, as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Select Committee on Railway Accounts.

Report and proceedings to be printed and considered.

Mr. Speaker, when this debate was adjourned yesterday evening the hon. member for Oudtshoorn was addressing the House and indicated what he saw as the reason why the CRC had failed. He basically laid the blame at the door of the Coloured Labour Party. During the course of his speech he indicated that the Labour Party had continued with a policy of confrontation, which had lead to a decision by the CRC itself to abolish that council. One of the important aspects, however, one which the hon. member for Oudtshoorn did not mention, is the reason why the CRC is being deemed a failure in addition to the fact—and that one admits—that the Labour Party have used the political forum that was given to them for their own political ends. We accept that and we believe that that is the situation. When legislation was passed in 1964, the shortcomings of that legislation were highlighted. The legislation that was passed in 1964 did not give the CRC a chance to be a success. Indeed, the whole basis on which it was constituted resulted in its being rejected by the Coloured community from the very outset.

That is not true. [Interjections.]

The position of the CRC, which, we believe, is the only elected body of representatives of the Coloured people that remains, will no longer remain when this particular measure is put into operation. Therefore I now move as a further amendment—

The object of this amendment is to highlight the fact that the present CRC constitutes at this stage the only body of persons directly elected by Coloured voters. With the abolition of the CRC and with its replacement, as is proposed in this Bill, by an entirely appointed body, it will mean that there will no longer be any elected representatives of the Coloured community, elected by vote. The only thing with which they will be left is something which has already become a farce. It can be compared with the way in which people are appointed to serve in the Senate. We know that certain Senators are nominated by the State President in terms of section 29 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961. Section 29(2)(b) of the said Act stipulates—

The four nominated Senators in terms of this section of the Act are at present the hon. the Minister of Finance, and one can hardly expect that he will have time to devote to the interests of the Coloured community as such; Senator J. G. Joubert of the Orange Free State; Senator A. J. Koch, a defeated candidate in the last general election, and the present President of the Senate. It has become a habit for the NP Government from time to time to appoint a defeated candidate, not only to the Senate, but to the CRC as well.

Yes, but not after the next election.

These are the only people in the whole of the legislature who one can say can be in a position to express a point of view on behalf of the Coloured people. Of course, that is completely rejected by the Coloured people themselves, just as the CRC has been rejected by them.

The reasons for this rejection are not entirely the fault of the Labour Party. The Government obviously gave the Labour Party a magnificent opportunity of exploiting the situation when they constituted the CRC. I believe it has become increasingly evident that the CRC should have been a fully elected body right from the beginning. The position was that the CRC, when it was first constituted, had to elect 40 representatives. It meant that out of the 60 seats any political party had to win at least 31 seats in order to obtain a majority in that council. The 20 appointed members that the Government saw fit to appoint, were rejected by the Coloured people from the very moment they were appointed. To regard them as representatives of the Coloured people was indeed provocative and was indeed opening the door for the abuse which members of the Labour Party are guilty of against the CRC. Then again, the very powers of that representative council were so meaningless and inadequate that the Government itself, from time to time, even indicated the necessity of trying to alter the powers, role and authority of the CRC. One only has to look back at the history of this, as reflected in the White Paper that was tabled with this Bill. It goes back to 1961. Of course, it does not go back any further, because to go back any further would certainly indicate a long list of failures, by the Government, in trying to meet the position as far as the Coloured community is concerned. It is in consequence of those failures that we have this Bill before us today. When the 1964 legislation was discussed, there was a lengthy debate in this House. Indeed, a great amount of advice and a lot of wisdom was presented to the Government, and the Government was forewarned about what the result would be of the establishment of the CRC.

Even by the hon. the Minister.

This was done by various members in the House. The present hon. Minister did not participate in the Second Reading debate.

Although he should have.

One can, however, look at speeches by others, e.g. the speech of the person who was then the leader of the Coloured representatives in this House, Mr. Bloomberg. What did he have to say? I quote from Hansard of 16 years ago, i.e. 13 April 1964 (col. 4097)—

He then goes on to say—

That was said 16 years ago. The Government was warned that that type of legislation, which they were proposing, would only widen the gulf. So it is not surprising that in the year 1980 we find perhaps that the relationship, certainly between the majority party in the CRC and the Government, has reached an all-time low.

We know of the disastrous discussion that took place in the Prime Minister’s office. We have received a transcript of that discussion, and we can only say that it was a tragedy for South Africa, particularly for race relations in this country, that that meeting should have ended the way it did.

Firstly the Coloureds had representation on the common voters’ roll, and then later, of course, they had four representatives sitting in this House. When those four representatives were first elected to this House, we know that there were numerous assurances, from time to time, that they would not be removed from Parliament Indeed, the hon. member for Stellenbosch, now the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, in referring to whether those members would ever be removed, said in reply to an interjection by Mr. Streicher about a speech of the Prime Minister, and I quote from Hansard, 14 April 1964, col. 4211—

Another broken promise.

So one can see the whole history of the political rights of the Coloured people strewn with the wrecks of so-called solutions to the problem. We believe indeed that this is a retrogressive step that the Government has come forward with in this House today. We believe that it is most important to try to establish good relations between all the various race groups in South Africa. Therefore it is with great regret that we find that a retrogressive piece of legislation such as this is now before the House.

One only has to think of the fact that there are 2½ million Coloured people who have been trying to find a place for themselves somewhere in the South African sun, but who have found themselves frustrated throughout the years. In more recent times they have perhaps been encouraged by the appointment of the Schlebusch Commission, and we are still awaiting the report of that commission. These people might, however, then have their hopes raised and think that something meaningful is going to come their way. In the meantime, however, we believe that it is not right to create a complete vacuum in the sense that there is not a single elected representative of the Coloured people who can come forward and discuss matters with the Government in order to find ways and means of negotiating a future for this country.

Sir, the White Paper indicates that this is to be an interim measure. In introducing the Bill, the hon. the Minister said that this would be an interim body to perform the duties which are presently entrusted to the CRC and its executive until such time as more clarity is attained concerning a new constitutional dispensation or until an election can be organized for a new council. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he considers it a possibility that an election for a new council could come about, because he does give this as one of the alternatives. We should like to know whether he is giving serious consideration to this particular aspect After all, we could have had a fully elected council when it was first mooted in 1964 and, if it could have had real powers and real authority, a degree of success would have been possible. However, we now find it has reached a situation of complete failure.

The question of finding ways and means of bringing about a situation where leaders of the Coloured community can participate in the new constitutional dispensation is a very vital matter. That is why we are concerned that, by proceeding with the Bill along these lines and appointing 30 people who, although they might be people of calibre, will unfortunately be regarded by the Coloured community as not being representative of them in any way whatsoever, this could cause greater irritation than the hon. the Minister has perhaps envisaged. It could indeed sour the very negotiations all of us would like to see taking place on a basis of goodwill to find solutions to these problems if the Government should proceed with the appointment of this council, all the members of which are to be appointed by the State President. This is an attempt to create leaders who are not leaders in fact. I do believe the hon. the Minister is making a mistake when he refers to them as leaders. Towards the end of his speech yesterday, in dealing with various matters affecting the upliftment of the Coloured people, with which we obviously all agree, he said—

I do believe the hon. the Minister should not use the term “the Coloured leaders in the new council”, because this immediately makes it possible for many to say that they are not the leaders and that nobody has elected them to the council, but that they have purely been appointed by the Government. The position of these people will indeed be made extremely difficult by proceeding with the Bill in its present form. So it is hoped that the hon. the Minister can give an indication of the possibility of elected persons being found to speak for the Coloured people. The CRC, in spite of all its failings in the past, could have been far more acceptable to the Coloured community if it had been a fully elected body.

As regards the frustrations that arise and the earlier path dealt with in the White Paper, the White Paper indicates that the body is to be an interim one. We should like to know from the hon. the Minister on what basis he considers this to be an interim body. In other words, we should like to know what his definition of the word “interim” is in the context of the Bill before us. Looking at the Bill, we see that there are various aspects which certainly require a greater elucidation by the hon. the Minister. Regarding the appointment of the 30 appointees, the White Paper states that they will be people who have had experience in different spheres of interest “such as local management, education, welfare, labour, the business and economical activities, the agricultural sphere, youth and recreational activities, professional vocations, etc.”. It sounds as if these will be people with considerable qualifications. However, what do we find when we read the Bill? There is very little in the Bill giving them any discretion whatsoever. They will not even be able to elect their own four members of the Executive Committee. The chairman is to be appointed. According to the Bill, the “Administrator of Coloured Affairs … shall be chairman of the executive”. The four other members of the council will be designated by the State President. Surely, with the high calibre of people the hon. the Minister anticipates will be appointed to the proposed CPC, as is indicated in the White Paper, he would have sufficient confidence in them to ascertain for themselves who should be the four members of the executive. They themselves could then at least have that discretionary power. Not only are the four members of the executive designated by the Government, but also the portfolios these people are to hold. Surely, here, too, if we are going to have a wide spectrum of Coloured people of such high standing in that community as the hon. the Minister has indicated in his memorandum, they would be able to decide who would be able to perform the duties that are necessary in the council and to take on those portfolios.

We obviously intend to deal with the other aspects of the Bill in the Committee Stage. At present we are dealing purely with the principle which is involved. The conclusion that we in these benches have come to is that this is an undesirable Bill; it is a retrogressive step in the relationship with the Coloured community, particularly as far as the White group is concerned. The White Parliament, passing legislation of this nature, only aggravates an already difficult situation. Therefore we believe that it is imperative that there should be guidelines for the hon. the Minister to bear in mind when dealing with this matter. We believe that, with the election of people to represent them, even on the basis of a short period until such time as a new dispensation is arrived at, this will at least be a voice of the Coloured people, rather than an appointed voice. We know the background of the Theron Commission and its recommendations. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn referred to it; he was, in fact, a member of that commission, and one can read the majority report of that commission as well as the minority report. We can see the necessity for urgency. We can see what is happening in other parts of Africa and see the urgency of the problem, i.e. being able to negotiate and discuss matters with these people in a calm manner. This is of prime importance. That is why the appointing of a council has unfortunately very little chance of being accepted by the Coloured people, or for these people to be recognized by the Coloured community as their leaders. There must be an endeavour to find a basis of goodwill and willingness to have discussions, dialogue, negotiation and, hopefully, eventually consensus.

That is why we hope that in future the Coloured people will be given a place in the sun in South Africa. We should see to it that a new deal materializes, a deal which will remove the frustration and the bitterness of the past, which unfortunately still prevails even today, and understandably so. We should see to it that we move along to a future where the Coloured people will have all forms of race discrimination removed from them and where they will have equality of opportunity. We should also see to it that they have a share in the decision-making process. We wish this to come about on a more meaningful basis, and we certainly do not wish to see a perpetuation of the failures of the past. We know that a vast programme for upliftment lies ahead for the Coloured community in the fields of education, business, economy and welfare services. We are aware of the frustration that many members of the CRC have experienced from time to time when trying to bring about an improvement in benefits for the Coloured people. They have found that whenever they go to the Government, they do not have any success. When they seek parity as far as remuneration is concerned, or situations whereby they seek parity in regard to pensions and social benefits, they have not yet been able to succeed. There is still a vast disparity. These are real grievances and real difficulties which face the Coloured community. We hope that we can bring about a situation where those leaders who unfortunately have developed an attitude of confrontation with the Government will be able to see that not a great deal can be achieved by politics of confrontation. Here I should like to refer to a leading article which appeared in the Natal Mercury of 26 February 1980. People invariably believe that a part of the English Press is hostile. Some people even believe that part of the English Press is communist-inspired, etc. This article, which appeared on Tuesday, 26 February 1980, certainly gives a balanced view, I believe, with regard to giving some advice to the Coloured community. Firstly, it deals with the question of acceptance of the proposed legislation. Quite obviously, it is a difficult matter for the Coloured people to try to accept that they should have 30 people appointed as their so-called leaders. They, too, believe that that is a retrogressive step, because it will take them back to a fully nominated council, something which was never accepted in the past. However, they direct the following words of advice to members of some of the parties within the Coloured community—

Here we find advice to the Coloured people again to take the hand of the white group in South Africa to find ways and means of creating a better future for all in this country by adopting an attitude of goodwill to find consensus and to find ways and means of joint decision-making whereby those decisions will be accepted by all.

