going to withdraw his guiding hand from the non-Whites. But this is not the case either. There is more than sufficient proof that it is specifically this Government which has over the years made it its object to lead our non-white population groups to the best of its ability. Thus it was this Government which established separate university institutions for them so that each group could develop to the best of its ability; it was this Government which in the face of great opposition placed the Community Development Act on the Statute Book to train and educate our people. And yet hon. members opposite come forward and assert now that the effect of this measure will be that the white man will withdraw his guiding hand from the non-Whites and that the latter will now be left to their own devices.

There are many good reasons why this measure should be placed on the Statute Book in the time in which we are living. There are many important reasons why we on this side of the House are going to support the Third Reading of this Bill. There are many important reasons why we see great benefits for all our people in the final effect of this Bill, and I should like to refer to a few of them. In South Africa we surely cannot allow Whites and non-Whites, as a result of having mixed politics, to be subjected to the points of friction which so often result from mixed political competition. Surely that would be a crime, not only against South Africa, but against all the inhabitants of this country; and if the Whites who want to take part in this mixed political competition, go about with the knowledge that the white electorate has already rejected them, that there is no salvation for them, and fall back on our non-Whites, then, surely, it will only lead to difficulty, confusion and a great deal of frustration, in its final effect this Bill will ensure that such occurrences are something of the past.

It was also mentioned here that it is still the practice at present to employ non-Whites to assist with political organization during elections, that this is still being done to this very day. Surely this fraternizing can lead to nothing but calamity, confusion and a great deal of difficulty. In its final effect this Bill puts a stop to that as well.

Then I want to mention a third important result of this Bill. In South Africa, which is a multiracial country, it must still be our principal endeavour to eliminate all points of friction, and especially political points of friction. Surely we know from experience that there are few things in South Africa that cause greater friction than having mixed political parties. We also know that mixed political parties carry in themselves the germ of the political destruction of everyone belonging to them. Since we have lofty ideals for this lovely country in which we are living, of which it is often said that the azure of our mountains and the silence of our plains and the undulation of our hills are the real language of our country and all its people, and since it is our ideal by means of this legislation to affirm the right and to grant the privilege that the separate political institutions of all our people can be developed and extended, I have the privilege of believing that in its final result this Bill will establish an ordered formula for the proper development of the separate political institutions of all our people.

Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, this debate only runs for a very limited time, and I do not intend wasting any of my limited time in this debate in answering the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I waited in vain throughout the whole of his speech for him to say something about this Bill, constructive or otherwise. I am afraid that he spoke about everything but this Bill. Therefore I feel that nothing that the hon. member said is really worth replying to. But there is one point which he made about which I feel that it is my bounden duty to say something. The hon. member, in the early part of his speech, seemed to justify this Bill on the ground that it had been proved to the Muller Commission that there were malpractices in regard to the registration of voters under the old Separate Representation of Voters Act. Let me say immediately that I acknowledge that there had been irregularities and malpractices. Indeed, it was I who drew the attention of this House to the fact that there had been these irregularities and malpractices in the registration of Coloured voters under the old Act. But surely all those irregularities and malpractices could have been dealt with under the Electoral Act or, if need be, under amending legislation of that Act. It was never intended by anyone who drew attention to these irregularities and malpractices in registration that there should be foisted upon this House a Bill such as the one which is presently under discussion. It was never intended that because advantage was taken of the Coloured people in registering them as voters, or because they had been induced to engage in malpractices, in which they were innocent parties, they should now be deprived of a free dialogue and the opportunity of discussing political matters with their fellow citizens of this country. The logical conclusion to be drawn from what the hon. member has indicated is that this Bill has to come into being because of these alleged irregularities and malpractices. As I have said previously, it means that the Coloured people who were innocent in this matter are now being penalized for something for which they were not really responsible. That is the effect of this Bill. Sir, I feel that it would be most inept on my part if I were not to register a final protest against the third reading of this bill. Nothing has been said in the second reading debate or indeed in the course of the lengthy debate in the committee stage of the Bill that has changed my mind. I said then and I say now that this Bill is a wholly unnecessary one and one which is certainly not suitable to be put on the Statute Book. I say that it will become a blot on the Statute Book of this country if it goes through. In my view this measure effects a radical change in the political life of our country. It introduces a principle which is foreign to every democratic concept we have known in this country up to now. This Bill, as I see it, curtails the right of free political association and free dialogue between the people of our multi-racial Republic and what is even worse, is that it will alienate and separate our Coloured people even more than at present from their white fellow citizens in South Africa. As I see it, that is going to be the effect of this Bill.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has changed the name of this Bill from Prohibition of Improper Interference Bill to Prohibition of Political Interference Bill. In the report stage he was at great pains to explain to the House why he changed the name. I think that a much more suitable title for this Bill would have been “The Isolation Bill”, because I cannot imagine any measure bringing about a greater degree of isolation of our Coloured population group from the white population group than this Bill. I cannot imagine anything that would bring about greater frustration than the provisions of this measure.

You have said that several times before.

It has obviously made no impression on that hon. member’s mind and I must try to drive this point home although I know it is a very difficult task. I cannot imagine anything that would make our country look more ridiculous in the eyes of the world than the provisions of this Bill. This bill virtually seeks to restrict the liberty of speech of all sections of our nation. The terms of this Bill are wide enough to prohibit the right of peaceable assembly between the different population groups at political meetings. The effect of this Bill is to prohibit the fundamental right of expressing our honest political opinions and our honest thoughts to our fellow citizens if they happen to be members of another population group. The hon. the Minister can, in the course of his reply, say whether what I have said now is not in fact the actual effect of this Bill. As I say, it makes a new and foreign inroad into our South African way of life. We in South Africa hitherto proudly claimed that there has always been freedom of speech between all sections of our nation on all matters affecting our daily lives. This claim will no longer be valid if this Bill passes its third reading and becomes the law of the country. This wonderful heritage of the liberty of speech of all sections of our people, of which we boasted, is now polluted by the provisions of this Bill. In terms of this measure it will now not be possible for any person who belongs to one population group to address any meeting, gathering or assembly of persons if the greater majority of the persons present—and I am reading from the Bill itself—belong to any other population group or groups for the purpose of furthering the interest of a political party or for the purpose of supporting the candidature of any nominated person. Let us for a single moment consider the effect of this provision, particularly in the light of the fact that none of these terms I have read out from the Bill is defined. Ore must remember that this Bill contains no definition at all of what is meant or intended by “a political party”. It contains no definition whatsoever of what is meant or intended by “a member”. It contains no definition of who will constitute “an agent” under this clause, or what will constitute “an election committee”. There is no clarity whatsoever on any of these terms, which are vital to clause 2, and I suggest that clause 2 of the Bill is probably the most vital clause in the whole Bill. The wording of this clause is wide enough virtually to prohibit any avenue of political dialogue across the colour line.

Let us for a moment examine the effect of this Bill. Assume that the Coloured people of South Africa are engaged in an election of their own, to elect people of their own choice as their representatives to the new Coloured Representative Council, which this House is now in the process of establishing. Remember that those will be the only elections in which the Coloured people can participate in terms of the Government’s pattern for them. Assume that the candidates nominated for such an election happen, as they certainly will be, to be members of different political parties formed by the Coloured people themselves. Assume that the Coloured people desire to obtain the advice and guidance of a white friend whom they regard as their friend and whom they themselves have chosen as their friend and who has shown over the years that he is their guide and mentor in public affairs. Assume that they want to get the advice and guidance of that friend. Under the provisions of this Bill the Coloured people will be precluded from seeking the advice of that white person. But what is more, that white friend will be prohibited from addressing any assembly or gathering of these Coloured people and he will be prohibited from giving them any advice, even if such advice is given at a meeting which takes place at the special invitation of the Coloured people. Let me give the Minister a concrete example of the case of a white man whose name is held in the highest regard and respect by all sections of this House. I want to mention his name as an example of what might happen. I refer to Dr. T. D. du Plessis, who is the former Secretary for Coloured Affairs. We all know that Dr. Du Plessis has for many years devoted a great deal of his time and attention to the affairs of the Cape Malay community. He has been a leading figure in all matters concerning the Cape Malays. He has become, and justifiably so, one of their most respected and honoured friends. Now, assume that in the course of one of these elections that I have been talking about, an election for the new Coloured Representative Council, the Cape Malays are confronted with a political problem involving the question as to whether or not they should support Government policy. They seek the advice and guidance of their old friend, Dr. Du Plessis, and they invite him to attend and address a meeting of Malays so as to give them the benefit of his experience and his advice as to whether they should support the policy of the Government in regard to any particular matter or not. Remember that they invite him to that end, to address a meeting of Cape Malays. In terms of this Bill they will be precluded from hearing the views of Dr. Du Plessis and from getting the benefit of his advice, and Dr. Du Plessis personally will be committing a criminal offence if he addresses any such meeting, because in doing so he may be furthering the interests of a political party. I mention that as a concrete example of the absurdness which may flow from this Bill. Surely the hon. the Minister never intended that that should be the case. I hope the Minister will reply and tell us whether it is the Government’s intention in circumstances such as I have mentioned now to preclude the Cape Malays from getting the advice and guidance of their mentor and friend, a man who is held in the highest esteem by them, a man who has achieved a place of singular distinction in the annals of Cape history. Are they to be deprived of his advice? [Interjection.] No, this is an example of the curtailment of the rights imposed under this Bill. This one example I mention indicates the absurd situation which may arise under this Bill, and there are many more. It is not an exaggeration to say that in these circumstances this authoritarian measure—and it can only be described as an authoritarian measure—can only lead towards embittering race relations in this country. Can you imagine, Sir, the feelings of the Cape Malay community if it is found that by inviting their old friend and mentor, Dr. Du Plessis, to address them, they are committing an offence? Can you imagine how embittered they are going to feel, not only against the Government but against the white people of this country.

In terms of another Bill which the Government has presented to this House, the Government, through its Minister of Coloured Affairs and the officials of his Department, will have access at all times to the Coloured Council for discussions and deliberations and participation in all their talks. This access to the Coloured Council in effect means that they will have access to the Coloured people of this country. So it means that the Minister of Coloured Affairs and his Government officials, will have access to the Coloured people and will be able to enter into a dialogue with them across the colour line. As the first speaker on this side this afternoon pointed out, this will virtually vest in the Government an exclusive monopoly to influence the Coloured people in all political matters. That is the effect of it. The effect of this Bill, as I see it, together with the other measures relating to the Coloured people that this House has been engaged on during the past few weeks, will be that the Government will have an exclusive right and licence to interfere in the politics of the Coloured people, to the exclusion of all others. Does the Government really think that the Coloured people are likely to tolerate this position for long? Does the Government not realize that it has been authoritatively predicted that by 1985, in the Cape alone, two-thirds of the population will be members of the Coloured group, and that by the turn of the century it is estimated that the Coloured group will have increased to three quarters of the population here? Those are the figures given by Government officials in regard to what the population figures are likely to be from now onwards. Does the Government think that this ever-increasing section of our Westernised people are going to respect and observe a law which politically puts them into a watertight compartment, without the right of having proper political dialogue with their fellow-citizens? When I talk about proper political dialogue, it does not only mean dialogue between them and the Whites, but between them and the Indians, and between them and the Bantu. There can be no further dialogue across the colour line between the Coloured people and these other sections of the community. Does the Government really believe that our Coloured people will be prepared to tolerate a law which will make them, in effect, political lepers in their own country? This is what this Bill will do. It will put our Coloured people into a category where they will he known throughout the world as political lepers. The Coloured people will surely realize that they are entitled to have a voice in the public affairs of the nation in common with their fellow citizens. They will realize that they are part of the whole body politic of South Africa and that therefore they are not to be restricted from hearing the honest opinions of their fellow citizens just because those fellow citizens happen to be members of another race group. No, I feel strongly that it is basically wrong for our Coloured citizens not to have the utmost freedom in their political discussions and to have the voluntary choice of hearing the opinions of any fellow citizen on any political issue, irrespective of the race group to which that person belongs. It is quite wrong, I think morally wrong, for the Coloured people to have these restrictions imposed on them.

The more one examines the effect of this Bill the more does one come to the considered conclusion that the basic principle of this Bill is not suitable for legislation. One aspect, namely the prohibition on receiving financial assistance from abroad, will I have no doubt receive the approval of the entire House. The entire House would support that. It is a great pity that that principle which would have received the approbation of the entire House was not embodied in a separate Bill, a Bill which, as I say, would have been unanimously acclaimed throughout the country. But that principle is secondary to the main principle of the Bill. The main principle of this Bill is to prohibit political discussions between members of different population groups living in South Africa. It is that principle which to my mind amounts to a violation of the fundamental rights of our citizens, it is that prohibition which is likely to embitter race relations in this country; it is that principle which is likely to induce a strong feeling of injustice and is likely to create martyrs—and this is the danger —because they will defy this measure, and treat this absurd piece of legislation with contempt.

For all these reasons I must record my final protest against the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, allow me, in the first place, to say that the hon. member for Peninsula, who has just resumed his seat, admitted that malpractices did in fact take place in the past in regard to the Coloured vote. Now I want to say at once that those malpractices took place in spite of the Electoral Laws Act. I now want to ask the hon. member why the Electoral Laws Act is not being utilized to combat those malpractices. The hon. member for Peninsula made a speech here and testified strongly to the malpractices which led to a Commission of Enquiry being appointed to go into them. This was all raised here by the hon. member and I regarded him as one of the major witnesses in this regard. He was actually the prosecutor, one can almost say, and now he wants to sing another song here.

The hon. member went further and said that this Bill would make us appear ridiculous in the eyes of the world. Now I want to tell him straight away that it is possible that this is true. But then I wonder whether hon. members on the opposite side who say that, are not beginning to agree with world opinion and are at one with world opinion in that regard. Is it because they have found that they have something in common with world opinion that they are saying this kind of thing here? However, when this measure is placed on the Statute Book the possibility exists that there will be peace and quiet in the Republic and amongst the people of the Republic. When that peace and quiet, the harmony and good co-operation amongst the various population groups exists, then the rest of the world may ask itself: What means does South Africa have with which it ensures racial peace in that country?

[Inaudible.]

The world will yet have occasion to ask itself this question. Now I reiterate here very clearly: When the rest of the world begins to ask itself that question, South Africa and its people would have found the means of making a break-through as regards the rest of the world. I am saying this as a reproach to the hon. member for Port Natal who has never adopted a serious political attitude. He is not serious in his politics. He should preferably keep quiet when it comes to major issues in this hon. Chamber.

I want to come to the hon. member for Umlazi. I find it astonishing that during this stage two speakers have taken the floor, the one a United Party man, and the other a Coloured Representative. But, after all, he is also a United Party man. The point I want to make is that one of these members of the United Party in particular who is participating in this debate has, as far as I know, no experience of the things which took place in respect of the Coloured vote in the Cape in the past.

How many Coloureds have you got in your constituency?

Nine who are entitled to vote. The hon. member for Umlazi said here the Coloureds had rejected the policy of the National Party from time to time. I now want to furnish this reply to what he said. The Indians, the Coloureds and the Bantu are, to an increasing extent, accepting the political institutions which have been established by the National Party Government. Let it be very clear that the Coloureds and the Indians are accepting them because they have faith in them—in other words, they have faith in the policy of the Government. That is why I am asking: What right does the hon. member for Umlazi have, with his shortsightedness and with his meagre knowledge, to maintain that these people have from time to time rejected the policy of the National Party? Surely it is nonsensical to say a thing like that.

I want to go further than that. Not only are the Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu accepting these political institutions, but the United Party is also doing so, because although they rejected them totally in this House in 1964 they are accepting them this year.

The old things are becoming obsolescent. When this measure is placed on the Statute Book, the old things will be becoming obsolescent, and we will then have a new dispensation in South Africa, with the development of the new. This measure is going to write finis to a past which many people will feel ashamed of if they think of their actions in that respect in the past. I have in mind here one of our great men who spoke words to this effect: We are standing with both feet in the present; we may not for one moment look back, we must move on into the future. That is the attitude I want to adopt here this afternoon. We may not for one moment look back into that past, we must move on towards this future of a greater South Africa, and not only we but hon. members on the opposite side as well.

Order! The hon. member is not making a second-reading speech now. He must return to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I shall try to indicate to you why I have mentioned these things. In point of fact the hon. members on the opposite side, and particularly the members of the United Party, have in the past been guilty of interference in the Coloured population in the Cape. But this was not intended to be of any benefit to the Coloureds. It was merely done for the political utilization by the United Party itself. That was the reason why it was done. In this way the United Party tried to harness the Coloured votes against the National Party. In other words, they crossed the colour bar to try and fetch votes which they could use. I want to mention a few examples of which I have personal knowledge and which I both experienced and saw myself. In the years 1946 to 1948 the United Party held evening classes here in the Cape to get the Coloureds onto the voters’ rolls. They rode through the streets of the Peninsula in motor cars equipped with loudspeakers in order to get the Coloureds together and attend evening classes. [Interjections.] To-day they are laughing about that, but there are hon. members, for example the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg (District) and Port Natal, who know nothing about this. They cannot discuss this matter on the same footing.

Where were you then?

