I move—

Mr. Speaker, we are being asked to give final approval today to one of the most important pieces of legislation that has ever been before this House. I believe it is important because it will not only affect the lives and future economic and political development of a large section of the Bantu community, a section as large as the entire White population of the Republic at present, but also because of the pattern which it is laying down and which in due course will affect the lives of four times as many Bantu, close on 12,000,000 Bantu, in the Republic. Despite that, it is before us to-day in its final form without there ever having been proper consultation with any really representative institution of even that part of the Bantu people who will be most intimately affected by it. I say this advisedly because the Territorial Authority which is to be abolished and superseded by this Bill was in no sense representative of the many millions of Bantu permanently resident in our urban areas who are going to be affected by the provisions of this Bill, and also because even an official Government publication boasted that that Territorial Authority would be able to do its work unhindered by pressure of popular opinion because its members for the most part did not owe their position to election by the people. Therefore I say there has been no proper consultation even with any instrument adequately representative of the people immediately to be affected by this Bill. The fundamental provisions of the Bill provide for the implementation of the first stage of a policy which differs so widely from that of this side of the House that we have not thought it possible to improve it by amendments except for one amendment to make clear the position of the Republican Government, and the amendment which I propose to move to-day and that is that this Bill be read this day six months. Sir, we feel that no amendments could bring the provisions of this Bill into line with our policy because the whole underlying principle is unacceptable to us and in our opinion the Bill holds within it the seeds of disaster for this country. That is not a matter which can be canvassed at this stage: the principle of the Bill has been accepted and the rule is that I can deal only with the contents of the Bill. When one deals with the contents of this Bill, one finds that there are three main objections to it in principle. I think the first is that even a superficial study of the Bill makes it clear that no matter what the stated intentions in the preamble or the limited objectives outlined by the Minister, this is merely interim legislation. It is merely interim legislation forming but one, even it is a major, rung on a ladder descending into a darkness which is not yet penetrable by us at this stage. Secondly, inherent in this Bill are the seeds of friction between the Republic and the self-governing areas which it purports to envisage, seeds of friction which can easily lead to their germination and budding into real hostility between the Republic and the embryo emergent states. Even the provisions for resolving conflicts between the Republic and the to-be-formed Transkeian Government are unhealty or non-existent in this Bill. I think the third main reason is that this Bill itself is an incomplete piece of work which reflects the conflict in the minds of the members of the Government themselves. They know that it sets them on a certain road; they have a shrewd idea what the end of that road is going to be. They do not want the end of that road to be too easily discernible from a study of the provisions of this Bill, and in the result they have failed in both their objectives.

Let us look at the three groups of objections which I have outlined and let us deal with them in turn. I think throughout the discussions on this Bill attention has been directed to provisions unnecessary for the implementation for the principle of the Bill, provisions unnecessary to carry out the main principle of this Bill which must have and will have a separatist tendency and a separatist influence upon the people to whom they apply. It is not necessary for the granting of self-government, for the creation of a self-governing area, to provide for a separate flag for that area. That is merely an intention; it is merely there in order to advance separatist tendencies, to encourage those people to develop ideas of a nationality and a state of their own. It is not necessary in order to implement this Bill to provide for a separate anthem for these people, as is laid down in this Bill. It is quite clear what the objective is. It is a separatist objective. The objective is to create amongst these people the idea that they are a separate nation and that they are developing a separate state. The oath which they take as members of this Legislative Assembly in the Transkei provides for no oath of allegiance to the Republic of South Africa.

But our laws provide that.

My hon. friend over there says that our laws provide that. Our laws provide it, but, Sir, do those laws not apply to you and me in this House, and yet we take an oath of allegiance to the Republic. Why does that oath differ from the oath in our Provincial Council and even from the oath applied to the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa? It is to promote separatism, because that is the underlying principle in the Bill, the one that is not stated in so many words either in the preamble or in any clause.

What about separate development in the preamble?

Sir, I am so glad my hon. friend has fallen for that; from his remarks during the Committee Stage I thought he would! Where does the preamble make any provision for sovereign independence which is the ultimate and concealed objective of this Bill, which is the reason why these provisions are in the Bill? Why is there provision for a separate citizenship? You do not have to make provisions of that kind in a province; you do not even have to have it in South West Africa. Why is there provision for a separate citizenship? Sir, it is to create a feeling amongst these people that they are on the road to sovereign independence.

Sir, there are other clauses in this Bill which are separatist in tendency. This legislation provides that the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei can legislate on certain matters repugnant to laws of the Republican Parliament. It gives them power outside their own area to legislate extra-territorially for their citizens. Has any province got that power?

That has been dealt with properly.

My hon. friend says it has been dealt with properly. Yes, it has, and the admissions have been made, the admissions which I knew would have to be made, and the manner in which it has been dealt with strengthens my argument as to the underlying intention of this Bill.

Do you want to subdue them for ever?

Did you hear that, Sir? “In order to keep them subdued for ever

No, I asked whether you wanted to do that.

This is not child’s play.

Nor must we forget, as was admitted by the Minister himself, that this is a dynamic constitution, a constitution which is intended to grow in the sense that more and more powers can and will be conferred upon the Legislative Assembly by the State President with the approval of and by resolution of this House and the Other Place, save, of course, in respect of certain matters laid down under Clause 39. I accept that there is that limitation, but it is quite clear that this is not a Bill intended to promote a common loyalty or a common allegiance in the Republic amongst all those living within its boundaries. This is legislation designed to promote a separate allegiance to embryo states envisaged in the preamble and the ultimate dismemberment of the Republic. Sir, I know that subsequent legislation will be necessary before the ultimate objective is achieved. You cannot grant sovereign independence under this legislation. I do not want to be misunderstood in that regard, but I know that that ultimate step will follow as sure as night follows day once this legislation is accepted and enforced unless the Government is halted in its descent to what I believe to be disaster.

Sir, that is the first main objection to this Bill that its provisions are separatist in intention. We come then to those provisions in the Bill which have caused me to raise the second main objection, namely that inherent in this Bill are the seeds of friction between the Republic and this self-governing area and any other self-governing area based on the provisions of this Bill. Sir, perhaps I should go further and say that the provisions of this Bill provide not only opportunities but the machinery for conflict between the Government to be established in the Transkei and the Republic. Can you imagine anything more likely to cause conflict than Clause 2 of this Bill which, while defining in general terms the areas over which the Transkei Government is to have authority, is qualified by Clause 3 which makes it clear not only that these boundaries are not final but that it is expected that they will be altered in the future by the State President with the approval of this House and of the Other Place and of the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei? Sir, nothing in our history has caused more trouble than boundary questions between Bantu and European, and yet here we are accepting a Bill in which those boundaries are not finalized, and already there have been demands from leading spokesmen for the addition of further districts and already there seem to be misunderstandings as to what has been promised by spokesmen of this Government in the past and the indications which are given in the Bill at the present time. But one thing is absolutely certain and that is that these demands will grow; the areas in respect of which they are made will grow, and they hold the seeds of trouble for the future between the Republic and the Transkei itself.

Under this Bill there is also going to be trouble about finance. In terms of Clause 52 (1) (d) a sum of money is to be appropriated annually from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Republic for the due performance of the services and duties assigned to the Government of the Transkei. How big is that sum going to be? Who is going to decide it? Obviously it is going to be decided by the Parliament of the Republic, but will it be commensurate with the needs of the territory as determined by their own Legislative Assembly? And when those needs are extravagent, or when even in the view of the Legislative Assembly they are necessary, however unreasonable they may be, and the funds are not made available by the Republic, will friction not arise? Will there not be recriminations? Are they not going to say to their people. “we would like to do these things for you but we cannot get the money from the Republic”? Will they not tell their people that the Government of the Transkei is unable to act in the best interests of its people because the Government of the Republic will not make the necessary funds available to it?

I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is going beyond the contents of the Bill.

With respect, Sir. Clause 52 (1) (d) provides for the voting of a sum of money each year. Who determines that sum? It is not stated in the Bill. I have difficulty in proving that it is a bad clause without trying to apply that clause to a condition which can and must arise. I appreciate your ruling, Sir.

We have a further trouble. We find in Clause 40 that the State President of the Republic has to assent to all legislation which is passed by the Transkeian Legislative Assembly. It is provided in the clause that if he refuses his assent the matter has to be referred back to the Legislative Assembly; it has to lie there for seven days with any further advice which he may give, but the Bill does not say what happens if they pass it again and he refuses his assent again. Sir, can you have a provision more likely to cause conflict? I do not have to talk about matters outside the Bill to make it clear to you, Sir, and eveyone in this House, that there is a provision which is going to cause conflict between the President of the Republic representing the Republic and that Legislative Assembly. It is a bad provision; it must be; it is a bad Bill. It is reminiscent of the conflicts that you had in Great Britain between the Stuart Kings and their Parliament and one knows what troubles and difficulties that caused. Sir, the hon. the Minister smiles. He knows that at least one king lost his head over those difficulties. I hope no president will lose his head as a result of this, either figuratively or literally. Let me give another example. In terms of Clause 20 the Legislative Assembly may petition the State President for the dismissal of the Transkeian Cabinet. When he receives that petition he is going to be advised by the Cabinet of the Republic. Supposing he refuses to dismiss them, is there not going to be conflict between the State President and the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei which has lost confidence in that Cabinet and is that not going to lead to ill-feeling between the Transkei and the Government of the Republic?

You are just raising bogies.

The hon. member says that I am just raising hares. Can he tell me how you are going to resolve that difficulty? There is no provision for it in this Bill. It is perfectly clear that the job has not been properly done. Opportunities for conflict are left which should have been resolved if this piece of legislation had been properly sorted out.

I am sure there are many other examples of a technical nature which I could give, but I think they all pale into insignificance when compared with a major provision which could undoubtedly cause conflict and that is the provision that a large number of Bantu permanently resident in the Republic are going to be given political rights for the election of members of the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei. That is provided in this Bill. They have no interest in the Transkei. Many of them do not know it at all, but Transkeian political parties are going to compete with each other for their support and they can only compete with each other for their support by promising to do their best to improve their position while they are living in the Republic, and once again the result is going to be conflict between the Government of the Republic and the Government of the Transkei. When I say that this is bad legislation I say it because inevitably these clauses must result in conflict. Already we have had an ominous rumble in this respect, and what bad feelings are not going to be engendered! Under this legislation the Government of the Republic retains control over matters concerning the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the Industrial Conciliation Act, but no control is kept over the formation of trade unions by Bantu in the Transkei. That power is now apparently abrogated. When it is abrogated, what is the effect going to be on border industries when those trade unions are created in the Transkei as they surely will be, and when we realize that we are dependent upon them for the vast mass of our labour force? I think that even without attempting to be exhaustive I have advanced sufficient reasons for this Bill to be voted down at the third reading.

But there is another group of provisions which would also justify its rejection because they reveal how incomplete a piece of work this Bill is and they reflect the conflict in the minds of members of the Government in respect of this matter. Sir, where in the world is there a constitution which provides that if a provision of the constitution itself or any other law is found to be ambiguous or to give rise to administrative difficulty, or is in conflict with any other law, the State President may by proclamation determine “the extent to which and the manner in which such other laws shall apply in the Transkei, and in any manner which he may think it necessary to remove the ambiguity, the conflict or the difficulty”, to quote the wording of the clause itself. Sir, is that not a tacit admission that the job is only half-done, that it is foreseen that there will be conflicts, difficulties and ambiguities and that the buck is being passed to the State President to finish off what the Minister and his Department have left half-done, to clear up the mess that they have created?

Nowhere in this Bill is specific provision made for the 600-odd White traders living in the Transkei in the Native areas. They are not dealt with as individual people. The Bill makes no provision for them, but it does do something; it hands them over in certain respects to the mercies of the Transkeian Government. There is no provision for compensation. Similarly. what is the position in respect of the Coloured people in the Transkei? In certain respects they too will fall under the Transkeian Government once this Bill is carried out. Sir, I know that I cannot discuss what is left out of the Bill; I can only discuss what is in the Bill, and what is in the Bill is that provision is made for these people to be subject, as are all others, to the laws of the Transkeian Government in certain respects, and already there have been indications as to how they are going to be treated. I need say no more. I think here we have another example of the incompleteness of the Bill. Let me say something else. Sir. Throughout this Bill there is a remarkable approach to the White people of the Transkei in White areas. It provides them with their own courts. It does not affect their political rights in the Republic, but it leaves no doubt in anyone’s mind that it regards the continued presence of the White communities in the White areas of the Transkei as being of only a temporary nature. When you look at the provisions of the Bill, they seem to be regarded only as a necessary evil to be tolerated for the time being. That is why you have Clause 60. Clause 60 provides for the extinction by means of a sort of creeping paralysis of those communities where it lays down that land within any municipal, village management board or local board or municipal area may be zoned for occupation or ownership by Bantu persons and that areas so reserved may thereafter from time to time be extended by proclamation in the Gazette. Nowhere is there a provision for the opposite sort of development, i.e. the zoning of Black areas for White occupation, but I do see a provision for the removal of restrictions on the occupation of land in these areas, which will remove any protection which the Europeans have at the present time for safeguarding their rights. What a mess there is going to be when a village or a municipal area is progressively divided up in this way! What is going to happen about the public buildings and the municipal debts and loans? Sir, it leaves no doubt that in the Government’s view these White communities are expendable. How horrid, Sir, are the remarks of the hon. the Prime Minister now in this context about the White man in Africa when he replied to the “winds of change” speech by Mr. Macmillan!

There is another provision which is going to lead to difficulty. Clause 39 (d) controls the use in the Reserves of the Republican police. Items 6 and 7 of the Schedule provide for their use in the Transkei. But both the Transkeian Government and the Republican Government are responsible for law and order. In times of peace there will probably be no conflict. What happens in emergencies? Where is provision made to resolve this? I know that the Republican police in the Transkei are under the control of the Minister of Justice in the Transkei only to the extent that they are handed over by the Minister in charge of the South African police. Both the Transkeian Government and the Republican Government are responsible for the maintenance of law and order and the Transkeian Government will have their own police. What is going to happen then? Clause 39 provides that there are certain powers which the Transkeian Government cannot have. It limits those powers. It seeks to limit them because while in these earlier clauses, Clauses 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, I think provision is made for a flag, an anthem, citizenship and matters of that kind, here it tries to prevent the development of independence; it tries to prevent the development of further incidents of independence, and it excludes them under Clause 39 from grants by the State President, with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. Clause 39 can apparently only be altered by a legislative enactment of the Parliament of the Republic. But, Sir, is that going to be effective in preventing this area being recognized as a non-self-governing area by the United Nations Organization? And are we really going to be able to control the movements of people under this provision? The Transkeian Government has the control of entry of Transkeian citizens into the Transkei, but who has control of their exit? Does it still fall under the Republican Government? And if they have gone back and the Transkeian Government wants to let them in and the Republican Government does not, where do we stand? Then in the Schedule there is provision in Item 14 for the taking over by the Transkeian Government of certain of the social responsibilities which at present are the responsibility of the Republican Government; there is provision for the taking over of the social responsibilities with a provision that there shall be paid to the Transkeian Government a sum of money to be determined under Clause 52, a sum to be approved by the Minister of Finance of the Republic after consultation with the Controller and Auditor-General and corresponding to the expenditure by the Government of the Republic in respect of any matter the administration of which is in accordance with this Act transferred to the Government of the Transkei during the financial year preceding the date of the transfer itself. Sir, where is the provision for expansion? No provision is made in this clause; it is limiting it here. Very largely up to now the Republican Government has controlled the economic development in the Transkei. One of the big problems with which every metropolitan power has been faced is to bring peace and to bring health and to bring economic advancement to the people. Here, Sir, we hand that over very largely, and we hand it over without the means of financing inside the Transkei, but we control legislation which has regard to how factories are to be licensed and the provisions of the Factories Act in that area. In other words, to an extent here too we are abrogating our responsibilities, with no assistance to enable that economic difficulty to be overcome.

I believe that the passing of this Bill does not mean the end of South Africa as we know it, but I believe that if the Government is permitted to continue on this course it is going to become known in history as the beginning of the end. I can only hope that, for the sake of the country, the discussions on this Bill during its passing through Parliament and its implementation when it becomes law will help to open the eyes of the nation and will cause the people to see the disaster into which we are being led.

I think I am going to frame that speech.

Mr. Speaker, that is the greatest compliment I have been paid, but it comes from my friend, the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) who has always been so wrong in his prophecies. I do not think there is a political party to which he has not yet belonged and I think if we look at his speeches in the past…! Perhaps I should say no more, Sir. I merely want to say this that I hope the discussions of this Bill during its passage through the House and its implementation will cause the public to call a halt to this Government. I have no doubt, Sir, it will cause them to look for alternative solutions to this problem of South Africa.

I move as an amendment—

I second.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised three objections to this Bill at this third-reading stage. His first objection was that it promoted the idea of separatism. The second was that it sowed the seeds of disunity in South Africa and the third was that this legislation was incomplete. In connection with the first objection let me say that he was quite right; it is the purpose of this Bill to give form to a policy of separate development. We are not flinching from that for one moment; that is its true purpose. Since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said that there can be self-government without the need for separate development, we want to tell him that that sort of self-government is merely a hollow shell in the view of this side of the House because the purpose of self-government is separate development.

He also spoke about the disunity that may arise. I am not at all perturbed about that. These are possibilities that one can argue about, but the hon. member is simply raising bogies. I do not even want to deal with them because during the Committee Stage we debated each clause with the Opposition and we pointed out to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the error of his ways.

I come now to his third objection—that this is an incomplete piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, from the nature of things we are laying the foundation for a new development. From the nature of things it must still be incomplete at this stage. We are only in the initial stages and since we are dealing with an initial stage in this development this measure must necessarily be rather incomplete. But as development takes place all these shortcomings will be rectified. I do not want to discuss the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition any longer. I have a few other matters that I want to raise.

I just want to say that I am very sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not appreciate the more important meaning of this legislation. Instead of doing that he ferreted out certain minor provisions contained in the various clauses. He completely overlooked the main idea of the creation of a new political set-up. In terms of this measure a new political set-up is being created in South Africa. Something new in constitutional law is being created in the Republic of South Africa. This measure introduces ideas and legal concepts which are completely new. I want to emphasize a few of these new ideas and legal concepts which are being introduced into our constitutional law.

Firstly, the most important point is that for the first time we are introducing into our constitutional law the idea of a self-governing territory. This idea of a self-governing territory is not a geographical concept because a geographical area known as the Transkei has already been known in our country for more than a century. Nothing is being added to it and nothing is being taken away from it. In contrast with this geographical concept, Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize the new constitutional concept of a self-governing territory that is being created in this measure. Nowhere in our existing constitutional law, that is to say, either in our Republican Constitution particularly or in our political development in the past, has there been a constitutional concept such as a “self-governing territory”. The distinctive characteristic of this constitutional concept lies in the fact that it is part of a larger whole and is governed separately from the rest of that larger whole. It will still be an integral part of the Government of South Africa but it will be governed separately. There are other examples in the constitutional history of South Africa which are apparently analogous but they only appear to be analogous. The old Cape Colony gained self-government in 1852 but it was never an integral part of Great Britain. It was never governed as an integral part of Great Britain and subject to its laws. Similarly the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, after the granting of self-government in 1950, were never an integral part of Great Britain as a state. They did fall under the sovereignty and under the domination of Great Britain but they were never governed as part of Great Britain. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is inclined to put on a par, the Transkei as a self-governing territory with the self-governing British colonies in South Africa. The Transkei cannot be put on a par with them. The legal concept “territory” implies that the territory still remains an integral part of the Republic but under a system of government which differs from the system of government for the rest of the Republic.