It is in this spirit that I have moved the amendment on behalf of hon. members in these benches to indicate our point of view, and that is that we believe that a fully-fledged and fully elected council would have the best opportunity of representing the Coloured people and for finding ways and means of leading towards what, we hope, will eventually be a successful new dispensation for all groups in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umbilo made one statement which one can appreciate, and that is his appeal to the Coloured population to continue to accept the hand of the Whites in South Africa in circumstances such as these so that they, too, can find their way in the difficult times we are living in. However, the hon. member found fault with the method and plan of the NP Government when the Government originally established the CRC. He objected that it had not been a fully elected body from the outset. I do not think the hon. member understands what the purpose of the NP Government was with regard to the establishment of the CRC. I do not think the hon. member realizes that in this regard the Government made a very sincere effort to lead the Coloureds systematically in a direction in which they could ultimately have a full say over all their own rights.

Is that why you are now taking everything away?

If the hon. member had understood correctly what the former Prime Minister said, namely that the CRC would be fully elected by its next election in 1980, he would realize that a process of growth and evolution was taking place and not merely a process of hoping for the best, as occurs so often in the world today. This promise made by the former Prime Minister was not, however, accepted by Rev. Hendrickse and his Labour Party. Before this election could even take place, they came forward and asked that the CRC be abolished. They went even further and refused to give evidence before the Schlebusch Commission, a commission which is engaged in an effort to establish a new dispensation for this country. [Interjections.] I think we would have done far better as regards solving our problems in South Africa if we had all sat down together and really tried our best to solve this problem, if we had been less critical of one another, thereby bedevilling everything one tries to achieve in a positive way.

This legislation, which provides for a South African Coloured Persons Council, determines its powers and duties and also provides for what is connected therewith, is a measure being adopted in order to look after the interests of the Coloured population of South Africa It is in the place of the CRC which is being dissolved under clause 4 of the legislation. In terms of Government policy the CRC was essentially intended to be the instrument wherewith to achieve the self-determination of the Coloureds in fields where the interests of the Coloureds were paramount. Fields where the interests of the Whites were paramount had to be dealt with by White institutions, while in respect of areas of common interest there was to be joint deliberation and decision-making. When we talk about joint deliberation and decision-making, I call to mind in particular the consultative cabinet council and the appointment of Coloured representatives to statutory bodies. It is perplexing and bewildering that in the course of the debate in this House the former hon. leader of the official Opposition can make the statement, or voice the idea, that there have never yet been such appointments to statutory committees. He stands up here and asks: “Where are these appointments? Show us these appointments.” I say that it is amazing and bewildering that such a question should be asked by the hon. member for Sea Point. May I refresh his memory? May I refer him to the House of Assembly, Questions and Answers, 1977? I quote question 165 (Hansard, Vol. 70 col. 866)—

1. (a) To which public bodies have Coloured and/or Indian persons been appointed, (b) what are the names of the persons appointed and (c) when was each of them appointed?

In a comprehensive reply by the former hon. Prime Minister which comprised about four to five pages of names and of committees and bodies, he furnished full details. However the hon. member for Sea Point is giving the public of South Africa the impression that the Nationalist Government says things and does not do them. I do not think this is fair; I think it is unjust, and I think he owes an explanation to this House and also to the public at large, because one of two things is true: either he does not know what he has done in the past, or he does not want to know what he has done in the past.

Can I refresh the hon. member’s memory about what the hon. the Prime Minister told him at that time? He said that Coloureds had been appointed to the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, to the Group Areas Board, to the Unemployment Insurance Board, to the National Hiking Way Board, to the Estate Agents’ Board, to the Television Programme Advisory Board, to the Trade Practices Advisory Committee, to committees of publications, to the S.A. Nursing Council and to the Council of the University of the Western Cape and so on. Coloureds also serve in their hundreds on various educational bodies, e.g. in Education Regional Boards, advisory councils, etc. They also serve on still other boards because since the reply to that question, additional appointments have been made to the Wage Board, the Hotel Board, the S.A. Co-ordinating Consumer Council, the National Housing Commission and eight other boards. [Interjections.]

I think that the hon. member for Sea Point is trying, either in ignorance or deliberately, to project the image that the Nationalist Government is in fact treating the Coloured people of South Africa shabbily, that it makes promises to them and then does not keep them. I think that is why the hon. member’s party only obtained 374 votes in Swellendam. As far as the Government is concerned, the basic question to be answered before another institution can take the place of the CRC, is whether the CRC fully answered the purpose for what it was established. Initially the CRC made a positive contribution in regard to important rights of self-determination of the Coloured population, and I want to mention a few: The phenomenal growth in education affairs at both the higher and the lower levels, the growth in the social sphere, including, among other things, welfare services, the phenomenal progress made in family planning, pensions and so on. Then, too, there is the economic sphere, in which the Coloured Development Corporation has meant a great deal for the Coloured. There is also the development of Coloured rural areas, which is a very important aspect particularly with regard to cattle breeding, fencing and agricultural extension. These are only a few of the aspects. In spite of all this, the unanimous decision was taken in the latest session of the CRC that the council be abolished. Representations to the effect that the CRC should be abolished are not a new concept; this is not a new idea. From as far back as the establishment of the council, some representatives of the Labour group introduced this attitude in the council, and in time this went so far that when the council was taken over by the Labour Party, the council and its proceedings were so paralysed that it became meaningless to keep the council in operation.

I maintain that the constant subjective, prejudiced and undermining action taken by a number of people in the council, opposing all efforts on the part of the Government to bring about meaningful development of the Coloured population as a whole, deprived the Coloureds of the opportunity afforded by the CRC in the Coloured political setup; to deliberate in their own forum about matters relating to the Coloureds. I believe it is necessary that we should take cognizance of this process, because I believe that it is chiefly this process which is the cause of our dissolving the CRC today. Rumours that the CRC would be dissolved elicited a sharp action from Mr. Jac Rabie, Labour MEC for Reigerpark, Boksburg. In Beeid of Wednesday, 6 February 1980, under the heading “Labour Party’s conscience clean”, the following statement, inter alia, by Mr. Jac Rabie is quoted in which he absolved the CRC of the process of dissolution which was taking its course—

In other words, it is the fault of the Government that the CRC is being abolished. The Labour Party ostensibly had nothing to do with it. He goes on to say—

Mr. Rabie then quoted the examples. He said that the Government had been requested to extend the powers of the CRC but that this request had been negated and that legislation had then been passed to approve the budget or have it approved. What is the true state of affairs in this regard? In a speech in 1974 on the occasion of the opening of the CRC, the former Prime Minister asked to have a part in extending the CRC as a legislative body. The Prime Minister himself came forward with positive ideas in this regard. However, the Executive reacted to them in a totally negative way and even refused to comment on draft legislation which was drawn up to give effect to these proposals. The Labour Party refused to sit in the joint Cabinet Council and did not want anything to do with it Is it, then, really the fault of the NP Government that powers were withdrawn because, as they put it, the chairman of the Executive was not prepared to carry out his duties? As further proof, Mr. Rabie argued that it had been said that members of the Executive had made use of the benefits conferred by their posts, but had neglected their responsibilities to the CRC. He said that that was untrue. Let us look at a few of the many examples. He said that the Government had deprived the Labour Party of its most powerful post in the CRC by appointing Mrs. Alathea Jansen as chairman of the Executive. After all, each of us sitting here knows why Mrs. Jansen was appointed. She was only appointed after Mr. Leon had refused to perform his functions as chairman of the Executive. This refusal would have entailed that the budget of the CRC could not be passed, with the result that all the activities of the council as an executive body would have come to a standstill. In practice this would have meant that no pension allowances or teachers’ salaries, etc., could be paid. Again I want to ask whether it is the fault of the Government that that council was abolished. Under such circumstances, in which the chairman of the Executive refused to carry out his duties, was the Government to stand aside and look on while chaos develop as a result of its actions?

A few other examples were singled out as reasons why it was supposedly the fault of the NP Government that this council was abolished. The Labour Party rejects the Government’s new constitutional proposals, but itself appoints a committee to carry out a thorough investigation and formulate concrete proposals which could serve as a basis for negotiation with the Government. In spite of the proposals contained in the Du Preez report—Mr. Du Preez himself has referred to this—the Executive refused to testify before the Schlebusch Commission and even threatened a court order against Mr. Du Preez to prohibit him from submitting the report to the Schlebusch Commission. One would have thought that leaders who felt that they were rejecting the Government’s constitutional plan in the interests of their people would have utilized all available methods of negotiating increased rights for their people if they felt that there were greater rights that they could negotiate. No, it is easier, after all, but less meaningful, to say: “Boycott, boycott, boycott” and then to believe that one can achieve anything for one’s people in that way.

There was a committee which exposed the irregularities in welfare institutions. That committee completed its task. On this basis it is apparently being put about that these are things being done by the Coloured Persons Council to cause people to believe that it is the Government that is abolishing this council and that there is no other reason for the abolition of this council than that the Government wants to abolish it.

These so-called irregularities investigated by the committee were in fact the responsibility of the Executive itself. After all, the Executive is in control of the Administration of Coloured Affairs. Indeed, if proper budget debates had been conducted in the CRC in the course of which maladministration could have enjoyed attention, this committee of investigation would probably have been totally unnecessary. However, such debating did not take place because the Labour government refused to approve the budget. If a council cannot function as it ought, then surely it is essential that committees of inquiry be appointed to see whether everything is in order.

“Appoint Brown people to the Administration of Coloured Affairs” was, according to Mr. Rabie, a request made by the council. He states that the Government refused. “Introduce autonomy at the local level” was another request, but he states that the Government is evading that “Extend compulsory military training to Coloureds” was a further request, but he states that the Government does not want to do this and hides behind the excuse of shortages of staff and accommodation.

The first part of this statement is totally untrue. The council asks that the administration of the Coloureds should be entrusted to Brown people, but surely it is the stated policy of the Government that the Coloured Administration should eventually comprise Coloureds only.

As far as the autonomy of local managements is concerned, surely it is a well-known fact that the Labour government in the CRC does not want that.

The Government is not really using shortages as an excuse in an effort to avoid giving Coloureds military training. After all, the Government accepted the principle years ago that members of all the population groups in South Africa should receive military training. The Government is willing to effect the necessary expansion so that this can be done. However what has happened? Cadet training at Coloured schools—that is an integral part of military training in South Africa today—is absolutely refused. Indeed, they go further: Threats have been made to take action against teachers who allow themselves to be trained as instructors to train cadets.

When we go into these matters in depth, then in my opinion there is no doubt that the circumstances which developed in the Coloured Council as a result of the conduct of persons who deliberately caused the council to come to grief, constitute the reason why the council has to be abolished today.