At that time I was here in Cape Town. Here in the Peninsula I saw how those Coloureds were taught to sign their names, and write down their occupations and addresses. Then when they were able one night to write down their names and occupations before the police constable, the United Party organizer sat at the barrier to see whether the Coloureds were capable of doing well those things they had learnt during the past few weeks. If they were unable to do so they were sent back home, until they could do so, for then they qualified for a vote on the voters’ roll of the Cape. That is the kind of thing that happened in the past. Those are the things the hon. member for Umlazi knows nothing about.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Mr. Speaker, my time is limited. Those are the things they did and are guilty of.

Tell us something about the homelands.

They are trying to distract me now. The hon. member wants me to say something in regard to the homelands. I shall come to that later on. He must exercise a little patience because I shall proceed step by step until I come to the homelands. But I want to go on. Yesterday the hon. member for Sea Point asked the hon. member for Stellenbosch: What do your farm labourers know about political franchise? Now I want to say this to hon. members of the United Party: Those are the same people they brought together in the years 1946 to 1948, and held evening classes for merely in order to get them on the voters’ roll, without their having any knowledge of politics. That is the only reason why they were used.

But I want to make a second charge against the United Party. In 1948 when the major political clash took place in South Africa, and in the months preceding that political clash, hon. members on the opposite side and their party registered over 1,000 Coloured voters in constituencies such as Parow, Vasco, etc., but in Green Point and Sea Point where they were quite safe they only registered two or three Coloured voters. That was what hon. members on the opposite side did. Those are the things they are trying to shout down here to-day because they know that they are guilty. The Coloured vote was good enough for that. But after that it was the end of the Coloureds. After that, until the next election was due, the Coloureds did not see the United Party for dust. Then the Progressive Party entered the picture. The Progressive Party began to bid higher than the United Party. The process set in motion by the United Party was merely aggravated by the Progressive Party. The Coloureds were still being exploited in an abominable way. The United Party and the Progressive Party stand accused of this. Whites crossed the colour bar to look for this assistance and to undertake that exploitation in their own interests and nobody else’s. Naturally it meant that any rewards and promises made to the Coloureds were not paid or kept. The Coloureds were exploited, but did not benefit at all. When one does not, in that way, keep one’s promises, it must lead to a maladjusted and unsavoury relationship between Whites and Coloureds.

But I repeat that this Bill is eliminating the old and introducing the new. On a certain date the four white representatives of the Coloureds in this House and the two in the Provincial Council will have to leave the respective houses permanently. Now the dream of the past is being realized. Our struggle with this problem has now brought us to the four-stream policy, a policy to which the hon. member for Port Natal wants me to refer, because it includes the Bantu homelands. It has brought us to this four-stream policy where we will have no political interference in one another’s affairs. These four streams are: The Whites in the first place, the Coloureds and the Malays in the second place, the Indians, the Chinese and the Asiatics in the third place, and the Bantu in the fourth place. In order to do justice to all, political interference cannot be tolerated. From this point on, under National Party rule, the Whites will have absolute power in this House of Assembly of White South Africa. But for the sake of good relations with our domestic non-Whites it is both right and good that we as Whites should not receive money from other countries or other states for political purposes. There must be no doubt whatsoever about the integrity of the white parties. The integrity of the white parties in South Africa must be beyond all suspicion. As white individuals belonging to white parties we must be incorruptible. We must, I repeat, be incorruptible. But within white South Africa we also have the Coloured and the Indian political councils. These people must be afforded that opportunity of being able to develop their own leaders within their own limits. The same applies to the Bantu in their Bantu homelands, and I am now replying to the hon. member for Port Natal with this. There we have the four-stream policy.

But in the first place this Bill also envisages that one population group may not interfere in the politics of another population group. In the second place: Monetary support from abroad is being prohibited. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition alleged here during this debate, and I quote:

Order! The hon. member is making a second-reading speech. He must return to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to indicate the background to the implementation of this matter. The hon. member for Umlazi adopted the same attitude here. Now I want to say the following to-day, and I can bear witness to this at first hand. For almost five years I was connected with the National Party organization here in the Cape. I served under people such as the late Adv. S. C. Erasmus. I served under people such as the present Minister of Defence when he was Secretary to the National Party. I want to testify here this afternoon that not once, and I want to emphasize this strongly, not once did my duties as National Party organizer include the canvassing of Coloureds. Not once was I called upon to register a favourably-disposed Coloured. Not once was I called upon or asked to bribe one Coloured. The National Party has a long history.

The National Party has trod a difficult path, but in its most difficult days, in its darkest days, the National Party never thought of crossing the colour bar to go and look for help. The same cannot be said by hon. members of the United Party. This is the pride of a white party in South Africa, and that is why the National Party is able to go so far as to afford all the population groups a sound policy in the Republic of South Africa. If it were possible for the National Party to do so —and it is not possible for the United Party to do so—then I say that, just as it was possible for the National Party, it should also be possible for the non-white political parties in South Africa to do so without any need for interference from other groups. If the United Party had not ridden a long way on the backs of the Coloureds they would also have supported this Bill to-day. If the United Party had had an unsullied political conscience in this regard they would also have recognized the usefulness of this Bill. But what is the problem in regard to the United Party? They are seeking and they clearly, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) told us yesterday, want to bring back Coloured representation to this House.

They are not concealing this fact. They are saying this to us. They still want to go and look for help across the colour bar. They are anchored to mixed political parties here in South Africa. It has become part of the United Party: Co-operation at the polls, ride together to the polls. That is what they have grown accustomed to. It is nothing new to the United Party. It has influenced their outlook on life to such an extent that our actions to-day as a National Party seem to be anathema to them. They can no longer plumb the depths of National Party thinking. The hon. member for Durban (North) stated categorically here yesterday: “We shall restore Coloured representation in this House.” Is it not clear why the United Party is opposing this measure to such an extent? The United Party wants to retain the right to interfere in the politics of other population groups.

But I go further. When this legislation is placed on the Statute Book, interference in the politics of another population group will be punishable by law. What cannot be allowed is that the future of the Whites, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu in South Africa should depend on votes or support which have been obtained through malpractices. It would be a very unhealthy day for South Africa if we reached that stage, i.e. that we have to obtain majorities through such malpractices. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not deny these malpractices. The hon. member for Peninsula does not deny these malpractices. The United Party as a whole cannot deny these malpractices. They are things which exist. There they sit, Mr. Speaker, they are sitting there and they know that these things happened. In fact, they admit it. I will not take it amiss of the hon. members from the Transvaal, Natal and the Free State if they have no knowledge of these things. They are unaware of it. But let them ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout what happened here in those days. You should have seen, Mr. Speaker, what went on here. We have come to the end of that road, to the end of such malpractices in South Africa. If one should commit an offence in this regard, one would, when this Bill is placed on the Statute Book, be subject to heavy penalties.

It was offensive to see how far United Party members were prepared to go in order to win votes. Once having seen this in the past, once having seen to what an extent this was done, one must guard against the future of population groups being prejudiced by such practices. I say further: If people did so in the past, why should they not do so in future as well? I want to mention an example to you. Why should they who are opposed to the policy of the National Party, and who are particularly opposed …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

The hon. member’s time has expired; there will not be any time for a question.

Mr. Speaker, we do not always agree with what the hon. member for Klip River says, but I am sure that we are all agreed on one thing and that is that we are always delighted by the charming, soft-spoken and gentle way in which that hon. member makes his points.

Complete his speech for him.

I cannot complete that speech. I am sure that the hon. member for Klip River wrote it with his poisoned pen. The hon. member for Klip River said that the hon. member for Umlazi knew nothing about what happened in Cape Town with the Coloured representatives. He said that of the two people that there were, the United Party put up one man from Umlazi, in Natal. That hon. member forgets that the hon. member for Umlazi is the chairman of the interior group on this side and that he knows all about this Bill that we are debating now. There was a commission of inquiry as to the events to which this Bill used to relate, before the hon. the Minister changed the title. That hon. member, as a representative from Klip River, then makes these animadversions about hon. members who have spoken from this side of the House. He says that he has nine Coloured voters in his constituency. The hon. member who spoke before him, came from Port Elizabeth (Central). The hon. member says that he was here in Cape Town when it happened. What was he doing here when it happened? He was a Nationalist Party organizer, was he not?

Yes.

He was very careful to say that he was never asked to buy a vote of a Coloured voter. I will leave the unfinished sentence there where he left it unfinished. He said that the United Party used, uses and wants to use the Coloured people for political purposes. Why does he say that? He says that because the United Party has always presented its views to the Coloured people. And it so happens that in this House the last Coloured representative to be elected was elected on a United Party platform. That was the hon. member for Karoo. The man who opposed him in that election was a Nationalist Party candidate. The fact of the matter is that we do not use them for political purposes, nor interfere in their policies. But we take part in their politics. We accept the fact that they are part of this, what the hon. member chose to call a greater South Africa. The fact of the matter is that we have this Bill because that candidate who stood against the hon. member for Karoo, could not win the seat. That is why we have this Bill. The hon. member is quite right on one aspect, and that is that the dream of the past is now over. He says that the Bill will maintain the integrity of white political parties. As far as his own party is concerned, I think that instead of “maintained” we ought to use words like “become” or “get”. In the history of Coloured constitutional rights, with which this Bill has something to do, the history of that party is certainly not one which one can describe with any word related in any way to integrity. Even their own newspaper editors admit that they are ashamed of what they did.

We do not have any newspapers.

Exactly the opposite is so. If anyone has newspapers, it is the Nationalist Party. These are the organs of the Nationalist Party, and they admit it. You will not find an English-language newspaper admitting that it is the agent of the United Party. When the hon. member for Umlazi said that this Bill presented a picture to the Coloured people of us as a one-party state, there were cries of indignation from the other side of the House. I wonder why? Is that not precisely what this Bill does? As emphasized by the hon. member for Umlazi and the hon. member for Peninsula, this is a Bill to give exclusive rights of dialogue, in respect of the non-white peoples, to the Nationalist Party. That is the idea of this Bill. I do not know why hon. members on that side were so worried about the reference to a one-party state. It is an attitude of mind and this Bill reflects an attitude of mind, and this is the most disturbing part of it. This Bill, that I will examine shortly, shows itself to be a ludicrous hodgepodge, which means in legal terminology almost nothing at all. The point is that it reflects an attitude of mind. There should instead by this time have been an increasing flow of political dialogue between all the race groups in this country. No one can believe that the future of this country can be developed on any other basis than in a broadening of the dialogue between the race groups. We are a multiracial country and always will be. If I did not believe that, there would be no point in not joining the Nationalist Party. We are however, a multiracial country and we will remain so. If we are going to remain so, it is going to be impossible for any sort of dialogue to take place on a proper basis in terms of this Bill. Hon. members know that this is a multiracial, or multi-national country, meaning a country that is comprised of many different races, all living in one country, in respect of which this Parliament should remain sovereign and should have control.

Should the Coloureds be represented by Coloureds, the Natives by Natives, and the Indians by Indians?

I wish that the hon. the Minister will appreciate the point. The point is whether we are a multiracial country or not.

Of course we are, but that has got nothing to do with it.

This is where we begin. This is where anybody begins. If you believe that South Africa is a multiracial country, then, from there, you decide on what basis you are to have what sort of government. That is where you start. You do not start with a myth, as the hon. the Minister does.

No, that is what you are doing.

No, We start with the facts. What are the facts? Is this country a multiracial country or not?

Of course it is a multiracial country.

Here we have the admission from a person that I presume one can assume is responsible for an expression of opinion which reflects what the Government thinks. If we are a multiracial country —and we are going to remain a multiracial country—how can that hon. Minister then ask us why we want to prevent dialogue between the different race groups.

We will have the dialogue, but we will have it in a different form.

The form in which we will have it, will be that of a dialogue between the Government party and the other race groups, and no one else. No one else shall have any dialogue at all. This reflects an attitude of mind which is very dangerous, an attitude of mind as to giving the State what is in effect a monopoly of political influence, and the right for only white persons who support the Nationalist Party to address meetings and to further the cause of one party, the Nationalist Party, but no one else. Sir, as I said during the second-reading debate, in that sense it is a totalitarian measure. The hon. member for Umlazi said that the effect that this would have on the Coloured people would be for them to believe that the State which they have to deal with was a one-party State. It is that fear that we have that that is what is in this Bill, that makes the Bill even more abhorent to us. Here we have an expression of opinion by the hon. the Minister and his opinion is to the same effect; it is in the same stream of thought. I was very disturbed to find, while this Bill is still before us, that another hon. Minister expressed a view which increases my fear as to the contents of this Bill. I refer to the hon. the Minister of Planning. The hon. the Minister of Planning was reported in Die Burger as saying that the Nationalist Party can do without an Opposition.

Order! That has nothing to do with this Bill at all.

On a point of order, Sir, this Bill deals with the political rights of different groups.

This is the third reading.

I know it is the third reading. We are dealing with the effects of this Bill. The point has been made throughout the discussion on this Bill that it would stop all political discussion between the Coloured group and any other group except the Government party. Only the Government will be able to state its point of view to the Coloured people and that is our objection to the Bill.

That has been stated time and again.

The hon. member for Durban (North) is now quoting from a speech made by the Minister of Planning …

Order! That speech has nothing to do with this Bill.

But it supports the hon. member’s attitude.

Order! I have given my ruling and the hon. member must resume his seat.

Tell us about hanging children; that is your type of discussion.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. the Deputy Minister entitled to make that allegation against my colleague?

Order! The hon. member may proceed. I must ask hon. members to stop making interjections.

Sir, may I say that the attitude of mind reflected by this Bill and by the hon. the Minister of Forestry is that in dealing with the non-white people in this country, you need only a government party, not an opposition party. That is what it means; only the Government party may deal with them and indeed the hon. the Minister of Planning said as much the other day when he spoke at a Nationalist Party branch meeting.

Order! I have ruled that that is out of order; it has nothing to do with the Bill.

Sir, I wonder what sort of political State this Government wants. This measure is just one in a series of Bills relating to the Coloured people and their political rights, a very unfortunate history of Bills, a very ugly-looking history, in which hon. members opposite were prepared to do anything at all to get their political way in so far as Coloured people’s rights were concerned; in which they were prepared to do things like enlarging the Senate …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill or resume his seat.

Sir, when the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) spoke, he said that this Bill needed to implement Government policy. What an admission! There you have this “kragdadige” Government which has been in power for 20 years, which says that it has a policy which is the only policy for this country; that it is going to implement it, that everyone is in favour of it, that all the Bantu are in favour of it, that the Indians and the Coloureds are in favour of it, and yet here comes an admission that this is needed to implement the Government’s policy. What he means by “implement” is to force the Government’s policy on to these people, who all accept it. What an admission! Have we really come to this stage? If this is right, if this is so, and if the hon. member is saying what his party believes, then this means in effect that everything that one has said about this being a Bill to force Government policy on to people and to exclude anyone else’s political thoughts, has been confirmed by that hon. member. I think the hon. member did better in retrieving rugby balls out of a scrum than he does in retrieving the hon. the Minister’s chestnuts out of the fire.

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill either.

This is a matter of an attitude of mind. Here we have an admission that one has to force this through, and one of the ways of doing it is by means of fear. Sir, the hon. the Minister displayed a most interesting attitude of mind during the second-reading debate and during the Committee Stage of this Bill. His attitude was that it was really quite an interesting Bill, that it was very vague, but that after all that was the beauty of this Bill. We have a Bill here which can only operate if you try to keep it out of a court of law. In other words, if you take this Bill and try to enforce it through the normal processes of the courts, there is a very grave doubt as to whether you will ever be able to implement it in that way, and therefore the way in which it is to be implemented is a roundabout way. That is why the hon. the Minister is delighted. I say that the hon. the Minister would never have expressed himself as being pleased, or at least not displeased, with the fact that the contents of the Bill were very vague if he in fact intended to apply it through the normal processes of the courts, and if he did he would never have admitted that that it was vague and he would never have indicated that he was not displeased that it was vague, for the simple reason that if he wanted it implemented through that agency, then he would have made it clear, and he could have made it clear, but he has not done so. Then there is the fact that there are minimum penalties here, where the court has no option and where the threat is made that you might be prosecuted and charges laid against you. At the end of it there hangs the threat of a minimum penalty. The individual who may be threatened by this knows that he cannot appeal to the court for mercy in the hope that in the particular circumstances in which he found himself contravening this law, the court would in those circumstances say, “Of course, we understand and in our discretion we say that you may be discharged with a caution.” That course is not open to the court and this is being done deliberately. The trend of this hon. Minister’s colleague the Minister of Justice has been in the opposite direction and that is to give the courts discretion wherever he can. Indeed in this very same session we passed a law which provided for the restoration of the court’s discretion where it had been restricted in the past. This is being done deliberately to restrict the court’s discretion and for no other purpose. Sir, any policeman, under this Bill, would be quite entitled, in all sorts of circumstances, to say, “Prima facie there is a case against you and I am going to investigate and lay a charge against you.” I must say that prima facie his lawyer will have to say to the accused, “With the sort of language that is in this Bill you may have committed an offence.” The threat is there that the man may or may not have committed an offence. The Bill is so widely framed that it enables any policeman to come along to you and to say, “You must stop doing this, otherwise I can lay a charge against you under this Act, and what is more, if you are convicted, you are going to have no option at all; the court is going to be obliged to give you a minimum sentence.” That is exactly what this is for. The hon. the Minister has no intention of enforcing this measure through the normal processes of the law. Sir, look at the definitions. One would have thought that he would have tried at least to define some of these things. In terms of clause 1 of the Bill, the hon. the Minister is entitled to decide in which groups the great many people who are neither White nor Bantu should be placed, what separation of groups there should be amongst their number and with whom they are to have their politics. That is the power which the hon. the Minister has. That power is contained in clause 1, where it is provided that there is a Coloured group consisting of certain people as defined and that there is another Coloured group consisting of other people. The Minister will decide by proclamation into which group they fall, whether they fall in the one Coloured group or in the other Coloured group. The hon. the Minister has given us no answer on this point. He has not told us why he wants this power. He has not told us what he has in mind. He has not told us whether he is going to change the existing position, but he takes that power. Under this Bill the hon. the Minister also take the power to apply the provisions of this Bill to any other law. He still has not told us why he wants that power. What other laws does he have in mind? The hon. member for Klip River has indicated that he wants to deal and will deal with what happens in Cape Town. One wonders whether it is the Minister’s intention under this Bill to deal with the situation that you have in the Cape Town City Council where non-white people are elected to the council, or whether this Bill is designed to deal with the situation in Stanger in Natal, for example, where an Indian has for years been elected to the Town Board by the white community of Stanger. Is that what he wants to get at? We would like to know. All we have had from the hon. the Minister is a monumental silence on all the matters that we want to know about, on all the matters which are contained in this Bill.