The idea that South Africa is supposedly being fragmented in this new constitutional set-up, Mr. Chairman, is actually so much nonsense. Constitutionally the Transkei is still part of South Africa and there is no question at all of secession under international law. That is also my reply to those who have misgivings in connection with Article 73 of the United Nations Charter that the Transkei will now be regarded as a non-self-governing territory. I do not deny that constitutionally separation between the Transkei and the rest of the Republic is possible at some future date but what I emphasize is that this measure does not make provision for it, nor will I deny that the possibility of constitutional secession in the future is facilitated by this measure, because that is the intention of the Government’s policy of separate development, because we do not claim more for ourselves than we are prepared to give the Bantu. All that I want to emphasize is that this measure does not make provision for that now. Hence the introduction of this new constitutional concept of a self-governing territory. This new constitutional concept of a self-governing territory has a second very important aspect—that of self-government. Indeed, the main purpose of this whole Bill is to determine the content and the scope of this concept of self-management or self-government. It is to be regretted that while some members of the Opposition try to belittle the granting of self-government to the Transkei and read far less into the measure than it contains, other members of the same Opposition argue that the granting of self-government for the Transkei envisages complete sovereignty and read far more into this measure than it contains. It simply depends upon whom they are trying to impress. When the Opposition seek to impress the outside world, they read practically nothing into this measure; then they say that this self-government is only a bluff; that it is “something to fob them off with”; then self-government is a trivial thing, something that is meaningless. But when the Opposition want to impress the White voters of South Africa then this same self-government is exaggerated to mean something important and dangerous; it will allegedly become a completely independent State at the southern tip of Africa which is going to conspire with the Afro-Asian countries against South Africa. Neither of these two viewpoints is correct. This measure does give self-government to the Bantu but it is self-government within the four corners of this measure itself. It is neither complete independent sovereignty on the one hand nor complete subjugation on the other hand. In this connection I want to emphasize that the Transkei is not a province. In terms of the meaning that it has in our existing constitutional law, a province is an area which does not exist separately at all from the rest of South Africa as far as any form of government is concerned. It has no form of self-government at all. A province has certain powers that it exercises in terms of the Constitution but it can only exercise those powers as far as the Central Parliament allows it to exercise them. If it passes any ordinance which is in conflict with the wishes of Parliament then that ordinance is null and void. In contrast to this, when the Transkei exercises the powers given to it by this legislation, it exercises those rights in respect of the Transkei as though it were this Parliament exercising those rights. As far as those particular powers are concerned the Transkei is supreme. Those laws cannot be tested by any of the laws of South Africa to see whether they are ultra vires. They can only be tested in court by the constitution that we are discussing here. The Transkei will not be able to pass legislation dealing with the matters over which it has control if those laws are in conflict with the laws of this Parliament. To that extent it can be said that the Transkei is receiving some measure of sovereignty and that to some extent therefore a measure of sovereignty devolves upon the Transkei. Those who believe that the concept of sovereignty is indivisible will of course not subscribe to this view but I want to point out that the modern constitutional concept is that sovereignty is divisible, as in the case of federal states, and as is the case as far as our own Constitution is concerned, where Parliament, as usually constituted, is sovereign in regard to certain matters and where in regard to other matters Parliament is only sovereign at a Joint Sitting. Sovereignty is divisible. A measure of sovereignty is being given to the Transkei in that certain powers are being given to the Transkei but that measure of sovereignty only stems from the sovereignty of this Parliament. I must point out that there is a sort of residual sovereignty which always rests with this Parliament because this Parliament can repeal and amend the Constitution of the Transkei. That power remains the supreme power of this Parliament.

If this Parliament is not satisfied with the laws of the Transkei, it can repeal this legislation that we are now discussing and it can then repeal those laws. I want to emphasize that this idea of sovereignty is a dangerous thing to play with at this stage and is dangerous to discuss. When one talks about sovereignty one must accept the fact that sovereignty is divisible; that sovereignty is being given to the Transkei in connection with certain matters and that in regard to other matters it still rests with us.

There is also another constitutional concept that is being introduced here and that is the concept of citizenship. I want to emphasize that the citizenship concept is a constitutional concept in contrast to an international law concept. Just as there is a citizenship in respect of a city council or a provincial council or a governing body in terms of which the citizen enjoys certain civic rights and certain civil duties are imposed upon him, so a citizenship is being created in respect of the new governing body of the Transkei in terms of which the citizens of the Transkei will have certain civic rights and duties in respect of that Territory. That is what we call “citizenship”, It is a constitutional concept in contrast to “nationality” which is an international law concept. Because the Transkei has not yet become an international entity, there can be no question of a nationality or citizenship of the Transkei in the external sense in contrast to citizenship in the internal sense. I want to emphasize that this citizenship is not a dual citizenship. Once again, I want to stress the idea of the divisibility of the concept of citizenship. Citizenship has two facets, the one an internal concept where the citizen has certain rights and duties within the state, like the franchise or the payment of taxes. The other facet is the external facet where he is given protection abroad, in other states, as a citizen of this state. The citizen can of course prejudice his external citizenship of his state in the outside world because he owes the duties of citizenship to his state in the external sense too. We Whites will no longer share the internal facet of citizenship with the Xhosa. They will have their own internal citizenship but they will still share the external citizenship with us. It is not a question of dual citizenship; they will only share citizenship with us in the sense of external citizenship but all civic rights which are internal rights will be rights that they will no longer share with us. Neither is this citizenship an inferior citizenship. I want to emphasize this because the internal citizenship of the Xhosa gives them all the rights, all the freedom and all the duties in the Transkei that the White man has in the White area. The Xhosa does not become a second-rate citizen. That is important to remember. This gives the lie once and for all to the reprehensible contention on the part of the Opposition that the Bantu will be a second-rate citizen and that we want to make him a second-rate citizen. In the Transkei he is just as much a free citizen as the White man is in the White areas. Just as little as the White man will be a citizen of the Transkei so little will the Xhosa be a citizen of the White Republic. I hope therefore that this will put an end once and for all to the sordid accusation that separate development creates second-rate citizens.

I also want to say something about the Whites in the Transkei in this connection—I mean the Whites who do not live in the White spot towns but who are under the jurisdiction of the Transkeian Territorial Authority. Just as the Xhosa is protected as a worker in the White area, so will the economic rights of the Whites be protected in the Transkei. The existing legislation which will be just as valid after the passing of this measure, makes provision for that. It is true that the Transkei will be able to change those laws but no country wants to break down its economic assets, so why should the Transkei want to do so? Just as little as the Bantu can claim political rights in the White area just so little will the White man be able to do so in the Transkei. As far as his internal citizenship is concerned, the Xhosa is a foreigner in the White area. In the same way, as far as his internal citizenship is concerned, the White man will be a foreigner in the Transkei. That is the long and the short of this measure.

I want to deal with a final political concept contained in this measure and that is the democracy that is ingrained in the customs and practices of the Xhosa and which have been adapted to the Western concept of democracy. This is also something new on the continent of Africa and in this I believe lies the safety and the stability of the form of government of the Transkei, in contrast to the contention of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that it will be unstable and that it will give rise to hostility. A fact that makes this concept really interesting and something new is that the democratic tribal system is being adapted to and coupled with the democratic system of representation of the West. I think it is fitting to emphasize the fact that the tribal system of the Bantu is not tyrannical, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to suggest to us this morning. The chief says and does nothing without the advice and approval of his advisers and the advisers in their turn do nothing drastic without a gathering of the tribe. I recently read the book “Germania of Tacitus” again and there I find that the Dux of the old Germanic leadership-in-council was supported by a national assembly. What makes this interesting, Mr. Speaker, is that the English incorporated that idea into their constitutional system. “The Knights of the Shires” were summoned to the first Parliament. Together with them were summoned the representatives of the “cities”. This institution that we are creating in the Transkei to-day has the same pattern; the traditional leaders of the people, “The Knights of the Shires,” are being summoned to Parliament along with the representatives of the people. It is a pity that the Opposition speak so sneeringly of the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei because of the fact that the chiefs will serve with the representatives. The constitutional history of Britain and the West shows that it makes for stability to build upon something that is characteristic of that nation. It is a significant fact that in France, in Germany and in other countries where the Romans forced their system on those nations, there was instability for several centuries. But in Great Britain where they did not force their system upon the nation but where the tribe in the area was used as the foundation on which to build, a stable government was formed, and that is precisely what we want to do with this legislation. I predict that what is being established in this legislation will lead to a thoroughly stable form of government and will also be a further example of true democracy to the rest of Africa just as the British system has become an example of democracy to the modern world.

The Transkeian Constitution establishes self-government in accordance with the policy of separate development. As is provided in the preamble, it makes provision for the gradual development of self-governing Bantu National Units in the traditional Bantu homelands.

Everyone will therefore be struck by the fact that this legislation has two characteristics. Firstly it builds up and gives shape to what is characteristic of the Xhosa and, secondly, it grafts on to their system what is best in Western civilization. A prototype is being created here for other National Units in South Africa. I want to express the hope and confidence that this constitution will not only be the pride of the Xhosa nation but will also be a source of inspiration to the other National Units of South Africa. In conclusion I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this legislation. I know with what tireless zeal, with what personal sacrifice, with what enthusiasm and with what idealism he has been imbued in this task. He encouraged and inspired us, his fellow-workers, in a similar way by his actions in this regard. It will always remain a monument to him in the history of his country and he will be praised by the Xhosa for many years to come as their father and as their national founder. Our hearty congratulations to Minister Daan Nel.

I am afraid the speech of the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has only helped to increase the confusion which has existed hitherto as to the Government’s real aim, and the overall impression made by his speech is that with all this talk about divisible sovereignty he is clearly moving in the direction of race federation. I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that all of us in South Africa will have to arrive at that point eventually.

It goes without saying that I propose to adhere to the rules which are applicable to a third-reading debate. In the course of the second-reading debate, a few personal charges were made against me and I hope you will allow me to reply to them briefly and succinctly. The hon. the Minister who is in charge of the Bill accused me of uttering an untruth when I stated that this Bill was intimately concerned with the large-scale removal of Bantu from the Western Cape. He adopted the attitude that I had not only uttered an untruth but that I should have known that I was sinning against the facts. It seems to me that the hon. the Minister did not follow me clearly because what I did was no more than to quote from a well-considered statement by the hon. Minister of Finance, a statement which the Minister of Finance made on 31 October 1962, in the course of a New Year message to the Cape members of his party. He said—

Note well, Mr. Speaker, that the development of the Bantu areas is not a part but an “essential sub-division” of the plan to eliminate the Bantu from the Western Cape. This was a considered and written statement by the Minister of Finance, and I had every right to accept the hon. the Minister of Finance as an honest exponent of the Government’s policy. If anybody sinned against the facts in this respect, therefore, it was not I but the second most important man in the Cabinet, and I hope that in future the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, if he wishes to attack anybody, will launch his attack upon the right person. And perhaps it will be a fine thing if the idea occurs to him to apologize to me.

The second charge which has been made against me is that in respect of this Bill I have adopted an attitude which is in conflict with the basic attitude which I have always adopted in respect of the development of the Bantu areas. Nothing is further from the truth. The fact of the matter is simply that in the National Party there was always a group of members who were loosely described as the Sabra group. I was a member of that group. The views of this group were most accurately reflected in the Tomlinson Report, and the group diligently applied itself to the task of bringing about the large-scale economic, social and constitutional development of the Bantu areas as satisfactory homes for the Bantu living there at present and for the Bantu who would like to go there. But it goes without saying that that development had to take place along definite lines and form part of a definite plan, and I can testify here that I adopted the attitude throughout, without ever deviating from it, that if these areas were to attract the Bantu, if they were really to become viable units, then we should allow the large-scale introduction of private capital and skill in those areas, in the interests of the Bantu themselves, so as to promote this development. I adopted the attitude throughout that we should recognize the fact that outside of these areas there is an established class of Bantu, particularly in our urban areas, and that the development of the Bantu areas should not be used as an excuse for denying privileges to those who are not settled in the Bantu area. Furthermore, I consistently adopted the attitude that as long as this Parliament had actual control over the destinies of citizens who were Bantu those Bantu, in the interest of all of us, should be given some form of representation in this Parliament so as to be able to give effective expression here to their feelings and their wants. In other words, I consistently regarded the development of the Bantu areas not as a process of dismemberment but as a federalization process, and I was by no means the only person in the National Party who held these views and who advocated this.

You never said that.

I can quote numerous speeches over a long period of years from which it is clear that this federalization process was the underlying idea of what I advocated, and possibly the hon. member and the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. S. F. Steyn) will be interested in what I moved a few years ago in this House, namely—

I can furnish abundant proof that I viewed the development of the Bantu areas not as a process of dismemberment but as a federalization process. And I say frankly that it is dishonest on the part of any member to quote from Hansard only portions of speeches in which I advocated the political development of the Bantu areas and then to close the book whenever he comes to those portions in which I dealt with the framework in which the development of the Bantu areas was to take place. I just want to deal with one aspect of the Bill before us as far as its form and its contents are concerned. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated the case of this side fully and clearly, and I want to confine myself therefore to one aspect. As I see the position, the key to the contents of this whole Bill is to be found in the first line of the preamble which reads—

The key to the whole Bill lies in this first line. Mr. Speaker, we know that in this country and overseas Government speakers, particularly the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs when he appears before UNO, consistently use the expression “separate development” as being synonymous with “apartheid”. What is actually stated here therefore is, “whereas the policy of apartheid envisages … be it, therefore enacted…” This Bill therefore is not just an outcome of the policy of apartheid but it is linked up inseparably with the dogma of compulsory apartheid. That is why so many of the provisions of this Bill are diametrically opposed to what normally happens elsewhere in respect of any other area or state to which a higher political status is given. Provision is made in this Bill for a chequered “citizenship”, We have a pattern here of White spots and of Black spots, and of Black spots and White spots, to such an extent that because of this dogma of apartheid we cannot even designate a capital for this new young state.

No wonder the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) now comes along with the new argument again that the Transkei must not be regarded as a geographic political conception. What is envisaged in this Bill is not co-operation on the part of the Whites and the Coloureds in the development of this young state; it does not envisage the co-operation of people who grew up there, people who gave economic growth and life to this area; what is envisaged is that they will gradually but definitely be driven out of this area. All the responsible leaders in the Transkei adopt the attitude that it is imperative that the White man should continue to remain in the Transkei. But the dogma set out in the preamble means that they will have to clear out of this area.

For how long are they to remain there?

Permanently, if they wish to do so. Why not? Surely people are free to live where they were born or where they grew up.

Is that so!

Certainly. Judged by its contents this Bill is not a constitutional measure but an ideological measure, and I must say to the hon. Minister in all honesty that I feel that by linking up the development of these areas by law with the dogma of apartheid he is not only making a psychological mistake but also a fundamental mistake. It is a psychological mistake because, whatever we may think of the policy of apartheid, in the civilized world and amongst the vast majority of people in South Africa it has become something repugnant which will never be accepted because it is based on the accident of colour. I say that it is a fundamental mistake because it is going to lead to an endless series of problems which will cause the Transkei to become a headache and an embarrassment rather than a pleasure. I say to the hon. the Minister that if he had developed this area economically and socially and constitutionally for its own sake and on the basis of its historical growth, and if he had then given the Transkei a political personality within South Africa as an area in which the Bantu will be in the majority but without derogating from the interests and the co-operation of the rest of the population living there, then he would have rendered a service to South Africa and he would have been able to get the support and the goodwill of all the population groups in this country. For all we know he might have got the support of the Opposition, because the Opposition has consistently stated, as it stated clearly again in its election manifesto at the recent election, “We believe in the large-scale and rapid economic, social and constitutional development of the Bantu areas,” but naturally within the federal framework for which this party stands. But the basis which is being created here to-day does not take into account the facts of the South African situation.

This Bill liberally bestows all those things which may give a semblance of power. It liberally bestows “self-government”, a “Cabinet”, a “Prime Minister”, a “flag”, a “national anthem and citizenship”, which are all things which give a semblance of power. But when it comes to things which confer real power, the Bill is parsimonious. Such a situation, I believe, must necessarily give rise to political frustration and conflict. We know what happens when one gives a person the impression that he has a certain amount of power and then finds out later on, when he wants to use that power, that in many respects he has nothing but a fine-sounding title without real power. In this case the position will be no different. Take the fact, for example, that this “self-governing state” will be dependent for its means very largely on the mercy of this Parliament. As surely as we are sitting here, we are going to find that whenever political leaders in the Transkei are unable to solve any local problem they will blame this White Parliament for an unwillingness to provide the necessary funds. No better scapegoat can be provided for the party politician than the Government is creating here, because it is creating a Cabinet here and a state with all the frills of sovereignty, but underneath all these symbols it leaves a complete economic vacuum.

It is for all these reasons that the Whites in this country are hesitant to accept this Bill, to say the least of it, and I do not have the slightest doubt that those Bantu who do support it, do so because within the political framework which exists to-day they have no other choice. I am sorry that the Government has linked up this Bill and the development of the Transkei with a petty policy such as apartheid, because apartheid …

Order! That has nothing to do with the contents of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking with reference to the first line of the preamble which links up this whole measure with the policy of separate development. That policy is one which is too petty to provide a solution for our problems.

This side of the House is prepared to concede to the Bantu all the good things which make life worth while.

Order! I have given a ruling and the hon. member must abide by it.

Mr. Speaker, I am just concluding.

Yes, but the conclusion must also be within the rules.

We are quite prepared to give the Bantu everything that can make life worth while for him. But we are convinced that this Bill as it stands here solves no problems but creates major new problems. We are not prepared to support it therefore.

Order! I hope hon. members are going to abide by my ruling. We cannot have second-reading speeches again.

When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was making his speech I said by way of interjection that I was going to frame that speech.

I hope the hon. member will not say anything more about that and will come to the Bill.

May I not explain why I said this?

No.

Mr. Speaker, the reason why I said that a speech such as that should be suitably framed was because it was the first time in the history of this House that at the third-reading stage an hon. member made a speech equal to what is to be found in the current issue of Besem, which I hope hon. members have read. I have never heard as fine a piece of student humour along the same lines as the articles appearing in the present issue of Besem as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave us to-day in regard to this Bill—full of humour, full of fun but as far away from reality, as far away from the Bill as it could possibly be. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a farmer and I hope that he will permit me to say that I will address him in that vein because then he and his colleagues will better understand the line of reasoning that he has always taken, particularly in regard to this Bill and the effects of this Bill.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill. The hon. member must confine himself to the contents of the Bill.

I would like very much to submit to your ruling but the hon. members of the Opposition spoke about the pattern that is now being created by means of this Bill.

I permitted the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) to reply to that.

I do not think that the hon. member for Heilbron made the specific point that I want to make.

On a point of order, may the hon. member say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was as far as he could possibly be from the third reading of the Bill? That is a clear reflection on the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, you will not permit me to say why that speech should be framed but there is another speech that should be framed although for completely different reasons—for its substance —and that was the speech for the hon. member for Heilbron. Where the one hon. member put his case concisely, the other did just the opposite. Any person who wants to know the detailed effects of this Bill will find it in the speech of the hon. member for Heilbron. If he does so he will find a clear and concise answer to the many questions asked by hon. members opposite and also to those asked by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). Those two speeches should be suitably framed for that reason and because the speech of the hon. member for Heilbron replied concisely to all the questions that have been asked during the course of the debate.

He spoke about the Gallic Wars.