Let us also look at certain resolutions passed by the national conference of the Labour Party in Port Elizabeth in 1979—

It is interesting to note that they say in advance that they are not the only people who are considering a national convention in South Africa With regard to the issue of a national convention it is also interesting to know that there was a great deal of fighting at the congress of the official Opposition. This is clear from a glaring newspaper headline which reads as follows—

While the hon. member for Sea Point and other hon. members of the PFP are in violent conflict with one another as to the question of who may attend this national convention and who may not…

Order! The hon. member must not deviate too far from the Bill under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I shall come back to the Bill. I quote further—

That was done through a telephone call to McHenry. [Interjections.]

The following resolution reads as follows—

These are people who are prepared to mobilize overseas to collect funds, to mobilize overseas in direct opposition to the Government of South Africa. However, they do not see their way clear to using the institutions the Government creates for them, institutions whereby to administer their own affairs, to state their own views in connection with a new dispensation, in connection with those things about which they want to go and fight overseas.

The next resolution reads as follows—

What is wrong with that?

Mr. Speaker, now the hon. member for Orange Grove asks: “What is wrong with that?” Then his former leader, the hon. member for Sea Point asks: “Where are these committees? Where are these people appointed to committees?” Here is one of the benefits, and the Labour Party turns it down. They refuse to have people serving on the committees. Now the hon. member for Orange Grove asks: “What is wrong with it?” [Interjections.]

I think one should first get one’s perspectives straight when one seeks to solve these problems that we are now engaged in. I think that is what is required. Apart from the appeal one makes to the Coloured population to assist in this field, I believe it is also high time that we should make an appeal to the official Opposition to try to help in this field as well. [Interjections.] I quote further—

This is a resolution by these people. The Government is doing this, but now there is a clamour from the Opposition in this House. They do not want the Government to comply with the request of the CRC. What else can one deduce from this but that the CRC was to them a heaven-sent peg on which to hang their political cloaks and umbrellas in an effort to derive petty political advantage from the situation? That is why they do not want that council to be abolished, because they are being deprived of that peg. That is the reason. I quote further—

Can the official Opposition tell us whether they agree with this action? Are they, too, together with the South African Labour Party, allies in this striving to achieve the aims of the ANC and the PAC in South Africa?

Ask Gatsha.

There is another resolution which supports the call for economic sanctions or boycotts against South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, this morning we heard of the take-over of the government of Rhodesia by Mr. Robert Mugabe and his party and of the tremendous swing of the Black voters of Rhodesia, away from the moderate leaders to the side of the extremists. I hope this is not a reflection of what is also happening here below the surface. Together the two terrorist leaders won 77 of the 80 seats, as against only three won by the moderate Bishop Muzorewa. This is not the occasion to conduct a debate on the dangerous implications which this holds for South Africa. [Interjections.] Unfortunately, however, I consider this development to be as serious for South Africa as the fall of Portugal in Angola and Mozambique, if not more serious. [Interjections.] Sitting across the street from us—and I am saying this just by way of introduction—are some of the foremost political and military leaders of the UN, here on our doorstep, in final negotiations with us on the future of South West Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his assistants, who have to act there on behalf of our country …

What does that have to do with this legislation?

… deserve the assistance and sympathy of their colleagues in the Cabinet. When they sit around that conference table to do what they have to do there, they sit there as my friends, not as my political opponents. [Interjections.] Unfortunately the possibility will also have to be considered that if there has to be a general election in South West Africa, in which all the parties participate, the same swing to the side of the extremists could also take place there.

Order! The hon. member may have an introduction, but he must not make such a wide detour.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday we shall conduct a debate in this House on the serious position which Mr. Justice Cillié exposed in his report on the deterioration of human relations in our country. In its editorial this morning Die Burger referred to the feeling among the Coloureds as being “that the Whites have rejected them as friends and fellow citizens”. Under all these turbulent conditions—and they could become even worse—the hon. the Minister and the Government are coming forward with a Bill which in reality is something out of Noah’s ark and belongs only in the archives. [Interjections.] I immediately want to put a simple question to the hon. the Minister: Does he think for one moment that a Bill such as the one we have before us is going to improve the image of the Whites as rulers among the Coloureds and other coloured people? Does he think for one moment that it is going to strengthen the hands of those Coloured and Black leaders in South Africa and in South West Africa who are still prepared to co-operate with the Whites against the extremists?

But it was they who asked for it.

In our time the Coloureds have already suffered so much political injustice that one could very easily become emotional in such a debate as this. I should like to avoid that, but I want the hon. the Minister to understand that the Coloureds cannot vote for his party or for my party. As far as Parliament is concerned, they are voteless. What we are concerned with today, therefore, is not vote-catching or party-political gain, which the Coloureds cannot give us. We are concerned here with the future of the White man in South Africa. His life, we believe, is in future going to depend on how we govern now and on how justly or unjustly we act now towards the other population groups.

Mr. Speaker, I began to participate actively in politics when I was a student at the University of Stellenbosch. In those days the Coloureds were still on the so-called common voters’ roll. Actually it was not a common voters’ roll in the real sense of the word. It consisted of three sections, i.e. White women, White men and Coloured men. The Coloured women did not have the vote. I participated actively in the general election of 1938 and addressed White as well as Coloured meetings. In 1943 I stood for the first time as a candidate for Parliament in Moorreesburg. Shortly afterwards I also stood for the Provincial Council. There were important Coloured communities such as Saron and Mamre in that constituency, and they also participated in the election. In that time I also attended many meetings held by candidates of the National Party and the United Party among the Coloureds. I also addressed such meetings personally.

To which party did you then belong?

I am referring to this because I can justifiably say that I have first-hand, practical knowledge of the controversy which has been raging around the Coloured vote for so many years and is still doing so today. To me as a man who was born in the Cape, as a South African and as a White Afrikaner, it is the greatest and most dangerous tragedy of our politics that one Government after another, National Party and United Party, has refused and still refuses to face up to the facts of the matter and to bring to an end the sojourn in the political wilderness which the Coloureds are being forced to undergo by White political power, without any visible end to their wanderings.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member, who has a good knowledge of the past, whether he will join me in admitting that there was unscrupulous abuse of the Coloured vote?

That is exactly what I am going to discuss. [Interjections.] What troubles me the most is that every time a new, and for the most part retrogressive, step is taken in regard to the Coloured community in Parliament, the blame for the circumstances is thrust upon the shoulders of the Coloureds. It is their fault that this has happened! It is they who do not wish to co-operate! In the White Paper on this Bill we also read that the Coloureds are entirely to blame for this.

Let me explain how I see the heart of the problem we are facing. In the days when the Coloureds were on the so-called common voters’ roll, they were charged with having “allowed themselves to become a political football in White politics”.

Do you agree with that?

Just allow me to complete my sentence. The charge was levelled at them that it was their fault that they had been removed from the common voters’ roll. Mr. Speaker, they were a political football and they still are and they will keep on being a political football; but it is wrong and unfair to lay the blame for that at their door and say that they had caused it to happen. I shall tell the hon. the Prime Minister why I say this. What is so conveniently forgotten is that the Coloureds were placed in the humiliating position by the White hegemony of all parties—I am making no exceptions—that they could vote for but could not themselves stand for Parliament. They could not make the candidates of their own party eligible for election, with the result that they were compelled, by the system, to vote for a White candidate and a White party whether they liked them or not.

Who introduced that system?

I am not apportioning blame to a specific political party or a specific Prime Minister, or to anyone for that matter. [Interjections.] I am merely stating the background and I am asking for an opportunity to develop my argument.

The result was that if the Coloureds wished to cast a vote of any kind, they were compelled to stand and listen to which White candidate and which White party made the finest promises and said the most flattering things. They were therefore victims of the system which they themselves did not want and which made of them, against their will, a political football between the White political parties. They were powerless to make their own candidates or parties of their own choice eligible for election, and in practice they were mere spectators or simply had to vote for the White candidate who made the most promises.

Occasionally, in places such as Stellenbosch and Paarl, they voted predominantly for the National Party. In other places they voted predominantly for the United Party. Most of us remember the days, after the NP had won the Stellenbosch seat for the first time, how the NP member for Stellenbosch, Mr. Bruckner de Villiers, after a large Coloured demonstration before the doors of Parliament, was carried shoulder-high up the steps by his Coloured Executive Committee and deposited, large as life, before the entrance to Parliament. [Interjections.] There was nothing wrong with that, but whether it was an NP member of Parliament who was literally deposited at the entrance to Parliament by the Coloureds, or a UP member of Parliament who was figuratively elected by means of Coloured votes, the result was always the same. In Parliament very little came of the promises made during elections by either NP or UP candidates.

In reply to the question put to me by the hon. the Prime Minister, I am in complete agreement that both sides made a political football of the Coloureds, but with this difference, that when the NP began with apartheid, the UP obviously scored more runs with the ball than the NP. This gave rise to the agitation that the Coloureds should be placed on a separate voters’ roll.

After one of the longest and most acrimonious political struggles between the NP and UP, this was done in 1956 and the Coloureds were placed on a separate voters’ roll. The NP then gave the solemn assurance that the matter had been satisfactorily resolved because the Coloureds could now vote for their own four representatives in the House of Assembly, and two members in the Provincial Council.

But once again this arrangement made no change to the basic cause of the problem, for the Coloureds were still in the humiliating position that they themselves could not stand as candidates for the House of Assembly or make their own candidates eligible for election to the House of Assembly. They were still forced to vote for a White man and a White political party. Against their wishes and reluctantly they would continue to remain a victim of the system and a political football between the White political parties. They did not want to play second fiddle and they did not want to be a football, but every time the system forced them into the situation.

It goes without saying that each of the White parties, I could almost say like vultures, began to compete for the favour of the Coloureds in their handful of seats. The result was precisely the same as in the days when they were on the so-called common voters’ roll. But once again we had to watch while the Coloureds and not the system was being blamed for what then went wrong.

Then, a few years later in 1968 we came to the third phase of the journey of the Coloureds through the political wilderness. Their representation in Parliament was abolished completely and they were now told by the Government in the most fine-sounding language, and I quote—

The most wonderful promises were made, and to hear Dr. Verwoerd speaking, it would certainly take no longer than 10 years before the Coloureds would have their own full-fledged Parliament.

The Coloureds, from experience, were of course sceptical about this—one could not blame them; indeed the Opposition also shook its head—not because there was an unwillingness to accept the word of a political leader, but because—I shall tell you what the heart of the problem was—anyone who took the slightest interest in constitutional matters knew that an insurmountable constitutional problem lay ahead.

The concept of “the right of self-determination of nations” is a wonderful concept. Every democrat ought to support it in principle—even the UN does so in theory—and as far as I am concerned I am entirely in favour of the concept of the recognition of nations and the right of nations to exercise self-determination.

At this stage I do not wish to conduct another debate on the question of whether the Coloureds are a nation or not. We have discussed this here many times. Personally I do not consider the Coloureds to be a nation in the true sense of the word, nor even a “nation in embryo”. I consider them to be part of the Afrikaans-and English-speaking cultural groups and I believe that this fact will have to determine their ultimate political position.

Whether or not the Coloureds are also by this time considered to be a nation or, in politics, a population group, there is one fact which cannot be changed: The right of self-determination in the honest sense of the word, is only fully applicable to a nation or a population group if such population group has a country or patria of its own.

It was possible to grant political self-determination to the Xhosa nation, or part of it, in the Transkei. It could be granted to the Tswana nation, or a part of it, in the geographic framework of Bophuthatswana. It could be granted to the Venda in Vendaland. It was constitutionally possible.