Sir, we have tried to elicit from the hon. the Minister some sort of definition as to what “a greater majority” is, and all that we have had so far is the statement from the hon. member for Parow who, when I asked him this question, said that a greater majority means a greater majority. Sir, there is no definition in this Bill of a “political party”, and there is no definition of “politics”. The object of the Bill, as expressed, is to prohibit interference by one population group in the politics of another population group. What is politics? What does it mean? When you look at the Concise Oxford Dictionary you find under “politic”—

I think that just about sums up what this Bill really means. Then, what is interference? Interference is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as, inter alia, “to intervene or to take part in”. What does that mean? Is it the intention to prevent people from taking part in discussions on the sort of state and the body politic that we have? The Minister says no, that is not the intention; you can still take part in the discussion. But the long title, to which the courts will have to refer for some guidance— and goodness knows that they will need an awful lot of guidance of these matters are to be dealt with by them—says that it is to prohibit interference by one population group in the politics of any other population group. What is so absurd about it is that a member of this House may not go and put to a group of Coloureds, Indians or Bantu what our policy is. Because of this provision in regard to a greater majority, you cannot do it if all of them are black or the greater majority are black. This Bill says, if you look at the long title, and here is its ultimate nonsense, that you can only talk to the non-white people if you have an integrated meeting. This is the ultimate nonsense. You can talk to non-white people and advance the aims of your political party provided you have a mixed meeting; if it is 50 per cent black, you can address the meeting, but if there is a greater majority of black people, you cannot. You cannot talk to an all-black meeting; you can only talk to a mixed meeting. There you have it, Sir. As my hon. friend said, how crazy can you get? The object of the Bill is to prevent “inmenging”. Is that what “inmenging” means in the modern Nationalist Party concept? Is this part of the new deal, that you can only talk to non-white people provided you have a mixed audience? That is what it says. If this is so, has the hon. the Minister spoken to his colleague the Minister of Community Development? Can he tell us where we will be able to exercise our right to influence the minds of the non-white people of South Africa, on the basis that this Bill now permits, i.e. at a mixed gathering only and never to an audience of only one group? That is the stage we have arrived at, and the Minister cannot deny that that is the position. What is the object of all this? Is this to save the nation? If this is needed to implement Government policy, then we have a new angle on it. I want to ask the Minister whether he seriously intends that this Bill is to be applied in the normal way in which any other Bill would be applied, with criminal sanctions? Does he really intend that prosecutions should take place, and that the matter should go before the court? I hope the Minister will answer, and if he answers yes, will he tell us why he expressed himself to be pleased that the Bill was so very vague?

I have said before that this places the Attorney-General in an impossible position. The very fact that he is placed in such an impossible position strengthens the thought I expressed that this is not intended to operate in the courts. This is intended to operate by the means I have indicated. The Attorney-General has to decide in any case whether somebody addressed a meeting for the purpose of advancing the cause of his political party. He has to decide what is political, and he has to decide whether there is a greater majority of people of one group, and then he has to decide what the intention was of the person who addressed the meeting. The decision he has to make is a political decision. There are some clear-cut cases, and a clear-cut case would be the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration talking to a group of Zulus in the course of his duties. He will talk to a group composed exclusively of Zulus, and he will tell them about the wonderful policy the Government has and that the Nationalist Party has, and he is advancing the aims of his political party, and the Deputy Minister has been doing this since time immemorial.

Oh no.

Well, he has been advancing the aims of some or other political party since time immemorial. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Durban (North) will pardon me for not replying to his speech immediately. There is some minor point or other to which I want to reply, but in my humble opinion a more important question was raised in the debate the other day by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who said that the effect of this Bill would be that race relations in South Africa would suffer another pinprick. He used the term “petty apartheid” and said this was another petty apartheid measure. I do not share his feelings about that terminology, but I nevertheless regard the question raised by him in connection with this legislation as a very important one, because it is the sort of question which I heard from Stockholm down to Cape Town, and I think it justifies a reply. But in order to find out whether the effects of this Bill would be that race relations would be disturbed as a result of a petty apartheid measure, to use the hon. member’s terminology for the sake of convenience, it is necessary for me to determine first of all what the hon. member meant by petty apartheid and how it fits into our pattern.

If I understood him correctly, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that petty apartheid was the sort of measure in terms of which people had to use separate exists and sit on separate benches in the parks, and so forth. The policy of separate development has this important kingpin, namely that it has to regulate race relations in South Africa so that the races may live together in peace within the same geographical unit. I now want to tell the hon. member this, that he will find that all these points of criticism, also this Bill, which the hon. member described as a pressure point of petty apartheid, in actual fact relate to places where bottlenecks occur in race relations. There the Government relieves the tension among the various race groups and brings about peaceful conditions. Let me give an example. At a station, where a large number of people throng together and where the natural emotion of racial hatred may possibly arise between both groups, the Government has decided that it is a point of tension, and this tension is eliminated because the one group leaves through one door and the other group through another door to come together in the large street again. This is what brings peace in South Africa. The same goes for the legislation with which we are dealing to-day.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 68.

In point of fact there was very little, if anything in this third-reading debate which really required one’s attention. As for the hon. members for Umlazi and Durban (North), it was merely a repetition of what was said in the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage. Not only myself, but other speakers on this side who participated in the debate, replied to those matters very clearly and unequivocally. But I want to state that the opposition to this legislation is fundamental, and I do not take it amiss of hon. members of the Opposition if they do not keep pace with autogenous or parallel development between the various population groups in this multi-racial country. This multi-racialism created resultant problems, which the National Party Government wanted to solve in a certain way, so as to ensure enduring peace, happiness and co-operation among the various population groups. It was a method which the Opposition regarded as totally unpracticable and incapable of implementation; many of them still believe in their hearts that this is the case, and that we will return to the position as it was. The Opposition did not keep pace with the successful progress and the development which the National Party Government brought about in every field of life in respect of the stabilization and the implementation of its policy of parallel autogenous development. We have now come to an entirely new phase in our history, and specifically a new phase in the political history of the Coloured population. In particular it is the politics and the political future of the non-White population, specifically the Coloureds which has given rise to this legislation and which will be protected in this legislation. If one has lagged behind the development which has taken place, one will of course never see these things in their correct perspective. It is then that one begins to conjure up bogeys, and it is then that the Opposition believes, as they believed in regard to every step we took in this direction, that it will not work, that it will cause deprivation, and that it will lead to discrimination or deprivation of rights or isolation. The hon. member for Peninsula mentioned a typical example here. He stated that the effects of this legislation would be that the Coloured population would now be deprived of the privilege of free consultation or discussions with other people in respect of political matters as well. Inter alia, he mentioned the example of a prominent man who was highly respected by the Coloured population, particularly by the Malays. He mentioned Dr. E. du Plessis, and he stated that those people would no longer be able to approach him in order to ask him for guidance. The hon. member for Durban (Point) stated that only the National Party and the Government would in future be able to put the policy of the Government, the general national policy, to the Coloureds. I went into that in my reply to the second-reading debate, and again during the Committee Stage. There is nothing in this Bill which denies the hon. member for Durban (North) or the United Party, or any other person, or even the National Party Government, the right to state the policy of the Opposition or the Government and their views of the future, also in so far as it affects the future of the Coloureds, or the future of the Bantu, except when the National Party or the Government or the Opposition, or any other White, convenes a meeting or makes a speech with the purpose of having a political party of the Coloureds, of another race group to which he does not belong …

Where is this stated?

It is stated in clause 2. Read clause 2 (c) in conjunction with clause 2 (b) and you will see it clearly. He can state it, but if he is not careful in his statements and refers in the statement of his policy to a Coloured Party which has a certain policy, and he maintains that that is the right party and that that is the right policy, and that the man sitting here is a candidate for that party and is the one they should vote for, then he is interfering. But Malays can still approach Dr. E. D. du Plessis, and ask him, “Doctor, what do you think about this, what do you think about that?” He can still discuss cultural and other matters with them. He can even tell them what his views are, even though it may approach very closely to the views of a political party—they may even perhaps be the views of the United Party. He can say this to them. But he may not say to them: “I want to tell you as Coloureds, here is an established Coloured party; there you have its clearly stated principles, and my advice to you is: I recommend these to you.” He cannot do that. But if only one man were to ask him, “What shall I do?” he can furnish that person with advice, and he will not be prosecuted in terms of this measure because there are only two people present and not a majority of another population group. It is then an equal number. He can express his opinion. Nothing prevents the United Party for example from making a speech at any place or at any time and stating their attitude very clearly. We are not prohibiting the Press in any way, whether it is the English-language or the Afrikaans-language Press, from publishing that speech verbatim. Those newspapers can be sold like hot cakes amongst the Coloureds, so that they may read them. They need not attend a meeting. They need only buy the newspapers. In this way they can ascertain precisely what the standpoint of the white parties is. This legislation will not hamper in any way the possibility of conveying those ideas. But it will have to take place in a way which would not amount to interference in the Party political matters of another population group to which one does not belong. Is this idea so far-fetched and so sinister?

We must remember that there was a time when the Coloureds were on the common voters’ roll. Subsequently they were represented here by Whites, those Coloureds who were in fact entitled to vote in the Cape. I would say that a logical outcome during that period would of course have been political interference among Whites and non-Whites. After all, they were on the same voters’ rolls as the Whites; between 1910 and 1948, they, together with the white voters, helped to elect members to this House. After that they elected Whites to represent them here. Consequently I maintain that it is not illogical, nor is it unnatural, that there should have been political interference. At that time there would also have been greater political interest amongst them than there ought to be at the moment. But that phase is over and done with; it has been dealt with finally. Whether we want to accept it or not, the Coloureds are, by means of the legislation which is being passed in this House being properly divorced from White politics. In its place the Coloureds are for the first time entering a political era of their own, because they are going to realize their political ambitions by means of this majority of elected members in an enlarged Coloured Council, and all the members of that Council will consist of Coloureds. For the first time in the history of the Coloured community they will now have these increased rights. They are being granted to a population group which we want to assist and help to develop, to people amongst which we want to develop an innate national pride and an innate nationhood, as well as an interest, a sense of duty and responsibility towards helping and serving themselves. All these things are being created for them by this legislation. All that we are now doing with this legislation is to allow them to avail themselves of that opportunity, unimpeded, so that there can be no attempt to hamper them when they want to realize those ideals for themselves, when they want to promote and develop that future, by other people who do not belong to their population group. It is not in conflict with their wishes. I have already quoted what a Coloured Party, the Federale Kleurlingvolksparty of the Transvaal and of the Free State, wrote in one of their brochures as far back as 1964. They had the following to say in respect of the old period (translation)—

Referring to the subsequent period, the one we now want to put an end to, they said (translation)—

Then they spoke of their duty in regard to the future. This is the voice of the Coloureds themselves, and they had the following to say in regard to their own future (translation)—

They stated that the Whites must not interfere in their politics again. The brochure continued (translation)—

In other words, we are actually, by means of this legislation, further implementing the promotion of the policy of the Government of autogenous parallel development in the political sphere as well. We are creating opportunities which have never before been created, opportunities for distinctive thought, for distinctive development, and for the formation and the production of distinctive leadership among the Coloureds. In addition we are also responding to an appeal which has been made, an appeal which goes much further than that which has been raised by a few Coloured leaders. It is an appeal which the mass of the Coloured people also endorse, namely: Please leave us alone so that we can satisfy ourselves that, under the guidance of the white man— not as a result of interference from him—we have the ability to develop ourselves in administrative bodies of our own for our own purposes and in the best interests of our own nation. This is a basic right they are asking for. I think we would be failing in our duty as wards of the non-Whites in this country if we did not offer the Coloureds opportunities as well. That is why I say the time is coming, just as the time has come in respect of many things which the National Party has done, things which would supposedly have led to discord, when we will look back to this series of laws in regard to Coloured politics, which are being piloted through Parliament this year, and will say that this sitting of 1968 gave shape to and was decisive in creating peace and happiness in the future, and which made it possible for the various Coloured population groups, including the Coloureds, to find a better mode of co-existence with the white man.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—109: Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. 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.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; 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.; Holland, M. W.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. 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, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; 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.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, G. P.; 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 Staden, J. W.; Van Zyl, J. J. B. ; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, T. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—37: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bloomberg, A.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lewis, H. M.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E. ; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N. ; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Motion accordingly agreed to. Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I think we should remind ourselves at the outset that the Coloured Council does now in fact exist and that we are concerned this afternoon with the details of the proposed changes. I believe that the amending Bill should now be considered in the context of the legislation which has already been approved by this House. The Coloured people will have no elected representatives in this Parliament. Clause 1 of this Bill deals with the composition of the Coloured Representative Council. It is a new composition in the light of new circumstances. The council which is to be constituted in this way in terms of this clause will, so it has been claimed from Government benches, be an adequate substitution for representation in this House. The proposed amendment to the original Act, which is now before us, therefore needs examination. I wish to refer to the fact that it is proposed to increase the number of members of the council from 46 to 60. I draw attention to the fact that the present ratio of nominated members to the whole of the council, is 35 per cent of the present council of 46 members. We have been told by the hon. the Minister that this is a “new deal council”. It is a council which will now make it possible, as we reconstitute it, for the Coloureds to discuss Coloured affairs objectively, and here again I use the words of the hon. the Minister. Of the 60 proposed members 20 will be nominated. It is interesting to see what this new deal council is, because the 20 nominated members of the 60 members constitutes 34 per cent of the total membership of the council as against the 35 per cent of nominated members at the present time. The concession to the Coloured people in elected representation on this council, to make this an effective replacement of representation in this House, is to reduce by 1 per cent the number of nominated members on the council. Why must these nominated members be there at all? The hon. the Minister suggested two reasons why they should be there. Firstly, he suggested that the Coloured people wanted the Government to hold their hands in the early stages and that the Government should not let go their hands during the early stages of the development of this council. So by some tortuous course of reasoning the hon. the Minister feels that if the Government nominates some members to this council it will be holding the hands of the Coloured people in the course of their development. But some of the hon. members in this House were almost hysterical in suggesting that the nominated members should be there, because it would in some way be a maintenance of white guardianship over the affairs of the Coloured people. Guardianship over what? Surely this is nonsense. When we suggested that the ratio of nominated to elected members was out of proportion, the Minister laid his hand on his heart and said solemnly: “We have the greatest confidence in the Coloured people.” That confidence is to tell them who 34 per cent of the members of their council should be!

He said that he has this great confidence in the Coloured people and then he depreciates it by 33⅓ per cent by saying that he will nominate one out of every three of the members of the Coloured Council. The Coloured people will not be misled by the suggestion that this is an improvement in the constitution of the council. They will not be misled by it. This is a Coloured representative council, so let it be representative of the Coloured people and not 33⅓ per cent representative of the Nationalist Party through its nominated members. Let it be an elected representative council. The council does not need 20 nominated persons in that council to make it a representative council for the Coloured people. I have therefore placed an amendment on the Order Paper which is designed to make the maximum number permissible, by way of amendment to this Bill, to serve as elected members. I therefore move that instead of 40 being elected members there should be 59 elected members and that the number of nominated members should be reduced to one. I might add that I would have been happy to move that all 60 members be elected but, Mr. Chairman, you would of course not have accepted such an amendment.

I therefore move—

Order! I regret to say that I am not prepared to accept this amendment, because it is frivolous in nature. It ridicules the principle contained in the clause as printed.

Mr. Chairman. I should like to address you on this matter. The principle adopted as contained in the Bill is that certain members of this council would be elected and a certain number nominated. I accept that principle. It also contains certain other provisions, for instance that the chairman shall be a nominated chairman. Therefore I moved an amendment which, I submit, was within the scope of the proceedings of this House, to provide that the number should be so altered that we maintain the one nominated member of the council, namely the chairman, and that the remaining 59 should be elected members of the council.

I have given my ruling. The hon. member stated himself now that all the members will have to be elected except the chairman. It is therefore an elected council through and through. That, however, is not the principle of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I submit that all the members will not be elected. As one of the members will not be elected, I submit that the hon. member’s amendment is still within the principle contained in the clause.

I have given my ruling and I am not going to argue about it.

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to move an amendment and I should like to know whether I am entitled to decrease the number of nominated members to, for instance, three? At what stage would such a reduction no longer be frivolous?