The point that the hon. member for Heilbron did not raise in the way that I want to raise it was that we will now have a pattern which will prevent any country in the world accusing South Africa of applying any form of racial discrimination in South Africa resulting in the humiliation of any of the races resident in South Africa. That is why I want to point out—and this also flowed from the speech of the hon. member for Heilbron—that we are now showing the world for the first time that not one single right that the White man enjoys in his area is being taken away from the Xhosas in their area. For the first time the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has succeeded in piloting legislation through the House which makes it clear that the recriminations that have heaped so much hostility and so much suspicion on our heads, undeserved hostility, will not be removed for good because there is not one right that all of us here enjoy in the White area which the Xhosa will not have in the Xhosa homeland. And because this is such an important milestone I think that our deliberations at this stage of the Bill should receive a fair measure of support and we ask hon. members to discuss this legislation in such a way that the world will be shown very clearly what it intends doing. This can only be done if at this stage we have the opportunity of explaining its proper meaning and effect. That is why I ask hon. members to discuss this legislation in this way.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition once again raised his three important objections and, Mr. Chairman, I hope that you will permit me to discuss them briefly. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that this was only “interim” legislation. But I do not believe that it is interim legislation. I think that it is really the start of everything. It is just as obvious that legislation will have to follow at a later stage when other problems arise and that our own Constitution will have to be amended from time to time. But this does not detract at all from the fact that it is a Constitution on which we can and will build properly for the future. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s second objection was that in this Bill lie “the seeds of friction”. It is here precisely that we differ from him because we are laying the foundation here by means of which we will eliminate all points of friction between the races. And in the light of this fact all the objections of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition fall away. He cannot tell us that because a cow produces one calf a year and a hen lays 300 eggs a year the cow is far weaker than the hen. He must appreciate the foundation that is being laid here. We are building something here by means of which we will be able to eliminate points of friction in the industrial sphere, in the political sphere and in the social sphere. The Xhosas will now not be able to tell the White man, “I want the same rights that you have”, because we will then be able to say, “You have the same rights in your area”. Points of friction are being eliminated. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was therefore completely unrealistic in this second objection, just as unrealistic as it would be to compare a cow and a hen with one another as far as production potential is concerned. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that this was “an incomplete piece of work”. Sir, which of the hon. members opposite have seen a perfect law? Most of the legislation that is passed by this House each year is amending legislation. Do they think then that this legislation can never ever be amended? Of course it is going to be amended just as any law is amended. I think that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was being very unrealistic indeed in his three main objections. He had every opportunity to oppose this Bill at the second-reading stage and at the Committee Stage when he could have raised these three objections and I am very sorry that he has again raised these three objections because they were adequately replied to by this side. That is why I want to say that the criticism of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this morning, his remarks in regard to this Bill, were completely unnecessary and completely unrealistic. It appears to me that you, Mr. Speaker, will not permit us to deal properly with all the matters that he raised and we do not want to clash with the Chair. But I want to conclude by associating myself with what the hon. member for Heilbron said. I also want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. There are many of us who agree with him. There is one man who will stand head and shoulders above us all in his faith in and enthusiasm for this measure. His enthusiasm can prove to be one of the most important factors in carrying through this legislation and enabling it to form a pattern in the eyes of the world. Because of this Bill the outside world will now understand South Africa properly for the first time and for the first time the outside world will understand the principles and the policy of the National Party.

I shall, with due respect, Sir, dispose of this “farm-yard” speech of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) in the course of the few remarks I wish to make, and I hope dispose of it satisfactorily.

The Bill before us embraces a very serious principle but is limited as far as its scope, its content, is concerned. There are certain outstanding provisions, however, to which we must and have to confine ourselves at this stage. The contents of this contentious Bill are in reality and in the main the same as those of the second Bill which was originally submitted to us.

The contents of this Bill envisages in the first place a self-governing state with clearly defined powers, rights, authority, obligations and activities, in respect of which it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for this Government, or any other Government in future, to interfere or to interfere with the specific matters and powers given to the Transkei or even to veto their legislation.

The Bill also contains the germs of further growth and development to the highest logical status which follows constitutionally upon self-government, namely, autonomy, and as the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has also said, sovereignty and self-government in the broader sense of the word, and nationhood. It is not only the inherent content of the Bill, yet the ultimate autonomous status of the area has been recognized with acclamation time and again by my hon. friends opposite and again this morning. The underlying inherent object is, therefore, what my hon. friends have already admitted, namely, autonomy.

The symbols of a nation’s sovereignty, its freedom, the emblem of its ultimate national unity—and I am using the words in the preamble—are emphasized in this Bill and play an important role in its composition and its objectives. It has also been readily admitted by the hon. the Minister himself and by hon. members opposite that the flag, the national anthem, “Nkosi Sikelel ’i Afrika” and its own citizenship—in this regard I shall deal with the hon. member for Heilbron for a few minutes at a later stage—the Transkei’s own language and its own Cabinet, we admit, are symbols of the nationhood of a nation and of its autonomy. The hon. member for Heilbron said that it was not a question of dual citizenship that we were conferring upon the Transkeian citizens. He says the position is that they have their own citizenship in their own area but he must admit that at the same time they also retain their citizenship rights within the Republic. The citizens of the Republic are, however, not in such a favourable position because we shall only have citizenship in our own area, not in the Transkei. We are therefore not in the same favourable position in which we were. In comparison we find ourselves in a less favourable position than in the days when we enjoyed dual citizenship in the Commonwealth. I am only referring to that in passing, Sir.

Pre-eminently the symbol of a nation’s pride, its independence and its autonomy, its nationhood, its political sovereignty, is its national flag, as is its national anthem and its language and these constitute the strongest outward symbol of its independence. We all admit that. Although we are only talking about self-governing at this stage, therefore— we are not talking here about autonomy—the entire concept of the Bill is ultimately to determine the autonomy of the area. The hon. member for Heilbron said moreover that the idea of sovereignty was the underlying factor and principle. This Bill does not mention that but he is quite right in saying that it forms the basis for that ultimate autonomy. We are already giving the Transkei those symbols which I have just mentioned, the symbols of “independence”, of its “national unity” and nationhood. My hon. friends opposite say that is the natural course of development which a ward of the Republic of South Africa must undergo and is entitled to—and here I am using the words of the hon. member for Krugersdorp who said that the Bantu of the Transkei were our wards and that they should eventually get their independence. That was always the understanding. But my hon. friends know that I have always denied that and regarded it as wrong; although I do not intend going over all that again.

Whatever the position may be, this Bill, in its present form, remains a great danger to our country and nation and to all its national groups within and without the Transkei because it holds out the definite and undisputable prospect to the area which is now getting self-government of a Bantu national unit—and here I am using the words in the preamble— and that in the heart of the Republic of South Africa! My hon. friend says this is a new constitutional concept. I shall return to that at a later stage but the fact remains that here in the heart of the Republic of South Africa we are now establishing a self-governing area which we admit will be independent within a number of years. This Bill is establishing an area which cuts us off from the sea along our eastern border. It is not necessary to go further into the adverse effects which may flow from that, nor will you allow me to do so, Mr. Speaker. It is an area which borders on to another state in the west, Basutoland which will also become independent one of these days if the British Government continues with its present policy. The southern boundary of the area is the Kei River which the Bantu do not acknowledge.

Where do you get that from?

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

The Bantu of the Transkei claim the Fish River as the boundary and I say that because that will play a part when they attain the sovereignty to which reference is made.

The northern boundary of the area borders on the province of Natal and which, Matanzima, on behalf of the Xhosa, is already claiming as Xhosa country.

Order! I am anxious to allow a broad discussion during the third reading but the hon. member is now exceeding all bounds.

I am referring to Clause 2 where the boundaries are defined, Sir.

Yes, but the hon. member is exceeding all bounds. He must remain within them.

According to Clause 3 these boundaries can be extended and I am also referring to that. I am talking under Clauses 2 and 3. I am dealing with the boundaries as laid down to-day in terms of Clause 2 and then their possible extension in terms of Clause 3. For that reason, Sir, with due respect, I want to return to what I was saying namely, that in terms of Clause 3 the Bantu will be dissatisfied one of these days because they are already claiming the Fish River as the boundary of the Xhosa area. Also as far as its northern boundary is concerned, where it borders on Natal, we know that Matanzima has already asked that it should ultimately become the territory of the Xhosa of the Transkei. The logical conclusion which must flow from the establishment of this area, therefore, is the possibility of agreements with enemies along our eastern border.

Order! All those possibilities were discussed during the second reading.

Very well, Sir. But I refer to the hon. member for Krugersdorp, who, with due respect, also exceeded the boundaries.

Order! The hon. member for Krugersdorp was also ruled out of order but he was merely replying to the Leader of the Opposition.

Then I wish to reply to the argument advanced by the hon. members for Heilbron and Krugersdorp in connection with the clashes which may possibly occur. It is not only a question of there being a possibility of clashes, eventually, with the Republic of South Africa but there is also a strong possibility of internal clashes because this Government regards this area as a political unit in which the various groups or tribes within the same territorial area are treated as a unit and the Government regard them as such in this Bill. Sir, that cannot work, it will not work and the hon. the Minister ought to know it. He knows that as a result of the fact that this idea of units is accepted in this Bill it can easily give rise to fragmentation, to tribal fights, to dissension and clashes within the territory of the Transkei.

What is the most important in this Bill and what is most dangerous is the fact that the dangerous repercussions which may flow from the false philosophy which is propounded in this Bill, namely a state within a state, is not taken into account at all. I now wish to react to what the hon. member for Heilbron has said when he referred to the establishment of a state within a state. The hon. member was quite correct, of course, when he said that that was a new constitutional concept in this Bill. It is something foreign in the history of the world that a state within a state can ever be a success. This Government, however, introduces this philosophy by way of this legislation and they ought to know that this new so-called constitutional idea does not only clash with history but with reality. It is an historical monstrosity and cannot succeed and will not succeed.

The question arises, of course, why this is being done. Mr. Speaker, you will not allow me to say why it is being done, but it is very clear why it is being done. This legislation can furthermore not succeed because it carries within it certain underlying ideologies which are foreign to the cultural structure of the Bantu. My hon. friend said it would succeed because it was based on the cultural structure of the Bantu. I deny that. Since when is a flag part of the cultural structure of the Bantu? Since when is a national anthem part of the cultural structure of the Bantu? Since where are Ministers or the franchise part of the cultural background of the Bantu?

But you want to give them the vote here.

Is the system of captains not part of their culture?

Do you find the cultural structure of the Bantu anywhere in this Bill? What I have mentioned is totally foreign to the Bantu.

Is “Nkosi Sikelel ’i Afrika” also foreign to their culture?

I did not say that that song was not based on the cultural structure of the Bantu; I said that the idea of a national anthem was not based on it. That is my point, and it is there where the germ of the difficulty lies and why it will not and cannot succeed. The flag, the national anthem, as well as the oath which they have to take, are foreign to them. All this embraces things which are completely foreign to the Bantu and they ignore his past. It must give rise to internal trouble. I also maintain that the self-government which we are giving them with the promise that they can shortly expect to attain their independence can only lead to clashes between them and us—a repetition of the clashes between the Whites and the Bantu of the past.

I and this side of the House do not see any reason why the subjects of South Africa should have this Bill, people who have always been the subjects and wards of South Africa and whom we have led to the level of civilization which they have attained to-day. I admit that it is not a high level but we did our duty. It remains the policy of the White man to lead them to the civilization and the religion of the White man. Even the Minister will admit that this legislation does not take sufficiently into account the fact that the Bantu have not yet reached that level of development and civilization to realize what this legislation means or even to understand it. It is for that reason, and because we want to maintain South Africa in the form in which our fore fathers left it to us, that we shall vote against this legislation.

The Opposition have opposed this Bill up to this stage. In giving his reasons for doing so the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) did not even try to base his arguments on the historical background but he concentrated more on the fact that this Bill does not take into account the traditions and the culture of the Bantu. I want to say immediately that to my mind this Bill —and in this lies its strength and not its weakness—brings about the harmonious combination of what is good in the traditions of the Bantu and what is best in Western civilization and democracy. We have taken from the background and traditions of the Bantu his system of chiefs, the system of paramount chiefs and indunas, his love for his own land —all these fine things that form his background—and with them we have combined the Western system of democracy in which these people are given the franchise and where the chiefs are combined with the elected members of the people in order to exercise authority jointly. Here we have a combination of two concepts which are peculiar to the two peoples sharing South Africa at the moment. As the guardian of the Black man the White man considers it his duty to make his influence felt and to pass this on to the Bantu. That is the first point that I want to make. The criticism of the Opposition in this regard will be that we are doing neither the one thing nor the other, but I contend that the failure of the so-called Black states to the north is due to the fact that they did not take into account the traditional customs and practices of the Bantu but that Western democracy was forced upon those Bantu immediately. Because of that fact we did not have a democratic system there but a one-party system which was worse than a dictatorship. But here we have a situation where the traditional tribal chief retains his authority. We are combining this with democracy and we are leaving it to the future to develop in whatever direction it likes, under supervision. I do not want to reply any further to what was said by the hon. member for Hillbrow. I do not want to talk about the internal conflicts and tribal clashes within the Transkei. What reason does he have for assuming that if this sy stem is not set up there, those tribal fights will not take place? That therefore is no argument. It was also argued that attacks were being made upon us from abroad but that does not form part of the Bill and I shall not pursue the matter therefore.

But I want to go further and say this about the United Party. What we are doing in this Bill, with the exception of one single fact and that is that this Bill creates the possibility of eventual self-government for the Bantu, is exactly the same as was envisaged in the policy of the United Party as set out by its Leader, General Smuts, in 1947. I just want to quote a few extracts from what he said and compare what he said with this Bill. I quote here from the Monitor of 16 May 1947—

The first point was the establishment of a completely Black legislative body in that area with no Whites in a legislative capacity. General Smuts spoke about the Natives’ Representative Council and he said—,

It is to become a purely African body. It can be given a measure of executive responsibility and will become more directly responsible for the government and administration of the Native reserves, and in fact of the whole Native population in the Union.

In other words, not only for the Black man there, but for the Black man throughout the country. He went on to say—

We are now calling them Ministers. In other words, they were to be given executive powers, just as is the case in terms of this Bill. No details were given as to what their executive powers were to be, but those details are given in this legislation. Furthermore, the Xhosa in the Transkei were to be linked up with the Bantu in the White areas, and that connection is retained in this Bill. General Smuts put it in this way—

In 1947 General Smuts had the same link in mind. I want to add that the world has changed to a very great extent since 1947 as far as the emergence of the Black man is concerned.

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

I am just comparing the effects of this Bill, as General Smuts saw it and as he would have applied it. My argument is that we are giving the Transkei certain powers in this Bill and I want to show that General Smuts had the same idea in mind.

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

Who wrote that article?

The writer is Dr. Abraham Jonker who in 1947 was a leading member of that party.

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

I was simply replying to the question. This Bill makes provision for the development of a Bantu homeland with all its possibilities. I see this Bill as being the start of certain things. In the first place it gives the Black man certain things and it gives the White man in South Africa certain things and it gives South Africa as a whole certain things and it gives the outside world certain things. To the Black man in the Transkei—and we are not ashamed or afraid of it—it gives a flag which will by a symbol of his own nationhood and his eventual freedom. We do not flinch back from the possibility that that may be the ultimate outcome. It gives him his national anthem which once again will be a symbol of his own nationhood. It gives him citizenship, at this stage a twofold citizenship which may develop into a single citizenship. It gives him a tradition; it gives him a pride in his own nation. We have now come to the beginning of the emancipation of the Black man and I want to use this example to illustrate my point. In a household where children are born and where they grow up we find that at a certain age the child starts to do his own reasoning and wants to start putting his own viewpoint. At that stage it is to the advantage of the child if he is allowed to go his own way, but it is also to the advantage of the parents. I shall say more about this in a moment when I deal with the role that the White man has to play. We have now come to the beginning of the emancipation of the Black man. He has reached the stage where he wants to leave home, where he wants to make up his own mind and wants to go his own way in life. If we deprive him of this, the same thing will happen to him that happens to a child who is kept at home too long; he rebels, and he becomes a “ducktail” if he is not permitted to enjoy his freedoms once he is mature enough to do so. We have now reached the stage where the Black man is mature and where he can be emancipated and stand on his own feet. This is the start of a process of development for the Black man and it is for this reason that this measure is a mixed Bill. I say this deliberately because while it still contains restrictions it does confer certain freedoms; because it contains part of the law of the White man and part of the traditions of the Black man. The whole measure is a combination of the two concepts because it is the start of a process that will develop gradually and that is why one cannot emphasize only one particular aspect of it. This Bill gives the Black man the start of a worthwhile future, a safe future in which his human dignity will be recognized, in which he will be able to put his point of view to the outside world in respect of many matters because he will no longer be suppressed and because the outside world will no longer look upon him as a subordinate individual. His dignity will be recognized in all respects. I say that this is the beginning of a process of development for him. The period of this process of development will be determined over the years.

This Bill also gives the White man certain things. In the first instance it gives the White man relief in respect of his obligation towards the Black man, and this holds a very great benefit. To use the analogy which I used a moment ago, the father will no longer be responsible for that child in every respect. He is starting to work for himself; he is going to earn his own money for the first time; he is going to buy his own cigarettes and he is going to stand on his own feet. It gives the parent a measure of relief therefore. The White man in South Africa is now allowing the first of the Black states to go its own way. The first child is now leaving home and the White man, the guardian and father of this family, is prepared to look to the future which lies ahead of him. That is the first advantage contained in this Bill—the fact that the child will now be given his freedom. In the second place, this measure also safeguards the position of the White man for the future. The Opposition continually accuse us of being a frightened party. Whereas they emphasize the dangers over and over again, I want to emphasize the safeguards contained in this Bill because this is the only basis on which we can have future security. This Bill makes it possible for the Black state to develop alongside the White state. It creates a clearly demarcated area in which he can enjoy his freedom and that is why this Bill has the automatic effect of safeguarding the position of both the Black man and the White man because there will no longer be points of friction but co-existence. In the third place this Bill gives the White man a safe future in his own area. It leads to greater Europeanization of White South Africa, if I may use such a term, because it gives the Black man here amongst us a link with his own homeland. This Bill very clearly sets out the policy that the Black man here in the White area will not be regarded as a member of this community; he will have no rights here; he will be linked up with his homeland. He will therefore retain his traditional links with his homeland and that is why I say that this Bill will lead to greater Europeanization of White South Africa. The Bill also gives South Africa as a whole certain privileges and advantages. In the first instance, this Bill makes it clear beyond any doubt that the positive side of separate development is just as strong and even stronger than the so-called negative side. I deny that there is a negative side. This is important because the world is still bringing pressure to bear upon us and looks down on us because of our attitude towards the Black man. The world has adopted the attitude—and still believes—that our legislative measures are oppressive and only oppressive. This measure produces positive proof that separate development also makes it possible for the Black man to develop fully, and the advantage that South Africa and the outside world will derive from this measure is that in the light of this Bill we will no longer be suspected of being oppressors by thinking people overseas. There is more and more evidence already, judging by the information that we receive, that people overseas see this Bill as a basis, as an anchor, which now enables them to realize what South Africa’s problem is, and to see how we are solving it, and they are willing to give us a chance. This Bill will mean far more to us internationally than all the things that have been done in the past in this connection because it affords positive proof of the fact that we are not dealing here with oppressive measures; that there is no negative side to our separate development policy but a very strong positive side.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to detain the House long. I want to conclude. It is difficult to stay within the rules in a third-reading debate. I want to conclude by saying that as it stands here this Bill is only the start of a process of development but it is and remains the only basis on which we will be able to co-operate and co-exist here in the future. We have now reached the stage—and this Bill proves it—where we as Whites and the non-White inhabitants of the geographical area of the Republic of South Africa, the territory stretching from the Limpopo down to Cape Point, have found a basis on which we can agree as to how we are going to inhabit this country in the future—who will be master and who will be able to exercise authority in certain areas and not in others. This Bill creates the same rights for the Black man in his area as the White man claims for himself in his own area, and that is the only basis on which it can work. I welcome this Bill and eventually, once these measures have succeeded, hon. members on the other side will also welcome the fact that we have taken this step. They will then realize that this was one of the greatest days in our history; and that in taking this step we solved the age-old struggle between Black and White in South Africa, not by force of arms but by purely on the basis of reason and on constitutional lines; that here we found a basis for peaceful co-existence instead of continually undermining each other or trying to gain the upper hand over each other. We welcome this Bill in that light.

I want to reply very briefly to a few points made by the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder). Firstly I want to tell him that he is quite wrong when he thinks that he can in any way make tribalism compatible with a modern industrial economy. The two things are completely incompatible and if there is one thing that this Bill which we are considering to-day cannot do it is to try to reconcile the aims of tribalism with the aims of a modern economy. If the reserves are to be developed at all in order to support the people who live there let alone the people who are to return there then quite clearly it is on the basis of a modern economy that this has to be done. This is something which was very clearly brought out by the Tomlinson Commission Report on which this Bill is partly meant to be based. But the hon. member is quite wrong, as any social anthropologist will tell him. There are vast differences between the demands of a modem economy with its competitive spirit, with its need for individual initiative, and a tribal structure which in fact is based on exactly the opposite characteristics—on a non-competitive nature, on a subordination of the individual to the group and a domination of social by kinship relationships. These are elementary facts which are known to any social anthropologist and therefore the hon. member is wrong in one of his major premises. The hon. member made another inaccurate statement, Sir. I will not go into this in detail because you did not allow him to continue to follow along those lines but I must correct one statement that he made in that he assumed that the plan which was offered by General Smuts in 1947 for a reconstituted Natives’ Representative Council with greater powers, which is eagerly claimed also by the Opposition as being the basis of its race federation plan, could in any way have been more successful than its predecessor. I say this because the Africans at that time firmly rejected the 1947 new Natives’ Representative Council, with its reforms, by saying—

They went on to say—

That is as far as I wish to go but the hon. member did raise this as a basis on which this Bill is formed, and hon. members on this side proudly acclaimed it as the basis of their race federation plan.