In a case where a nation or a population group does not have a country of its own, but shares a country with other nations, there can be baasskap or imperialism on the part of one group at the expense of another, or there can be co-determination; but, with the best will in the world, it is not possible to implement a policy of full and equal self-determination for each of the groups within the same political boundaries. Whoever tries to make himself believe this is engaged in a process of self-delusion or self-hypnosis. One can ensure language or cultural rights of their own for various cultural groups or nations within the same boundaries, and everything which goes with such rights, such as schools, universities and churches using their own language medium. This ought to be done, but one cannot give different groups within the same political boundaries each their own real, independent government, exercising equal jurisdiction, independently of one another, over the same territory. One can no more do this than a farm can have three owners who have equal say and who farm independently from one another on the same piece of land. One can divide such a farm into three geographical areas, but if that is not possible, just as partition between the Whites, Coloureds and Indians is not possible, the three will have to have joint control over the management of the farm, in other words they will have to find a way of exercising joint control and reaching consensus over that farm. Otherwise they will have to accept the alternative of an endless struggle and enmity. That is more or less the position we have arrived at with the CRC.

The Whites and the Coloureds—I am not taking the other population groups into consideration now—reside, work and live intermingled within the same political boundaries. There are no differences on the basis of language, culture or religion which separate or distinguish them. At the most there are class differences among individuals. In the case of the Whites and the Coloureds, therefore, the alternative of successful and honest separate political self-determination for the two population groups does not exist. Co-determination is the only practical choice if one rejects baasskap.

That is the fundamental reason why the Coloured Council has failed. It was a dead-end street from the beginning, and we said so too, simply because it is constitutionally impossible and will remain constitutionally impossible to apportion the powers of this Parliament so that Coloureds, Whites and Indians will be three equal, but separate masters of the same political farm. That is why I said that the explanatory memorandum which was submitted here was so unfair and so one-sided. I am referring in particular to the allegation that the Coloureds do not wish to co-operate to develop the Coloured Person’s Council.

Do you differ with that?

Yes, I differ with that completely. When are we, as White people, going to realize that no Coloured leader of any stature wishes or is able to co-operate with a situation in which he has to accept apartheid? Repeated reference was made here to the budget which they do not want to pass. Why do they not want to pass it? Why do the members furnish the reason? The reason is that no Coloured leader wants to be in the position that he has to implement discrimination against his own people and thereby condone it. Would the Afrikaners have acted any differently? The Coloured leader finds himself in the position that he is being forced to implement measures in his name with which he does not agree. The Coloured politicians are not little angels. They are not greater little angels than the White politicians. They make mistakes, but through their veins runs a thick stream of Afrikaner character traits. Dr. Malan said the Afrikaner was a child of protest if he was not fairly dealt with. The Afrikaner would not have been prepared to remain indefinitely under the British, and their protest against the imperialism of those times was far stronger than the protest the Coloureds are making against White imperialism. [Interjections.] These are facts, and the person who does not want to recognize them is living in a dream-world. Precisely for that reason I want to say that of all people, the Afrikaners ought not to expect the Coloureds to be satisfied with inferior and paternalistic institutions which do not have, nor cannot have, any capacity for growth.

In respect of the CRC the onus was on the Government to prove that the Coloured Person’s Council could be vested with meaningful powers. It had more than 12 years in which to do so. I feel certain that if the Government had been able to produce that proof that it was constitutionally possible, and could have apportioned the powers of this Parliament in such a way that the Coloured Person’s Council had indeed received meaningful powers, it would perhaps have gained greater support and acceptance among the Coloureds.

However, I do not blame the Government. My standpoint is that it was not constitutionally possible. It will never be possible. If one thinks in that direction, one is in a dead-end street. The mistake which the Government has made is not to have admitted this a long time ago.

The elected Coloured politicians contributed their share. Initially they did not want to participate in the election, but eventually they did participate. They also took their seats on the Executive. Then they sat and waited for the Government to produce the proof that this council could be a real Parliament.

Let us be honest now. After 12 years, or one could say 20 years, depending on how far back one wishes to go, the CRC was in essence still exactly where it had been in the beginning: In a political dead-end street which had no constitutional capacity for growth. It makes no difference how co-operative or how submissive the Coloured was, this institution had no vitality and no viability. The failure of the CRC could therefore have been predicted.

If the Government had come today to bury this council for good, but had in its place taken more advanced steps, then we could have given them our support. I say provided the Government had come forward with more advanced steps, but what do we find? In 1980 the Government has gone back to 1943. It now finds itself where Mr. Harry Lawrence was in 1943 with his Coloured Person’s Advisory Council, with this difference and defect that the Coloureds at that time at least had a kind of voice in Parliament which they no longer have now.

I follow the hon. the Minister’s argument that this is an interim measure, although there is no time limit on the Bill. I also follow his argument that there is a Constitutional Commission which is in the process of planning a new Constitution. However, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I think the correct procedure would have been to have submitted this Bill as an urgent measure to the Constitutional Commission and not to have come forward with this measure unilaterally while there is a Constitutional Commission. At this stage I still want to make this appeal to the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations and to the hon. the Prime Minister: Send this legislation—it is worthless—to the Constitutional Commission and ask for a quick decision. It is within the means of the Constitutional Commission, as it is constituted, to produce a far better result than what we have before us here.

But the Labour Party does not want to appear before the commission.

It is a Jaap Marais policy which is being adopted here. [Interjections.] What are we doing with an advisory council? We know what the advice of the Coloureds is: They are asking for full citizenship, removal of discrimination and equal treatment in all spheres. Surely we know what they want. Is there anyone who does not know? What further advice does one still want from them?

What is your answer?

I shall tell you what it is. Last year the Government introduced a Bill which at least accepted the principle of limited and circumscribed power-sharing among Whites, Coloureds and Indians. That Bill was referred to the Constitutional Commission. However, that does not negate the fact that the Government has accepted the political principle of circumscribed and limited power-sharing among the three groups. This has been admitted, by the Rapportryers in their evidence before the Constitutional Commission as well. Yesterday the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations said he expected that the commission would give the Coloureds “all the rights of citizenship to the fullest extent”. Now I say that if the Government wishes to introduce an interim measure which replaces the CRC, it ought to be within the framework of the new principle which it has accepted, viz. that of full citizenship, of power-sharing. Then it would have been a step in the right direction, and we could have supported it. I want to tell the hon. gentlemen on the opposite side that young Coloured men are already fighting at our side on the borders, and if the Government wishes to propose steps, it must come forward with steps which grant the Coloureds full citizenship, or which move in that direction. The Government could have done this in various ways. It could for example have constituted an enlarged Cabinet and appointed a Coloured or two to that body to take over the administration of Coloured relations until the Constitutional Commission has completed its task; or they could have done what they did at the time with South West Africa, viz. to give the Coloureds a small representation in Parliament to ensure that the right advice on legislation was given here.

In that case, too, they would have had to have been nominated members.

The point is this: Is the Government’s interim action moving in the direction of full citizenship or not? This legislation goes back to Noah’s ark. It goes back to the archaic principle of no political say.

They are living in the past, full of skeletons.

I want to conclude by saying that this is not the work of nationalism. This is the work of imperialism, and of archaic colonialism, and therefore I say that one’s mind boggles when one sees this being done while across our borders Marxism is in the process of taking over, and behind them the new world imperialists are on the move. A crisis for the Whites of South Africa is next on the agenda. That is why it is essential for us to achieve national unity. The hon. the Prime Minister also says this, but we must ensure that it is achieved. We must achieve national unity as quickly as possible, and we must begin with the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout would have surprised many in this House with his initial statement, his reference to the fact that all political parties are responsible for a great deal of the confusion surrounding the political position of the Coloured community of South Africa. The hon. member could also have surprised members of the House with his reference to the so-called Schlebusch Commission, and his failure to give the full reasons for the fact that we have legislation of this kind before us today. The fact is that the hon. member knows very well that the lifetime of the present CRC ends shortly, and the alternative with which the Government was faced was either to call for new elections or to extend the life of that council. The hon. member is also perfectly aware of the fact that Coloured leaders themselves, specifically the Labour Party’s leaders, have stated—not once but many times—that they want to see the CRC abolished. He knows that. [Interjections.] I shall deal with that question in a moment.

Secondly, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also knows that South Africa is in the process of a major constitutional transition. He knows that too, and also that this legislation coming at this time is as embarrassing in a way for the Government as it is for the Opposition, because we have a Constitutional Commission of which he is a member and which, now that he has mentioned it, has gained very considerable political momentum and has aroused the interest of all population groups and is drawing evidence from academics of standing and from all population groups. Surprisingly enough, the Labour Party did not come forward, particularly when one considers that Inkatha saw fit to testify before that commission. It is surprising that the hon. member simply ignores that particular fact.

I want to deal briefly with the speech delivered yesterday by the hon. member for Sea Point, who is unfortunately not here now. That speech was typical of the approach of that particular section of the Opposition. It was highly moralistic, it did not deal in specifics and it did not lay a basis for the society they wish to create as far as the Coloured community is concerned. The hon. member for Orange Grove, who interjected at least five times during the speeches of the hon. members for Oudtshoorn and Swellendam, says that the Coloureds want to exercise their rights here. I want to put it to him that that is what the Du Preez Commission has recommended. I ask him whether he in fact supports their advocacy of a unitary form of Government. Does the hon. member support that? He shakes his head. He says “No”, and therefore that kind of interjection does not contribute anything towards a constructive debate. If one has to look back in history and at attitudes towards the Coloured community, one finds that during the 1943, the 1948 and other elections of that period, the predecessors of these political parties opposite did not then advocate an extension of the Coloured franchise on the common roll to persons outside of the Cape Province. At that stage they did not urge the extension of the franchise to women and did not advocate that Coloureds should take their place in this Parliament. It was not part of their policy. In the 1948 general election there were only 50 000 registered Coloured voters. That indicates one of two things. It indicates either a low political consciousness on the part of the Coloured community or that they were not really recruited, that there did not really exist an interest in them.

[Inaudible.]

I am talking here about Government parties at that time. The hon. member says they were not interested in what was offered. We are talking about the forerunners of the political parties opposite. They were governing the country at that stage. The real reason for that and for a great number of things that went wrong at that stage, was the fact that the Coloured community was treated as second-class Whites. They were treated as an adjunct, an appendix to White society. That was the fundamental attitude in White South African politics right across the board. That was the position, and it reflected itself on a whole variety of levels. The Coloured community is a community with very considerable problems. It has been described by sociologists as the most disorganized community in South Africa. We know that.

[Inaudible.]

I wish that hon. member would keep quiet and just listen. The fact that they have real problems in this respect is acknowledged by sociologists of standing. They have problems and one of the real problems of the Coloured community was precisely the fact that over all those years the Coloureds were treated as second-class Whites. They were treated as a community which was simply tailed on to White South Africa. This reflected itself over a whole variety of fronts. If one considers the progress the Coloured community has made, progress measured in educational terms, in the control of their own education, control of their tertiary educational institutions and the increasing spending on Coloured education …

It is not enough.

The hon. member for Orange Grove says it is not enough, but nothing will ever be enough.

The fact is that if one considers the progress there, the progress economically in terms of the distribution of income—one should look at the per capita income of the Coloured community—and the interaction between Coloureds and Whites and other members of the South African society, one finds that there has been enormous progress.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Orange Grove must contain himself.

A good illustration of this would be the fact that members of the Coloured community are today participating in sport right across the spectrum. They are playing a major role; they can vie for national colours in South Africa. I remember that when I was a youngster, the closest a Coloured could aspire to participating in rugby of any importance, was to be the mascot of Western Province. There happened to be a Malay gentleman who sat on the side-line at Newlands with spare jerseys and spare pants ready. That was as close as they got. Nobody was concerned; nobody asked then that Coloureds should be incorporated and given opportunities or a role. [Interjections.]