I cannot give a ruling unless I have an amendment before me.

Mr. Chairman, I therefore move—

“fifty-seven”; and in line 13, to omit “twenty” and to substitute “three”.

Order! For the same reason as that given by me in respect of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point, I am not prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I must say that I have never heard a similar ruling given on the grounds that a matter is frivolous. I submit that this amendment has been moved in all seriousness.

Order! I gave more than one reason for my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I submit that you have not given more than the one reason you gave, namely that the amendment is frivolous. We want to know in what way the amendment is frivolous. The hon. member for Sea Point has asked you to say at what stage an amendment will no longer be frivolous. There must be some basis of deciding when it is frivolous and when it is not frivolous. We are now nonplussed.

The amendment makes a mockery of the principle of having a partly elected and a partly nominated council. That is why it is a frivolous amendment.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, we have other boards where only the chairman is nominated and all the other members elected.

Yes, but a different principle is involved in this case. The hon. member’s speech was also based on principle and not on detail. I have given my ruling. I now put the clause.

May I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that it is customary that the principles of a Bill are contained in the preamble? Well, the relationship between the number of elected and the number of nominated members of this Coloured Council is not mentioned in the preamble at all.

Sir, I would not have supported the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point even if you had allowed it. However, I would not have done so for the reason you have ruled it out of order, i.e. that it is frivolous, but because I feel that there should be in this Coloured Council a certain number of nominated councillors initially. During the second-reading debate I already stated that to enable this council to get off to a good start, Coloured men experienced in public affairs should be given the opportunity of getting onto this council. There is a great danger that some of these men may not be elected should they elect to stand as candidates.

Why not?

For reasons which I do not want to discuss here. However, I think the hon. the Minister will know. In any event, it will not be because they are supporters of the Government, but because there is going to be a great rush by certain elements to get onto this council, elements whose politics are not pro-Government and certainly not pro-United Party, but support a now defunct political party. This is why I feel it is necessary that there should be a certain number of nominated councillors. In the circumstances, I should like to move as an amendment—

The effect of this will be that there will be ten nominated councillors only. This will give an opportunity to those Coloured persons who have already taken an interest in Coloured affairs to be nominated onto that council. Mr. Chairman, I hope you are not going to rule this out of order because you regard it as being frivolous. On the contrary, this amendment complies with the general principle that this Coloured Council will be a council consisting of a certain number of elected and a certain number of nominated members.

I am sorry, but I cannot accept this amendment. Firstly, the ratio between the number of elected and the number of nominated members as laid down in this Bill is in accordance with the recommendation made by the Muller Commission, a considered recommendation. Secondly, this ratio was discussed with the existing Coloured Council and has been accepted by them. It will therefore be unfair towards the existing Coloured Council if we change this ratio now.

I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peninsula and I am disappointed that the hon. the Minister rejected it without having furnished any clear reason for doing so, except to say that “it would be unfair towards the existing Coloured Council”. The hon. the Minister has consistently adopted the attitude that the existing Coloured Council enjoys the support of the Coloured people. If that is so, surely he need not be afraid that too few of the members of the Coloured Council will be returned. What is more, we are dealing here with a body which is supposed to be a substitute for this Parliament, and this Parliament is an elected body. This being the attitude adopted by the Government, surely it is desirable that we should have a position approximating as closely as possible to the one obtaining here.

But the real argument against this provision is that you will have two classes of representatives here, something which will have a psychological effect. The 20 nominated members —if there were fewer of them, they would probably not have been so conspicuous—will be regarded not as representatives of the Coloured people, but as representatives of the Government. This will create an unfortunate and unhealthy psychological state of affairs. As a matter of fact, even at this stage one can see what is going to happen. Every time a contentious matter is put to the vote and the 20 nominated members are the decisive factor, the others will say that they cannot get what they want because they are being blocked by the members nominated by the Government. This will definitely happen. I therefore say that it is psychologically wrong to create such a bloc in such a body, a bloc which was not elected by the voters, but which was appointed by the Government. This may therefore result in a very disadvantageous state of affairs.

The same cry was raised against the present Coloured Council, i.e. that they would be “stooges” of the Government.

But, surely, the difference is that members of the present Coloured Council are in a quite different position. Here, however, the Government is making great play of the nature of this new council—it is supposed to be the parliament of the Coloured people. And yet one-third of its members are going to be appointed! They will definitely find themselves in a disadvantageous position. Mr. Chairman, you will see that whenever there is a difference of opinion on a certain matter and the issue is blocked by the votes of the 20 members, harsh words will be spoken and it will be said that the Coloured Council is not truly representative of the Coloured people.

A further argument against this ratio is that it is unfair towards the elected representatives. When this House of Assembly consisted of 150 members, we complained that 150 members were not enough in view of the enormous geographical area which had to be represented here. For that reason the number of members was gradually increased so that there are 170 at present. Just recently the number was increased by 10. But as far as this proposed Coloured Council is concerned, only 40 members will have to represent the Coloured people throughout the Republic.

And you only want to give them six representatives here.

Yes, six representatives plus an elected council. Those six representatives will be able to take part in discussing matters on a high national level. But I say the Government is being unfair towards the Coloureds here. Here we have a council which will consist of 60 members. Surely we should make it possible for these people to get as many constituencies as possible out of that 60 so that they may represent the interests of their people as best as possible. I should have liked all 60 members to be elected, but since this is not possible, I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peninsula, and I hope the hon. the Minister will, in fairness towards the Coloured people and in order to facilitate the work of the council, accept that a larger percentage should be elected.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that it will be said that these Government nominees will represent the Government—precisely the same argument as the one advanced by the United Party against the Composition of the first Coloured Council. And what has happened? The Coloureds have not followed the lead given by the United Party, but that of the appointed members of their council.

However, to my mind sufficient grounds in favour of the retention of this ratio were advanced by the hon. member for Peninsula himself. This ratio must remain as it is because every single Coloured leader wants this ratio. The hon. member for Peninsula is aware of that. This numerical ratio represents the unanimous, considered opinion of the commission.

What did you say about the chairman?

The hon. member for Green Point said this was a new era, and this is true. This we also believe. But our attitude is that we do not want to force everything onto the Coloured people simultaneously. We want to usher in this new era gradually. The hon. member reproached the hon. the Minister and said he had said yesterday that he had confidence in the Coloured people. Incidentally, I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the brilliant speech he made here yesterday. Sir, it is not a question of there being any lack of confidence on our part; it is a question of their being a lack of confidence on the part of the Coloured people—and we cannot run away from that.

After all these years?

Yes, after all these years. After all these years it is not our fault; it is the result of all the years of neglect of the Coloured people by the United Party Government. Sir, let us for a moment examine the history of and the background to this matter. When the first Union Council was established, the United Party’s advice to the Coloured people was that they should boycott the first election because the great majority of members were appointed members. I think that in doing so the United Party actually planted the boycott idea in the minds of the African states. They are actually the people who gave the lead as far as the boycott idea is concerned.

Have you ever heard where the word “boycott” comes from?

The Coloureds did not follow their advice, however, and the result is obvious to-day. The Coloured people pay heed to the Coloured leaders, those people who have gained experience and have learned through serving on this appointed council. This council has gained a place for itself among the Coloured people; there is no doubt about that. The Coloured people to-day refer to this council as the parliament of the Coloureds. They no longer call it a council to-day; they regard it as their parliament.

A state within a state.

It can be very dangerous to have all the members elected. We shall now for the first time be dealing with the mass of the Coloured people, with about 750,000 voters. The vast majority of them have no political experience whatsoever, and for that reason one must apply the brake. When replying to the debate yesterday, the hon. the Minister made it quite clear that the establishment of this new body is not the end of the road for the Coloured people; it is only the beginning. I believe that the stage will eventually be reached that all the members will be elected. Our standpoint on this side of the House is that we want to afford these people an opportunity of gaining experience and of proving themselves. For the first time in history these people are now getting an opportunity to exercise legislative and administrative powers, and these are not inconsiderable powers which are being granted to beginners. The United Party would like to see this new council fail. We do not want to see it fail; we want it to be a success. The National Party, and the white population as a whole, are determined in this regard. This legislation is being placed on the Statute Book. They have opposed this Bill and they have committed obstruction. I now want to ask them to give us an opportunity to make a success of this legislation; and, for once, to play cricket the way it should be played. Give us an opportunity to prove that this policy of ours can be carried out successfully. We are not going to play into the hands of the United Party by acting over-hastily. If the United Party argues that all the members should be elected members, they are not speaking on behalf of the Coloured population. I repeat that the Coloured leaders, without exception, are unanimous on this matter; they want a large number of members to be nominated. I am not speaking of the masses now, but I am convinced that if the recognized leaders, the small group with experience, were to vote on this matter to-day, they would ask for even more members to be nominated. For that reason I think the number should remain unchanged.

Mr. Chairman …

He is also a nominated member.

… when one examines this clause and the amendment which has been proposed by the hon. member for Peninsula, one must look at the clause objectively. It can be said and has been said that nominated members are intended more or less to hold the balance because some undesirables may gain access to the council. Sir, the only way in which they can gain access is by election. If the Coloured people choose people for that council, it is their own choice and those people are entitled to be there. The mere fact that there is a suggestion that these 20 people are going to control the council or keep an eye on the council and that they may influence decisions one way or the other, looks to me very much like interference. I think the hon. the Minister should know that the present Union Council is not the popular body which the hon. member for Malmesbury has tried to suggest it is. It is not a popular one, and the strange thing is that there has been a vacancy for an elected member on that council for some years, and the Government has never attempted to fill it.

Did it have anything to do with whether it was your nominee who was going to be elected?

The nominees on this particular Union Council are replaced from time to time and have been replaced but the one elective vacancy still remains unfilled. I deny that the Coloured people as a whole look upon the Union Council for Coloured Affairs as a Parliament; they do nothing of the kind. The Coloured leaders, to whom reference has been made in this and other debates, are individuals who naturally would like to be one of the nominees, but I can assure you, Sir, that very few of these men will be returned, if they fight an election. If we are going to give the Coloured people a new deal, as we are now setting out to do, let us give them a proper deal. I do not think that the Government can expect this council to function when there are 20 people sitting there who are known as “king’s men”. I have heard it said about the men who sit in the present nominated council, “hulle is die Regering se mense”.

[Inaudible.]

Will the hon. member please be quiet.

Why should I? Answer my question. You are always so glib.

I would like the hon. member for Outeniqua to make his own speech instead of asking questions when I do not have the time to answer them. Sir, I support the amendment of the hon. member for Peninsula, because I believe that the maximum number of people possible on this council should be elected. The Coloured community is not as inexperienced as some speakers have suggested. They have been in the political world for a very long time. They are educated people and they will know how to exercise the vote. They will, as they have always done, conduct themselves properly. There has never been any suggestion that the Coloured community as such is irresponsible, and for these and a thousand and one other reasons, I believe that this council should have as many people as possible elected by the people themselves. The question of a minimum number whom the Minister, might want to nominate, because of their special knowledge, is something which could be argued and possibly accepted, but I do not think that the Minister can expect to have any influence in that council with nominated members, if he wishes to retain the goodwill of the Coloured community as a whole.

When did you change your mind?

I wish the hon. member would keep quiet.

You were elected in 1964, were you not?

Mr. Chairman, I was going to make a suggestion, but I will let it pass.

I could make a few suggestions.

As I say, I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peninsula that the number of nominees should be ten.

It is quite clear to me that the Opposition is very conveniently forgetting that we are dealing here with a people who are in process of political emancipation. All of a sudden the Opposition now wants to force upon them something for which they are simply not ready yet. I have seldom seen so much political inconsistency as one finds with the Opposition. When visiting the rural areas they are always putting out the story of white leadership over the whole of South Africa at their meetings. But while we are dealing here with a process of political emancipation of a people who have to be emancipated politically, hon. members of the Opposition come along and say that the Coloured people should all of a sudden be emancipated completely now, or to the maximum allowed by this amendment, which would mean that they would be thrown to the wolves. Sir, surely it is a principle of political emancipation to help the people in the initial stages and to tell them who their best leaders are. Those leaders must then exercise a calming influence and play a leading role in the activities of the council. In what other way can one emancipate people than by applying the principle first to nominate a handful of people who are sensible leaders? The Coloured people are now undergoing a process of political emancipation, and in that process we are not going to throw them to the wolves, as the United Party wants to do. We are not going to allow things to happen which may create a problem for those people, and that is why the hon. the Minister has decided to nominate a reasonable number of persons to assist in providing guidance to those people. I simply do not know how the Opposition can reconcile this with their policy of white leadership over the whole of South Africa the one moment, while the next moment they want total emancipation to take place overnight. This is so inconsistent an attitude that one simply cannot help laughing about it. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that we had felt that we had had too few representatives in this Parliament, and that we now want to give them even fewer representatives. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make! Those people will be given only a few departments to start with, and I believe the number will be increased in the course of time. If we look at the first Coloured Council instituted by the present Minister of Defence, we see that its number of members has already been increased considerably. We are not making laws for all time here; we are carrying out a process of emancipation and at this stage we have given them certain rights and powers and those people will have to manage those affairs.

It relates to the size of constituencies.

The size of the constituencies has absolutely nothing to do with it. What counts is one’s responsibility. When the M.P.s for South West Africa did not have very enormous responsibilities, they had enormous constituencies. I have an enormous constituency, but I have fewer voters. You have to take certain circumstances into consideration when laying down the number. That is no argument at all. I do not know where the hon. member got that argument from.

I now come to the hon. member for Karoo, and I just want to say this to him. He was presumptuous enough to predict who would be elected to this Coloured Persons Representative Council. Let me assure him at once that although the United Party saw fit to nominate him, he knows the Coloureds too badly to make predictions, and he must forgive me when I tell him that the gift of prophecy has gone with the prophets of old. We do not believe his prophecies.

If one viewed this measure solely in a political light, one would take the view that one should appoint only a few of the members of this council, but there are so many positive things for which this council will be responsible. If one looks at the provisions further on in the Bill, for example at clause 11, which I mention only in passing, one sees that mention is made of certain functions to which this council will have to give its attention.

Order! At the moment we are only dealing with the number of members to be nominated as against the number to be elected, and other matters are accordingly irrelevant.

As always, Sir, you are quite right. The persons who will have to handle these matters should not all be persons elected purely on a political basis. The council will have to include a number of persons who are conversant with these matters, who know how to provide guidance in regard to education, and who know what the social problems of the Coloured people are. Therefore it is essential that only a number should be elected members, so that the other members will be able to guide the council when these matters have to be dealt with. Just consider the problem of the neglected Coloured child who can so easily become a skolly. Consider the problem of the abuse of liquor.

Order! These matters are not under discussion now; they fall under subsequent clauses. The hon. member may only discuss the number of members to be nominated as against those to be elected.

In order to deal with these matters, we have to nominate a large number of members to this council. If we do not do this and the council consists solely of persons elected on a political basis, the council will not function properly as is envisaged in this Bill. Since we need these people, I want to plead that we should leave the matter as it stands and that there be 20 nominated members in the council so that it will be able to fulfil its functions.

Question put: That the word “forty” stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—104: Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M. ; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N. ; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F. ; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann. W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. 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, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; 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.; Swiegers, J. G.; 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, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden. J. W.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; 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—36: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bloomberg, A.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lewis, H. M.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G. ; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; 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: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and amendments proposed by Mr. A. Bloomberg dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—104: Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M. ; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N. ; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. 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, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; 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.; Swiegers. J. G.; 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, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; 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.; Bennett. C.; Bloomberg, A.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lewis, H. M.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment on behalf of the hon. member for Green Point—

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that I cannot accept the amendment because, in terms of Standing Order No. 59, amendments must be confined to the proposed amendments to the principal Act as indicated in the Bill. This is an amendment to the existing principal Act and it does not relate to the amending legislation. Consequently I cannot accept the amendment.

I want to thank you for your ruling, Mr. Chairman, because it makes my task much easier—I can now discuss the clause without moving the amendment, and in that case I may be able to discuss it more generally than would otherwise have been the case. In this respect we now see a strange tendency. There is this tendency in the world to-day to come forward with this so-called “one man, one vote”. Although this is not a Parliament my plea to the hon. the Minister is that he should give it serious consideration, and since there is no amendment to this clause …

Order! The hon. member is completely out of order.

But, Sir, you do not even know what I want to say.

I can deduce what the hon. member wants to say. The rules of the House are very clear. The hon. member can only discuss the amendment which is now being proposed.

The amendment which is being proposed confers upon every Coloured person the right to be registered, although he cannot write …

Order! He has that right under the existing Act.

He is now being obliged to have himself registered, but he cannot read the proclamations, and you will have him found guilty by a court, notwithstanding the fact that he does not know what it is all about. May I continue, Mr. Chairman?

The hon. member may not discuss the question of whether the Coloured person must be qualified or not. It is merely a question of whether he must register or not.