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

Yes, Sir, I am coming back to the Bill immediately. As far as I am concerned this Bill has only one encouraging aspect and that is really a philosophical aspect rather than anything else. Its contents to me reflect an awareness on the Government’s side that the status quo, that is to say, retaining all political domination in the hands of the Whites indefinitely, is an impossible thing in South Africa to-day. It epitomizes at last a recognition that there can be no ethical justification for for ever denying the political aspirations of the Africans, and this is something, because it represents a change in the philosophy of the Nationalist Party. It reflects a complete change from the old policy of wit “baasskap” which used to be so proudly owned and bruited abroad by hon. members on the other side. Inasmuch therefore that this Bill sets up a council with some traces of the elective system in it and gives some very limited powers to the African people, it does at least reflect a change in the thinking of the Government. It also gives the hope that when this fails, as it surely will fail, to prove to be any compensation to Africans for deprivation of rights throughout South Africa, that one will not have to start all over again io try to persuade hon. members opposite, their children and maybe even their grandchildren to make the necessary concessions.

Order! The hon. member must come nearer to the contents of the Bill.

I am trying to give the philosophical reasons for the rejection of the Contents of this Bill and I shall now come to the contents. The Bill is based, of course, on the report of the Tomlinson Commission and particularly, interestingly enough, on that part of the report which exceeded the terms of reference of the commission. The commission took it upon itself to decide the broad lines of general policy for South Africa, rejected integration, the middle way, and plumped for what it called separation. I think however much we may disagree about this Bill there is one thing in regard to which both sides of the House are probably agreed and that is surprise that it should have come in its present form as soon as it has come. I think that is a surprise both to that side and certainly to this side of the House, because although in 1959, with the creation of the Territorial Authority, it was announced that this was to be the forerunner of eventual political autonomy and the Government told us in its White Paper, in a good deal of flowery language, that the creative withdrawal —whatever that might mean—of the European guardian, would result in ultimate self-government, I do not think that anybody ever believed that it would come quite as soon as it has come.

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

Afternoon Sitting

When business was suspended I had stated that I thought it had come as a surprise to members on both sides of the House that this Bill should have come as soon ’as it did. Although all of us knew about the so-called “creative withdrawal” of the White guardian, to use the term used in the original White Paper of 1959, I think nobody expected his Bill, which is the legislative translation of this somewhat flowery phrase used in the White Paper, to come before the House as soon as it has done. The reason, of course, is the one which was mentioned by the hon. member for Randfontein when he spoke earlier and that is that the Government hopes thereby to be able in some way to assuage the criticism which was coming from abroad about the negative side of apartheid. This Bill attempts to represent a positive side to the Government’s policy of apartheid. As I will show later, I do not think that this is succeeding very well. The fact that the Government believes that the time has come to replace the Transkeian Territorial Authority by this Transkeian Assembly would, I think, be a surprise to anybody who did not know the pressures behind the Government to get a move on with presenting the positive side of apartheid. I for one cannot see how by any stretch of the imagination one can claim that the Territorial Authority has been a success, to such an extent that the creative withdrawal of the European guardian can take place and be replaced by so-called self-government. Territorial Authorities have led to strife, corruption and disorder in the Transkei. They have resulted in Proclamation 400 which was introduced in 1960 and which is still in force, and they have resulted in the Transkei being one of the most heavily policed areas in the Republic. Despite that, the Government now comes and tells us that the time is ripe for an introduction of a Bill granting self-government. Of course, the powers conferred in the Bill fall very short of self-government. The Transkei, when this Bill is passed, will still be a very long way indeed from a self-governing state. It is certainly very different indeed from the pictures which we have been reading in the overseas magazines—the glossy advertisement placed by the Minister of Information— to tell us about the new nation which is about to be formed by the Transkei Bill. The legislative powers contained in this Bill in fact are more reminiscent of an arrangement under the early Colonial days rather than any form of self-government as the hon. the Minister would have us believe. For instance, there is the exclusion of all towns from the jurisdiction of the Transkeian Assembly; in other words, the European guardian will more or less have what I would call extra-territorial claim on this so-called self-governing ward, and the exclusion of all towns meaning, of course, that the very centres of economic life in the Transkei are excluded from the jurisdiction of the Transkeian Assembly. Certain specific subjects are excluded from the powers of the Assembly. This, together with the fact that the Government of the Republic retains the administration of certain laws which are in force both in the Transkei and the Republic, in particular the Bantu Administration Act, which gives vast powers to this Government to promulgate regulations affecting the Transkei, plus the fact that all Bills passed by the Transkeian Authority have to be approved by the State President, plus the very important fact, of course, that of the 109 members in the Transkeian Assembly, 64 will hold their seats only at Government pleasure, all these factors add up to the fact that the so-called self-governing Transkeian Assembly is in fact going to be a subordinate Legislature, subordinate to the Minister of Bantu Administration. The financial arrangements which have been laid down in Part VIII of this Bill are precarious, to say the least, and without financial autonomy or financial security it is difficult to see how this self-governing area is going to be able to maintain itself. The territory in fact is going to be permanently dependent on largess from the Republic, because one knows that the conditions of poverty in the Transkei are such that no amount of revenue raised from those citizens themselves can ever be enough to make it self-supporting. I think the Government is mistaken if it thinks it is going to be easy to collect taxes from so-called citizens of the Transkei who permanently reside outside the Transkei and who will never be getting any benefit from the Transkei or its revenue, to which they are now being asked to subscribe.

Another great financial defect in this Bill is the fact that it does not seem to give borrowing powers to the Transkeian Assembly. No provision appears to be made for appropriations by Parliament for loan funds to meet capital expenditure. I believe that all these factors added together give the lie to the claim made by the Government and its supporters and in particular by the Minister of Information that the Transkei is about to become a self-governing area. I want to point out too that political independence is quite worthless unless it is accompanied by economic viability. Flags and anthems, which are provided for in this Bill, may be rallying points for nationalism for the new nation, but they are not things which are going to help to feed the members of that new nation. The tragedy, of course, is that long before any viability is established in the Transkei, any real economic viability, long before agricultural reforms are really put into effect, the Government is already implementing the second leg of this policy which is the repatriation of Transkeian citizens back to that area. So the territory is being called upon to bear an even greater burden than it has already borne in the past; in other words, not merely the removal of surplus population from the land, which was the obvious solution suggested by the Tomlinson Commission, a solution which dedicated agricultural officers in the Transkei are working very hard indeed to achieve, long before that can be done, the reserves are being more impoverished by the increased numbers of persons who are being sent back to be dependent on it; in other words, the policy of sending back to the Transkei, Africans from the urban areas with no means of support. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister realizes that this action alone is enough to sink the whole of the Transkeian ship, this idea of returning to this impoverished area thousands upon thousands of persons with no means of subsistence dependent on the area, instead of exactly the opposite and that is the removal of surplus people from the land. This is what is being done, and not only is the Transkei suffering as the result of growing unemployment and poverty within the area itself but neighbouring White towns, to use Government language, are suffering inasmuch as they are finding themselves with thousands upon thousands of unemployed Africans coming in illegally and looking for some form of subsistence. There is no sign that any of the necessary 300,000 jobs which have to be found for people who have to be removed from the land if the Transkei is to be agriculturally viable, will be available. There is no sign of industry within the reserves and the border industries, for what they are worth, are still a dream of the future. I do not believe that they are ever going to do any of the wonderful things that the Prime Minister, for instance, has anticipated that they will do; that employment for one will in turn generate further employment for five. The experience in other countries does not bear out his contention, but in any case this ambition that the border industries will be able to supply 500,000 jobs within the next 50 years is a completely fantastic supposition when one realizes that in the whole of the industrialized areas in the Republic of South Africa, 100 years of development since the mineral discoveries and in particular 30 years of an industrial revolution since the ’30s in South Africa, have only managed to provide jobs in industry for about that number of Africans. The amount of capital investment that has gone into the Republic before it has been possible to create that number of jobs in industry, is of course, so far beyond the dreams of anything that can go into the border industries as to make the whole proposition quite fantastic. It is a dream of the future and I do not believe that it is ever going to be realized. But at least the Government should surely wait until there is some practical implementation of the policy of building up alternative occupations in the Transkei before it goes ahead with its policy of sending back to this area the thousands of people who are being endorsed out of the towns where they already have jobs, to constitute an additional burden on this new so-called self-governing territory.

Finally I want to say, of course, that the whole trouble with this plan, as is the whole trouble with so many other Government plans, is that it is not that the Government so often gives the wrong answers, but it is that the Government so often asks the wrong questions. That is the real trouble. In this case, of course, the right question that should be asked is how ‘best can we develop one multi-racial South Africa? How best can we develop all our great resources so that the entire multiracial population can enjoy the manifold blessings which have been bestowed on this country? Instead, Sir, we have the wrong question which is: How can we separate South Africa, how can we divide it up into its racial components? As a result of the wrong question being asked, and therefore the wrong answer being given, there is a tragic air of unreality about this whole situation, this entire experiment in self-government. It is not going to satisfy the people inside the Transkei because it only gives limited rights and because the economic viability which is so necessary cannot be achieved. It is certainly not going to satisfy the political ambitions of the Africans outside the area. To me, promising a Transkeian citizen who lives in Johannesburg or Cape Town, who has probably not set foot in the Transkei for a generation, is rather like promising that the political aspirations of an Irish-American in New York shall be realized by exercising a vote in Dublin. As far as I am concerned it is equally unrealistic and it will not satisfy the political aspirations of the Africans. In short, Sir, the Bill remains what I said it was at the second reading. It is a fraud, it can achieve none of its objectives, except perhaps to satisfy a few naive Nationalists who are eagerly seeking an ethical backing, an ethical basis, for apartheid. It might satisfy some naive people in that regard. It will not satisfy the Africans inside the Territory; it will not satisfy the Africans outside the Territory; it certainly offers no solution to thinking White South Africans and I can assure the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) that it will do nothing whatsoever to dispel the unhappy impression that South Africa has created in the outside world.

It is probably fortunate that the Progressive Party is represented in this House by a lady, because the party has to state its case by means of a lack of unobjectivity and too much self-assurance. It is only by over-emphasizing a certain facet that that point of view can be justified. That is why I do not want to follow the hon. member except in so far as one point raised by her at the beginning of her speech is concerned, namely, that this legislation gives physiological expression to the attitude of the National Party, that they admit that the Bantu should have a form of self-government and that there can be no permanent domination. She said that this was a departure from the former attitude of our party. I just want to emphasize that the attitude to which expression is given in this legislation has been the attitude of the National Party since 1947 when the basis of this policy was consciously formulated and it gives expression to the policy of the National Party as enunciated by General Hertzog in the twenties when there were numerous joint sittings in connection with the matter. To accuse this party of ever having advocated the idea of White domination is to misinterpret the policy of this party.

I want to dispose of a second issue. With your permission, Sir, I shall return more specifically to the contents of the Bill in a moment. That is in regard to the speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) in which he, with your permission, reacted to an accusation made by the Minister of Bantu Administration to the effect that on a previous occasion the hon. member was supposed to have made an untrue statement by saying that the removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape was closely linked to this legislation, that the two matters were related. In order to justify his statement the hon. member for Bezuidenhout quoted a statement by the hon. the Minister of Finance in which the latter said very clearly that the five year developmental plan in regard to the Bantu area was linked with the removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape. The five year developmental plan was already put into operation last year. That plan has already been in operation for a year. That plan is completely dissociated from this constitutional legislation. That so-called reply which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has offered us is no reply to the statement that he had made himself guilty of an untruth, but he himself has now confirmed it by advancing as the authority for his statement in this matter something which is different from what he stated originally. In the circumstances I find it extravagant on the part of the hon. member, having claimed for himself this unfounded justification, to have the temerity to say that the Minister of Bantu Administration owes him an apology for having accused him originally of telling an untruth. I repeat that original charge and I support it with the defence advanced by the hon. member himself.

Mr. Speaker, as far as the effects of the provisions of this legislation are concerned, I want to say this in the first instance: This legislation creates a framework for the relationship between the White community of our country and an ordered Black community. For the first time in something like 70 years a lawfully ordered relationship is being established between this White community and an ordered Black community. And I believe that this pattern of relationship between the White community and the Black community is the pattern which can be projected between us and the Black people not only within the territorial area of the Republic but in the entire southern Africa and on our Continent. That is the first meaning which this legislation has to me and to that I want to add this: What has happened is nothing revolutionary. When our fathers came to this country there were relationships between ordered Bantu state communities and a White state community. Over a period of 70 years that basis of relationship between the national groups has disappeared. We are not returning to anything new but this legislation is restoring a human and political relationship which our nation knew, a relationship with which it has grown up and which it has betrayed.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill establishes the equipment for the future of the Transkeian people. What equipment does it establish? I want to refer to three aspects in particular. In the first place it provides to the people of the Transkei as equipment for the future an alliance with this nation. This alliance with our White nation is a very significant alliance, more so than it would have been had it been with one of the European nations. This legislation formulates an alliance with the first indigenous Africa nation who has yearned for political freedom and a Black nation in Africa. In other words, the first nation of Africa, who as a child demanded from Africa the right to develop politically by itself and who attained it, concludes an alliance here with the youngest of Africa’s nations so as to act as their ally in terms of this legislation and this alliance covers in the first place direct financial assistance. Which other nation in Africa could travel the road to freedom with a pertinent and defined right to financial support during its early history? This alliance is characterized by the right which the White nation as guardian has in respect of the Transkeian nation to have the Transkeian legislation approved by the State President, in that any extension of its powers is subject to the approval of this House and the Other Place and expression is given to that in that this legislation provides for a Civil Service for the Transkei. A consistent alliance is being created as equipment for the future of the Transkei.

I want to emphasize in the second place that we are creating here an association with the Christian doctrine and church. Reference is made in the preamble to the promotion of religion. We in the Republican State, the State which remains the over-all power, pertinently acknowledge our Christian task and calling. I do not want to enlarge upon this but I wish to make two appeals. In the first instance I want to make an appeal to the large number of Black Christians in the Transkei that they should regard this as a challenge to their own innermost standard of civilization and that they should take the lead in that country. I believe this is a challenge to our South African church and State that where missionary work is being hampered in other areas in Africa to concentrate with renewed effort on the Transkei so that the equipment for the future in this regard as far as the Transkei is concerned, will be in terms of what we are so anxious to see in reality, namely that a Christian future be established there.

The third equipment with which we are providing them is that they are getting an opportunity of bringing about their own freedom. The criticism against the provision of this Bill is that it is vague that it is undefined and that there is a sort of indefiniteness. Formally we have to concede that criticism but it is deliberately so in order to make the growing process possible. We must remember this that these people have to grow towards their own freedom. If I may give an example: When parents see their children get married many of them are tempted to try to regulate the marriage of the child according to what they think it ought to be. But that new relationship belongs to the child. Similarly an image has been projected on to the minds of the Whites as to what we reckon a free Black state should look like. We are all inclined to define it as much as possible so that the Transkei will achieve its freedom in a way which is acceptable to us. It must be realized that this legislation creates the opportunity for the Transkei to find its freedom according to its own pattern. They can find it better than the rest of Africa. The big problems which await the Transkei, problems which have been emphasized by many hon. members are problems which cannot be solved by this legislation: They are the administrative problems, the financial problems, etc. I think we should also be grateful to the Opposition for having drawn attention to the big problems which lie ahead. I want to say this that in each one of these respects the problems of the Transkei are less than the problems in the case of any Black state in Africa which has already become independent. Relatively speaking there are more educated people in the Transkei. Relatively speaking a broader mass of its people follow the Christian belief and materially speaking it is more developed than any other state which is already independent. Its problems in comparison with the rest of Africa are, therefore smaller and I believe that if we give them an opportunity of developing according to this germ we will have created the possibility for the Transkei to grow into an example for Africa. But then this question arises: How long will this growing process take? In which direction will the growth develop? There has been a great deal of speculation about these questions which are not answered in the legislation and I trust you will allow me, Sir, to deal with it for a brief moment because it concerns something which I touched upon during the second reading, namely, what do we envisage the ultimate relationship to be? I used the term “confederal relationship” as opposed to the term “commonwealth relationship” which was used by other speakers on this side. I just want to point out that both these terms indicate nothing else than a loose relationship for one or other common purpose. According to all authorities who have analysed the word, a confederation means nothing else than a commonwealth. As a matter of fact, in Dutch that is the correct alternative term. The direction in which it will develop according to this legislation is very clearly a development in which there will be a relationship between this Republic which is creating the Transkeian state and that state itself. A relationship will exist for all time to come but that relationship will not be a burden on a common governmental body.

I want to conclude, Mr. Chairman by pointing out that this legislation is creating an opportunity for the developed Bantu, that this legislation is creating an opportunity for the Bantu with driving power and spiritual force to do creative work amongst his own people. For the first time executive power in respect of important matters is being transferred to a Bantu authority. For the first time an embryonic Bantu civil service is being established. An opportunity, at a scale hitherto unknown in the territorial area of the Republic, is being created for the Bantu to work together and to create something. In this connection I want to make an appeal to those who may not perhaps be present but whom it may nevertheless perhaps reach, an appeal to the Bantu who are to-day frustrated and who feel rebellious in many respects. What are the factors which make the Bantu frustrated and rebellious to-day? Only this that he feels that he lacks the opportunity in our society to achieve that which he feels he as an individual can achieve, that he cannot attain the heights which are within his potential reach as a person. My appeal is this: Let every Bantu who feels that he is equipped as far as technical training is concerned, or that he is equipped as far as spiritual drive and passion for labour are concerned; who feels that he is equipped as far as patriotism towards his own people is concerned, go to the Transkei. There the land is still lying fallow; the posts are being created there; there the executive power is being given to the Transkeian leaders who need their own people to do that work. Let the Bantu with driving force and spiritual force desist from the desire to disturb this society but grasp at this historical occasion to serve his own people and to show the world what the South African Bantu can do. Flowing from that, Mr. Chairman I want to make the following appeal to our own people: Let us give them this opportunity to develop in the Transkei and to take a leading part in Africa in a spirit of goodwill so that we will set an example here of setting the ward free in a Christianlike manner, of Christian development and the establishment of the first Black state in Africa which is characterized by a Christian character and an ordered growth in co-operation with the White man.

It will be very difficult for the majority of Bantu in South Africa to respond to the call of the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) because the majority of them are not citizens of the Transkei and do not qualify for citizenship of the Transkei. Should the majority of Bantu of the classes specified by the hon. member answer his call and flock to the Transkei for the reasons he gave we would have a very embarrassed Minister of Bantu Administration and Development because there are not facilities there, and they will not be there for some time, to give occupation to the people whom the hon. member for Kempton Park wishes to see go there. I do not propose following this line of argument save to say this in regard to the speech of the hon. member that when he suggested that the Transkei had more material development or wealth than any of the emerging states in Africa I think he is drawing a very long bow indeed. To suggest, to give one or two examples, that the Transkei has greater material wealth and development than places like Ghana or Nigeria, is drawing a very long bow indeed.

We are here concerned with the third reading of this measure and I am going to attempt briefly, but in a broad sense, to give the House a picture of this measure so that one can judge it merely on what it contains, so that one can judge it not from the point of view of whether it is good or bad in the sense of the analysis that was given at the second reading but merely on its inherent capabilities and possibilities.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) said that this measure was something quite new in our constitutional life. He is of course quite right but I wonder whether he realizes just how new and how novel it is. It is that aspect of the matter which I hope I shall be able to demonstrate to the House in the short time that I shall detain it. The first chapter deals with the Transkei, naturally enough, that place to which this constitution is to apply. It is described in a novel way. There is no reference to boundaries in Chapter I which is the usual way of describing the area to which you apply a constitution. One finds a reference there merely to the authority which will govern the area. That is how it is defined. The area is defined by reference to jurisdiction, not to boundaries; by reference to the governing authority, not by reference to the geography or the geographical area of the place. That in itself is unusual when constituting a new self-governing entity. Of course, Sir, it has to be in that form and one of the criticisms one has of the contents of the first chapter of th;s Bill is that not only is there provision in the measure for that entity which we are creating, constantly to change in the future, but that very entity is presently changing, its boundaries are presently changing under existing legislation—from day to day almost as the 1936 Act is used for that purpose. For that reason this form of description has had to be resorted to. But it assists neither the people of the Transkei nor the people in the Republic of South Africa because on the one matter where one would expect and desire certainty we are left with uncertainty.