While I am concerned with the historical background, let me point out that the speech of the hon. member for Sea Point yesterday gave a particular tone to the debate when he referred to the whole question of segregation and discrimination. It is laid at the Government’s door that it was responsible for segregation and discrimination. I want to suggest that those hon. members read the 1953 debates on the Reservation of Separate Amenities Bill. It makes fascinating reading because some people who were in Parliament then and are in Parliament today, made statements of the following kind. I am referring to the then hon. member for Maitland, now the hon. member for Parktown, who is unfortunately not here today. This is the sort of statement he made on 20 August (Hansard, col. 2040)—

He then went on—

It is to the credit of that hon. member that he has developed, but the point I want to make is that one cannot judge official policies, programmes or actions by the consciousness of 20 or 30 years later. One cannot judge the policies which were followed in 1910, 1920, 1930 or 1950 by the moral consciousness or the norms of 1980. It is stupid and has no relevance and is totally inapplicable. Therefore it is important that the Opposition should not come along attributing this kind of blame. They should not come along with this high moralistic posturing and with the distortions of historical context which are unnecessarily conveyed in a speech like that of the hon. member for Sea Point. The fact is we do have a problem in relation to the Coloured community. The Coloured community is a community which is very close to us. It is also a community with very considerable sociological problems. It is a community which, while it has made immense progress—and the community itself must take credit for that progress—has nevertheless still very considerable problems in its accommodation within the rest of South Africa.

Turning specifically to this question of the CRC, I want to point out that the CRC did play a role, and I believe that credit should be given to the CRC. The CRC has contributed to the political development of the Coloured community. The CRC has assisted in generating a sense of community identification among the Coloured people, and a sense of civic awareness generally. It has also facilitated the crystallization of political attitudes, the emergence of political parties and of political leaders of national stature. The political parties which are there, the Labour Party and the other political parties, emerged from the CRC. The leaders of the Coloured community, the present political élite, emerged from the CRC. It has served to provide experience in government and has opened up opportunities for Coloured people in public administration. Finally, as a result of the CRC the attention of the whole community and of the whole country has been drawn to the particular problems, interests and aspirations of the Coloured people.

So, as a matter of fact, I believe that one can view the CRC in positive terms. It has also, however, reached the stage now where it must be replaced. It has in fact failed, and this failure is acknowledged most clearly by the leaders of the Coloured community itself. I believe there are several reasons for that failure. The first is the fact that it was a subordinate institution. It was a subordinate institution to this Parliament. It was subordinate within the institutional structure of South Africa, and necessarily, as people became used to it, as their political consciousness rose, as their political development advanced, they would find themselves frustrated and resentful of the CRC’s inferior status. That is what happened to the CRC.

In the second place, however, the fact is that the Coloured community is a community with very considerable tensions, and it is not an easy community from a politicians point of view. I have all sympathy with the political leaders of the Coloured community, for the simple reason that that élite is subject to pressures from a youthful, urbanized intelligentsia, the teachers of that community, the lecturers, the intellectuals. It is subject to very considerable pressures from that particular segment of the Coloured community, and the rest of the Coloured community is largely a rural peasantry. It is a very difficult community to respond to, and these tensions were reflected in attitudes towards the CRC.

Then there is also a third reason why the CRC failed. That is the fact that the normal process of negotiation, of inter-élite negotiation between the leaders of the Coloured community and the White community or between the leaders of the Coloured community and the Government, has been obstructed by the efforts of liberal paternalists. I do not know how conscious others are of this, but when one lives in Cape Town and sees how newspapers treat issues which affect the Coloured community, one is deeply struck by the extent to which Whites assume the role of spokesmen for the Coloured community. A very good example of this is the District Six issue which I do not wish to raise now. The real spokesmen there, were not members of the Coloured community. The real spokesmen there were not the leaders of the Labour Party, who had every opportunity of raising this matter, and of raising it with the Government, I suggest, more effectively and with a greater possibility of succeeding.

Which they did.

It was, however, Progs and crypto-Progs who played that particular role. [Interjections.] It was limousine liberals—the old phenomenon of the fifties and the sixties in the USA—who played this particular role, that role that liberals have tended to play in using the Coloureds—for whatever reason—and their causes, who have tended to frustrate very natural developments within the Coloured community, and to frustrate an increasing and fruitful interaction between the leaders of the Coloured community and the Government. I believe that the hon. the Minister may comment on this, but it is certainly my impression that the Indian leaders, the leaders of the Asian community, have far more effectively used the levers of what powers they have than have the Coloureds. And one of the reasons for this is the kind of sentimental liberal paternalism of the Western Cape, and of Cape Town in particular, which as I have said has obstructed the natural development of relations between the Government, where the real power lies, and the leaders of the Coloured community.

The fourth reason why the CRC has failed is because of the very negative perception which the Coloured community has of itself. I have heard leaders of the Coloured community so often referring to themselves, in private and in public speeches, as so-called Coloureds or as the so-called Coloured community. I have here an excellent book that I recommend to other hon. members in this House. In this book Dr. R. E. Van der Ross deals with this question of the negativism of the Coloured community very well indeed. He quotes statistics from the Theron Commission in connection with the results of a poll contained in that report. He points out—

This is a Coloured speaking—

He then explains on page 69 why it is that the Coloured community has this sense of negative identification. He points out that—

In response to the question “Is there a Coloured population?” it is interesting to note that Dr. Van der Ross says—

And so on. This completely negative concept of identity, this negative appreciation of self, unquestionably affected the attitudes of the Coloured leadership, the Coloured youth and those persons who are politically aware within the Coloured community. It has obviously influenced their attitude towards the CRC. The result is that the CRC, because of this low self-esteem, has become, in the eyes of the Coloured community, a completely irrelevant institution, and there is nothing worse in Government than an institution that is completely irrelevant.

So much for the CRC and this particular council for which provision is to be made in the measure before us. What, however, of the future? The hon. the Minister has indicated, in the clearest possible terms, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn also indicated this very clearly, in fact all the speakers on this side have stressed, that this council is an interim body.

It is interim, as the hon. the Minister indicated, because of the Schlebusch Commission and it will remain so until such time as the Schlebusch Commission makes recommendations. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout will know that the Schlebusch Commission is a high-powered commission and that it is a commission with a sense of its importance. It is my personal view that it is very unlikely that the commission will drag its assignment out indefinitely. Therefore this Bill is interim in that sense, and it will be interim for a very short term.

Why was this not referred to the commission?

Sir, without wishing to prejudge the Commission on the Constitution, without wishing to be specific with respect to suggestions, let me say that I believe that we must achieve clarity as far as the sociological basis of the Coloured community is concerned. We must achieve clarity as far as the relationship between the Coloured community and the rest of South Africa is concerned. In so far as American experience in race relations has any relevance for South Africa, it is particularly relevant in respect of one point. Originally, in the ’fifties and ’sixties when America was in the throes of the civil rights movement, it was thought that the two models between which America should choose would be the model of separatism on the one hand and the model of assimilation on the other. By the late ’sixties that had changed. The choice then fell between ethnic group status on the one hand and separatism on the other. Nobody took assimilation seriously any more. This is a fundamental question for the Coloured leaders …

There was also the question of human rights involved.

… and it is a question for the hon. member for Groote Schuur who has not sorted this out and who is confused in his own mind. The fact is that he still believes in a sort of dispersion theory as far as the Coloureds are concerned, namely that they somehow be taken up into White society. He is not prepared to say that the Coloured community is in fact a distinctive ethnic community and that that is a fact which ought to be recognized. He does not have the guts to say that. Secondly, what is important is that we should realize that, however brilliant a constitutional proposal may be, however brilliantly it may be drawn up, however brilliant it may be in its details, it is only going to work if it is supported by the economic and social milieu in which it is supposed to operate. That is a second essential requirement which we need to recognize. That involves a lot of adjustment on our part. Thirdly, we need to recognize that as far as the future is concerned the fact is that politics is group based. It is the group that is basic in politics. We saw this in the election that has just been held and we see this in other ethnically based societies. It is also quite evident in our own political experience and that fact needs to be recognized.

Having acknowledged that, I want to say that the hon. the Minister enjoys the support of this side of the House when he says, as he did yesterday, that the objective of this side of the House is the creation of a political system in which the Coloured community will enjoy full political rights, in which they will enjoy democratic participation. The assumptions on which, I believe, such a system will be based—I cannot deal with specifics, because they are a matter for the Constitutional Commission and for Parliament to which it will report—are, firstly, that there will be a single concept of nationhood which incorporates the Asians and the Coloureds. Up till now in our politics we have spoken of a White South African nationhood and we have tended to assume a concept of nationhood limited to the Whites. In the second place, we will assume a concept of public interest which embraces also the interests of Coloureds and Asians and which will not simply be limited to White South Africans. In the third place, our style of politics will be a bridge-building style of politics, which it tends already largely to be. In other words, it will be a system of politics where one stresses points of agreement as opposed to those things on which one differs. Finally, what this new dispensation must mean is that there will be very considerable social and economic changes.

I wish to end by quoting from the conclusion by Dr. Van der Ross in his book Myths and Attitudes. This is a very provocative book written by, I think, a very mature man. He concludes by saying—

I say amen to that.

Mr. Speaker, now that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens has dealt so effectively with the limousine liberals of Cape Town I as an Oude Meester conservative from the Eastern Cape will also try to make a contribution. [Interjections.]

*The hon. member for Bezuidenhout gave an interesting historical survey here of how the Coloureds and their franchise have been one of the most important controversial political issues since the earliest years of our history. There are many of us who still recall very well the unpleasantness that went with it. There are still some of us who, like the hon. member, had the experience of being involved in politics at that time, although I must say that in that respect there was a difference between the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and I, which was that I saw it from the Opposition’s point of view only whereas he had the opportunity of seeing it from the Opposition’s as well as the Government’s point of view.

That is correct. That is why I am far more objective.

Since then the Coloured franchise has been tampered with a number of times, always with the intention of finding a solution. However, I am sorry to say that this resulted in one failure after the other. In every attempt to change the Coloured franchise a political storm was unleashed in this country which did South Africa no good at all, but on every occasion dragged South Africa’s name through the mire. Now, in 1980, this is once again the case. Having listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Sea Point I am afraid that he is again unleashing a storm. Once again the debate is emotional, and instead of solving the problem, feelings are being aroused. It behoves us as responsible people to approach the matter in all seriousness and sincerity and to act in a responsible way so that the relationship between White and Coloured will not be bedevilled even further. South Africa cannot afford the alienation of non-Whites and Whites. We find that we are faced with two accomplished facts. Firstly, there is the unfortunate history of the Coloured franchise and, secondly, the deadlock which has now arisen as a result of the actions of the CRC. This is a situation that has become untenable.

Consequently it is necessary for me to clarify the position of the SAP in this regard. One thing is certain and that is that we are not going to participate in an emotional struggle in which reproaches are hurled left and right without contributing to the solution of this problem. It is a fact that from 1948 to 1956 the male Coloureds on the common voters’ roll affected the results in various parliamentary seats. However, according to our view, this was not sufficient reason to remove them from the voters’ roll. It should be borne in mind that at that time the Coloureds themselves could not occupy a seat in Parliament. They were represented in this House by candidates nominated by the two principal parties at the time, the National Party and the United Party. The predecessors of the SAP, viz. the old United Party, fought hard. It is an important part of our history how that party fought to retain the common voters’ roll because the party believed that it was in the interests of South Africa that the Coloureds should not be removed from the common voters’ roll. In the struggle that ensued court cases were the order of the day, but in spite of everything the Coloureds were removed and the NP succeeded in 1956, with the help of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, in establishing separate voters’ rolls in terms of which the Coloureds would once again be represented by Whites in Parliament and in the Cape Provincial Council.