I just want to point out that it is a dangerous thing to have people registered and then to make an Act which stipulates that a person is guilty of an offence if he does not have himself registered, and the person who may be prosecuted is incapable of reading that proclamation. What then? I would just like to bring the following to the hon. Minister’s attention. The Coloureds on my farm are not concerned about this kind of nonsense, and I do not want them to be incited by other people. If they are not incited they will never give anybody any trouble. I do not want those things to happen that I saw happening in the year 1938 when people from Cape Town went to the hon. member for Namaqualand’s constituency to incite people there and farmers had to drive them off with sjamboks. Fortunately those people have now come to their senses, and they may not be allowed to do that kind of thing again. I do not want the position where people are compelled to register and subsequently have to vote for tortoises, snakes, lizards and things which glide about at night, because they are not in position to read and to see what is going on. The qualifications should preferably be raised. The Coloureds never asked for this. I take you back to Mr. Fred Nel’s so-called report of 1964 in which the Coloureds stated emphatically that they did not want it. Why are we forcing something upon them which they do not want? We need not say that this is the tendency throughout the world because as far as I am concerned the world is doing such strange things these days that I am rather disinclined to follow the example of Ghana, Moscow and a lot of other places. I think that, since I cannot speak entirely to the point, I have at least said enough to make you understand that I am opposed to this entire business.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to discuss something that is quite clear to me, i.e. what is going on in the minds of the Opposition when they oppose this idea that all Coloureds can vote. However, I want to bide by your ruling in regard to the question as to whether I can in fact discuss this matter.

Provision to this effect has already been made in existing legislation.

In that case I only want to say that in my opinion the compulsory registration is, in this case,

also something which is very essential, because there will be many of the Coloureds who, if they are left to their own devices, will never have themselves registered. We on this side want all the Coloureds to be able to vote for their own people. The Opposition would not have liked the 160,000 of the 700,000 voters, who are older than 50 years, to be compelled to have themselves registered. That is the idea they have in their minds. The idea of keeping the Coloureds off the voters’ rolls, is an old one. However, that was when Coloured and White politics were still mixed.

The hon. member is discussing a matter which is not relevant.

If it is not relevant, I merely want to express my dissatisfaction at the fact that the hon. Opposition is now trying to broach a matter which it has been proved is not to the advantage of the Coloureds. I also want to express my dissatisfaction at the fact that, as a result of that, I had to take the trouble of assembling a few good arguments to show how bankrupt they are in respect of arguments.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, during the second-reading debate, a question was put to which I do not think the hon. the Minister replied. That is that, now that there is the compulsory registration, and that in this clause the words “may post and deliver” be replaced by the words “shall post and deliver”, it is not clear whether the obligation “shall post and deliver” is an obligation which must be fulfilled personally by the voter, or whether the normal procedure that is adopted in our political party activities would apply. This is whether the posting of or delivering through an agent would be covered and be permissible under the amended legislation. The matter was raised during the second-reading debate, but the hon. the Minister did not make a clear statement to the effect that posting and delivering does not mean posting or delivering by the voter himself, or whether it can be done through the organizer of one of their political parties, who attends to registration, who can handle it in the normal way. If that is not so, it seems that the clause with its substitution of the word “shall” for “may” needs to be amended, so as to permit the posting or delivering in the normal organizational procedure which is adopted, in other words, not that every voter must go to the post office himself. This could be done through an organization. I would like the hon. the Minister to indicate whether that is what is envisaged, or whether the wording of the Act is sufficient to enable that procedure to be adopted without any amendment. If this is not so, I would like to move the amendment that stands in my name. I do not think that I need move it, unless the hon. the Minister can perhaps answer the question which was put during the second-reading debate.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that if this amendment is moved I shall not be able to accept it, since it is not only unnecessary, but will also afford the Coloured voters something to hide behind. That is what we want to prevent. It can very easily be argued by persons who are now required to have themselves registered, that they have done so, but that they gave the registration documents to their employer and that it is his fault that they did not reach the registration office. There we would actually be creating an opportunity for abuse. I do not think it is necessary to create for them that opportunity behind which to hide. This compulsory registration is a major phase in education. According to our estimates there are 700,000 who can register. It is a major undertaking to get the Coloureds as far as that. To get 700,000 people, who have never been registered before, to have themselves registered, is going to be a tremendous task for us. I really think that one should not afford them unnecessary loopholes in this respect.

The rejection of this amendment is, what is more, altogether in line with the Electoral Act. The Electoral Act does not make provision for the objective of this amendment. Section 9 of the Electoral Act reads as follows—I am not going to read the preceding passage—

It does not say “to have it delivered”. Later in the same section, in subsection (4), it is phrased as follows—

But it does not say “to have it delivered or posted”, as the hon. member wants it to be. That is why I really want to ask that, if the hon. member is in real earnest about this matter, if he is as much in earnest as we are to see the Coloureds registered, he should leave the matter at that. We realize that this is going to be a difficult task—in spite of all the information we furnish and the propaganda we are going to make, it is still going to be a difficult task—and I do not think that we should in addition afford them loopholes enabling them to hide behind other people.

The answer now from the hon. the Minister referring to the Electoral Act gives the answer to the query which we raised, because under the Electoral Act as that is interpreted, these forms can be collected by an organizer or representative of a political party, and then dealt with and taken to the electoral office, and they are accepted as being in order. If that is the attitude which is being adopted, then there is no need for my moving the amendment.

But I want to raise one point which arises from this question of a too literal interpretation, of the Coloured persons getting an impression that this clause, as it now reads, should be literally adopted. That is going to create some very difficult circumstances for registration for any of these Coloured persons who are far removed from post offices or from the registering offices where they can personally go or post their application forms. But I understand, as the Minister has said, there will be a multitude of problems affecting this registration, and no doubt, the Minister will see that administrative steps will be taken to make registration easily possible by these persons who are far removed from the normal places of communication. So, on the assurances of the hon. the Minister, the amendment does not become necessary, and I will not move it.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment in my name on the Order Paper, but before you rule it out of order, I want to indicate that I am not going to move it. We cannot win this afternoon. I do, however, propose to move another amendment which does not appear on the Order Paper. In terms of this clause the chairman of the council continues to be appointed and not designated. There is, however, a new aspect introduced by this clause, namely that the chairman may be removed at any time by the State President. When the hon. the Minister refused to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peninsula in regard to clause 1 as to the membership of the council, he indicated that he could not accept the amendment because the Muller Commission had unanimously recommended that the ratio should be 40 and 20 members respectively. As far as I can remember, the Muller Commission also recommended unanimously that the chairman of the council should be elected by the council itself. Unfortunately that is not included in this Bill. I hope that the hon. the Minister will explain why it is that he is prepared to accept the Muller Commission’s unanimous recommendation as to the number of members who are to be elected and how many are to be nominated while he is not prepared to accept the unanimous recommendation that the chairman should be elected by the council itself. That is the first point I wish to make.

Secondly, although that has not been implemented, nevertheless the chairman of the council may be removed at any time, in effect, by the Cabinet for any reason whatsoever. In other words, if he is not doing what the Government hopes he will do, he can be removed. No reason has to be given. I therefore move—

There are two aspects to this matter. The one is that there should be a cause assigned. In other words, the State President may not just remove him without giving any cause whatever. He must assign a reason for the removal. In the second place, it will give us here in Parliament the opportunity of debating the removal of the chairman and the opportunity to criticize it or not criticize it when we know what the reasons for his removal are. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give the amendment favourable consideration.

Mr. Chairman, as regards the hon. member’s first question, i.e. when he wanted to know why we had accepted the Muller Commission’s recommendation in regard to the ratio between the elected and the nominated members and not this recommendation, it is of course a fact that a government may accept a commission’s report in its entirety, or parts thereof or not at all. This is simply a question of the parts that were in fact accepted and those that were not. Now it rests with the discretion of the Government to exercise that right. As regards the non-acceptance of this suggestion by the hon. member, I can only repeat what I said in my reply, namely that the removal of the chairman of the executive from office is a very delicate matter. It is a matter which, owing to the difference in race, we regard as being very delicate. You must accept, though, that a government will take such a step with the greatest measure of circumspection. It is really unnecessary to prescribe to us specifications in accordance with which we may remove a person from office. One has to accept that a government will not lightly remove a chairman of an executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council from office. One has to assume that a government will only do so on the strength of very good arguments and facts. Then one must also assume, that circumstances may be such that it may in point of fact cause a great deal of embarrassment, not only to the people in question, but also to the group in question, i.e. to the Coloured nation itself. If one has to remove their chief representative from office because of some matter or misdemeanour and the matter has to be raised here in public, I really think that one could do so much harm to the honour and pride of those people that one could in actual fact prejudice the entire race relations position. That is why we felt that this is really not a matter which can, in view of the difference in race concerned, be dealt with here. The Administrators cannot be mentioned as being analogous cases. Normally a person from one’s own party is appointed as an administrator, and, what is more, he is a white person. In this case it is quite different. With a view to the difference in race and the maintenance of good relations, I want to ask you to feel confident that this Government will not take such a step in an injudicious manner.

Mr. Chairman, one obviously appreciates, as the hon. the Minister said, that no government will lightly remove the chairman. One would hope not. But the Coloured people are now being removed entirely from this House as far as representation is concerned. Here we have the most important man in the new deal of the Government. He is the most important and most powerful Coloured man in this new deal. I think that the hon. the Minister will agree with me. I agree with him that this is not a case similar to that of the administrators. This person is nevertheless in a very important position. Surely the hon. the Minister goes at least this far with me, namely that reasons should be given as to why he was removed? Otherwise he is entirely at the mercy of the Government. In other words, he is in this position that unless he behaves himself and says and does what the Government thinks he ought to say and do in his capacity as chairman of the Coloured Council, then hanging over his head is the possibility that he can be removed without any reason whatever being given to anybody. Is this a desirable position in which to place the chairman? I am sure the hon. the Minister will be the first to agree that it is not the intention that this executive, and particularly the chairman, should reflect what the Government wants. Surely, he wants to encourage the chairman more than any of the other members of the council to say what they themselves think and to tell the Government what they think and what they want, whether they agree with what the Government has in mind or not. That is the purpose of this council and this is the most important spokesman of the council. I do suggest that unless some sort of debate can take place and unless reasons are given, he will be in the position that he will always have this threat hanging over his head. In other words, he is not a free agent. No one else on the executive committee can be removed in this way. Only the chairman, the most important member, can be removed in this way. I hope that the hon. the Minister will at least go so far as to make it necessary that reasons should be given for his removal.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Arising out of the questions put by the hon. member for Durban (North), I should just like to submit briefly, for the consideration of hon. members, that in the case of the dismissal of the chairman of the council, we should have due regard to the fact that to a large extent he finds himself in the position of an administrator, in that he is the person responsible for the finances. In the executive he is the person who is charged with the portfolio of finance. If one considers that this council will start with an amount of more or less R50 million per annum, an amount which will increase in accordance with their needs, then it is a colossal amount of money to answer for, not only to that council, but also to the country and the taxpayers; and since this chairman will be charged with handling finances in the executive, he will actually be the Government’s representative. If it should become apparent that in handling this extremely important task he has neglected his duty, or that he has become unsuitable, what ever the reasons for that may be, then I think it is the duty of the Government in the first instance to remove him from his office. The hon. member for Durban (North) raised the question of the disclosure of the reasons for his dismissal. He asks that the reasons be reported to Parliament. Unfortunately we cannot agree to that—not that Parliament will be denied the right to discuss it; on the contrary, hon. members will at all times have the right to ask a question in that regard, i.e. if the chairman were to be removed from office …

But you are free to refuse to reply.

Yes, in the light of circumstances, I am free, and quite rightly so, to refuse to disclose everything that is at stake, because in this respect we are dealing with a member of another race group, and if it concerns an offence which could cast aspersions on the honour of the Coloureds, which could damage the relations between Whites and Coloureds, then it is in the opinion of the Government in the interests of good race relations to decide to what extent it will be prepared to disclose information If the Government’s reply is not as satisfactory as the hon. member for Durban (Point) wants it to be, he and his party are free to request in this House a debate on a matter of urgent public importance or to invite some discussion on this matter, and then the Government will still decide in the light of circumstances what information it is prepared to furnish, but at all times the objective will be not to cloud the relations between Whites and Coloureds and at the same time to furnish this House with as much information as it ought to have.

The hon. the Minister says that the chairman is responsible for the finances, and that in that respect he is like an administrator. Sir, you cannot dismiss an administrator without giving the reasons. Is that not correct?

Yes. But is it analogous?

I agree that it is not analogous. If one is going to make an analogy between the provinces and the Coloured Council, then one must go to the root of the matter, and the root of the matter, so far as the provinces are concerned, is that their powers and their construction and everything else stem from the South Africa Act of 1910, which in turn came from Switzerland where you had this extraordinary provision which was designed for quite a different set of circumstances from the circumstances which have arisen here. The Executive Committee, once appointed, could never be removed. They could not be removed by anyone. They were not responsible to the Council at all. Sir, there is no analogy here. The Executive Committee of the province is not responsible to anybody at all and cannot be removed by anyone. The hon. the Minister says that there is no analogy, but although the Minister says that he is taking this provision relating to the provinces out of the South Africa Act and applying it here to the Coloured Council, whereas the Executive Committee here cannot be removed by anyone either. It cannot be removed by the Council.

It can be removed by a two-thirds majority.

Yes, they can be removed by a two-thirds majority but they are not responsible to anyone. If they are not removed by a two-thirds majority, they remain there until a new Executive Committee is constituted, after the expiration of their period of office. They remain in office until they are removed by a two-thirds majority or normally until the next Council is constituted. The Government does not want the power to remove the Executive Committee; it is prepared to leave that to the Council, on a two-thirds majority, which means that every single elected member has to vote for the Executive Committee’s removal. But the chairman can be removed by the Government. Sir, if this is to be the case, if the hon. the Minister equates this chairman with an administrator, because of his control of the finances and his position as liaison officer in that respect between the Government and the Council—because without money the Council cannot work—then surely he should be treated with more respect. Surely if this is to be the shop-window of the Government so far as the Coloured people are concerned, if this is to be the set-up which we are now to advertise to the world as being the new deal for the Coloured people, then surely we should treat this most important person with more respect. We should not treat him as some body that you can dismiss at will. This power is not taken in respect of the other executive members.

Do you really think that this Government would be so irresponsible?

Yes.

I said to the hon. the Minister, in reply to his last speech before business was suspended, that I would hope that the Government would not remove a person of this sort for no reason at all. We want to make sure that this is not done except on good cause shown, and the reason must be stated. Surely Government members are not the only people who are entitled to know why such a far-reaching step as this is to be taken. Surely this Parliament which controls this Executive should also know. The chairman of this Council may just be removed without any reasons being given for it. Why is he being treated like this? There is no good reason why the Minister or the Cabinet, when they remove him, should not say why they are removing him. What is the hon. the Minister afraid of? Why is he afraid to say why the chairman was removed?

I have stated those reasons already.

No, the hon. the Minister has not given a satisfactory reason.

Whatever reason is given it will never be satisfactory to the other side.

I ask the hon. member for Prinshof whether he will get up and say that there is any good reason why the Government should not give this sovereign Parliament of South Africa the reason why it, the Executive, removes such an important person as the chairman of the Council from office?

We are not unreasonable, but you are never prepared to accept good reasons.

No, we are not anti-everything. The hon. member for Prinshof must get with it. We support the principle of this Bill and we want certain improvements made. The claim that is made by hon. members opposite and by the hon. the Minister is that this Council, because Coloured representation in this House is being removed, is being given more power. If that is so, then this body is the only remaining constitutional body in which the Coloured people may exercise their political rights, and they have had substantial rights removed from them. If the hon. the Minister wants this Council, and especially its highest member …

Order! The hon. member must stop repeating arguments already advanced. He is now repeating the same arguments for the third time.

Sir, before business was suspended I asked the hon. the Minister why he was not prepared to accept our amendment in connection with elected representatives and he said that he could not accept our amendment that they should all be elected representatives because the Muller Commission had recommended that there should be 40 elected and 20 nominated members, and then I asked him in respect of this clause why, if that was the case, he had not made provision for the chairman to be elected by the Council instead of appointed as he is now, because that was the unanimous recommendation of the Muller Commission, and the hon. the Minister’s reply was: “Well, you know that Governments can accept parts of reports and not other parts.”

That is a fact.

That is so, but what is the motivation of this? Surely the spirit of the report of the Muller Commission was in the first place that the chairman should be elected, not nominated. The hon. the Minister will not accept that, but will he not accept the spirit of the report of that commission, because they certainly did not recommend nor did they suggest that he should be removed. In fact, a fortiori, if they recommended that he be elected by the Council, they would never have suggested that he could be removed at will by the Minister. Surely that is the spirit of the report of the Muller Commission. What does the report of the Muller Commission mean? Is this another case where the Government makes use of what it wants to make use of? It makes use of the Constitution when it wants to do so and it ignores it when it wants to ignore it. It sets up a commission for the purpose, as we thought, of having a good, honest look at the Bill which was then before the House and at the various rights of the Coloured people, and then the report is used by the Government to get out of a jam, and quite against all the evidence it recommends that Coloured representation in this House should be abolished. Then the Minister says there are parts of it he likes and other parts which he does not like of the recommendations of the Muller Commission. What does that Commission mean? There were parts of the report which contains unanimous recommendations. [Time expired.]

We have once again, through the hon. member for Durban (North) seen the United Party at its best in a discussion of race relations. They must always put a spoke in the wheel. The hon. member placed much emphasis on the recommendations of the commission. It is true that I was a member of the commission and that the commission, in its wisdom and with the facts at its disposal, did make that recommendation. We did not have evidence in this regard. We could not give a considered opinion based on evidence. We made certain recommendations according to what we deemed fit with all the facts at our disposal. If the hon. the Minister tells us here that this person will be the accounting officer, that to me is sufficient reason for that recommendation not to be accepted. When we made that recommendation we did not know that that would be the position. In fact, we thought that the Secretary for Coloured Affairs would be the accounting officer. The hon. the Minister told this Committee openly that the chairman would be the accounting officer. What is the position now? He told us that this chairman would be regarded and treated virtually as an administrator. Why did the hon. member for Durban (North) conjure up all those spectres because this analogy had been made? When has any government ever removed an administrator from office?