Then one comes to the Second Chapter of this Bill. That gives to the Transkei symbols such as flags, anthems and language; symbols inconsistent with the executive and legislative functions and powers set out later in the Bill —trappings of sovereignty, Sir, out of place in a measure of this kind and out of place in a constitution which is creating, as this Bill creates, a new area which remains, in terms of the Bill and at this stage, an integral part of the Republic. It is inconsistent to have these trappings and symbols of sovereignty in a measure which has the limitation to which I shall refer later so far as executive and legislative functions are concerned.

Then we have citizenship dealt with in the Third Chapter. This is quite unusual. Citizenship which is related to language and colour and unrelated to place of birth or domicile is a quite novel concept in the role of citizenship. One has a further chapter, Chapter IV, which deals with the executive of the new state. It contains a combination of names reminiscent both of sovereignty and subordination. The juxtaposition of these two inconsistent concepts is used in describing the executive functions; there is the unusual method of the appointment of Ministers. I say “unusual” because the overall picture suggests that it is attempted to give to this constitution a flavour of British constitutional development but the established norms of that type of development do not appear at all times or at all places in this measure. They are dotted about with measures quite foreign to that system, with forms quite foreign to that system. The election by members of the Assembly of Ministers is a development foreign to the British constitutional system. There is no appointment of those officers by the Prime Minister which is the regular practice throughout the countries of the world which follow the British constituional practice. There is power to the Assembly to petition for the removal of Ministers rather like the power of attainder which the British Parliament exercised in the old days of absolute sovereignty when the King had absolute power. We have the unusual position that the powers and the functions of the Prime Minister are set out in the constitution. Another form which is foreign to the constitutional development I have dealt with.

What is the result of that so far as the executive power of this new body is concerned? It means that you are giving to this new state, to the new community, a new constitution which does not follow established forms, established forms for which we have a number of precedents. The new Government in the Transkei will find itself in this position that it cannot look to the older countries in the older constitutions for guidance as to how it is to function, because it does not follow those lines, and yet there is not sufficient elaboration in this Bill of the new forms which are there described for the new Government to derive guidance by reference to its own constitution. In other words, you have in this Bill some of the old, some of the new mixed up together, not fully set out so that there is, in terms of this Bill, a guide to the newly formed Government. Nor is it sufficiently close to the established forms of Government that those Ministers can look to other historical precedents for guidance. They are left alone in a wide sea in a small boat and they will have to use their wits to keep going. When setting up a new constitution, when starting a new state, all this makes for difficulties. It makes the wheels less easy to run smoothly; it makes this community a lonely community; it makes the persons in authority there a lonely group without precedent and guidance to help them along their way. It is suggestive of a measure hurriedly thought out and brought before this House in a rush. It is suggestive of the committal to paper of ideas which have not had time to mature.

In the Fifth Chapter of this measure we have provisions for the Legislature of the new Transkei, an unusual combination of hereditary and elective principles, a strange combination which seems to me—the nearest analogy I can find—a sort of mixture of the principles of the House of Lords and the House of Commons under the English system. The chiefs in many respects being close to the peerage in the House of Lords and of course the elected members being closer to the elected persons in the House of Commons. There are aspects of Victorian democratic practice, as was practised in Great Britain in those times where powerful peers, big landowners, holders of wellknown hereditary titles controlled the nomination to Parliament of members of Parliament. We have the same thing appearing in this Transkeian Constitution whereby the chiefs or some of them at least, have power to nominate a representative to sit in their seat in the Assembly. So you have the same principle there. You have the most novel situation of a largely expatriate electorate and the allocation of voters to constituencies in which they do not live, may never have lived and may never in their lives live. These things, to say the least, are quite novel. You have the linking together of hereditary titles with the right to seats in a elected Assembly. You have too the giving to the Legislature of the power to make provision for the enforcement of its laws extra-territorially, beyond its boundaries, but not by intergovernmental agreement (which is the usual form in the modern world) but by virtue of the provisions of the law itself. That too is something quite unknown so far as constitutional development is concerned; All these things give to the Legislature and to the Executive in this new state a system which is unknown in the modern world. We are not giving this entirely new system to a mature society, to a society of any experience; we are giving it to one which is the opposite of those two things.

I have so far looked merely at the provisions of this Bill itself. Marry to that, Sir, the type of society and community to which all this is being given, and it seems that one can draw only one conclusion and that is that there is the very greatest risk of it not being a success.

There is so far as the Chapter I am presently dealing with is concerned the introduction in Clause 40 of the requisite of consent by the head of state, the State President, to any measures passed by the Legislature. That introduces a provision similar to the situation which existed in the early days of the Union of South Africa when the head of state was a monarch, a King, and when he had to assent to laws passed in this House. But whilst introducing that principle into the constitution; there is not introduced at the same time those customs and conventions of the constitution which alone made that system work. But for the customs and conventions which we had under the Union of South Africa, the system of assent by the King would not have worked. We have introduced that system of assent here without those customs and conventions, and it cannot be said that they automatically apply, because there is no direct analogy between the relationship of this new Assembly and the State President—between that relationship and the relationship between the House of Assembly in the Union of South Africa and the King who was then the head of state. That convention was that the King acted always on the advice of the South African Cabinet, not on the advice of the British Cabinet. Directly the opposite, so it seems from speeches earlier on, is to be the position under Clause 40.

Finance is dealt with in Chapter VIII. We have flags and anthems in abundance so far as this Bill is concerned, but we have precious little by way of domestic revenue. We have a situation which again, I suggest, is unusual whereby in terms of the provisions of Chapter VIII the revenue of the state—I do not speak of subsidies of the South African Government, but of revenue by way of taxation—pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter will derive from citizens who are largely outside the borders of the Transkei. Again something quite unusual. The hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) earlier on made a speech in which he suggested that we could expect the Transkei constitution to work. In contrast to the states which had been set up by the Metropolitan Powers of Europe in other parts of Africa, here, he suggested (and he alluded particularly to the retention of the principle of chieftainship), we were grafting new forms or norms onto old established institutions, and that would make for this system to work whereas in other parts of Africa what had been introduced was a system foreign to the country, viz. Western democracy, and he held that largely for that reason those systems had not worked. But that is not so. Nearly all the prominent politicians in Nigeria for instance are hereditary chiefs, but Nigeria has its troubles, constitutional troubles, just as much as any other emergent state in Africa has. In fact quite recently things there have been very close to developing into violence. They have there grafted Western democracy onto the hereditary system of chieftainships which is native to that land, but because, I believe, it has been done too quickly they have had their troubles, just as I believe the Transkei will have its troubles.

Mr. Speaker, a perusal of this measure leads one to believe that what should have come last has come first. It demonstrates that what should have been the last phase of development in the emergence of a new state has come as the first stage. It should have been bread and jobs first and political power following on. But instead of that we have had politics first, and one can but hope (there is at present no indication of it) that the bread and the jobs will follow after. Otherwise this thing bodes very ill for the future.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) who has just sat down gave us a very comprehensive explanation of the details of this legislation and the criticism that he expressed, in so far as it was criticism, was actually in respect of the details of this legislation. But what is so strange is that hon. members on that side had the opportunity of investigating the details of this legislation and of bringing about improvements to those details but they did not make use of that opportunity. I shall refer to this point again briefly during the course of my speech.

First of all I want to say a few words about the remark that is so often made that this measure actually represents a change of policy on the part of the National Party Government. I want to say this particularly in pursuance of what was said by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) who says that the National Party has changed its philosophy. She contends that the previous policy of “baasskap” has now been changed and that the Bantu are now being given a say in the government of the country. Sir, we must ask ourselves for what purpose these areas were set aside for the Bantu. When we go back into history we see that even in the colonial days the policy was to set aside areas for the Bantu. That policy has been followed since Union. We have never departed from that policy; that policy has been confirmed repeatedly. I ask myself what the underlying intention was, not only in our time but many, many years ago when that idea was first mooted, and the least that one can say is that if it was not the intention to set aside separate areas for the Bantu, areas which of necessity would gradually develop and expand, then at least our forefathers felt instinctively that those are the laws along which one should proceed. If we go on then and talk about the guardianship of the White man in South Africa over the Bantu …

Where is that provided for in the Bill?

That has been accepted over the years and the supporters of the United Party also support the idea that the White man should be the guardian of the non-White. Or does the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) not support that idea? I think the hon. member does support that idea. What are the two important points in connection with guardianship? The first is that the person who is the guardian must protect and exercise supervision over the ward who has not yet reached maturity, who may perhaps still be a minor or who still has the qualities of a minor. But then there is another important factor in connection with guardianship and that is that eventually that person over whom the guardian is appointed reaches maturity. When he becomes 21 years of age he is no longer a minor and the guardianship is then terminated. There are other cases where the person under guardianship does not have the necessary ability but where he eventually develops and acquires the necessary ability and knowledge, and in that case the guardianship must eventually terminate. Do hon. members opposite who all support the principle of guardianship want to suggest that what is an important element of guardianship should be done away with? Do they suggest that irrespective of the degree of development and progress of the Native in South Africa of whom we are the guardians to-day—let us investigate this as a principle—that guardianship must remain for all time? I say that this is an important element of guardianship and when we talk of guardianship in the true sense of the word it is necessary for us to bear in mind the fact that the person whose guardian we are, will eventually outgrow that guardianship. What we are doing here now is gradually to train those persons whose guardians we are so that eventually that guardianship will disappear completely.

In the debate on a motion for the third reading of a Bill one must ask oneself for what reasons the Bill should be approved at its final stage or what reasons one can advance for refusing to approve of it. The legislation as we have it before us in its final stage, as I see it, makes provision for two or three things in particular. The most important provision, of course, is in Clause 1 in which self-government is given to the Transkei subject to the provisions of this Bill—in other words, it is not unlimited self-government. The Bill goes on to set out the restrictive provisions under which self-government is to be granted. It also brings into being a legislative authority and an executive authority and all that goes with it.

My main reason for welcoming this Bill and for thinking it is a good thing for this Bill to be placed on our Statute Book is because what is envisaged in this Bill is in conformity with the views of at least 99 per cent of the White population of South Africa. Hon. members must not misunderstand me. I say “what this Bill envisages” is in conformity with the wishes of more than 99 per cent of the White people. When one considers what this legislation has in mind, it is difficult for one to understand why there should be so much opposition to this legislation in this House because I am convinced that what is envisaged in this legislation is wanted by nearly all the people of South Africa. At least 99 per cent of the people in South Africa are passionately opposed to race integration. Hon. members of the United Party will I am sure not disagree with me in this regard.

Where is that provided for in the Bill?

The hon. member is trying vainly to distract me. I want to try to prove to him why this Bill should become law. In the first place, as I said, the people of South Africa want it. What this Bill seeks to do is desired by the people of South Africa. The fact that the Liberal Party in South Africa cannot make any headway proves that the people of South Africa are opposed to race integration. It is proved in South Africa by the fact that even the Progressive Party which leans far more in the direction of the United Party is unable to achieve any success worth mentioning. May I ask the hon. member for Hillbrow whether he is opposed to race integration?

I am, but that has nothing to do with the third reading.

I leave it to you, Mr. Speaker, to tell me if I am wrong. In the negative sense of the word I say that the people of South Africa are opposed to race integration but in the positive sense of the word I say that it is the aim and desire of the White people of South Africa in the first place to find a safe home for the White man in South Africa and at the same time to create circumstances by means of which not only the White man but the Black man and the Brown man too will be able to co-exist peacefully in South Africa. That is not only my desire, it is also the desire of hon. members on that side. That is why I say that this Bill must become law because this law is going to comply with the wishes of the people of South Africa. If hon. members opposite agree with me that we have the same thing in mind and if they are also opposed to race integration and if they want peace amongst the various races in South Africa, then we are in agreement as to what we are striving to achieve for South Africa. The only difference between us, if I may make a comparison, is that while both the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. the Prime Minister want to go to Swellendam, the one wants to go there via Worcester and the other via Caledon. The only difference between us lies in the method to be followed. What can we do to achieve a common purpose? It is not as simple as the example that I have given of going to Swellendam. It is far more difficult because the policy that is followed by hon. members opposite— and I cannot discuss it here because it is not contained in the Bill—is objectionable to us and we do not believe that we can achieve any success along that road.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to what is contained in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the final form of this Bill. Only one amendment was made to the Bill at the Committee Stage. I must say that hon. members opposite, notwithstanding the criticism that was forthcoming, mainly from the hon. member for Zululand, have not been of any real assistance to us. Indeed, they have made a farce of this Parliament. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) himself admitted during the Committee Stage —and his Leader confirmed it to-day in this House—that they were interested to see whether this proved to be a good law or not.

I do want to point out to the hon. member that he cannot by way of question and answer deal now with what happened during the Committee Stage.

No, Mr. Speaker, but I want to point out that in this third-reading debate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition advanced excuses as to why they did not move any amendments. That is why I say that by implication they admit that they wasted time during the Committee Stage and the other stages. They were not interested in ensuring that a good law was placed on the Statute Book as far as its details are concerned.

To my mind this Bill has three particular characteristics and that is why I feel that it must be placed on the Statute Book. In the first place, it does away with the partnership that has failed throughout Africa. Other countries in Africa have proved to us that this policy simply cannot work. Yesterday morning I was in the company of a person whose name I do not even know, an English-speaking person. We had a casual conversation and he was obviously a supporter of the United Party because he spoke very sympathetically of the experiences of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) on the previous day. That is why I am convinced that he was a United Party supporter. He referred to Kenya and he said that the inhabitants of Kenya Would never forget how they were treated there by the British Government. He said that if only one part of the country in the vicinity of Eldoret had been set aside—the area in which so many White people from South Africa settled and where they tamed the country—for occupation by the White man, things would not have been so bad. The thought then occurred to me that that was precisely what this legislation sought to do. Here we have the same idea of geographical division put forward by an English-speaking person in respect of Kenya, a person who is obviously a supporter of the United Party. That is what we have in mind with this legislation.

The second reason why I feel that this legislation is desirable and necessary is that it is in conformity with the spirit of the world, a spirit which prevails not only in other parts of the world but which also prevailed throughout Africa. World opinion is opposed to colonialism and is opposed to discrimination. It advocates the freedom of the State in which the individual can exercise his rights on an equal footing with his fellow-citizens. That in the main is the spirit that prevails throughout the world and also in Africa to-day. But I do not agree that in other parts of Africa, where freedom has been given to other parts of Africa—as we now envisage giving gradual self-government to the Bantu as was the case in the Congo and other parts of Africa—this has necessarily resulted in freedom. Indeed, I think that where freedom has been given in those countries, it has led to greater hostility and more trouble and greater dangers. That is why I feel that this legislation is so desirable. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition in criticizing this legislation said in regard to this point—

I cannot agree with that. This legislation makes provision for circumstances which are very different from those in other countries in Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to point out that the Bantu of the Transkei would come along later and ask for more rights in regard to other matters. It was on the basis of that argument that he said that we were creating more friction between the Transkei and the Republic, but we accept the consequences of this policy and it is precisely in this regard that we differ from the rest of the world because in this legislation unlike the position in the other countries in Africa, provision is being made for self-government to be given gradually to this territory. Powers are not being given to them overnight which they are not yet ready to exercise. The Bill provides that only certain legislative and executive powers will be given to the Transkei at this stage. We accept the fact that they will gradually ask for more powers and that as these people develop, as the minor reaches maturity and continues to develop, he will ask for and obtain more powers. That is the great difference. That is why I say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was completely wrong when he said that this Bill would lead to the same difficulties in South Africa that were experienced in other territories in Africa. The great difference is that this is a gradual process. That is why I feel that these are the three fundamental principles on which this Bill is based and that it is necessary for this Bill to be placed on our Statute Book.

The regulation of our racial affairs, the choice that we have to make as far as the handling of these affairs is concerned, is an extremely difficult problem because we as Whites realize that as far as numbers are concerned we are outnumbered four to one. I have never asked a United Party supporter to become a Nationalist. All that I ask is that we should see this Bill as an important measure and ensure that care is exercised in its implementation. I do not ask hon. members opposite to become Nationalists but what I want to ask them is this: This Bill will have been passed by this Parliament with a democratic majority and that is why I think that we are entitled to ask them, if they are not able to support it positively in the interests of South Africa, not to oppose it when it is applied. That is their sacred duty as Whites in South Africa. I said a moment ago that we do not differ as to our ultimate aim.

On a point of order, that is not relevant.

The road is a difficult one and even though this Bill is not perfect as hon. members opposite want it to be, it will be much easier for us to drive the wagon of South Africa over this difficult potholed and stony road if we all stand together in the best interests of the country.

Mr. Speaker, if this Bill is implemented, a territory will come into being which will have a large measure of self-government. The whole territory falls within my constituency and during the second-reading debate we drew attention to the fact that there were a large number of Coloureds, my voters, living in that territory. The hon. the Minister was good enough in his reply to the second-reading debate to give me a very brief reply and to discuss the contents of the Bill in regard to the interests of the people there whom I represent and I want to quote what the hon. the Minister said then (Hansard, 3 April Col. 3948)—

Let us imagine that the hon. the Minister’s figures are correct. In my opinion there are many more people in this area than the number mentioned, but then the question also arises: If this Bill is implemented, what will be the alternative that those people will have? If we had had a commission of inquiry into the position of those people and if at some stage or other they could have been given an assurance in regard to what was to become of them, then I believe that we would not have had this uncertainty and fear for the future on their part. But we are faced here with an accomplished fact which affects whole communities and they do nơt know where they have to go. There is no certainty as yet. The inquiry is still in its most elementary stage in this regard. Let us put ourselves in the place of those people who have lived there for generations. We tell them that at this stage when this Bill has almost been passed, that their case will be investigated and that we will see whether something can be done for them. In the meantime the circumstances under which they are living are deteriorating from day to day. There was no prior planning. The position of the Coloureds is 100 per cent more difficult than that of the Whites because generally speaking the Whites in the Transkei are people whose economic position is such that they can help themselves to a certain extent. The others are officials who are there because of their work or else they are artisans who can go where they like. If they have to leave the Transkei, they can go and live wherever they like or wherever they can afford to live. They can travel as far from the Transkei as their cars or other modes of transport can take them. But it is a well-known fact that the Coloureds cannot do so. The Coloured cannot decide where he wants to go and live. As far as his future home is concerned he is bound by the provisions of the Groups Areas Act as far as cities or towns are concerned. In the second place, he is placed in a far more difficult position than the Whites. If he is an artisan, he has to think about the application of job reservation and whether he can obtain employment in any particular sphere. If he is a farmer he has to start thinking where he can obtain a small piece of land in a Coloured rural area because of legislation on our Statute Book. No prior consideration was given to the position of the people on whom this burden rests most heavily. I say—and I accept responsibility for what I say; I do not say this to stir up racialism—that if the evil day should come when this new state loses control over its subjects, as happened in other states of Africa—control which the army and police of the Republic have to maintain from time to time—the Coloureds will be the first to suffer, as happened with the Whites in the Congo, and those people know it. I had the opportunity, thanks to the courtesy of the hon. the Minister, to discuss the matter with him and with a Coloured leader from the Transkei—the details are not relevant to this debate—and I mentioned this fact then, but I want to emphasize the fact that at the moment the position is such that in certain Coloured communities in the Transkei these people are being forced to pay up to 10s. a month to Poqo and to other offshoots of that underground movement and they receive no protection. When they make an appeal for assistance to the local Coloured leader and say to him: “You have now returned from the Coloured Council session; tell us what the future holds in store for us and what is to become of us,” then the local magistrate stops him and says that he (the magistrate) has had a request from the local chief not to allow that Coloured leader to hold a meeting because the chief is afraid of trouble being caused by certain elements and cannot accept the responsibility of protecting the Coloureds. The chief himself is protected by his guards and by the police but the Coloureds are defenceless

Order! The Po-qo movement is not relevant to this discussion.

I accept your ruling but the contents of this Bill are under discussion and in terms of the Bill a large measure of sovereignty is being given to a certain territory in which Coloureds are living, people who up to this stage have not had the protection to which they are entitled as citizens of the Republic. That is what I am trying to bring home to this House.