This was a retrogressive step and the new dispensation was not a success. After a few years a further retrogressive step was taken when their representation by Whites was abolished and the CRC was established. Although this did not constitute representation in this Parliament, the Coloureds, men and women, could at least vote for their own representatives. In other words, one could call it direct representation. But now, for the first time in many years, the Coloureds—and I trust that this will be of a temporary nature—will have no franchise, direct or indirect It is against this background that we are today adopting the standpoint which our party wants to set out. We believe that it is wrong that a section of our people are to have no franchise, no franchise in any body of any nature. We as a party strongly reject the retrogressive steps of the past. The present situation does not meet with our approval in any way. But at the same time we cannot close our eyes to the facts as they stand at present; we must look ahead. There was a properly constituted commission which was intended to be the starting point for major developments for the Coloureds in South Africa. The hon. member for Sea Point stated that the former hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs had said that it would be a question of “the sky is the limit” in future. I believe that the former Minister believed that and that he was sincere in his intentions, viz. that there would be no end to the opportunities afforded the Coloureds through that body, provided they made proper use of the opportunities created for them there. I believe that great things could have been achieved, provided they co-operated. Here was an opportunity to prove themselves as responsible people, people who were not slavish followers of the Government and who could themselves act in a responsible way, people to whom further rights and powers could be extended. This was definitely a starting point. We have the greatest respect for the Coloureds in general, people whose loyalty to South Africa has never been qkestioned. When I refer to the loyalty of the Coloureds, I certainly do not mean loyalty such as that of the leaders of the Labour Party, because I do not believe that that is loyalty. A very prominent former member of the Labour Party, Mr. Lofty Adams, sent us a pamphlet—I think all hon. members have received copies of it—in which he dealt with the position. He said the Labour Party proclaims in its constitution, in clause 2, the aims and principles of the Labour Party—

Then Mr. Adams goes on to furnish one reason for his resignation from the Labour Party—

This is their loyalty to their own people, for if those boycotts are applied effectively, their people will be the first to become unemployed and go without food. This is not loyalty. When we refer to the loyalty of the Coloured, we have in mind those people who are doing voluntary service on our border today. They are moderate people who courageously carry out their task from day to day and make a great contribution in this country. It is a great pity that the Coloured community as such now has to be jeopardized as a result of the actions of a few hotheads of the existing CRC. Previous speakers have demonstrated that the main object of the leaders of the Labour Party was to wreck the council. They went out of their way to do so and to cause the council to appear ridiculous in the eyes of the world. Unfortunately they are being encouraged in their mischief by certain elements in the ranks of the Opposition, in this House in particular, and to a great extent by the English-language Press as well which has played a major part in it, since the creation of the CRC, and particularly now since this legislation is before Parliament.

Any member of the CRC who has reservations about the council, or who is a member of the Executive and who cannot fulfil his obligations on the ground of so-called principles, but retains his position in that council or in that executive and receives his salary for the sake of convenience, is not in any way adhering to principles but is being motivated by hostile intentions. A person who is elected to represent his people and then shirks his duty by means of a boycott, is not working in the interests of his people and is anything but sincere in his intentions. No one can negotiate with such people. Nor do we expect the Government to negotiate with such people.

Unfortunately the hon. member for Sea Point had the temerity to say: “The Government does not know the difference between negotiations and wielding the big stick.” Who on earth can co-operate with people of this type? Heaven help the PFP if they hold their proposed national convention one day and have to co-operate with such people.

The hon. member for Oudtshoorn demonstrated yesterday that the CRC has once again, as the Theron Commission found, failed completely in the sphere of Coloured and community interests as an instrument of effective participation for the Coloured population, one that gives them a say. We believe it is wrong to adopt this type of attitude. There are people who will want to co-operate. I have no doubt that there are people in the Coloured community who will be eager to co-operate in the interests of their own people. It is not a case of “wielding the big stick” when one is in fact engaged in the establishment of a body by means of which it will be possible to negotiate on the future. I know people in the Coloured community who are in no way the instruments of this Government, but who are nevertheless willing to be of service to their people and to work in their interests.

Everyone knows how critical and outspoken a person such as Mr. Sonny Leon is, but I am convinced—I have had the opportunity of getting to know him well over the past year—that he is the type of person who will not allow any criticism he might have to interfere with his views, as is the case with Reverend Hendrickse for example.

There is also a person such as Mr. Willie Afrika, an esteemed member of the Coloured community of Port Elizabeth, a person who plays a prominent role in the community of Port Elizabeth as such and places his duty above politics. At present he is leader of the Freedom Party. He is a person who has also expressed criticism of the Government and has not said blindly that he agrees with everything the Government does,—that goes without saying. However, he is a person who realizes that he must avail himself of every possible opportunity to work in the interests of his people, and I am sure that such a person could be of great use in this new body. These people have a positive approach; they are not bent on confrontation. We can no longer tolerate the present situation. The hon. the Minister referred to the backlog which exists at present in various spheres. We cannot continue to neglect the interests of the Coloureds. The example I have in mind, as the hon. the Minister said, is the backlog with regard to classroom facilities, the double sessions being presented at Coloured schools, etc. These are matters that require very urgent attention. It is matters of this kind that can be entrusted to those people. Could the existing CRC not have examined those matters and have placed themselves above politics for just a moment?

At present a parliamentary commission is conducting an inquiry into the constitutional position of all races in South Africa and drafting a new constitution. In order to be able to do this successfully, all races have to be consulted, and since the CRC refuses even to consult on this level, we have no alternative but to effect a change and comply with the request of the Labour Party itself that the CRC be dissolved—this is at their own request—and that something else be established in its stead and other channels be found for negotiations.

Whatever the Schlebusch Commission may achieve in future, it must to a large extent have permanence. Once the Schlebusch Commission has completed its activities and published a report, it must not be something which we will again tamper with six months later, and consequently it is essential for that commission to consult with everyone at the present moment, particularly with the Coloureds as well. We cannot afford to make mistakes with a constitution for South Africa The constitution must be such that everyone will feel that their interests have been pooled and are being guaranteed by the law. It is also of the utmost importance for the commission to complete its mandate in the shortest possible time. In South Africa we do not have time to waste. If the Labour Party had continued with the CRC as it was originally envisaged and had awaited the findings of the Schlebusch Commission, this Bill before this House today would not have been necessary. I do not think that the Government would not have introduced this Bill in such a case.

We in the SAP accept this situation and will support the Bill merely because it is an interim measure and in no way prescribes a permanent dispensation. We cannot support a permanent body which is not elected by the people themselves. The hon. the Minister stated very clearly that this was a temporary measure until such time as the new constitution had been formulated or a future election was held. The hon. member for Simonstown explained this party’s standpoint in the Second Reading debate on the Part Appropriation Bill. For the record I want to reiterate it briefly so that our standpoint in this regard can be seen against the background of our philosophy.

We accept that the destinies of the Whites, Coloureds and Indians are interrelated and that we, in the absence of separate homelands, must go to meet the future hand in hand. We believe that the responsibility for and the management of its own affairs must be left in the hands of each group. We believe in the transference of power to representative legislative assemblies which we believe should be created for all the race groups. We believe that the CRC could have developed into such a body, had it not been for the attitude of the Labour Party. However, we have reached the stage where we are faced with a choice between one of two things, viz. to do absolutely nothing in the absence of an effective Coloured Person’s council, and in such a way neglect the interests of the people further as the Labour Party has done, or to make an interim arrangement so that the constitutional development process may be expedited.

While we support this Bill, we once again appeal to the Government to establish the proposed President’s Council in the shortest possible time and to ensure that the S.A. Coloured Persons Council which is now to be established, receives representation on that President’s Council. This will have the way for proper discussions and negotiations with responsible Coloured leaders on the future role which they will play in South Africa. This will ensure that a Coloured Executive will give proper attention to such matters as education, health, etc., and will look after the interests of their people, something which is certainly not happening today. We are not in any way prepared to neglect the interests of the Coloureds as a result of the fact that the elected Labour leaders are adopting this attitude. And because this council we are now discussing is of a temporary nature, we are not prepared to oppose the fact that the members of that council are being nominated instead of being elected. We support the Bill in the sincere hope that it will in fact be of a temporary nature and will very rapidly bring about an acceptable and final solution to this problem in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to thank the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. It seems to me as if he is now getting wise. If he goes on like that, it may well be that I shall be sitting next to him one of these days. Thank you very much for the kind words.

I was born and bred among the Coloureds. I say frankly that I cannot do without them. They do sometimes make me angry, but that is to be expected, because even in this select House there are hon. members who sometimes detract from my feeling of well-being.

In every sphere of society, one encounters good people, and then one also encounters those who have not got their heads screwed on properly, and that is perhaps the case in this House as well.

Hear, hear!

There are Coloureds on my farm who have been working there for three generations, and some of them have even adopted our surname. That is not on account of family links, but because we understand and respect one another. There was, or rather there still is, a Mr. Rabie in the CRC, but he is from the Transvaal and I have no relatives there.

I can still distinctly remember the days when the Coloureds were on the common voters’ roll. I can well remember what it took to teach them to sign their names and to vote. At the time, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central—he hails from the Montagu area—was actually their schoolmaster there. That was under the United Party régime. Once the Coloureds had voted, they were done with, and that was that. They had their vote in the time of the old United Party who were actually the forebears of that little band in the comer of the House. It was their predecessors who did that.

I was still very young at the time, and that sort of thing went against my grain. I refused to play schoolmaster like the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, since I felt that it was a swindle (“vemeukery”).

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

Say “boereverneukery”.

It was a political swindle.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that, too.

I withdraw it, Sir. It amounted to cheating. At the time, I lived in a United Party area and my father was also that way inclined. However, I stuck to my guns. After all, one should not use people merely as voting cattle. Fortunately for the whole of South Africa and all her inhabitants, the very best Government we have ever had assumed the reins of government in 1948. I am now referring to the NP. For the first time, something active, something positive was being done for the Coloureds. [Interjections.] Many Coloureds jumped at it and they made a very great success of it. I could read hon. members a very long list of Coloureds who have achieved top positions in life. We are aware of the schools, business undertakings and many other fields in which they have made their mark. Many of them realize and appreciate that. Admittedly, there are still many deficiencies. I concede that. However, where on earth are there no deficiencies? We are living as close to Heaven as we possibly can, and yet we know there are still deficiencies. Naturally there are always snakes in the grass too, people who seek to bedevil and wreck everything; very often purely for their personal gain.

I should like to ask the official Opposition whether they know the Coloureds. After all, those hon. members live where Coloureds are not allowed to live. That is how it should be. After all, that is our policy. However, do they indeed talk to the Coloureds? They talk to those whom they wish to talk to, but I wish to know whether they know the average Coloured. They talk about the Coloureds, but do they ever talk to them? I should be very pleased if one of those hon. members of the Opposition would, on occasion, take the trouble to talk to the average Coloured. I think that in all probability, quite a few of them will be given a talking-to.

With the establishment of the new Coloured Persons Council, the reins of government are now passing into the hands of people whose intentions are honest and sincere. That will be the case until the dawn of the new dispensation which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central also referred to. That dispensation is coming. When the NP promises something, it keeps its promise. It does things properly. It does not do things helter-skelter. [Interjections.] We take our time, but we nevertheless make a good job of it. [Interjections.]