Remove the Opposition.

The hon. member made an analogy and then asked why the members of the Executive Committee should be elected? This is the position from the nature of the case. This is what happens in the case of Whites. The Government does not appoint the members of the Executive Committee. They are elected by the members of the provincial Council. But the Administrator is appointed by the Government and I repeat that I know of no government, neither this Government nor any previous governments, which has acted in an irresponsible way when it came to an Administrator whom it itself had appointed. It is a fact of history that there was an Administrator in the Free State some years ago who was not trusted for a moment by the Provincial Council and who did not have the co-operation of this Executive Committee at all.

Sand du Plessis?

No. The United Party was in power at that time and they did not remove that Administrator from office. If ever there was an unwanted Administrator, he was that person. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members are going very far now. They should revert to the clause.

We have to go far to get to this history. The hon. member for Duban (Point) moved an amendment and advanced certain arguments in favour of that amendment in three speeches. He wants to make Parliament responsible. This is something extraordinary. Parliament has no say whatsoever in the appointment of an Administrator who also are the accounting officer of the Province. Neither does Parliament have any say in the removal of an Administrator. Why does he want that to be the position in this case? I am telling you to-night that if the Minister was to concede to that request, relations between Coloured and White would not stand any chance. The Opposition would see to that.

But they have done nothing, have they?

The United Party does not want to join in the discussion. History has proved to us that when we discuss matters affecting race relations, the United Party does not want to join in the discussion; they want to tell others what to do. They want to create the opportunity in this Parliament to tell the Coloured representatives in the Coloured parliament what to do and what to say. If, under this clause, I may give some advice, I want to tell the United Party this. History over the past 20 years has proved that it pays the United Party much better to echo what others have said than to tell them what to do. If they had echoed this side of the House in regard to race relations, they would have been much better off, because Hansard contains a record of their statements in this regard. Therefore I say that the chairman is to be appointed. The Government is best able, by means of consultation, to obtain the right man. In considering whether he is to be elected, we must have regard to the fact that we are dealing with a race group who will be getting certain rights and powers for the first time in history. What would happen if those people were to elect a weakling who would land them in the biggest misery and in a morass? The Minister would then have to interfere after they had elected the chairman.

Order! The matter of electing a chairman is not under discussion at all. All that is under discussion is what is to happen if a chairman has to be removed from office.

You are quite right Sir, but that centres round the question of his appointment. If I have the right to appoint a man—and the Government appoints him; that clause has already been agreed to—then I demand for myself the right to dismiss him. Why, if I appoint a person, should I give somebody else the right of dismissing him? Surely that is not logical. In addition I just want to point out that this Parliament will have a say. For certain reasons this legislation does not deal with the link, but a link is being created. [Time expired.]

Before there is any further discussion on this clause, I want to point out to hon. members that I allowed the hon. member for Durban (North) to discuss the appointment and the removal of a chairman and that I allowed one speech in reply to that, but I am not going to allow any further discussion on that topic in this debate.

I rose originally to reply to two important matters raised by the hon. the Minister. It is now also my duty to sympathize with the hon. the Minister on the support he received from the hon. member for Malmesbury. I will not follow him in regard to the question of the appointment of the chairman. He has himself in his speech said that “in sy wysheid”—in his wisdom—he came to a different conclusion. The wisdom of the hon. member for Malmesbury led him to a decision which to-night he has completely repudiated, and thereby he has thrown doubt on that wisdom. If his opinion can change so rapidly from one day to another, and the arguments which he can make and record in black and white in a commission can suddenly be totally reversed, I think it gives this Committee some indication of the value we should attach to the arguments of that hon. member. He is an hon. member who can say, in relation to the dismissal of the chairman of this Council, that he thought when he was a member of the Muller Commission that the Secretary for Coloured Affairs would in fact control the finances. What sort of attention or consideration did that hon. member give to the problem before him when he came to a decision, voted upon it and put his signature to it based on what he thought was the position? He had not even taken the trouble to check it, or even to think about it, but in his wisdom he came to a decision. He went on to compare the situation of the chairman of this Council with an Administrator, within a few minutes of the Minister pointing out that there was no analogy between these two positions. The Minister says one thing, and the hon. member for Malmesbury says something quite different. He said quite clearly that this position was analogous to that of an Administrator. Why then, if that hon. member is right, is there a difference? [Interjections.] The hon. member says he is not right. Here we have a complete repudiation of each other within two speeches in this debate.

I want to refer to one other aspect. Whilst the hon. member was talking, he said that the Opposition was trying to put words into the mouths or thoughts into the minds of the Coloureds who would be concerned with this Council, and an hon. member opposite interjected to say, “Verwyder die Opposisie”.

We should have done so.

The hon. member should revert to the clause.

Sir, I am dealing with clause 11, which deals with the removal of the chairman of the Council, and we are being accused as an Opposition of putting ideas into the minds of the members of the Council in regard to the position of the chairman. A plea has been made to remove the Opposition because we are fighting against something we believe to be wrong—and the hon. member confirms it. I want to say that the whole approach which is particularized in this clause, the attitude of the Minister that he will decide; he will tell us what he wants to tell us, and he will not tell us if he does not wish to, is epitomized by the interjection of that hon. member that the Opposition should be removed. That hon. member is not prepared to accept Parliament as the body which should receive the reasons for the removal, if it should be necessary, of the chairman of the Coloured Council.

Let me refer to the two reasons which the Minister gave. Firstly, he said the chairman would be in complete control of approximately R50 million—“om en by”—and in this regard I want to ask this question: Is the Minister trying to mislead the Committee? [Interjections.] I am asking him the question. Because that is not true. The hon. the Minister stated it here as one of the reasons why the chairman had to be appointed and why he had to have the complete say over his dismissal, and the right to give or not to give reasons for the dismissal. He stated that that chairman was in control, in complete control of approximately R50 million per annum, whereas in point of fact the Minister knows, or he should know if he knows the Bill, that no Ordinance passed, no decision taken by that council can be implemented without the ratification of the Cabinet; that in fact the Cabinet has the final say over every cent of expenditure; that the Minister himself is responsible for every cent of expenditure. Yet here he blithely tells the Committee that the reason why he must have the power to sack the chairman, secretly and without giving reasons, is because he controls this money. Does the Minister not understand his own Bill? does he not understand that he, in fact, controls that expenditure, that the council can only take decisions subject to his approval and the approval of the Cabinet? So immediately one of the two reasons which he gave is blown to smithereens. Therefore I say I am entitled to ask: Does the Minister not understand his powers, or why then does he make a statement which in fact is not correct?

The second reason which the Minister gave was that it would be possible that the sacking of the chairman could cause friction with the Coloured people. I wonder if he realizes how serious that statement is? There is only one circumstance in which the removal of the chairman can cause friction, can cause ill-feeling and bitterness amongst the members of the council. That is if the chairman is taking a point of view which the other members of the council wish him to take, if they are in sympathy with what he says or does. If he acts then in the interests of the Coloured people, and the Government decides it is not in their interests, only in those circumstances, should he be dismissed because he has acted contrary to the wishes of the great iron-man Nationalist Party Government, only then can ill-feeling be caused. If he should act improperly, if he should act incorrectly, then the council as responsible people will accept his removal from office. Friction will only be caused if he has acted as the council want him to act and his action has created a counter-action from the Government. Therefore the hon. the Minister has admitted that he is not prepared to place before this House, before the Parliament of South Africa, the reasons for a possible dismissal of the chairman, because he envisages a position where the chairman will act in the interests of the Coloured people, speaking for the Coloured people, but against the policy of the Government and they sack him. This is in the spirit of the hon. member for Mossel Bay, who wants to get rid of any opposition to anything which this Government decides to do.

Mr. Chairman, the trouble with the Opposition is this. Here we have a measure which holds out the prospect of so many positive things to the Coloured community, but these things they simply do not want to see. They are still looking at this legislation through political spectacles, and they are bemoaning the fact that they have lost and will never again have the support of the Coloured vote.

Order! The hon. member should discuss the clause now.

You are right, Mr. Chairman … I hope I will find more favour in your eyes this time, I regret that you are not giving me the opportunity now to furnish a further reply to the hon. member for Durban (Point), but I abide by your ruling.

When we look at this legislation and do not do so from a political point of view, we have in this clause probably the most important elements of the measure, because it forms the basis and lays down the foundations on which the Coloured community will now be able to elect and appoint its leaders and on which they will be able to make a joint contribution to the betterment and upliftment of the Coloured community as a whole. If we look at the proposed new section 17 (6) (a) and take note of what is being entrusted to the council and the Committee, we realize what wonderful opportunities are being created here for the Coloureds. When we think of a matter like education, we know that the Coloured community as a whole has a special interest in its education. In appointing members to that council, the hon. the Minister will experience no difficulty in finding members who will be able to provide leadership in that field. There are quite a number of them who have received thorough training in this direction, and who will in fact be able to provide good leadership. When we come to paragraph (iv), namely community welfare and pensions, the needs are so overwhelming that I am afraid that we do not have sufficient trained men in the Coloured community for performing that task as it should be performed.

Order! Earlier to-day hon. members referred to what is contained in the existing Act with regard to the functions of this council. However, that has nothing to do with the clause under discussion at the moment. The hon. member may only discuss the amendments proposed in this clause, and not what is contained in the existing Act.

I accept that, Sir, but in this respect I should like to make an appeal to the Minister, as regards the appointment by him of members to carry out the functions mentioned in subsection 6 (a) to select people who have the necessary understanding and the necessary background and standard of education to carry out that task as it should be carried out. But if we cannot get them, I want to suggest that we start looking towards officials, even at this stage …

Order! The hon. member is completely out of order.

I have now completed my speech, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, …

Order! The hon. member for Durban (North) has already made three speeches on this clause, and I cannot allow him to make any more. Will the hon. member resume his seat?

On a point of order, Sir, the speech I was making before dinner only lasted about two minutes and then we had the adjournment.

It is not my business to time the hon. member.

On a point of order, Sir, do the rules not lay down that I may make three ten-minute speeches?

No. The rules lay down “three speeches”, and they can be anything from five seconds to ten minutes.

Mr. Chairman, as you quite rightly pointed out this section has got nothing to do with the appointment of the chairman, and only with his dismissal. Reference was made by the hon. member for Malmesbury as to what was intended by the Commission. I was a member of that Commission too, and I never intended what that hon. member intended. When we made that unanimous recommendation we did not intend what he said we intended, i.e. that this chairman would control the finances of the council, and that this was the reason why he should be appointed by the Government. When we considered this matter, we asked ourselves whether the Coloureds should be placed in any inferior position to the Bantu. We decided not to do this. The Coloureds were in no way inferior to the Bantu and it would be an insult to treat them, in any way, as being inferior. That is why we recommended that the chairman should be elected by the council. With that recommendation of the Commission, we never visualized that the Government would treat the chairman as a civil servant, to be appointed and dismissed by the Government. That Commission would never have accepted any recommendation of that nature. I submit that it is quite wrong for the hon. the Minister now to provide in his amendment that the Government can dismiss the chairman when it likes. The Government would never suggest doing anything like that to the Bantu. Why should it therefore suggest doing it for the Coloureds? The position of the chairman of the Coloured Council will be that he will not be elected, and that he will be inferior to the Chief Minister of the Transkeian Parliament in other ways as well. In the Transkeian Parliament there is absolute privilege in regard to the discussions in that assembly. Any member can say what he likes. He has the same privileges that we as members of this Parliament have.

What has this got to do with the Bill?

It has this to do with the Bill. That the Coloured Council executive, the chairman included, will not have absolute privilege. He cannot say what he likes about officials or about the Government. There is a restriction on what he can say. Because of this restriction which the Government has placed on discussions by members of the executive, and by the chairman, we should know, when a chairman is dismissed by the Government, why he is dismissed. He may have criticized the Government. He might have some objection to the policy of the Government. He may criticize an official of the department. If the hon. the Minister does not like this criticism, he can dismiss him without giving any reason for it whatsoever.

It will not happen.

It is all right for the hon. member for Brakpan to say that it will not happen, but it can happen. We had a speech by the hon. the Minister of Planning recently in which he said that there was no need for an opposition … [Interjections.]

Order!

The chairman of this council is advised, in advance, to play ball with the Government, or else he will go. We say that this is quite wrong. We have had all this wonderful talk about the Coloureds developing their own nationality, and that this council is going to take the place of representation in Parliament. If all these high ideals they have for the Coloureds are genuine, and if this council is going to take the place of this Assembly, here where members can say what they like without any fear of action being taken against them, why cannot we put this council on a higher basis and put the chairman of this council in such a position where the hon. the Minister cannot remove him at will? It is idle to talk about administrators, and trying to liken the position to that of an administrator.

The hon. member for Malmesbury, when he was on that commission, and all the other Government members on that commission, when we discussed this very question of the executive and the position of this Coloured council, were full of great ideas, high ideals, “the Coloureds are going to be raised up to something big”. The talk was then of a provincial council. That was the idea; they were going to be given something like a provincial council. Why cannot the chairman of this council be put in the same position as the administrator of a provincial council? Let us be honest with the Coloureds. We have taken away rights which they have had for over a century. We are giving them something else in its place. If this council is to mean anything, if it has to be anything near to what we have given the Bantu in the Transkei, surely we can ensure that the chairman of this executive council will be free in expressing his views. He will know that he cannot be removed at the whim of the Minister, but that the Minister will have to report, either to this Parliament or to that council, but he will have to account to somebody as to why he has dismissed him. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this and to put the Coloureds on a proper basis.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban (Point) made a completely irresponsible accusation here, the like of which I have seldom heard before in this House. He accused the hon. the Minister of either being ignorant in regard to the contents of his own Bill, or of being extremely irresponsible and trying to deceive this House. That is what it amounts to. I think that is a very serious charge, and that the hon. member is in actual fact not so ignorant of procedure.

Reply to the point.

The hon. the Minister said that that person was responsible for an estimate of R56 million. He is the accounting officer. Is it not the responsible officer who is responsible?

He said, “responsible for the control”.

Is the responsible officer not responsible for the control? Is a Secretary of a Department not responsible for the control of the finances of that Department? No, Sir, surely it is a wilful charge, which the hon. member is not entitled to make, and which is really unworthy of him. I think he ought to be ashamed of himself. I think he ought to rise to his feet and apologize to the hon. the Minister, because it is one of the ugliest things I have ever heard the hon. member for Durban (Point) say in this House. I really think it is something which is unworthy of him as a front bencher on that side of the House.

The hon. member for Transkei has just drawn parallels between the senior Minister of the Transkei and the chairman of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. Surely that is no comparison. Surely they are basically quite different. This Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, as the hon. the Minister told them very clearly, will have liaison with this Parliament. [Interjections.] If those hon. members had listened, or if they understood good Afrikaans, such as the Afrikaans the hon. the Minister used, they will not say these nonsensical things they have been saying here this evening. Those hon. members on the opposite side both asked: When is the Minister going to reply to the questions they put. I am now going to read to them what the hon. the Minister furnished as a reason why Parliament cannot dismiss those persons. He said—

There is the reply.

Read it again; we were unable to hear.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member allowed to read from a speech made in this debate?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Of course I am entitled to do so. I am quoting from the hon. Minister’s speech which he has just made here. I happened to have a unrevised copy of the hon. Minister’s speech here. If those hon. members had listened, they would, as I did, have heard what the hon. the Minister said and they would not have put forward those nonsensical arguments.

Mr. Chairman, at the end of the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, I voted against the Bill. I adhere consistently to what I said at the outset. We are at present dealing with clause 11. We are dealing with the responsibility, and the possible removal of the Chairman of this Coloured Persons’ Council. Whatever my attitude was at the Second Reading and what it may be at the Third Reading, has nothing to do with the matter, because we are now dealing with clause 11. I should like to discuss the inconsistency with which we are dealing, the illogical arguments which are being put forward. In 1955, before I came to this House, the United Party outside, with the assistance I was able to give, opposed the representation of the Coloureds as well as the constitution of the Union Coloured Persons’ Council as it exists to-day, tooth and nail. In 1958 elections were held. In 1964 an amendment Bill on the 1955 Act was before this House. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to deviate from the clause; I merely want to give the House a background sketch of that matter. [Interjections.] It would seem to be a good thing to refresh the memories of certain people who are laughing and tell them what their attitudes then were, as compared with their present attitudes. But now this Bill is being welcomed, including clause 11, as a “step in the right direction”. That also includes the hon. member for Karoo. They go back a 100 paces and go forward one pace, and then they say that it is a step in the right direction—after Dunkirk, one step forward and we are in the right direction. What it amounts to is this: I oppose this legislation. However, we are now dealing with clause 11.

Are you going to oppose the Third Reading as well?

At the Third Reading you will learn something you do not yet know. That hon. member knows very little about these matters. He still has a great deal to learn about them.

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

This clause makes provision for the removal of the chairman of this council, and the hon. Opposition are taking exception now to the way in which it can be done. But if we cast a backward glance into the past, then we see that the hon. the Opposition, in terms of its own policy, did not even want to afford the Coloureds in the Transvaal and the Free State limited franchise because they were “politically immature”.