The hon. the Minister said that he would instruct the Heckroodt Commission to investigate the position of the Coloureds. In discussing this matter, I do not do so for the sake of making debating points or to try to tear the legislation of the Government apart. That is not what I am trying to do. In the first place I am concerned about the fate and the future of these people. It has been said that the Heckroodt Commission will investigate their case but I am very disappointed, just as those people are, that up to this stage very little progress has been made. All that we know is that at a certain stage the chairman of the Coloured Council was called to Pretoria and participated in certain discussions there. He returned and was not able to report to the Coloured Council on what had been discussed. I want to say in passing that the mere fact that this person lived in Umtata for some time does not mean that he is in any way representative of the Coloureds in the Transkei. He is completely out of touch with those people. As soon as he heard what was going to happen in the Transkei, he left there and I do not think that he is very welcome amongst the Coloureds in the Transkei any longer. In the meantime the Coloured communities in the Transkei received a circular signed by the secretary of the Coloured Taxpayers’ Association of Umtata in which they were invited to draw up memoranda for submission to the Heckroodt Commission. The Coloured taxpayers of Umtata consist, according to my information and as I know Umtata and as the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) can confirm, of about 30 people. I do not think that it is a body that has any status as far as the Central Government is concerned. I think that the only status that it has is as far as the municipality there is concerned and moreover, according to the hon. the Minister, Umtata is a White area, I can give the assurance that this sort of thing —the fact that they have received a circular letter from the Coloured taxpayers of Umtata in regard to something on which their entire future depends—has created the impression that they are being overlooked and that their problems are not being considered at all.

In speaking about the effects of the Bill on the Coloured people living in that area. I also want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to ensure that the Heckroodt Commission investigates the position of those people, that this be done in the proper way and that they be fully informed of what is happening so that they can put their case. At the same time I want to express the hope that they will at least be given some idea as to what is to become of them in the future.

I want to come back now to the effects of this Bill upon that territory. I have said that I assume that the hon. the Minister’s figures are correct. But the hon. the Minister spoke about Bantu areas in the technical dogmatic sense and because the hon. the Minister spoke about Bantu areas he naturally left out the White spots in the territory like Umtata and Port St. Johns. I take it that places like Idutya, Butterworth and Lusikisiki will remain White areas but they will be small islands in that Bantu sea. When we consider what the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) said when he spoke about the measure of sovereignty that this territory will have from the start, then it seems to me that we must think of degrees of comparison. There is a measure of sovereignty. At what stage is there going to be a greater measure or the greatest measure of sovereignty and at what stage will the greatest measure of sovereignty that can be given to that territory result in a demand from that new state that it also wants control over the White spots in its area? It would be stupid and silly for the people living in those White spots to wait until that evil day came. At the moment they are worried about their future. Therefore, with the greatest respect to the hon. the Minister, I say that while it is technically correct to mention these numbers, these are not the only people who are concerned in this matter. There are many other people involved who are now living in the so-called White areas and it is amongst these people living in the White areas that the greatest anxiety exists. In the first place, there is no market for their properties—nobody wants to buy, and for obvious reasons. In the second place, if they have to leave there, as they must do, they will not know where to go. As the Bill now stands there will be some form of quasi-sovereignty for that territory. When will it become full sovereignty? When will the stage be reached when the Republic will have to give up its suzerainty over that territory?

Order! I have allowed the hon. member a considerable amount of latitude but he must now come back to the contents of the Bill.

With the greatest respect, I find myself in this position: When I speak about the contents of the Bill and how the people there whom I represent will be affected, I do not actually know where to draw the line between a second and third-reading speech. But I shall do my best. I hope that you will allow me to speak about the effect of this Bill on the Coloured people living in that territory. In doing so I could make a very long speech but I shall be as brief as possible. When one considers the position of the Whites one finds that they are in this position that they have many Members of Parliament representing them in this House, but the position of the Coloureds is different —they only have my colleagues and, mainly, myself—and judging by what the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said, it would appear that the Coloureds in that territory will either have to assimilate with the Bantu or leave. I can say immediately that assimilation with the Bantu is out of the question. If they have to leave, the question arises: Where must they go? We have a great responsibility towards those people because they are not there entirely of their own free will. Their forefathers did not go there of their own free will but to serve South Africa as members of the Cape Corps. I also want to point out, on behalf of the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux), that in the northern part of his constituency, at Vryburg and Mafeking, he is also going to experience the same problem that I am experiencing now, and I want to express the hope that when the Bantustans come into being in that part of the country, planned action will be taken and that the Coloureds in that area will be able to face the future with greater assurance in the sense that they will know what is to happen to them. At this moment when this Bill is about to come into operation, there is great anxiety and uncertainty in the minds of these people. If we could tell them to-day that their case has already been investigated and that some decision has been reached in their regard so that they will know what to do, then it would be my duty to consider very seriously whether I should support this Bill or not. We on these benches try to be objective because we are not tied to any party caucuses. We try to represent our voters to the best of our ability and to consider objectively all measures that come before this House. If one adopts the attitude, as the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) said, that two people may use different roads to get to Swellendam but that the object of both is to reach Swellendam, then one might be able to consider this matter in the same light, and although the one road is slightly shorter, it may be the more difficult road. One can then carefully weigh up which road to choose. But as long as this sort of legislation in which no provision is made for the future of the people whom we represent comes before this House we will not be able to support such legislation.

I think the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) will understand it if I do not try to reply to the points he raised, because the Minister can do so better than I can. I realize that at this stage it is no longer so easy to make a third-reading speech and to say something which has not already been said, and therefore I shall be brief. I want to repeat that I think that this is an important Bill we have before the House, and to-day we have the last opportunity of looking at it. I still hoped, even after what has happened in recent weeks, that to-day we would be able to find some common ground. I had hoped that in spite of the objections there are against these clauses which, as hon. members opposite say, contain the germ of sovereignty, the Opposition would still say that the Bill would at some stage become useful in terms of their policy of a race federation. After having listened finally to-day to the Opposition’s approach to the matter, and having listened particularly to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who saw nothing in this Bill except “seeds of conflict”, and having listened to the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp), who saw nothing in the Bill except threats from abroad and conflicts with the Republic, and who revealed nothing but mistrust in these people—having listened to all that and to their approach to the matter, and to the total lack of confidence they have in the people with whom this Bill deals, I reluctantly came to the conclusion that I had to agree with the Leader of the Opposition and that in regard to our approach to this matter we have already come to the parting of the ways, and that therefore nothing remains for us but to carry on alone with this instrument we are taking in our hands to-day. This side of the House will implement its provisions with the greatest degree of sympathy, but without the assistance of the Opposition. As from to-day there will be only one course open to them, namely to accept our policy in respect of this matter.

When we come to discuss the clauses before us, I just want to say that the Bill before us, in its short-term effect, contains clauses which will promote good government. Here we have clauses by means of which we set in motion a legislative process, and where there will be the necessary advice and guidance and assistance to solve the problems. This Bill contains clauses which will promote good government. It contains financial clauses in terms of which we will assist the people of that State. It contains clauses which make it possible for us to help them in an orderly manner to outgrow their children’s shoes in the constitutional, economic and administrative spheres. I refer now to the clauses which have reference to the public service and the assistance we will give them there. In so far as its short-term effect is concerned, we have here an instrument which I, as a citizen of the Republic and as somebody representing a constituency lying alongside those people, have no doubt will lead to orderly government.

In so far as its long-term effect is concerned, we have something here which will be able to go further. Legislative powers are granted which can be extended. There are other provisions in terms of which we can lead those people further step by step. It contains the germ of sovereignty and that germ of sovereignty will give this sovereign Parliament more status and prestige at a time and in a way to be determined by this sovereign Parliament.

Then I want to deal with the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman), who raised more technical objections. His objections amounted to this, that this Bill is of a constitutional nature and that the people who have to implement it do not have the background of a long constitutional history, people who have not had the benefit of the conventions we have in this Parliament, the unwritten rules of the constitution. Sir, that is true. Everything has not been written into this Bill, and one cannot incorporate everything into it; it is just a piece of paper, but this constitution will work. It is bound to work. Why? Because there will be people of goodwill on both sides of the colour line, on both sides of the borders, who will ensure that it does work. They will develop their own conventions. Hon. members need not be afraid of that. It cannot be precisely like ours right from the beginning. We must still see how the party system will develop in the Transkei. We must still see how the conventions of Cabinet Government will develop in the Transkei system. We must see whether and how a convention will develop, so that whereas in the beginning the State President will be advised by his Ministers in the Republic in regard to those matters, a convention may later be developed whereby he will be advised by his Ministers in the Transkei. Therefore the objection to this Bill that it does not contain all the provisions is not a real objection, because no constitution known to those hon. members or to us contains all the provisions, but the customs and conventions of the constitution will develop just as they did in our case and therefore it will work, and therefore it will also be successful in its long-term development, and will lead to the co-existence of nations in South Africa, and will provide us with a reply to the world in the second half of the twentieth century. It will be the instrument whereby we can give to other people what we demand for ourselves, and also give them human rights. I have never yet heard that giving to others what they deserve leads to one’s own doom. Therefore in this most important period in the history of the Republic of South Africa, I as a member of this Parliament and as White South African make bold to say that I will vote for this Bill in its final stage with a clear conscience because to me it is tantamount to an act of faith—because this is not something for people who have no faith—and because I believe that it will inaugurate a period of wonderful co-existence, of finding each other and of co-operation in the future to the benefit of all of us in South Africa.

The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots) has quite rightly pointed out that we are drawing to the end of the discussion on this Bill. We are nearing the stage of its final passage through this House and nothing but a miracle now can prevent its becoming law. Government members pretend to be pleased about this development, about the prospects of this piece of legislation.

Why do you say “pretend”?

The hon. member for Queenstown has made it quite clear that there are some misgivings, but this is an experiment which they hope will work. He says that you must have faith in applying this law. Sir, it is quite obvious that unless you have faith you will be very disturbed at the passage of this Bill. We have pointed out the dangers which are inherent in the provisions of this Bill, Government members have certainly not been enthusiastic in discussing this measure. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) who interjected a moment ago has not spoken once. I cannot remember any other piece of major legislation passing through this House with so little active support from Government members, especially during the Committee Stage. In this debate some of them have excused themselves for not going into any detail because they say that the rules of debate do not permit it. It is quite obvious that when they are allowed to talk on ideology there is no hole in the back. They talk for hours, but once they have to deal with a practical measure where their principles and their ideologies are being applied, then they are hamstrung; they do not know what to say.

The preamble states first of all that this Bill is being produced at the request of the Bantu. We have denied it. It is not possible to say how many people will be directly affected by the provisions of this measure but we suspect that nearly half, if not the majority of those who will be affected have not been consulted at all, and they have certainly not expressed themselves in favour of the conception of this measure. We do not believe that the majority of the people living outside the Transkei or inside the Transkei understand or even wanted the principle, and the discussion at the last session of the Territorial Authority supports our view. Certainly, as the preamble says, the Territorial Authority asked for self-government, but it is quite clear from the original motion introduced at the Territorial Authority that they only asked for it because they could see themselves getting no other form of political representation. I just want to quote again the resolution as passed. This resolution was moved by a Pondo and reads as follows—

Sir, on other occasions I have quoted from these reports of the Territorial Authority speeches by others who supported that motion, and it is quite clear from their speeches that the sole reason for asking for this type of government was that they had been denied representation in this House. The most ardent protagonist of separate development, Chief Kaizer Matanzima, recognized this and at the last sitting of the Territorial Authority when this Bill was accepted he had to intervene because there was so much opposition to the measure from chiefs in the Territorial Authority. He said this—

He then went on to say this—

The confusion was in the Territorial Authority, the body which is said to have asked for this legislation.

Unanimously.

No, I do not think it says “ unanimously At any rate it was requested by the Territorial Authority. There was so much confusion on the part of members, members who are opposing this type of Constitution, that they had to be reminded time and again by Chief Kaizer Matanzima and by his brother that they had asked for his form of government in 1961, and that they had passed a resolution the previous year accepting the recommendations of the Recess Committee. They were told that they would be made to look fools if they went back on the resolution passed by them originally. Sir, to show how little they understood it, Chief Kaiser Matanzima found it necessary to remind them that if they did not understand the terms of the Constitution, they could have got interpreters to interpret for them, because it became quite apparent too that they did not realize what was in this Bill. I say that as far as the claim is concerned that the Bantu themselves want this type of legislation, there is no foundation for it. I have raised this question with the Minister before in regard to the urban Bantu who are going to be affected just as much as those living in the Transkei. Again I say that there is no proof that any of them asked for this measure or in fact that they have been consulted either by the chiefs, or by this Government.

This preamble purports to give further powers of self-government to the Bantu. Not only does it give powers to govern Bantu but also non-Bantu and non-citizens as well as citizens. The Minister has made it clear that non-citizens of the Transkei, i.e. the Whites and Coloureds who are living there, will be treated as Pondos, and like foreigners in any other land they must obey the laws of the land in which they live. It is all very well for the Minister of Bantu Administration to say that the Whites and the Coloureds were warned years ago that this process was to take place. I think the first warning came in 1952, but there is no gainsaying the fact that when the Whites settled in those areas they were settling in their own homeland, and when those original settlers went there, there was no suggestion that they would one day be told that they were living in a foreign country. Sir, I have addressed the House frequently on the position of the Whites and the Coloureds. Suffice it to say that until the Prime Minister announces what he is prepared to do in giving compensation or other relief to us we feel that we are and we say that we are, being abandoned by the Government to the mercy of an unknown, an untried government. Sir, the Minister does not know and we do not know what type of government we will have in the Transkei. Nobody knows what type of electorate we will have in the Transkei. If every voter who might be qualified in terms of this Bill decided to apply for registration, you would have a most varied electorate ranging from the uncivilized, raw Native along the coast to the sophisticated, professional and businessmen on the Rand and in the other big cities of the Republic. We know that the chiefs themselves are divided. We do not know whether the voters will exercise the right to vote, or whether they will boycott elections. We do not know what influence the women will have on the election of representatives to the Assembly. The women have the vote in the same way as the man. Sir, it is supposed to be “one man one vote” but it depends on the number of wives the men may have. It may be “four votes one man,” or “five votes one man.” On the other hand the women may not abide by the decision of their husbands and vote contrary to their husbands.

That is ridiculous.

Does that hon. member think that the women will only vote as their husbands tell them to vote? If that is so, why worry about giving them the vote? We all know—and this applies to Bantu women as well as other races—that when women take an interest in politics they become much more ardent than the men …

Politically ardent.

… and the Government has found to its cost that when women have objected to a law and decided to ignore the law, they have been much more difficult to deal with than the men. Sir, it is not only the non-citizens of the Transkei who worry about the type of government that they may get, but the Transkeian citizens themselves who are law-abiding and the mass of the population are worried about what will happen, and that is why they have expressed opposition to this form of government and that is why at the last session of the Territorial Authority the chiefs were trying to go back on this Constitution which they had accepted previously. It was because they realized that there was objection from their own subjects. Sir, the Minister is handing over administration and the power to make laws to this unknown and untried Government and in terms of Clause 37 of this Bill we forfeit our right to pass laws which are in conflict with the powers given to the Transkeian Government. The decision of the United Party not to move amendments to this Bill in the Committee Stage was based on the fact that we were so opposed to the wider principles to have nothing to do with the Bill. The fact remains that we found it necessary in the Committee Stage to move one amendment in order to try to save the sovereignty of this Government and to enable this Government to exercise control over the Transkeian Government, but as you know, Sir, that amendment was ruled out of order. The amendment was to the effect that nothing in this Bill would abolish …

(Mr. Pelser): Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the contents of the Bill. He cannot deal with what was omitted from the Bill.

Clause 37 of this Bill abolishes and diminishes and derogates from the powers of this Parliament, and as it stands now it definitely derogates from the sovereignty of this Parliament and gives a measure of sovereignty to the Transkeian Government. It is all very well saying that the Government of the Republic has all the necessary powers, as certain Government members have said, because the State President must give his assent before a Bill can be passed, and he may also issue proclamations removing ambiguities, and in terms of Clause 70 he can amend existing laws or make new laws. But if there is a conflict between the Government of the Transkei and this Government, it will be the President who will in fact have to exercise his veto over the Transkei Government. It is all right for members living hundreds of miles away from the Transkei to face the fact that there may be a conflict between the two Governments, but we living in the Transkei are not very happy at the thought of our position if there is any serious conflict between the two Governments, and if hostility does develop how will it be resolved? There is nothing in this Bill which makes provision for difficulties to be resolved. There is nothing in this Bill which deals with the position where the Transkeian Government refuses to accept the advice of the State President. We have had instances of other Governments having difficulty with neighbouring Governments, and where there was no way of resolving the difficulty they had one recourse and that was to go to UNO or to go to other Governments for assistance. The Minister of Information has attempted to allay people’s fears by telling them that if there is any conflict the Government of the Republic will not allow any foreign Government to intervene or establish itself in any position of authority in the Transkei. You will remember. Sir, that he made that ridiculous statement that if they did we would take the same line as America took with Cuba. This question of a possible conflict between the two Governments is a very serious one. I regard as one of the most serious aspects of this the fact that you will or can bring about a conflict between the Government of the Republic and of the Transkei. with no obvious solution provided for in this measure. I think the main weakness of this Bill is that it endeavours to give self-government to an area which is not viable. In terms of this Bill provision is made for giving financial assistance to the Transkeian Government, because the Government of the Republic recognizes the fact that they do not have the means to be able to carry on on their own; that they are an impoverished state.

In the beginning.

Sir, right from the beginning they have to look for assistance, and without allowing European capital and initiative to go in and develop the area, it will always remain an impoverished state. That is inevitable. The Transkeian Government will never be able to get out of its position of dependence for financial assistance on the Government of the Republic because these people have nothing; there is nothing that they can tax. The pople are paying as much in taxation at the present time as they can pay. There is no other way in which the Transkeian Government can earn revenue. The only thing that they can do of course, is to put into power a Government which does not support the policy of the Government of the Republic, and if they put in a Cabinet which is opposed to the Government of the Republic and that Cabinet decides to open up the Transkei with White initiative and the employment of White capital and decided, for instance to open up the coastline to tourist traffic, offering White people facilities on the coast. what would be the attitude of this Government to the Government of the Transkei when this Government has made it quite clear that it will not allow White initiative and White capital and White settlement in that area? There is nothing in the Bill to stop the Cabinet of the Transkei from carrying out that policy if it so desires. Sir, the opposition of the mass of the Africans and especially of the educated African in the Transkei to this form of Government is based on the fear that the Transkei will become isolated and impoverished. One Paramount Chief described the position of the Transkei, after the passing of this Constitution as being the equivalent to a pigsty isolated. with nobody wanting to go to it. Yesterday when we pointed out that the Transkeian Government would at all times have to look to the Government of the Republic for financial assistance, the Minister made the promise that he would give that assistance. I pointed out that at the present time the Transkei was being subsidized not by this Government but by the Cape Province to the extent of over R 800,000 a year for the maintenance of roads. They are being subsidized, not by the Government of the Republic but by the Province, for the maintenance of hospitals in the sum of R904,000. Sir, is it fair to expect the Cape Province to continue to subsidize the Transkei if the Transkei is to become an independent state? The Minister has undertaken to subsidize the roads, but he has not told us on what basis. He has not given us any assurance that he will give them as much for roads as the province has been spending on roads. We do not know what he is going to give them for the maintenance of provincial roads. They do not know what the position is going to be with regard to their hospitals; whether the province will be prepared to spend money when it knows that in terms of this Bill provincial property may be handed over to the new Government without any compensation.

Sir, I raised the question of Port St. Johns. This is a most important question. Port St. Johns is excluded from the area which is eventually to become the area of jurisdiction of the Transkeian Government, but the only way of access to Port St. Johns …

Order! For the purposes of this Bill Port St. Johns is not part of the Transkeian Territory.

May I just point out why it is of importance for the purposes of this Bill. The Transkeian Government will take over the roads leading to Port St. Johns. There is no other means of access.

Order! The hon. member cannot deal with Port St. Johns.

On a point of order, earlier this afternoon the debate was completely open. We talked about Gaul and places in history 2,000 years ago. The hon. member is talking about something which is essential to the Bill. Sir, I must protest against what has been going on to-day.

Order! I have been very fair; I have allowed a certain amount of latitude in discussions. I do not know what happened before I occupied the Chair. The hon. member cannot discuss Port St. Johns. For the purposes of this Bill it is not part of the Transkeian Territory.