After all, no population group can allow their welfare to be left in the hands of people such as those who are now controlling the CRC. When one is appointed to a responsible position, one should work for one’s voters and not for oneself. That applies to those hon. gentlemen on the Opposition side too. [Interjections.] Naturally, every population group grows in number. That is inevitable. They have to increase. That is also written in the Bible. However, here in the Western Cape, which is such fertile country, things are even more hectic than in the rest of the country. [Interjections.] In my part of the world—and this does apply to all population groups—we keep the population growth in check with all the pills and that type of thing. However, when it is hanepoot time, all the pills are useless. [Interjections.] Hon. members can mark my word. In December we baptise to beat the band. All anyone does is baptise. Just about everybody brings a child to the font. [Interjections.]

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

Mr. Speaker, in order to control this population growth, one must really have people and rulers who know their people and who have their interests at heart. I now come back to this Bill. This Bill is steering the Coloureds in the right direction. I support it 100%.

However, I do not simply want to write off the CRC, either. They did good work, too, particularly in the beginning. I do not wish to specify everything. What I do wish to indicate, is that in the CRC many angry words have been heard, directed at us wine farmers in particular. Thanks to the CRC, and with the aid of the church and the KWV, institutions have been established for the rehabilitation of alcoholics, institutions that have done wonderful work. Last year, such an institution was opened at Worcester. The hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations was also present. I, too, was there, not as a patient but as a guest. [Interjections.] On that occasion, I was impressed once again by what the CRC could do if it were to confine itself to the uplifting and the interests of its own people.

I spoke to one old fellow there, a patient. I asked him why he was there. He told me he was drinking too much. I asked him how he had found out that he was drinking too much, and he said: “I drank too much and found myself lying on the ground. Then I was afraid I would fall over and then I knew I was now drinking too much. [Interjections.]

This Bill makes provision that the new Coloured People’s Council will not fall but will be of service to the entire Coloured community and to the Republic of South Africa until the dawn of the new dispensation.

Mr. Speaker, while he was still in a serious mood, the hon. member for Worcester asked the Opposition whether we ever speak to the Coloured people. One wonders whether he was actually being serious in saying that too. So many hon. members on the other side of the House ask the Opposition this type of question. For instance, they ask whether we are speaking to the right people in the Coloured Community, whether we really know what they think, whether we are really negotiating and whether we know the people. I am always amused when I hear questions of that type. For instance, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn told us yesterday that he has Coloured friends who can ’phone him in the middle of the night if they need help, people that he can ’phone in the middle of the night too.

It is often said on that side of the House that members of the Labour Party are to be found amongst the leaders in the Coloured Council and that they are the wrong people because they make militant noises and choose the path of confrontation with the Government, whilst the ordinary Coloured person like the ones they know do not fall in with this completely. However, it is extremely strange that all the Coloured people that hon. members on that side of the House know so well and speak to so regularly—until 2 o’clock at night as the hon. member for Oudtshoorn says—apparently never get to a ballot box, because if there were to be an election amongst the Coloured people, the Labour Party would obviously come into power.

How can you say that? After all, they had a minority of votes!

Then they are well in the lead. [Interjections.] Therefore, there is no substance in this story that the Opposition does not know what the Coloured people are saying. It is quite irrelevant and we are not interested in it. If the CRC served any purpose at all it was that it at least saw to it that an election could take place and that Coloured people were able to express their opinions. With all due respect, this makes fools of the hon. members on the other side of the House who are always asking us so keenly and sneeringly whether we know what the Coloured people think. [Interjections.]

So far in this debate we have been hearing the same arguments that the NP has been raising over the years when dealing with the constitutional development of the Coloured community. They have been using the same old language, even the same terminology, which has often been distorted. The most misused political term, that we have been hearing here once again, is probably the term “self-determination”. The Nationalists have been using this word for years and they have explained to this House what a fine principle it is that every racial group can discuss and determine its own affairs as it allegedly should have been done in the existing CRC. However, the truth is quite simply that there cannot be any question of self-determination in the true sense of the word if that self-determination is not applicable to a specific geographical territory, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has already pointed out As long as no such specific geographic basis exists, the administrative areas where separation can be applied on a racial basis are extremely limited and this is confirmed by the limited number of rights that were allocated to the CRC. One simply has to think of a few fairly elementary matters that do not lend themselves to being dealt with on an apartheid basis. If one takes this into account, it is quite clear how futile the NP’s train of thought is in this regard. Let us just take a look at a few elementary issues that often give rise to problems. Let us look at something like land or property. Let us look at the provision of infrastructure, for instance roads or railways, etc. There is also the provision of security services for maintaining law and order, such as the Police and the courts of law, not to mention national defence, foreign affairs and State finances. Surely these matters cannot be administered practically on a separate racial basis unless the separate races live in separate geographical units and unless those separate geographical units are subject to the sovereignty of whatever body may be ruling on behalf of those specific racial groups. One must take one’s hat off to those Nationalists who may have advocated a form of Coloured homeland on the basis of intellectual honesty or political honesty, no matter how ludricous and grotesque that idea may be in practice. One can see how they strove to find the logical conclusion to the right to self-determination for the Coloured people. So far, however, there has been no trace of it in NP ideas, in any event as far as the majority of NP members are concerned.

Even those administrative functions that have in fact been entrusted to the CRC, cause practical problems because they are being separated and applied on a racial rather than a geographical basis. I just want to give a simple example of the type of irritation that one has to deal with. A few months ago I was approached by certain people who live in my constituency. They are a married man and woman with five children. At the time, the man was classified as Coloured and the woman as White. Unfortunately, three of their children were very sickly. They experienced tremendous problems in bringing up these children. The income of the family was simply not enough to enable them to do so. Three of the children were very sickly, the woman was unable to work and the man’s income was not adequate. I then tried to assist them. I approached various departments for assistance. It is interesting to note that it became apparent that the White Department of Social Welfare and Pensions allocates family grants to a family where the head, the man, is White. This family did not qualify on that basis because the man was classified as Coloured.

Order! The hon. member must not digress so far from the subject.

Could he just finish his story?

With respect, Sir, I am coming to the point I want to make. We were then referred to the Coloured Affairs Administration and they apply the same principle, but on the basis that the mother of the family must be classified as Coloured in order to qualify for a family grant In other words, with the apartheid dispensation that we have at the moment, this family falls between two stools and they cannot possibly qualify for aid for which other people usually qualify. This is the type of ludicrous irritation that is caused by the type of constitutional monster which the CRC was to a large extent.

Finally, however, one must ask oneself whether one can talk of self-determination when one racial group viz. the Whites, decides in a biased way via its Government where the line of self-determination must be drawn and who will decide on what. The NP assumes the right to determine which rights should be allocated to the CRC, which functions of government they may exercise and which other functions are too important to be administered by the CRC and therefore remain the responsibility of the central Government. In terms of the constitutional proposals of the NP that are before the Schlebusch Commission at the moment, they are also creating a situation at the central level, i.e. the level where community affairs are dealt with, where a less important position is being allocated to the Coloured people in the most cynical way and a type of “baasskap” situation is being perpetuated at that level. The mere fact that we can sit here as members of the House and decide on whether the CRC will continue to exist or not, the mere fact that we can decide here that the CRC should disappear without a single Coloured person participating in this debate or without a single Coloured person being in any position to refute a decision of the House, reflects the total lack of any real self-determination which has existed in the CRC thus far, or that has been available to the Coloured population so far in any respect.

Then over the years we have also heard of other concepts that have been atrociously abused and used to win Coloured support of some aspects of the Government’s policy. I want to mention one only, viz. the question of Cabinet status. How often has Cabinet status not been promised to members of the Executive Committee of the Coloured Council? Surely it was just tomfoolery, a mockery, to speak of Cabinet status for a person who serves on the Executive Committee of a body that was as totally powerless as the CRC. What does Cabinet status mean? Does it simply mean the right salary, the right car and the right house? Does it have no meaning when it comes to power and constitutional status?

Are you an advocate?

I am.

I shall never make use of your services.

I would never accept the hon. member as a client. The Bill before the House is simply another step in the impressive series of attempts that have failed to create a form of political representation for the Coloured community. There are most probably many reasons for the past failures, but the most important underlying cause for the failure of every step so far is most probably that the NP Government has been determined time and again to force the Coloureds into a subordinate position at any cost, and furthermore, at any cost to drive a wedge between any possibility of political representation for Coloureds together with Whites. As the hon. members for Sea Point and Bezuidenhout have already pointed out, extremely cynical things have been done on this path of constitutional development—if one can call it development. In this regard I should just like to mention an interesting example. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, who has already participated in the debate—I am sorry he is not in the House now—was appointed as a Senator on grounds of his special knowledge of the Coloured population.

He knows more about them than you do.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens was at the University of Natal when he was elected as Senator. However, there was some confusion as to whether he had really been elected. The hon. member did not know whether he had been elected. He had to be enlightened in the Other Place and there he was told on which grounds he had been elected a member of the Other Place. [Interjections.] This is how ludicrous the position has become. This is how the so-called form of political representation for the Coloured people is abused in this country.

Now one would have expected that a new system, as envisaged by the legislation, would show signs that lessons have been learned from the series of failures which have preceded it. I wonder if there is a better argument in favour of a change-over to a situation of negotiation at this stage and acceptance of the principle of a national convention than this very series of failures, because this is the basis of the failures that have characterized every step that the Government has taken in connection with constitutional representation for the Coloured people thus far. It has been a failure every time, and unfortunately I must say that in spite of the work that the Schlebusch Commission is doing, any plan that this commission draws up without negotiating with the Coloured population, will also have the same weakness and will not be acceptable to the Coloured population for that reason. Yesterday the hon. member for Oudtshoorn said that the Coloured people should not be stiff-necked. He used insulting language. He said they should not be stiff-necked. After all, they can come along and confer. This is the whole attitude of hon. members on the other side of the House. It must be a hat-in-hand situation. It must be a master-servant situation. They are not prepared to accept that negotiations must take place on a man-to-man basis.

I said they must come and confer with the Schlebusch Commission. However, they do not want to come along and confer.

I realize that is what the hon. member said.

You are now deliberately giving what the hon. member said a different connotation.

That is precisely what he meant. He wants them to come along and confer. They must come along and confer with a commission which consists exclusively of Whites. This is exactly what I am talking about.

Do you not think so too?

That is not negotiation. He merely goes there to express his opinion and that is where his role ends and that is where any influence that he might have on the course of the deliberations and the course of the proceedings of that body ends.

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

No, I do not have the time.

You are too scared.

Order! The hon. member for Welkom said that the hon. member for Green Point was scared. He must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir.

Order! The hon. member must rise to his feet when he withdraws them.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them.

Do you call that standing up?

Shut your trap (“smoel”).

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

I withdraw it under protest.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

An attack has been made here on the leaders of the Coloured Labour Party concerning their attitude towards the Government and also concerning …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: When the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs rose to his feet to ask the hon. member a question, the hon. member for Green Point told the hon. the Minister “Sit down!” [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Green Point may proceed.

I said that an attack was made on the leaders of the Coloured Labour Party because of the attitude that they adopted towards the Government in general on the activities of the CRC and also for their approach towards the Schlebusch Commission. There is one statement that I must put right. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn said that the Du Preez Commission, which was appointed by the CRC in order to seek an alternative constitutional dispensation, was appointed and had completed its activities only after the Schlebusch Commission had already been announced. For the record, I just want to say that the Du Preez Commission was appointed in September 1978 and that it met for the first time on 2 November 1978 and published its report on 14 March 1979. The Schlebusch Commission was appointed by this House only on 30 March 1979.