But you are voting with them this afternoon.

I am quite pleased to see that a nonsensical interjection from this side has given somebody on that side something to laugh about. Mr. Chairman, I want to remain consistent and logical in regard to this matter. The Opposition itself could not see to it that the Coloureds in the Transvaal and the Free State, although they immigrated from here, acquired political maturity. They could not see to it that the Coloured women acquired political maturity. They could not see to it, and I agree with the age restriction, but that is not relevant now … [Interjections.] That hon. member will also be afforded an opportunity. But in spite of the fact that we did not see our way clear to affording the Coloureds of the Transvaal and the Free State political rights, or affording the Coloured women political rights, and restricted it to limited representation here—that is to say, a reversal of the former policy—we now see our way clear to allowing Coloureds of the age of 21 and over, even if they are illiterate, to elect members to this council, and to elect a responsible chairman and to give him executive powers without their being any control over those immature people who are able to elect such a chairman.

Order! This clause only relates to the executive committee of this council. It has nothing to do with what the hon. member is now discussing. The hon. member must return to the clause.

Now one has a council which consists of members elected by these immature people, as it has been maintained from time to time up to the present.

Order! This clause has nothing to do with the council; it deals with the executive committee.

My point is this: What is the guidance this Government has in regard to whom the chairman of that council may be? The guidance of the Government is what that council may elect. An appointment is being made and then he must remain in office there. The Government is then bound to keep him there. In respect of this clause my attitude is that if these people are so immature and cannot run their own affairs they will still have to go through a period of development and training, and that there will therefore have to be some point of control somewhere in regard to the chairman of this executive? If there should consequently be a division in regard to this clause, then I shall support this clause because I have had experience of the people I represent. I want to maintain that we cannot be ambiguous. On the one hand we come here and we ask for what we cannot get, since that is not the policy of the Government, knowing well that it cannot be granted, and then on the other hand we want to hold out something else as a bait, knowing that this cannot be accepted either. I feel that if on the one hand we nut forward the argument that these people still have to go through a phase of development, we can on the other hand also make the concession that if such a chairman is appointed the Government must consider a control measure of some kind or other.

Mr. Chairman, we have reached a position in this discussion about the removal of the chairman that in this council consisting of 20 nominated members, the chairman should be removed by the State President, the Executive, without giving reasons on the basis of three reasons which have come from the other side. The first is that the Minister should have this power to remove the chairman, because after all in the first place he is nominated. Those whom he appoints, he should have the right to remove. The second reason is that the chairman controls finance. He is in the position of an administrator with the result that he can be removed without any reasons being furnished.

Order! I hope that the hon. member will now stop repeating himself.

Mr. Chairman, I will certainly abide by your ruling. The third reason which has been suggested by the hon. the Minister is that it is advisable that he should not be compelled to give reasons. He might decide not to give reasons in answer to a question in this House, because it would not be in the interests of the Coloured people for those reasons to be given. Now I should like to deal with those three attempted justifications of the clause as it stands, the reasons why the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (North) should not be accepted. I think the first condemnation of the clause as it stands is the fact that if this chairman can be appointed and can be removed without any reason being assigned for his removal he will become a mere puppet in the hands of this Government. Such a state of affairs in the council, which is the “new deal” for the Coloureds, is something which I cannot accept and which I hope this Committee will not accept. I hope that it will not be accepted that there should be such power in the hands of the Minister.

I now come to the second point, where the hon. the Minister has justified his reason for making the appointment, in spite of the Muller Commission having recommended that this should be an elected appointment. He says that this should be the case because the gentleman, whoever he is who is appointed, will control finance, and that he will be in the position of an administrator. Let me follow the hon. the Minister’s own argument. What is the position under the Constitution in regard to the removal of a person in the position of an administrator? The provision is contained in section 66 of the Constitution, and is identical to the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Durban (North). In other words, if a person is being removed …

Order! That point has been made.

With all respect, Sir, I do not think that there has been any reference to section 66 of the Constitution Act. Section 6 (3) of the Constitution Act reads as follows—

I am referring to the Constitution Act, in which this provision is contained which is exactly the same as the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Durban (North), namely that a cause be assigned for removal, and that such cause must be placed before this House.

The third reason why the hon. the Minister feels that he should have this veil of secrecy is that it might disturb the Coloured people if they were told why the chairman of their body was removed from office. I want to suggest that there would be greater cause for concern amongst the Coloured people if a chairman were suddenly removed from office without any reason whatsoever being assigned as to why he had been removed. This is what will happen in the body which is being established by the Government, in this “new deal” to give the Coloured people some political rights which are a substitution for representation in this House. If those are the only reasons which the Government can offer, then I see no reason whatsoever why the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (North) should not be accepted, and why this House should not be informed of the reasons for the removal of a chairman of this council.

Order! I now put the question.

But, Mr. Chairman, another member has stood up.

I put the question.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member for Gordonia stood up to speak.

I did not see any hon member standing up.

He did stand up.

Order! He is not standing now. Will the hon. member please resume his seat?

That is intimidation.

Amendment put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, we have now come to the stage where we have a council consisting of 40 elected members and 20 nominees. We have a chairman of the council, and we have four executive members, also a chairman of the executive, who can be removed at the will and whim of the Minister.

So, we come to clause 14. I wish to talk on clause 14, subparagraph (b) (4), which gives the Minister or his deputy the power to “attend any meeting of the council or the executive and to take part in the proceedings thereat, but shall not have the right to vote at any such meeting”. I should like to discuss the following points with the hon. the Minister …

Order! I should like to point out to the hon. member that what he has been quoting now is a part of the Act as it exists to-day. It is not a part of the Bill, and it is therefore not under discussion now.

It states here that this subsection is to substitute the existing subsection (4).

No. It is only a repetition of what is in the Act. It is just to explain the meaning of the amendment.

That is right, Sir, but I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister.

The hon. member may not discuss this particular point now.

On a point of order, Sir, the words “or his deputy” are added here. A new person is therefore introduced.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue.

Mr. Chairman, with due respect, the original Bill made provision for the Minister and the Secretary for Coloured Affairs, whose designation has now been changed, to attend any meeting of the council or the executive committee. The words “or his deputy” have now been added, and if I read this correctly, the word “executive” has been substituted for the word “committee”. I therefore suggest, with respect, that you permit me to continue. May I do so, Sir?

What point does the hon. member want to make here?

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he regards it as reasonable that “the deputy” should be permitted to attend executive meetings. The Minister himself and the Secretary for Coloured Affairs, who is now going to have a different designation, may already do so, but when one gets to the stage that the deputy is also permitted to attend meetings of the executive, which are more or less confidential meetings which take place between the chairman of the executive and his four executive members, I think the hon. the Minister would do well—and I appeal to him in this regard—to consider a suitable amendment when he presents the Bill to the Other Place, whereby attendance at these meetings should be by invitation of the chairman of the executive and its members. This is the whole gravamen of the point I wish to make, because I think that it is fatal to the success of this executive if minor officials are to be allowed to attend its meetings. The words “or his deputy” can include anybody whom the Secretary for Coloured Affairs may decide to appoint as his deputy. For that reason I have put an amendment on the Order Paper, knowing full well that it might be ruled out of order. I wish, however, to have the opportunity of placing on record the feeling of this side of the House that in our opinion the deliberations of the executive committee should be confidential to themselves and that the executive committee should have the right to discuss matters which may be in connection with members of the staff of the Coloured Affairs Department, without interference. I believe that the hon. the Minister would be well advised to do so. Other members on this side of the House, with experience of executive committees, will tell you that there are occasions, when the Administrator, to use a parallel, and his executive, wish to discuss matters of great importance and moment before them. When these people have the right to attend, you can take it from me that they will attend.

We feel that this is a matter which should be by way if invitation. You see, Sir, they also have the power to take part in the discussions. I can assure you, knowing the people concerned so well, that it is unlikely that if these gentlemen who will attend these meetings as of right, express an opinion contrary to the feeling of that particular executive, the executive will take the strong line which they had originally intended to take. For that reason, I make an appeal to the hon. the Minister not to extend this power as far as he has, and I ask him to move a suitable amendment in the Other Place which will take care of the objections, which we on this side of the House feel are valid and reasonable. In conclusion, Sir I would like to move my amendment, as follows—

However, I know full well that you will rule it out of order, and so I withdraw it.

I have already advised the hon. member that his amendment cannot be accepted, as it does not conform to the requirements of Standing Order No. 59. It is out of order. I have allowed him much more in his speech than I should have. I will not allow any further speeches on this matter.

In terms of this Clause a new situation arises in that the deputy of the Secretary may now also, as of right, attend meetings of the council or of the executive. Sir, I want to take the hon. the Minister back to 1964. I well remember moving an amendment in 1964 to one of the clauses in the committee stage of the Bill which is the present Act, an amendment which read that the debate of the council should be open to the public. The hon. the Minister’s reply was one which he repeated to this Committee to-day, and that is that it was for the council to determine for themselves what their rules are just as in this House, he said, we determined whether the public may attend or whether they may not attend. Let me say that what is sauce, as the hon. the Minister suggests, for a parliamentary goose, is sauce for a Coloured Council gander, and if the hon. the Minister’s argument as to who should have the right to determine which members of the public may attend, is a valid one, then the argument advanced by the hon. member for Karoo is also a valid one. Surely, Sir, they should determine in the council who should be allowed to come in and who should not. They should have the right to determine, just as we have the right to determine it here, who may or may not attend the debate.

Under what amendment is the hon. member discussing these points?

I am discussing the principle which is now being introduced that the deputy of the Secretary also has the right to attend debates, without invitation. It is not for the council to decide. I am not talking about the Secretary because he already has the right to be there, but I can, with respect, talk about his deputy, who is now being given the same right as the Secretary.

The amendment says “The Secretary for Coloured Relations or his deputy.”

Yes, the deputy is also being given this right now. Before it was just the Secretary, and now it is his deputy as well. As if the Secretary is not important enough, his deputy may now come too.

Not “as well,” but “or”. It is the one or the other.

I am not sure that they cannot come together. That is a very interesting point. If you had the word “and” how would it change the situation? If you had the word “and” does the hon. member over there suggest that it would mean that they must go together? The principle is there, and I ask the hon. the Minister what the difference is between what he said about the council determining what strangers should come in and the council deciding whether they want to admit the Secretary or his deputy.

I do not know what the hon. member is referring to when he says that I said that the council will lay down in its rules who may attend and who may not attend. I said very clearly in my second-reading speech here that the sittings of this council will be public. I said this in reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I said that there would be a Press gallery. I told hon. members about the architect’s blue-prints which I saw this week and in which provision is being made for space for a Press gallery in the chamber of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. I said that there were benches at the back where Members of Parliament could sit and I said that there would be room for the public on the gallery. The public will therefore have access. Why must the hon. member come here with such nonsensical statements now? [Interjections.] Of course the meeting of the Executive is not meant to be attended by the public. Surely the public do not attend the meetings of the Executive Committee of the Provincial Council or the meetings of the Cabinet? What is being inserted here is that the Minister, his Secretary or his deputy may attend. It is not “and” his deputy; it is “or” his deputy, not “and” his deputy. If the hon. member would read it once again, it would become clear to him, and then there would be no need for him to waste the time of this Committee by introducing a lot of unnecessary arguments. This insertion is only being done for practical reasons.

If, as a result of other commitments, the Secretary is unable to attend and it is necessary that an official should be present, then the Secretary should have the right to send one of his deputies. This is only being done for practical reasons. Let me tell hon. members that, as I know the Coloured people, they will greatly appreciate it if people from our ranks are present there. As a matter of fact, in the case of all Coloured bodies there is a constant demand that white officials should be present in order to assist and advise them. We are not going to force ourselves on them. On the contrary, they will appreciate it very much if officials attend the debates. I do not know whether hon. members of the Opposition know what appreciation the Coloureds have for the assistance and advice they receive from the officials of the Department of Coloured Affairs. [Interjections.] The Minister of Coloured Affairs still remains responsible to this Parliament and to the country for Coloured administration.

Is this Government entitled to send anyone, from the Minister downwards, to attend meetings of the executive of the Transkei?

I have no concern at all with the Transkeian Cabinet. I am concerned here with this council, which is not an identical body, which is modelled on totally different lines, and which is going to get liaison bodies, which the Transkeian Parliament does not have. I may tell the hon. member, who perhaps does not know the Coloured people too well, that they will by no means approve of a comparison of this nature.

I want to make a small point arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply. He talked about “gemagtigdes”. That is the whole essence of what I said. If the Minister or the Secretary for Coloured Relations is going to attend these meetings, there is some merit in that, but if it is to be left to the Secretary for Coloured Relations, not to send his deputy, which I thought was the intention of the Bill, but to send anybody else whom he thinks should be there, you will realize, of course, that what will happen is that there will always be somebody there, even a minor official, and I say to you, Sir, that that is bad. It does not matter who sits there, the discussions of these people would be limited, and I do appeal to the hon. the Minister to realize that he is dealing with responsible people. I do not think it is a valid argument to say that in the Transkei the conditions are different. The Coloured people are responsible people and I am sure that they will act responsibly. I think it will be bad for the successful implementation of this Bill if we are going to permit the Secretary for Coloured Relations to send any Tom, Dick and Harry from his staff to attend the meetings of that executive, and we cannot accept that.

This last opinion only goes to show in what absurdities the Opposition land themselves in opposing this measure. Imagine the Secretary sending any Tom, Dick and Harry from his Department to attend the meetings! Can you imagine that a responsible head official would do such a foolish thing? Is this really what the hon. member for Karoo thinks? Does he think that the Secretary of this Department will act with so little discretion? The absurd attitude adopted here by the Opposition amazes one. I like an argument and I like measures to be opposed, but then they must not be opposed on the grounds of such absurdities as I have to put up with now from the side of the Opposition. I think it is absurd to think that we would send any Dick, Tom and Harry to the meetings, we who are so very much concerned with maintaining good race relations. After all, that is one of our chief aims. The chief aim of this Department is to establish good race relations, and I want to say to hon. members that, by acting in a judicious manner, the Department and its officials have succeeded, over the years, in establishing good race relations with the Coloured people. Does the hon. member think that a Department which has that background and knowledge and that sympathy with the Coloured people, will simply send a junior clerk to attend the meetings of the executive? If this is the attitude adopted by the hon. member, then I fear he is not conducting this argument in a serious way and then I am not prepared to discuss this matter any further with him.

Sir, how can the hon. the Minister describe as “onsinnig” what we are saying? We are talking here about the integrity of a body such as this council which is to be set up and of the Executive which is to be set up. We are talking about their integrity and their right to determine who shall come in on their deliberations. Surely, Sir, that is a very fundamental right? The hon. the Minister indicates that what I indicated he had said in 1964 is not correct. I want to take the hon. the Minister up on that.

I was not Minister of Coloured Affairs in 1964.

Well, let me say what the then Minister of Coloured Affairs said in 1964.

In my reply to the second-reading debate I told you exactly what the procedure in the new council would be.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has not received any power, since the passing of the Act in 1964, to determine procedure which the Minister did not have then. He still has the same power. I raised this matter and moved an amendment on clause 16 of the Bill to omit certain words and then to add a new subsection which read: “The council shall meet in public.” The debate was adjourned and the then Minister of Coloured Affairs did not answer. When the debate was resumed the matter was raised again, and I then stated: “To that amendment I am quite happy to add the words, ‘to be held in public unless the council otherwise decides’.” I went on to say—

Order! On what subsection is the hon. member addressing the Committee?

I am discussing the point as to whether anyone should be allowed to come in or should not be allowed to attend the proceedings of the council.

Order! That is not laid down in this particular clause.

In line 49 it is. stated—

Order! The only issue there is whether there should be a deputy to the Secretary. There is no other issue at all.

Whether the deputy should be entitled to come in without the permission of the council. In 1964 the then Minister said—

Order! The amendment which was moved has been ruled out of order.

I am not discussing the amendment which was ruled out of order. I am talking about the new principle which is being introduced here that the deputy, in addition to the Secretary, shall have the right to attend without the leave of the council.

“or”.

There is now another person who may attend without the leave of the council. The then Minister said in 1964—

That point is not in issue at this stage under this particular clause.

With respect, it is in issue to this extent, that if the principle enunciated when that Act was accepted is that the council shall determine who shall come and listen to their proceedings, then a fortiori the council should be able to determine who can take part in their proceedings, if this body is to have any integrity at all or any control at all, and if this is to be their council and not the council of the hon. the Minister or the council of the Secretary.

Does the hon. member see anything in this connection in this particular subsection?

Yes, I think it is a point which strengthens the argument advanced by the hon. member for Karoo that the council should have the right to determine whether anyone may come and listen or whether they may take part in the proceedings.

That was ruled out of order.

I refer to the argument, and not the amendment, of the hon. member for Karoo that the council should decide and that the deputy here should not have the right to attend.

That was ruled out of order. The hon. member can only discuss the amendment moved to this particular subsection.

All my arguments concern the right of the deputy, in addition to the Secretary, to attend the council meetings and the executive meetings and take part therein, without the council or the executive asking them to do so.