I have no intention of discussing it further except to point out that the roads which do give access to a part of the Republic will be taken over by the new Government and al! I am asking is how the Minister is going to subsidize this road. Will he give an assurance now that he will at all times see that that road is maintained in the proper state of repair in which it is to-day? The Minister took exception yesterday to the suggestion that civil servants may find themselves without pay. I point out again that this Transkeian Government will have to depend on the charity of the South African Government. The civil servants who are being transferred in terms of this constitution are being so transferred whether they like it or not. The Minister has abandoned them. What shocked me yesterday was when he said this, that they must serve their own people and that if they were not prepared to do so they must go. He said “as hulle dienste nie verder nodig is nie dan moet die Republiek hulle net ontslaan”. An assurance was given by the Prime Minister that all civil servants would be protected, that the civil servants need not worry about their position. He was not going to sacrifice them in the way they have been sacrificed by the British Government. It is quite clear to me that in terms of this constitution the Black civil servants and the White civil servants are being treated on a different basis. Surely a man’s security in the Civil Service does not depend on the colour of his skin. What is the Minister going to do with those civil servants who joined the service of the Republic and who are now told that they will have to work under a new Government whether they like it or not and that if there is no work for them there they will be sacked?

Clause 60 provides for the handing over of municipal property. This will mean that as municipal areas are zoned and certain portions are handed over to the new Government all progress must stop. There will be no more desire to provide facilities and new services. The ratepayers will say that they are not prepared to undertake the responsibility for any new loans not knowing when they will find half their municipal area or Village Management Board area taken out of their control. The Minister says it will be done by proclamation. He said that the terms of the handing over would be set out in the proclamation but we want a statement now as to what is going to happen. It should be stated in this constitution what compensation will be given to these municipalities and these villages.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) treated us to the Gallic Wars and he said that the development which was now taking place in the Transkei was a combination of the old customary tribal habits and democracy. He is not the only one who has said that. The hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) said the same thing. I should like to point out that the position in Britain is not at all akin to the position in the Transkei. You have heredity rulers in Britain admittedly and provision is made for them in the Legislature of the country. I do not think you will find any other legislative body in the world except Basutoland, where you have heredity rulers and elected rulers sitting in the same chamber. Wherever they have sat in the same chamber it has failed and it must fail here. The whole basis of having heredity rulers as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, was to have a better form of government because heredity rulers did not have to look for popular favour, they could govern as they thought best because they would not have to worry about the polling booth. By bringing heredity rulers and elected members into the same House now, the Minister is abandoning that basis. You are now going to have heredity rulers and elected members competing for popular favour and the heredity rulers may find themselves opposed by elected members whose political philosophy is quite different from the territory which they, the heredity rulers, represent. The Paramount Chiefs and chiefs, who will form part of this Government, will only keep their seats and maintain their position if they attend every session. If a chief fails to attend a session of the new Parliament and that Parliament itself decides not to condone his absence he loses his position as chief. Can you imagine the conflicts you might have in that Assembly? These chiefs do not only represent one tribe. It is not a homogeneous nation; there are several different tribes and up till recent years there were frequently tribal clashes. Each tribe has not got the same number of chiefs in the Assembly. It means that you will find that chiefs take sides with other elected members against other chiefs. Instead of having a battle on the battlefield you will have the battle in the Assembly. If a chief is annoyed at what happens in the Assembly and decides to boycott the Assembly in future he may find himself losing his seat and if he loses his seat he loses his position as a chief or Paramount chief. This is a most serious position because unless the other chiefs decide to condone his absence he loses his seat and consequently his position as chief. What happens if the tribe decides to keep him as a chief or as the Paramount chief? Then there will be a conflict and who is going to solve that conflict? There is nothing in this constitution which deals with the position where a chief has lost his seat. Supposing the tribe says they are not going to elect anybody else, that he is their Paramount Chief and that they want him to represent them in the Assembly? Why is the British system successful in Britain? It is because the Paramount Peer does not even go into the House of Lords; it is the King. He does not even go there; he keeps aloof of politics. These chiefs and Paramount Chiefs should also keep aloof of politics. The only way in which a system of co-operation can work between heredity rulers and elected members is by having separate bodies. The Minister should know what has happened to the north of us. Wherever you had heredity rulers and elected members in the same chamber, as is provided for here, the chiefs have lost out.

We are told that this constitution is a natural development. The Government has promised to give the Africans this development because they “desired nothing for themselves which they were not prepared to give them There is no power in this new constitution which could not have been given under the old Bunga system. The only difference is this that this type of constitution is necessary for the body which is now planned because of the degree of sovereignty which is being given, because of the powers which are being taken out of the hands of the Government of the Republic. The hon. member for Randfontein said that all we were doing was to give a major child self-responsibility. He said the White people ought to be glad that this child could now manage its own affairs and relieving the rest of the country of responsibility. But that is a lot of nonsense. We are not being relieved of any responsibility by setting this child free, because this child is not in a position to maintain itself. Because of that position, and because it will always have to look to us, it will always be under an obligation to the Government of the Republic, he will always have a feeling of resentment against this Government because he will always have to come hat in hand to this Government to ask for money so that he can carry on. They are going to build up a feeling of resentment because nobody likes a feeling of being under an obligation. Previously they were all part of us and they were entitled to get financial assistance; they were entitled to expect their roads to be maintained as part of the Republic. I have addressed this House on several occasions on the position of the White and the Coloured man in the Transkei. I have continually reminded the Government that we are there and of his responsibility towards us. That has also been of no avail. This legislation is now to be passed. With the final implementation of the policy of the Government which is being started now by the passage of this measure, if it is allowed to be implemented in full, the betrayal by this Government of the Whites and the Coloureds in the Transkei is unsurpassed by any betrayal on the part of the British Government of its own subjects to the north of us. That hon. member laughs. I am going to repeat: Until we get some definite statement from this Government, from the Prime Minister, as to what he intends doing with the White people and how he intends looking after us and the Coloured people, we feel that we have been abandoned. Not only do we and the Coloureds want monetary compensation but what about the law-abiding African who does not want to live under that Government? You must remember this too, Sir, that we will be living under a foreign Government and this Government must always bear in mind, whatever conflict there is with the Government of the Transkei, that its subjects are living out there unprotected in the rural areas. It will always have to be the responsibility of this Government to bear that in mind. We look to them to do that for us at least.

I think hon. members will realize, having regard to the nature of a third-reading debate, that it will not be necessary for me to deal with all the matters which hon. members have raised here. I shall try as far as possible to deal with the effect of this legislation, as hon. members have put it.

In his great struggle this morning to find certain arguments against the salutory effect of this legislation on the Transkei, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition reminded me very much of the man who was looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack. It was really pathetic to see how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had to struggle to find any arguments against the salutory effect that this measure will have on the Transkei. He himself actually gave the reply which I was supposed to give him. He stated that there was really a basic difference between the approach of the Opposition to this matter and the approach of this side of the House. The answer is definitely that there is a basic difference between the two sides of the House. Having regard to this basic difference it is natural that the Opposition will see bogies where no bogies exist at all. This important difference between us has become more apparent than ever before during this discussion. We are convinced that what the Opposition see as things which will have a detrimental effect, will in fact have a very salutory effect on the Transkei and on South Africa.

One of the important arguments of the Leader of the Opposition is that there has been no proper consultation. That was one of his objections, and that is why he stated that this measure would not have a salutory effect on the Transkei. Sir, I have already replied to that in the past. It is a remarkable thing that while making this statement members on the other side at the same time make use of reports which show that there was consultation. I want to repeat the challenge which I have so often made to the Opposition to prove that there is any country in the whole of Africa which has become emancipated and where the people concerned were consulted in connection with their constitution as much as the Bantu of the Transkei were consulted. The Territorial Authority is a responsible body and nobody can or will deny that that body represents the Bantu of the Transkei. The Territorial Authority represents 95 per cent or more of the masses in the Transkei. It is the recognized mouthpiece of the people. That is a fact which nobody can deny.

I want to concede at once that the objection of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was really in connection with the Bantu outside the Transkei. The fact of the matter is that we ask the Bantu leaders to send for their recognized leaders in the cities or whereever they might be; we provided the necessary facilities and discussed this matter with them too. I have already pointed out on a previous occasion that about 40 to 50 leaders of the Bantu of various places came to attend the discussions. They came from Cape Town, East London, Johannesburg and other places. They were consulted therefore. I say without fear of contradiction that in no single country in the whole of Africa was there a greater degree of consultation and co-operation in connection with their constitution than there was in the case of the Transkei. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that a further effect of this legislation will be conflict between White and non-White and conflict between the Transkeian Government and this Government. He said that this legislation would have a separatist effect as far as the people of this country and of the Transkei are concerned. In this regard we have the lessons of history and those lessons very definitely support what the Government is doing here. We see what conflicts there are over the whole world from day to day. Just think of the ugly things which are taking place in America; think of the ugly things which are taking place in England where there is only a small number of non-Whites. What is the basic cause of those clashes? It is the very thing that we are trying to avoid by means of this legislation. The lessons of history and the facts prove that the only method to follow is the policy of separate development. Here I want to say again that the vast majority of the people whom we consulted also adopted the attitude that they were against a multi-racial parliament for the Transkei, that they were against the principle of a multi-racial unitary state. As the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has pointed out, there were others who adopted a different attitude but if he goes carefully into those cases he will find that they were drilled by a White man and that in their heart of hearts they did not believe what they were saying. He also says that we did not consult all the various sections. I want to admit at once that we did not consult Mr. Patrick Duncan and his section because that would have been a slap in the face of the Bantu in the Transkei. We did not consult the supporters of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) because we know that they are the victims of a small group of Whites who are misleading them. Surely we cannot be expected to consult people of that kind. We have to consult the people whom the Bantu themselves recognize as their leaders and net those who Mr. Patrick Duncan and his clique appointed as leaders. There is no idea which the Bantu find more abhorrent than the idea that we should consult those people who are simply instruments m the hands of other sections and groups. I want to say here at once that the effect of this legislation, in a very tangible fashion, is going to bring clarity in South Africa, also in the minds of those people who still refuse to believe and who still refuse to understand. All those shadows of doubt which have hung over South Africa for such a very long time will disappear as a result of this legislation. Those people who are simply instruments in the minds of the Whites but also in the minds of the Bantu. The apartheid legislation that we have already introduced in this House is basically designed not to discriminate, but to eliminate and to obviate clashes. That is the basic principle of our apartheid legislation. When we introduced apartheid legislation in the past there were people—I refer to the Press particularly—who continually tried to make the world believe that we were perpetrating a fraud, that we were bluffing the world and that we were committing an act of dishonesty against the Bantu of South Africa. I am glad that the hon. member for Houghton has had the courage to admit that it has surprised many people that we have come forward with this legislation. They did not believe that we would do so, in spite of the fact that we consistently announced that that was our intention. This is one of the things which created a great measure of dissatisfaction in the hearts of the Bantu; it created a great measure of doubt in the hearts of the Whites, and it also created doubt in the outside world in respect of South Africa’s policy.

The object of this legislation is to remove those shadows of doubt and make it clear to everybody, that the National Party earnestly desires to give effect to the promises made by it and to the policy announced by it and that it is not merely deceiving the Bantu.

The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. S. F. Steyn) has already pointed out the incorrectness of the statement made by the hon. member for Houghton to the effect that this legislation represents a considerable departure from the policy of the National Party; that we have suddenly realized that the reins of government cannot be retained in the hands of the White man only. It has always been our policy, and it was our policy even in the days of the old Republic, to give the Bantu a measure of say and self-government in their areas.

I just want to refer to the relationship which existed between the Republic of the Transvaal and Swaziland. I do not want to go into that history again, but that has always been our attitude. I have frequently pointed out that the promise was made to the Bantu by the White man that he would be given self-government. I have said before that we have reached the stage where we must realize that we cannot satisfy the Bantu with promises only; that we must also take positive steps. This is simply the logical implementation of the policy that we have always announced and the time is ripe now to give effect to it. Our whole Party realizes that the time is ripe now to give effect to it. That is why we are giving effect to it and not because we have become frightened or anything of that nature. This is the logical and natural development of our policy. This Bill confirms and makes it clear to everybody that it is the Government’s earnest desire to carry out to the last letter of the law the policy which it has always announced and that we are not going to flinch from it. I want to say here quite candidly that I take no notice of the fuss which the outside world is making. My policy and my conviction are dictated by my conscience and by what is good and right for my fatherland, for South Africa. That is my criterion in these matters, and that is the criterion of every Nationalist. That is why we are unanimous about this Bill and that is the reason for the enthusiasm evidenced in regard to this Bill. It has been said here that we have not consulted the Bantu sufficiently. But without fear of contradiction I should like to state that the Bill we have before us to-day is the creation of the Bantu of the Transkei. There are people here who doubted that, people who laughed about it, and those who even said it was untrue. I repeat that this Bill is the creation of the Bantu of the Transkei. The basic things in this Bill were created by them. I have already said on a previous occasion that the hon. the Prime Minister suggested certain things to them here and there, but thereafter he said, as I did too, “That is your affair; if you feel you cannot do it, you must say so; it is your creation”. And then they adjourned and discussed it amongst themselves. It goes without saying that the officials had to give technical guidance. Our legal advisers had to give them technical guidance. But does that not happen, too, in regard to every Act passed in every Parliament in the world? Then surely hon. members have no right to come here and deny that this is the creation of the Bantu of the Transkei?

Only this morning the Executive of the Territorial Authority met in Umtata and they passed a unanimous resolution there in which they expressed their thanks to me for the fact that this Bill had gone through in the form in which they asked for and that I had refused to accept any amendments and they pleaded with me: Be firm as far as the passage of this Bill is concerned and see to it that it is passed, unchanged by Parliament. They have done so spontaneously. After all they are people who act in a responsible manner. How can hon. members now say it is not their creation? I repeat that our legal advisers assisted them, but that happens with every Act in every country in the world. Not only do we have an individual creation; we also have a creation that is quite new. This Bill really and truly is a quite new creation in the constitutional history of the world, and I think we have every reason to be proud of it. And here you have the basic feature to which particular reference has been made by one of the hon. members, that here you have a combination of what is good and fine in the government system of the Bantu of the Transkei as well as the best to be found in Western civilization. In other words, care has been taken here, and the world will still be thankful for that, to ensure that the roots and the structure of the Xhosa tree will remain unchanged, that it will not be uprooted, but that at the same time it will be fertilized with the best to be had from Western civilization which, as it develops, will bear the Xhosa stamp, and the people will feel that it is their own creation. That is one of the most important things that has to be done in the life of a nation, and it is in this respect that the world has erred in other countries in Africa, where constitutions perfectly in accordance with the model of Downing Street have been created, and forced upon the people, and they have been told: Everything that is different is not constitutional. I am surprised that the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) made the submission he did. He should really not have been the member for Zululand, but the member for Downing Street, because really a good Zulu would not talk the way like that. A Zulu is too proud. It is the basic approach to create a pattern, to create a constitution which they can feel is their own; it is not something strange. And here I think we have rendered a service to Africa, and we have rendered a service to the world. South Africa has lit a torch. When one refers to the reports of the various conferences of the African States in recent years, there is one important thing that always strikes one, namely that in the end they always come forward with the proposition: “Africa has no soul as yet.” They are trying to give Africa a soul. In other words, they must seek for the creation of something indigenous in their constitutions. And I make this submission here this afternoon, that in the case of the Transkei, the Xhosa of the Transkei need not go in search of a soul. They have retained their own soul, and that soul can develop further. There we have rendered the world a service, and we have lit a torch for Africa constitutionally. I make bold to say that this constitution will yet serve as a model for many States of Africa, if not now then in the years to come.

This constitution will also have another effect, and that is that we have always been charged with wanting to keep the Bantu in a state of barbarism, that the basis of our policy is to force him back into his primitive state, to keep him as primitive as possible, to keep him in the bush. This thing has been sent forth into the world to such an extent that this is one of the things the world holds against us. This constitution to-day is the active repudiation of that charge against us, against the National Party. Yes, we are now frequently told that we are going too far! Here the proof has been adduced that we have produced a constitution in collaboration with the Bantu, a constitution which has its own soul, but at the same time embodies the best in Western civilization. It will still serve as the model for many nations, not only for the Bantu; indeed, it will yet serve as a model for some White nations.

This constitution will have a further effect, namely that it will herald a new era for the creation of good human relations between the Whites and the Bantu here in South Africa. I have already pointed out that they are now beginning to realize that all the tales they have been told to the effect that we just want to keep them in a primitive state etc., that we really do no want to set them on the road to development and progress, that all that is untrue, and this constitution will give the lie to those stories. In the course of time they themselves will come to realize that all those stories are untrue, and that alone will bring about a new relationship in South Africa.

It will also create a new relationship in South Africa because proof is being given that the White man can in fact be trusted. Why? Because in the hearts of the Bantu there has always been uncertainty, particularly in the Transkei, in regard to the question as to what would become of their territory one day, and as to whether it would not also ultimately all become the White man’s territory. That uncertainty is being removed.

Another effect the Bill will have is that it now paves the way for the creation of good neighbourliness in South Africa. Good neighbourliness is the only basis upon which good relations can be built up. I should just like to mention a few reasons for that. An important thing is being done here, namely the recognition of the Bantu as a human being. As I said the other evening, his dignity as a human being is being recognized. What is more, recognition is here being given to the dignity of the Bantu, not only as human beings, but also as a nation. Because a man and his race are indivisible, despite everything the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) says. One must have sunk very low to have severed completely the ties with one’s nation. I wish to submit that this is not so in the case of the Bantu, with very few exceptions. The Bantu has remained bound to his own national traditions, and this constitution will allow the Xhosa people to live as a nation once again. That is one of the things they have felt so deeply during past years. There have been conflicts, and strong efforts have been made to destroy them as a nation. This has left its mark on their hearts but now it is being removed and proof is being given to them that here is a Government which recognizes that they also have a right to exist as a nation. Nothing will foster good race relations better than that very recognition. Because it is where recognition is not given to this basic principle in the life of man and the life of a nation that racial clashes occur. This Bill accords recognition, expressly and unquestionably, to the culture of the Bantu. Certain important principles have been embodied in this Bill that could stand before the whole world, and one of them is that in their system of government, which constitutes a part of their culture, they have certain things that are on asset to the world. We need not be ashamed of that, but we can be proud of it. What can create better race relations than that one should also recognize the culture of a nation? The fact that in other parts of Africa the Bantu have been looked down upon frequently because they have no culture, or only a kind of culture derived from the French or the English or whosoever it may be, was one of the greatest causes of the hatred of the White man that arose in Africa. Had that not been done, Africa could have been spared much agony. Here the Government has taken the wise step of recognizing the cultural riches of the Bantu, and the Government is encouraging the development thereof in such a manner that it is enriched by what is best in Western civilization. That approach can only result in creating good race relations in South Africa.

This Bill will also have a valuable economic effect. It will promote the economic development of the Transkei. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories has said that the economic development of the Transkei will now come to a halt. The hon. member for Houghton has said that the Transkei is about the poorest place in the whole word. It is terribly poor. This kind of sneering statement is being made. If the Transkei is so poor, I am surprised at what provides the White people in the Transkei with a livelihood and what is making them so wealthy and why, if it is such a poor part, they are unwilling to get out of the Transkei. I want to say that if we were to remove the Bantu from the Transkei and leave the Whites there alone, with only their present income, what would it look like then? The Transkei is not so very poor. The Transkei is a country of possibilities. But I should also like to submit that in my humble view the development in the Transkei was wrong. Was it right that in a Bantu area one should have had that phenomenon that a large number of White towns arose which lived largely really on the labour and on the revenue produced by those people? Should it not have been the other way about? Should we not have had a large number of Bantu towns in the Transkei? Surely that would have been the proper development. And I hasten to say that nobody appreciates more than I do the services those White people have in the meantime rendered to the Bantu. I admit that the White people have rendered a great service to the Bantu, services the Bantu could not have rendered himself. But this is my submission: If we really are concerned about the Bantu of the Transkei, and really are concerned about the economic development of the Transkei, then we should follow the pattern of all the countries of the world then one should have the Bantu towns and the Bantu towns really growing on the income of the people living there. For that is where the tertiary industries are developed, in which the vast majority of those people make their living. An hon. member has referred to the report of the Tomlinson Commission in which it is stated that only a certain number of farmers can live there. That is quite correct. In other countries of the world one also finds that only a small percentage of people can make a living out of farming alone, and that secondary and tertiary industries have to be created for the others. The rest of the people derive a livelihood from that. Is it not a fact that there is a stream of Bantu always flowing to the White areas? Is that not an accusation against the White man in South Africa? But that is the pattern the hon. member for Houghton wishes to see in South Africa. The pattern must be such that the development will come about in the area itself, and that one should not virtually drive out the people in the way Basutoland at the present time is driving its inhabitants out, but that a country should embrace its children and that its inhabitants should live in it, as the decent Jews are doing in Palestine to-day.