I wish to lodge a brief but very serious protest against the contempt for the equal rights of language, as reflected in this clause before us. I do not want to get involved in the arguments which have been made by speakers before me, but we have here before us a Bill which says one thing in English and another thing in Afrikaans. This is becoming all too typical of the lack of respect of the Government for accurate translations— a lack of full respect for both the official languages. We have in Afrikaans “die Sekre-taris van Kleurlingbetrekkinge of sy gemagtigde”, which, translated into English, would be “or his authorized representative”. In English we have “the Secretary for Coloured Relations or his deputy”. “Deputy” is a clearly defined concept in the Government hierarchy. You have a Secretary and you have a Deputy Secretary. It is a post in the Government Service. You have a Minister and you have a Deputy Minister. When we call them “halwe Ministers” of “half-baked Ministers”, we will be called to order. They are Deputy Ministers, or “Adjunk-ministers”. Here we have a Secretary or his Deputy, which is a clearly defined post in the Public Service, and when we argue this Bill in the English text, we are arguing one thing, but when the Minister replies he is talking about something quite different. He is talking of any authorized person whom the Secretary may authorize to represent him. Sir, we have a serious situation here. We have the situation that if the State President should choose to sign this Bill on the right-hand side of the page, then ope person will be allowed to attend the meeting. If he should choose to sign it on the left-hand page, then anybody whom the Secretary deputes can attend. It is simply due to ignorance of the English language. When they thought of the person deputed by the Minister, they called him a deputy, but “deputy” is a clear term in the hierarchy of the Government I want to lodge here, not for the first time, because this is happening over and over again, a protest at the contempt and lack of respect for the true meaning of both the official languages, either in this case Afrikaans if the Bill is intended to mean what the English version says, or for English if the Bill is intended to mean what the Afrikaans version says.

It is quite clear that the Opposition are running out of arguments, and therefore they have to beat the old English-Afrikaans drum once again. After all, this is the old refuge when other arguments have been exhausted. I am not much of a linguist, but I just want to point out to the hon. member for Durban (Point) that there is no such thing as a “deputy” in the Public Service. There is no such thing.

But there is a “Deputy Minister”.

Please listen carefully now. There is a “Deputy Minister”, and there is a “Deputy Secretary”, but there is no “deputy” per se. You who are such an expert on language and who has apparently swallowed the Oxford Dictionary, where have you found such a thing as a “deputy” per se? I grant that one may speak of an “authorized person”. I grant that this is also a translation of “gemagtigde”, but surely it can be translated by “deputy” as well. It is the person who is designated, the authorized person designated by the Secretary. He does not say the “Deputy Secretary”, and as such the word “deputy” is an acceptable term. But if the matter is such a serious one, and seeing that I am not a linguist, I shall have the linguists look at this again.

Will the Minister say that the two words in English and in Afrikaans are identical in meaning? Will he say that that is so?

Yes, but if you have serious doubts about it, I shall take the trouble of having it checked by the linguists and the lawyers to determine whether “gemagtigde”, as we have it in the Afrikaans version, is in fact a “deputy” or not. My own impression is that it is correct. We will have it checked. However, they were intended to mean the same thing, and you need not get hot under the collar about this. If you want to oppose the measure, you should advance more cogent arguments.

Order! I want to point out that the tone of the hon. member’s speech was such that it cast serious reflection on a very senior official of this House who checks our translations, and I simply cannot allow that. We shall refer the matter to the parliamentary translators to be rectified, and hon. members ought to leave it at that. [Interjection.]

May I raise one point of order? May I refer you to page 40 of the Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue Account? I have deliberately chosen the Department of Higher Education, which has as the third item on page 40 of the Estimates, after the words “Minister” and “Director”, the item “two Deputy Directors— twee Adjunk-direkteure”.

That is wrong.

I am sorry, it is “Deputy Secretary” or “Adjunksekretaris”. My point of order is that the Minister tried to ridicule me by stating that there was no such position as that of Deputy Secretary.

Order! That is no point of order.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member for Transkei entitled to refer to a ruling by the Chair as being “shocking”?

Did the hon. member for Transkei say that?

May I explain what happened?

Did the hon. member say that a ruling by the Chair was shocking?

I want to explain what happened.

What happened?

Sir, you in the Chair said that criticizing the translation of the Bill was a reflection on a senior official, and you deprecated that, and I said it was shocking that we could not criticize officials in the House. We cannot criticize translations in a Bill now because we are then criticizing officials.

The hon. member criticized the translation, and I said it was a reflection on a very senior official of the House, and that we would refer the matter to the translators.

No, Sir, I am sorry, you did not say that.

Order!

At least, I did not hear you say that.

Will the hon. member resume his seat?

May I ask you, Sir, on a point of order, whether we are the not entitled to question or criticize the language used in a Bill where there is a difference in meaning between the one language and the other?

The hon. member may draw attention to that, but the hon. member made a major issue out of it and was rather derogatory towards certain very senior officers of this House.

I am sorry, If I did that, I would like to correct it. But could you tell me upon whom I reflected, because I was criticizing the attitude of the Government towards language. If I reflected on an official of this House, I would like to rectify that matter immediately. Therefore I ask you, Sir, to tell me upon whom I reflected, so that I may withdraw it.

Does the hon. member withdraw it?

No, I asked which official I reflected on. If I reflected on an official of the House, I would like to withdraw it. I was criticizing the Government and I do not wish to withdraw my allegations and criticism against the Government, but at the same time I do not wish to criticize an official of this House. Therefore I ask you to tell me where I criticized an official of the House so that I may rectify it.

Order! The functions of the Parliamentary Counsel are the following: “It shall be the duty of this officer to see that all Bills are properly drawn and side-noted, correct in cross-reference, that their English and Afrikaans versions are identical in meaning and that their provisions contain proper legal bearing on existing legislation which such Bills support to amend, alter or repeal.”

Then I should like to withdraw any reflection against that officer of the House.

The hon. member for Transkei must apologize for the remark he made about the Chair.

I did not make remarks about the Chair, Sir. I understood you to say that we cannot discuss translations in this House, and that it reflects on a senior officer of this House.

I never said that.

Sir, we all understood you to say that.

I spoke about the terms in which the hon. member for Durban (Point) referred to this matter, and the very derogatory way in which he did so, and then I said I would not allow any further discussion on that, but that I would refer it to the official concerned, and then the hon. member for Transkei made this remark about its being “shocking”.

I repeat what I said. We understood you to say so, and you can ask any hon. member here.

You understood wrongly. Will the hon. member withdraw?

I withdraw any reflection on the Chair.

I think the hon. member must now apologize to the Chair. I appeal to him to do so.

Who must I apologize to?

To the Chair.

Well, I apologize to the Chair.

Did I understand you, Sir, to say that this matter would be referred to the translator?

To the officer whose duties I read out.

Then may I suggest that if the matter is to be referred to this official, this Committee should not now discuss the matter, but that we discuss it after the matter has been resolved.

All linguistic corrections are made without this Committee or the House knowing about it. It will be made and the hon. member will see the change before the Report Stage and the Third Reading of the Bill.

But does not the Committee of the whole House have the right to discuss the matter in its new form?

The hon. member should by this time know the Rules of the House and the procedure which is followed.

This has never occurred in my experience before.

Mr. Chairman, I want to reply to the hon. the Minister. You said that the hon. member for Durban (Point) spoke in derogatory terms of the senior official who translated the Bill. I want to reply to the hon. the Minister, who spoke in derogatory terms of the Opposition. He suggested that a “deputy” could be a “gemagtigde”. If he should look at the Vote “Coloured Affairs”, however, for which he is responsible, he will see there that you have got a “secretary”, a “sekretaris”, a “director of education” and two “deputy secretaries”.

Order! The hon. member must resume his seat. The senior Government Law Adviser will see to it that we have the correct wording for this.

On a point of order

Order!

But I want to address you on a point of order, Sir.

The hon. member can address me when I have finished what I want to say. The words “deputy”, “afgevaardigde” and “gevolmagtigde” are the same thing. I cannot see why we should waste time in this Committee about what the meaning of these words are.

I submit that it is not for the Chair to say what the interpretation of these words are, but for this Committee, because this Committee is going to pass this particular clause. The hon. the Minister did not say that he is going to take this Bill elsewhere to have it revised. It was only you, as Chairman, that said so.

The Minister said so himself.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is taking the Afrikaans or the English version to be revised. In the English version there are two “deputy secretaries”.

Apparently that hon. member did not listen to me a few moments ago. I want to state very clearly now that as far as the term “deputy” is concerned, there is no such designation in the Public Service. What we do have is a “deputy secretary”, as one of the hon. member’s colleagues also said. That is correct. There is a “deputy secretary”, which is translated as “adjunk-sekretaris” in Afrikaans, just like “adjunk-minister”. In Afrikaans these words are hyphenated.

The English term is “deputy secretary”. Here, however, we do not only have a “deputy”. If hon. members would realize this, we could make some progress as regards the translation. Where we have the word “gemagtigde” here, one of the English terms, according to the translators, is the word “deputy”. I am not a linguist, but I have come across this so often. But since there is so much doubt in the minds of people who know more about language than I do, I am prepared to have this matter examined again. However, there is no need for the proceedings of the Committee to be delayed by this. This is merely a textual matter, and it can be altered if necessary. Suppose it must he changed to “authorized persons”, or something of this kind, then it is a textual amendment such as occurs in Bills all the time, and not really subject to approval here. From time to time a provision is passed here and amended in the Other Place. In due course it is in fact altered. Eventually it is reported back to this House. Certain textual alterations are made in this way. This does not concern the essence, the principle and in actual fact not the meaning either. It may only be a matter of putting it in a more satisfactory way. I have given the Committee this assurance.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Order! Does the hon. member want to put a question?

I want to ask the hon. the Minister the following. He has explained that he means a “deputy” and not a “deputy secretary”. Will he indicate to the House the person he has in mind, who is likely to be deputed? Will it be somebody of the status of the deputy secretary of the Department? Who does he have in mind?

Mr. Chairman, I told hon. members a short while ago, when I was replying to these Tom, Dick and Harry stories, that we would not simply send a junior clerk along. We would not be so foolish as to do that. Surely one must take the status of the Coloured Council into account. After all, we are doing everything with the very object of giving them status and prestige. Can hon. members imagine us simply sending some subordinate clerk there? Surely that would be absurd. Accordingly one would send somebody in a senior position. If accounting matters are involved, we shall probably send an accountant. If rural matters are involved, we shall possibly send, say, the Deputy Secretary or under-Secretary of rural areas, someone with status. Therefore hon. members must credit the Government, must credit the Department, with sufficient common sense and discretion. Surely it is not necessary to lay down all these things in legislation.

Mr. Chairman, will I be permitted to move that this clause stand over until it has come back to us from the translators?

Order! I shall not be prepared to accept it.

You ruled earlier on that it would be referred to the translators for them to say what the true position is in regard to the two versions. That was your ruling. Under those circumstances I submit, Sir, that we do not know whether we are discussing the Afrikaans version or the English version. So, Sir, I move—

Order! I decline to accept the hon. member’s motion.

I move—

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member for South Coast moved a motion.

Order! I ruled that I was not prepared to accept it at this stage. It was a frivolous motion.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, it is no frivolous motion. You have said yourself that you are going to send that particular clause to the translators. That is your ruling. I am taking your ruling, and I say: How can we proceed to debate a clause which you have yourself ruled that it must go to the translators, so that we could know the true meaning of the two versions?

I have given my ruling. There is a motion that the question be now put.

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member for the South Coast moved his motion before the motion of the hon. member.

Order! I refused to accept it. I have given my ruling on that. I refused to accept it.

But, Sir, on a point of order, I want now to appeal that it be accepted.

Order! I have given my ruling.

I want now …

Will the hon. member now resume his seat? I put the motion “That the Question be now put”.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—89: Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler. W. S. J.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V. ; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; 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.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Stofberg, L. F. ; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, G. P.; 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 Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—32: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; 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: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes. Motion accordingly agreed to.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—89: Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha,

L. J.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetzee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; 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.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, G. P.; 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 Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—32: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E. ; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; 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: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

I now put clause 15.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—31: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Jacobs, G. F. ; Kingwill, W. G.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais. D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; 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: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Noes—90: Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Del port, W. H.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H. ; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Moolman, J. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; 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.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, G. P.; 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 Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and H. J van Wyk.

Motion accordingly negatived.

Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would be good enough to elaborate on what he envisages as far as the powers contained in this clause are concerned. Clause 15 introduces the new section 21 (1), which reads as follows—

If one refers to section 17 (6) (a), as now amended, one finds there are five heads under which that legislation can operate, namely in matters of finance, local government, education, community welfare and pensions, and rural areas and settlements for Coloureds, as well as such other matters as the State President may add. I want to raise two questions with the Minister in this connection. The first one is the limitation of this power to legislate, which is contained in the second portion of section 21, and that is that no law shall be passed or no Bill debated in this Coloured Council unless they have the prior approval of the Minister. The practical difficulty which arises is the one which faces the provinces. This House has legislated that certain legislation shall not be passed, for instance legislation dealing with certain aspects of education, unless it has the approval of the Minister. Certain other types of legislation have come before the provincial councils, for instance legislation on uniform traffic laws, which could not be passed unless it conformed to a uniform pattern. The practical aspect of that is simply this. In the case of the provincial councils the ordinances—it will be the Bills in the case of this Council—come before them in a form which is approved by the Minister.

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister how he intends to deal with the question of amendments. Legislative power is given, but how does he intend to deal with the question of amendments to a Bill which in its first reading form has met with his approval? It is a very real problem so far as the provinces are concerned, because in various aspects of legislation they can only pass measures approved, for instance, by the hon. the Minister of Education in educational matters. It negatives the whole essence of debate if the council must, every time it wishes to amend draft legislation before it, adjourn the debate and go to the Minister for his approval to some proposed amendment.

There is a second aspect which I hope the Minister will be good enough to deal with. How does he contemplate the development of the power to legislate in regard to financial matters in the first case and in regard to matters of local government in the second place? Is it contemplated that this council will acquire some form of control of taxation of Coloured people, or is it only going to be able to legislate concerning expenditure on the Estimates which will be placed by the executive before the Minister under the preceding clause, which we have just dealt with, namely clause 14? Is it contemplated that this council will have power to pass legislation dealing with some form of taxation? If so, in what manner does the Minister contemplate that that power is likely to develop? I think it is of importance to know whether there is some contemplation as to how that can develop.

In so far as local government is concerned, is it intended that once a management committee has been appointed for a declared Coloured group area, not an advisory committee but a management committee, that that committee will now Come under the Coloured Council for legislative purposes? In other words, in respect of town planning, building regulations, and matters of that nature which normally are dealt with by the local authority under provincial control, is it contemplated that those management committee areas which it is anticipated will be created—there are not many of them at this stage—come under this council as far as legislative control is concerned?

We should like to hear what the Minister thinks about these matters, even though at this early stage they may only be projections into the future. If one reads the Bill in such a way that legislation do not need the prior approval of the Minister, then it looks marvellous. It looks attractive to read it in such a way that this Coloured Council will have the same powers to legislate as this House has. It will have those powers under six heads. But one wonders how it is going to fit into the pattern of government which now exists in this country. One wonders how it is going to fit in particularly in regard to matters of finance and matters o,f local government. One can see the possibility of allowing them to legislate as far as education is concerned, but on the level of local government and taxation it is possible that very real problems may soon arise as a result of the powers which are now given in a general form to this council. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would be good enough to elaborate on those two points.

Mr. Chairman, the question of the development of local government is one of the important aspects of this council’s activities, but it is one of the aspects which will still have to undergo the most development. The question of education has already been set out very clearly. Its development is such that there is a very thorough understanding of its scope, its functions, etc. The matter of rural areas is just as clearly set out. The question of local government organization is one of the initial stage programmes in the constitutional pattern of the Coloureds. As you know, there are many problems involved in this. There is, for example, a local area such as Athlone, which constitutes the largest urban concentration of Coloureds. The idea of making Athlone a local Coloured town council is really illusionary, because one has to take into account that power and water, which they are still receiving from Cape Town at present, will have to be supplied. The result is that there is still a long way to go before even a place such as Athlone can separate itself from the Cape Town City Council. Of course, it will only happen after consultation with the Cape Town City Council and the provincial authority. In the initial stage attention will probably have to be given to the consultative municipal committees. A great deal is already being done in this direction. Many consultative committees have already been established for the purpose of eventually serving as a link between the Coloureds and the local town council. The executive member for local government will have to do a great deal to initiate this development. Initially these local government bodies will not fall under his jurisdiction, for, after all, they fall firstly under the jurisdiction of the local authorities and secondly under that of the provincial authorities. The member of the executive who is in charge of local government will therefore have to do a great deal to stimulate Coloured communities to establish these consultative committees. His second task will be to negotiate with town councils and provincial authorities so that a pattern may be developed according to which it will be possible for this local government control by this council to be administered more efficiently in future. This is the spheres which will require the greatest development of all these spheres which are at the moment in the charge of this executive committee. This is not a matter in regard to which I can give you a blueprint this evening. It is one of those matters which will have to develop in the course of time. In the Principal Act it is provided that there must be prior consultation with the Minister in connection with legislation. This consultation has to take place before legislation may be introduced by the Coloured Council. The object of this is to avoid clashes in future and to ensure that legislation will have a smooth course. As I see the matter, this is a pattern which will still continue for a long time. I am of the opinion that this arrangement will not interfere with the development of the Coloured Council.

They will also experience difficulties on the provincial level.

That may present problems, but we, as the Government, must know what is going on in their minds and what they are occupying themselves with. That is the object of this.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.