Why has the Transkei developed in this way? For the very reason that one of the most important elements have been omitted. The whole community should be actively engaged in the process of development, and one of the most important tasks in that process of development is that there should be a responsible Government with duties to perform. That state of mind created in the past, particularly under the old Bunga, was unfortunate. That old Bunga always took the following kinds of resolutions: “We respectfully request the Government to do this or to do that Surely that state of mind is a cancer in the nation’s life. How can one exterminate it? Only when one entrusts those people with responsibility, with the task of the development of their own area. In that way alone permanent and sound development can take place there.

Surely it is senseless to think that we should just go on doing patchwork continually. One can only develop the territory, and help it to develop itself, when everything is set in motion, when a sense of responsibility is fostered, when a spirit of enterprise is fostered, and when they themselves acquire all the skills for the development of their nation. That will bring development in the Transkei, for now we will see that the Bantu exerting himself to mobilize capital also, which was not done formerly, because they did not know how to develop the area. We are already having this phenomenon, with the development of our Bantu Authorities system, that a new state of mind is developing among the Bantu.

I now come to an important phenomenon, and that is that in the Transkei that ceiling that always hung over the heads of the Bantu is being removed, that ceiling which the policy of the Opposition wants to have hanging over the heads of the Bantu in South Africa constantly. That ceiling is being taken away, and every Bantu boy and girl, in every sphere of life, may climb to the highest rung in the life of his or her nation. A boy or girl who now receives education and who produces results knows that for him or her there now awaits a task in the Transkei, and once one has harnessed the officials there, what is going to be the impact of that on the ordinary people? What is going to be the impact economically? But I go further and I should like to ask you: Just think for a moment what the reaction of that is going to be in respect of human relations, in respect of race relations? They will feel that here the Government of the Republic of South Africa comes along and they remove this ceiling, and the boys and girls of the Transkei can now climb to the highest rung in their national life. Surely that means a tremendous lot to a nation. But I say further that now for the first time we are going to create the state of mind that those boys and girls will not flee from their communities but that they will harness their talents and their abilities in the interests of their own national aspirations. They will enrich their own nation spiritually and materially. The hon. member for Kempton Park has appealed to the educated Bantu particularly to show what they can do now. How many will there not be in future who will be thankful to us that this opportunity has been created for them?

In other words, the effect of this Bill is that those possibilities and opportunities will be created for the boys and girls of the Bantu in the Transkei. And it has this advantage, that it not only binds the Xhosa in the White areas to those people, but that they will also make an active contribution to the development of that area. Do not forget that a large number of the people who have knowledge and skill are in the White area. Why? Because in the Transkei there are no opportunities for them, and here they can earn a wage. But harness those people, give them an opportunity there, and do you mean to tell me that they will remain here? I can give the House the assurance to-day that several educated Bantu have already made inquiries about what they can go and do in the Transkei, and where they can be used, people who are offering their services. In other words, for the first time the manpower of the Transkei will be mobilized for the development of the Transkei itself. The people will not flee from their own territory to go and struggle for an existence elsewhere. One thing must be borne in mind. Whatever the Opposition may advocate, under their policy an educated Bantu will never have the opportunity to develop fully and to use his best endeavours to the fullest extent in all the facets of life.

Which clause is that?

Another effect this Bill will have throughout the Transkei as well as in South Africa, will be that a spirit of confidence, a spirit of co-operation will be created, for it is one of the basic principles in this Bill that in future there will be still greater co-operation with the Government than in the past, that a spirit of co-operation and confidence will be built up. Hon. members have raised objections in regard to consultation. This Bill specially paves the way to that by the relations it will create. Spiritually and materially they will get an opportunity to serve their own nation and to create a new attitude towards the White man. I want to endorse what the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) has stated so clearly, and that is that this Bill in the first place comes as a challenge to the Bantu. In their hearts they have the urge to manage their own affairs. A large proportion of them are asking for freedom and for opportunities. Here the opportunities are being created and the educated Bantu can accept this challenge and show that he will give his services for the development of his own nation. There is a challenge also to the teachers, for now they are getting the opportunities to train boys and girls who will be an asset to and the pride of their nation, boys and girls imbued with the ideal of service. Now it will not be necessary for them to get out of the Bantu areas to go and work for a meagre wage for the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). The challenge also comes for them to develop a sense of responsibility. That has always been one of the shortcomings in the life of the Bantu, but were we not also to a large extent to blame for it, owing to the fact that former Governments wanted to pamper them in everything? But here they are getting an opportunity to do something themselves and to serve their own people. They are given the opportunity to learn to work with money, which has always been a weak point with the Bantu, and that also is a challenge to them. But have the White people not mainly been the cause of that, because former Governments did not even take the trouble to train them how to work with money? But the Bill also is a challenge to the White man of South Africa to grant the Bantu a future also. Here proof is being afforded that this side of the House is prepared to grant the Bantu a future, and living room and opportunities that every nation in the world desires, and to show that they are prepared to give the Bantu a home that is his fatherland. The White man who will not accept that challenge renders a disservice to South Africa. We cannot say that the locations in the cities and towns are their fatherland. That will never be so. They can only have a fatherland when they are tied to it, spiritually and materially, and that is what this Bill is doing. It is a challenge to the White man also to create possibilities and opportunities for them in their own fatherland, which is the only moral basis for any policy that may exist. Hon. members have blamed me for giving them certain symbols. It is my submission that every nation is entitled to those symbols that represent its nationhood, and a party that begrudges another nation those symbols, perpetrates an injustice in regard to that nation. I have already said it is not we who are offering them these symbols; they asked for them, and their symbols are one of the proofs to the world that the nationhood of the Xhosa is taking shape and form. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has said there are various sections among them. That is quite correct, but among the White people also there are various sections, and even in Scotland there are clans, and they are proud of it, but that does not debar them from being good Scots or Britons. These symbols are the building factor for an own nationhood. In that lies the sound approach of this policy, that we grant them that nationhood which every nation in the world craves. I am deeply convinced that this Bill rings in a new era for South Africa, an era of co-operation and mutual trust, and a new era also of certainty in every sphere of life, certainty also for the future of the White man, and certainty for the Black man about his own future.

Question put: That the word “now”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

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

I move the amendment as printed—

To insert the following paragraph to follow paragraph (c):

(d) by the insertion after the said paragraph (c) of the following paragraph:

“(d) a person to be appointed by the Minister for his knowledge of law.”

We are very pleased that the Minister has extended the period from five years to six years, but we should like him to make it seven years.

I am prepared to accept an amendment and to make it seven years.

In that case I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

The effect of this clause is to allow universities to be recognized which do not give reciprocity to this country. That is a principle which can be carried too far. While I can well understand the Minister wishing to have it as a temporary measure because there are refugees and immigrants coming into the country, nevertheless it has some undesirable features. It permits people to practice here on diplomas which might not allow them to practice in their own countries or in the countries where they obtained the diplomas. That is being left out in this clause. It is referred to in a previous clause, but I think it should be made clear by the Minister that he will amend Section 8 of the principal Act so as to make this clause clear. It also allows the Minister to withdraw recognition from certain universities, not because they perhaps do not satisfy the standards, but because they fail to provide information. I have no objection to this clause. I think it is quite reasonable, but it could actually seriously affect students from South Africa who may have gone there, because this is a course which lasts for some years and the students may have gone there in good faith because that university degree was accepted by this country, but after one or two years the Minister could take away that right from the university. I know a little more about this than the Minister does. We had similar difficulties in the Medical Council, and according to the Minister this has not been submitted to the Medical Council for approval. Therefore I want to draw the notice of the Minister to this, so that if at any time he withdraws recognition from a university he will bear in mind that he must allow time between the date of warning the university and taking away the recognition, so that any of our students who may be there will not be deleteriously affected. We do not want a student to study for a year or two and then to be told that when he gets his degree it will not be recognized.

Mr. Chairman, I support the hon. member who has just sat down. In this country we are particularly short of veterinary surgeons. Are we going to have students kept back from their studies through little matters that could perhaps be settled by further investigation and by an approach to the university authorities overseas? We need all the veterinarians we can get. Even if they are only research workers; we need them very badly indeed. It does seem that the least the Minister could do is to investigate the matter more fully before taking steps such as this, which may debar students from completing their studies.

The point raised by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) is a very real one, because it means that the young man, having gone overseas to these universities in all good faith to take up a course in regard to which the degree of that university is recognized, may have done a few years of a four or five years’ course only to find that the recognition which was previously granted to that university at the time he went there has been withdrawn. It lies within the Minister’s power, in this clause as it stands, to obviate that situation, and I hope that in his reply he will indicate that he is aware of this problem and will follow a course which will obviate this difficulty. That means that he will have to take cognizance of the words “after a date specified in the proclamation” in line 30. It means that in promulgating a proclamation withdrawing recognition from a university, he will have to make it operative some years forward. In other words, he will have to give some years’ notice of the proposed withdrawal of the recognition of a university degree, so that young men who have already begun their courses will have time to finish before the recognition given to that university is withdrawn. If the Minister says he will only use this power in that sense, by suspending its operation for a number of years after the promulgation of the proclamation, any hardship will be obviated. I would suggest that he also allows a year’s grace because all students do not get through their examinations the first time, and it is only fair to allow these students to finish their courses before the recognition is taken away.

I should also like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the mere putting it forward will mean usually that the university or school concerned will immediately try to find out why the Minister has withdrawn the recognition, and in practice it usually means that when it is pointed out to this university in what way they have failed to satisfy the standards in this country, it immediately goes to the trouble to remedy it, and if he then withdraws his cancellation ơf the recognition they can carry on quite satisfactorily.

I think hon. members on the other side are unnecessarily afraid of the provisions of this clause, because the old Act specifically mentions certain universities in other countries which have no reciprocal agreements with Commonwealth countries. The Act mentions and recognizes certain universities for South African students who study there. The Veterinary Board will not suddenly come along therefore and regard the courses of recognized universities of outstanding quality as failing to comply with our standards. To my mind that problem does not exist therefore, particularly as far as our own students are concerned. This really relates not so much to South African students who study overseas, but what we want to do is to give veterinarians who have received degrees in other countries and at other universities, which are not mentioned perhaps in the old Act, and people who are not South Africans, the opportunity to qualify here for registration with the approval of the Board.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) stated at the beginning of his speech that I had said that this Bill had not been submitted to the Medical Council. I do not know where he heard that, but that is not what I said. This measure was submitted to the Medical Council and they agreed with it. The main reason why it was submitted to the Medical Council is that this measure interferes with the right which medical practitioners had under the old Act to provide veterinary services. It was for that reason that the Council’s approval was sought, and the Council gave its approval to the whole of this Bill. I want to give the assurance that if it should happen that the degree of any faculty of a university cannot be recognized, it will only be done after due deliberation, having regard to any possible inconvenience which might be caused to South African students at such university, but I hope that that will never happen.

The hon. the Minister asked me where I got the idea that the Bill was not put before the S.A. Medical Council. I got it from his own speech, either in this House or in the Other Place. He spoke about the S.A. Medical Society, which has no authority at all in these matters and which is quite a different body from the S.A. Medical Council.

It may just have been a slip of the tongue.

I accept that. Why I am concerned about this matter is that Clause 2 is based on a most unusual way of going about things. The decision is based on the fact that the university refuses to give information, or does not give information, and not on the fact that it is a bad university. Now the university may not be interested in some immigrant who comes here and they may not bother to answer his letters. These things happen. So it is not based on the merits of the degree. The point is that it is based purely and simply on the failure to give information. I think it is unreasonable to have such a clause and therefore the Minister should realize what he is doing. Nor do I altogether agree with him that it will not apply to South Africans. He himself said that he has limited the number of veterinary surgeons who qualify in this country. It is now only 45 a year. That is what it amounts to. On all sides we hear of this shortage of veterinary surgeons. If that is so, there will be students from this country going overseas, and they go to universities which he has already recognized. The same thing happens in America. But we find in medicine that more and more of our students are going to other countries. They go to Belgium, for instance, because Great Britain, after the war, had no room for our students. We have students now in Belgium, because there the Afrikaner students have a language there which they can understand easily. But they write to the S.A. Medical Council first and ask whether the Medical Council will recognize this school. Well, it is investigated and then permission is given and they are assured that they will be accepted.

Why cannot it be done in this case as well.

They do not do it unless they are told to do it. The point is that I am trying to protect the man who through sheer ignorance does not ask. Our students know it, but will the veterinary students know it and will the Veterinary Board take any notice of them when they write to the Board? This is not quite such a simple matter as it looks on the face of it. It is only after years of experience that the Medical Council has been finding out the difficulties. I am trying to point out a few of the difficulties which should be known to the hon. the Minister.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

I intend to move—

Sir, I have no objection to that part of the amending clause in which the Minister refers to any person who for gain practices as a veterinarian and performs an action of this nature. I can quite see that being work appertaining to veterinary practice, any person who performs an action of this nature should not receive remuneration for it, but it definitely says that “any person who performs an act specially pertaining to the calling of a veterinarian” will be subject to a fine of R200 or to imprisonment for six months. The Minister should realize that in this country of ours where we have such a shortage of veterinarians and great distances to be travelled, there are times when even a farmer has to perform an emergency operation. For instance we have simple instances like abortion or retention of the after-birth. Strictly speaking those are operations to which a veterinarian should attend, but the farmers have to do that work themselves. Through practice over the years farmers in many areas have had to learn to do without the services of a veterinarian and to perform the most important tasks. Farmers have even to go so far as to perform an internal operation on an animal injured by poking; they have had to stitch up the injured intestines and they have done it successfully. There are many operations that a farmer has to perform on animals, operations which are strictly within the sphere of the veterinarian’s work.

Order! Will the hon. member read out his amendment once again.

I moved the deletion in lines 53 and 54 of the words “or who performs any act specially pertaining to the calling of a veterinarian”.

Does the hon. member wish to delete the words “who for gain practices as a veterinarian” in the proposed amendment?

I am sorry, Sir, but I have had the wrong Bill put on my desk. However, I should still like to move in line 53 to add after “or” the words “for gain”. I see no harm in a farmer who is able to perform some operations which is necessary and essential, receiving some present or some recognition from the person for whom he performs the task, or at least allowing that person to pay for the cost of his transport to perform this particular duty. I feel that if the Minister cannot provide the veterinarians he requires in the country, a stringent clause of this nature should not be in this Bill. I also think that the fines which are provided for here for transgressions are very excessive. Originally the fine was R100 and it is now being increased to R200. The sentence of imprisonment is being increased to six months. I feel that the Minister should rather retain the old penalties. I should like the Minister to tell me why he has found it necessary to make provision for increased penalties. Have the veterinary surgeons asked for it, when they themselves are not in a position to provide the services required by the farmers? It must be realized that sometimes the farmer has to travel a distance of 250 miles in order to get a veterinarian to perform some operation or to attend to some animal, and by the time that veterinarian could arrive the animal would be dead. We have had cases where delicate operations have been successfully carried out by a farmer, and I think it is quite uncalled for at this time to introduce a provision of this nature into this legislation in view of the scarcity of veterinarians in this country.

Whilst not supporting the amendment of my hon. friend, I want to point out that both this provision and the previous one were taken holus bolus out of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act. In practice it is very difficult indeed to apply this provision relating to treatment performed for gain. I was sorry to see from a speech by the Minister that he had already worked out a way—I do not think it reflects great credit on him—by which the doctors have been forbidden to deal with animals could act unethically and I believe illegally and risk imprisonment; that is the terrible part of it. Under the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act you cannot be imprisoned if you act like a doctor and order the patient to have a dose of salts, or anything of that nature, but here the punishment for interfering with an animal is much greater than for interfering with a human. If you interfere with a human you are fined but you do not go to gaol; that is the law. However, if you interfere with an animal you may go to gaol. Sir, I do not think that doctors mind being excluded from this field; in general they would prefer not to deal with animals, and if there are enough veterinarians I have no doubt that this is the right course. While I do not support the amendment of my hon. friend, nevertheless I do feel that it was a little unfair on the part of the hon. the Minister in his speech to suggest a way of getting round his own law.

I want to move—

When I suggested my previous amendment I stated that the Bill as amended in the Senate was not in my file. I got it confused with the original Bill, and I apologize to the staff for casting a reflection on their work. Although the Minister has not accepted my previous amendment I think he should at least reduce the fine provided for here and that he should limit the penalty to a fine. I do not think it should be regarded as a criminal offence for a person to perform an emergency minor procedure on some animal. I hope therefore that the Minister will at least accept this amendment.

I am sorry that I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment. I feel that if the farmers and the profession are to be protected, it is necessary to make provision for both a fine and/or imprisonment and that the penalty should at least be severe enough to serve its purpose.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

I move the amendment as printed—

1. (h) the circumstances under which any travelling, subsistence or other allowance shall be paid to members of the Veterinary Board, and the rates of such allowances;
2. (i) the fee to be paid by members of the public for a copy of any list printed in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 7;.

I want to refer to (a) as suggested by the hon. the Minister, and I want to tell him that it is most important that the Veterinary Board should lay down very carefully on what conditions veterinary students will be registered, because it has been found in practice that the university standards are not always the standards of the Veterinary Board. Medical schools do not always make the same demands, when it comes to the entrance examination, which is not a professional examination as the professional bodies. The point I want to make is that students can enter universities for professional courses on a matriculation examination. Most universities accept the matriculation examination of this country for entrance to the university. In the Medical Council we have found that it is most important that mathematics should be one of the subjects, and it has been found necessary to insist that any student registered as a medical student must show that he has passed matriculation mathematics. The university, however, does not insist on that, and I know of cases where students have gone as far as their fourth or fifth year, passing their professional examinations without having a matriculation certificate which satisfies the Medical Council. The Council has written to the universities and told them that they will not accept those students as registered medical students because their matriculation certificates are deficient in mathematics, which is a subject insisted upon by the Medical Council. I think the Veterinary Board will probably make the same demand. It is important that it should be made quite clear to the universities that they should only register students for professional courses if their qualifications comply with the demands made by the professional body concerned.

I should also like to refer to paragraph (b), the registration of auxiliaries and nurses, and I want to suggest to the Minister that this will perhaps give him an opportunity …

Order! Is the hon. member making a second speech now?

I want to speak on another subject.

I am sorry, the hon. member had already resumed his seat.

I think it would be interesting to hear what the hon. member has to say on the subject.

The point I want to make is that this paragraph (g) does give the Minister an opportunity to set at rest the minds of farmers such as my colleague over here and other farmers with whom I have discussed this matter, and to make it possible for the farmers to employ unqualified people to help them out in minor procedures. He can do this by instituting a course of training for auxiliaries or nurses, a course of training very similar to what we have in medicine. There are many acts which nurses can carry out and which really pertain to medicine, but nurses are allowed to perform these acts because they have been trained. If the Minister could institute courses of some sort he might find that farm managers could for a fee—it could if necessary be a fixed fee—help the farmers in their difficulty when they cannot get veterinarians. That is a way out which might help the farmers considerably. I put it to the Minister for his consideration.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

I move—

The Department of Water Affairs is at present constructing the Mooi River State Water Scheme in terms of the Mooi River District Adjustment Act, No. 37 of 1954. This scheme consists mainly of the construction of a large main canal, which will provide water also to the Vyfhoek North section of the Vyfhoek Settlement. The control of the old canal and the distribution of the water in the Vyfhoek Settlement have been in the hands of the Vyfhoek Noord Management Board, and it is because that management board or irrigation board is unable to undertake this work —it is simply too expensive and too extensive for them—that the State is constructing it, and in the circumstances it is necessary that the State should have control over the distribution of the water. In other words, we are encroaching here upon the powers of an irrigation board. This measure is really a hybrid Bill, therefore, and immediately after the second reading, I propose to move that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.