The hon. member for Sea Point said that it was in pursuance of the former Prime Minister’s statement in 1974.

Do not get so excited, Pen.

If any hon. member doubts it, I can refer him to the Hansard of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn and then he can have clarity on that matter.

The body that stands to be appointed as a result of this legislation, contains the same elements as those that led to the failure of every previous constitutional attempt that the Government has made to create political representation for the Coloured people. It contains all the elements that led to that failure. This is most probably the most cynical aspect of this step.

In his introductory speech, the hon. the Minister pointed out that it is a form of political representation. With all due respect, it is definitely not political representation. It has been compared by hon. members on the other side of the House to all sorts of control boards, all sorts of nominated boards which cannot lay any claim at all to being political or representative bodies. The mere fact that hon. members on that side of the House drew that comparison, indicates that this body cannot even lay claim to being able to represent the Coloured population to any extent.

Another point that was raised by hon. members on the other side of the House, is that this legislation is before us now at the request of the CRC, at the request of the leaders of the CRC, etc. However, I want to point out with respect that this is only half the truth. It is true in so far as this legislation aims at doing away with the CRC, but in the sense that it is creating an alternative which is a mockery of democracy, it is totally untrue to allege that this is being done at the request of the Coloured people. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens raised another interesting point. He quoted two important reasons why the CRC did not work, why it could not lead to full political representation for the Coloured people, and why it did not succeed in general during the years that it was in existence. One of his reasons was the liberal paternalism of some Cape Town politicians and certain persons inside and outside the House who act as spokesmen for the Coloured people, who allege that they are acting as such and then say things on behalf of the Coloured people. He mentions the case of District Six in this regard. His second reason for the failure of the CRC, is, interestingly enough, that it was a subordinate body, subordinate to this House. If one is to take his second reason seriously, is this not the right forum where these matters should be discussed, because what say and influence does the CRC have on the Group Areas Board? What influence does the CRC have on the Department of Community Development? It has no influence at all. It is not even being claimed that they have any influence there, and this is the very place where these discussions should take place. This is the correct forum and the most effective place to deal with that question. If Coloured people were to be allowed to participate in the central political dispensation of South Africa, it would not be necessary for White members to raise this question at all. This cannot be laid at the door of the Opposition.

One of the points raised by hon. members on this side of the House as to why we are dissatisfied with this legislation, and particularly with this body that is going to be created to replace the CRC, is the concern amongst hon. members on this side as to what is going to replace this new body. Is the Schlebusch Commission going to come up with a product that will be acceptable to the Coloured community? If not, are we going to be saddled forever with this new, powerless board which we are now trying to create, as we have been saddled with the CRC for years? Hon. members on the opposite side of the House have all alleged that the CRC was supposed to obtain more powers, that it was supposed to develop into a full-fledged political institution. But due to the Government’s inability to persuade the Coloured people to co-operate, due to the unwillingness of the Coloured leaders to co-operate in this process, the Government was totally unable to expand the CRC, and this shows how strong this element can be, how powerful this element can be, and it shows how serious we are when we wonder whether the Schlebusch Commission can come up with a product that is going to be acceptable to the Coloured people. Is there going to be negotiation in the true sense of the word instead of just talking? Is there going to be negotiation in the sense that the Coloureds can sit there with just as many political rights as the Whites and be able to negotiate with the Whites on a man-to-man basis? Is full citizenship for the Coloured people going to be accepted by hon. members on the opposite side of the House? As I have already said, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens has put forward the fact that the CRC was “subordinate to this Parliament” as a reason for the failure of that body. That body was subordinate to this Parliament Now I should like to know from hon. members on the opposite side of the House whether they are prepared to accept a constitutional set-up for the Coloured people that is not subordinate, that will definitely have the same say as the Whites concerning the same territory. Are they prepared to accept this? Will they accept it is the Schlebusch Commission recommends it? I doubt it. It will be interesting to see what they are going to do. They must ask the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens what he means when he says that the CRC is a “subordinate body to this Parliament”, and why he says so. I want to ask them whether they can remove those elements that make it subordinate to this Parliament in order to make it a true, meaningful political representative of the Coloured people. However, I doubt whether they will be prepared to do so.

Another question to which I should like to refer, is the attitude that hon. members on that side of the House display and the insulting language which they use towards members of the Coloured community and the leaders of the Labour Party. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister’s snide references to how many hours these people spend in their offices …

They are not snide, they are the truth.

… and his insults will mean that they do not have a snowball’s hope of ever being able to negotiate properly with these people. This shows a lack of sensitivity and an audacity on the part of hon. members on that side of the House, which will make it increasingly difficult for them to find any constitutional set-up that will be acceptable to the Coloured people and with which we can live in this country. If they will not do that, the words of the former Prime Minister, viz. we will pass the Coloured problem in South Africa on to our children, will come true.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer briefly to a speech made by the hon. member for Green Point. He covered such a wide field that it would be almost impossible to refer to everything he said. However, he did make a few statements which I want to come back to briefly.

In the first place, he launched an attack on the hon. members for Oudtshoorn and Worcester about friendship and friends along the Coloured community. The hon. member, who comes from a rural area, like the hon. members for Worcester and Oudtshoorn and myself, should actually know what true friendship with a Coloured person means. As the hon. member for Oudtshoorn said, such a friend is a man whom one can call upon at any time of the night, irrespective of the weather, and he will help one while one will do the same for him. The farmer is a welfare worker and he cares for the families of those Coloured people when they are in need, when they are in need, when they are ill, when they are hungry, when they have need of advice. The Coloured person feels free to come to the White person and to seek his assistance, and the White person will gladly be of service to him. That is true friendship.

I do not wish to refer only to the fact that less than 25% of the people go to some of the polling-stations, but also to the broad masses, the remaining 60% to 70% of the Coloured population. We must go to them to see what true friendship is and where their interest lie.

Actually I am now anticipating my speech to a certain extent. I have just referred to the low polling percentage. However, my attention has been drawn to the fact that the Coloured person is interested in things such as his house and his children who have to go to school. These are the things that are of primary interest to him, and that is why he is not so much interested in registering as a voter and casting his vote. The broad masses of the Coloured population are satisfied with their circumstances, and this is due to the good relations maintained by the Whites with the Coloured people.

Reference has also been made to the question of Cabinet status. These people, including the Labour Party, have been invited to join in the discussions and consultations, but they have refused to do so. It has been pointed out sufficiently in this House how these people refuse to co-operate.

I want to discuss the failures which have been referred to, and the legislation in connection with the CRC. One may ask oneself how many of these failures are due to the attitude of hon. members on that side of the House. Hon. members of the PFP would do well to stop telling other people what to say. The Coloured community, including the Labour Party, rejects their policy of federation. They do not listen to it. I want to say to those hon. members that the Blacks can speak for themselves, we believe that the Coloured people can speak for themselves. That is why we on this side of the House talk to the Coloured people and their leaders. However, I want to leave the matter at that. The hon. member discussed this matter at such length that I cannot reply to all his arguments.

The official Opposition wishes to blame the NP for the failure of the CRC. That is why they make remarks such as the one that we had from the hon. member for Sea Point, that it is an insult to the Coloured people. How on earth can it be said that when a council has decided unanimously to ask for something, and that request is granted, it is an insult to those who made the request? If this is so, can the refusal of the official Opposition to accept the legislation with regard to the extension of the life of the S.A. Indian Council not be regarded as an insult to the Indian Community, too? After all, that is what the Indians asked for. However, hon. members of the official Opposition did not want to accede to that. Can this not be regarded, then, as an insult to the Indian Community? The Labour Party requested that the CRC be abolished. In fact, they have been endeavouring right from the outset to have it abolished. That is the very aim they set themselves, as has repeatedly been pointed out in this House, by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central as well.

In the light of Reverend Hendrickse’s intention and view, when he was elected leader of his party, their present conduct simply does not make sense. The CRC was established with certain powers, including executive powers, with regard, inter alia, to finance, education—for which Reverend Hendrickse is responsible—social welfare, pensions—which as a clergyman should be very near to his heart—local government, rural areas and Coloured settlements, agriculture, and further duties which could be entrusted to them from time to time, for example, to act in an advisory capacity with regard to the economic, social, educational and political interests of the Coloured community. When Reverend Hendrickse was elected leader of the Labour Party, he said—

Mr. Currie spoke in the same vein. In a conversation with Rapport he said—

He added that they would watch the Government closely to see how sincerely this step was intended. In this view of his he was also supported by Reverend Hendrickse, who said—

As I have already said, Reverend Hendrickse’s intention at the congress at which he was elected leader is not consistent with what happened subsequently. In spite of what he said at the congress, the Labour Party persisted in boycotting consultations and discussions. The Du Preez Commission, too, refused to make submissions to the Schlebusch Commission. However, when it has to act in accordance with its avowed beliefs, as contained in its programme of principles, it does not do so. Then it boycotts all these things and even asks for a boycott against the Republic of South Africa. The Labour Party does not wish to negotiate with the Schlebusch Commission. Now, one may perhaps ask why not. I have already said that when certain things fail, one may ask why it happened. In this connection I quote what was said by Mr. E. Schroeder—

And this has been referred to in this House as well—

Is there no one here, then, who wants discussions to take place and unity to be achieved? There are people here who are telling those people not to accept. Then, on top of that, another question is being dragged in by the hair. This is the question: What about the Black man? That is why things are being wrecked. That is why matters are being clouded. This is being done while the Government is trying in all honesty and sincerity to achieve consensus and to co-operate with the Coloured population in stimulating their own development, as well as that of the Republic of South Africa. However, they are then told by others not to do so.

I believe that we have to make this appeal to everyone. Let us leave Coloured politics in the hands of the Coloured leaders. Let them decide for themselves what they want to accept and what they do not. As the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has already remarked, however, we may test the Labour Party against their programme of principles, especially in the light of their boycott pleas.

The Coloured population has come a very long way since 1948 under the NP régime. The NP has not only guided the Coloured people on their road of political development, but on the road of economic, social and educational development as well. To Reverend Hendrickse and his friends I wish to say that when they advocate boycotts against the Republic of South Africa, South Africa is going to be hurt. This is true. However, he must just remember that his people will be hurt just as badly and even more badly if boycotts are implemented against South Africa. I believe it is irresponsible to advocate such a thing.

I also wish to ask hon. members of the Opposition, if they do not agree with this attitude of Rev. Hendrickse, please to say so clearly and unambiguously. Tell him that this is not the course we should be taking in this country. We cannot encourage boycotts against South Africa. They cannot do so because they are going to hurt us, because they are going to hurt their own people.

When one looks at the Western Cape, which is actually the homeland, the home of the Coloured people, when one sees how many people are employed here …

Their homeland, is it?

No, I am talking about the home of the Coloured people, their place of origin. [Interjections.]

At last you are calling a spade a spade!

In 1975, there were 4,12 million Whites, 2,43 million Coloureds, 0,73 million Asiatics and 17 million Blacks in South Africa. It is anticipated that by the year 2000, there will be 5,72 million Whites and 4,89 million Coloureds in South Africa. At the moment there are approximately 1 million economically active Coloureds in the country. 73% of the total number of economically active Coloured people live in the Cape Province, the home of 87% of the total number of Coloured people in the country. I just want to point out some of the occupations that may be affected by pleas of this kind. A total number of 334 100 Coloured people were employed in the semiskilled and skilled professions in 1973. Over the past 13 years, there has been an increase of 165 000 in this labour category. In 1960, there were 309 000 unskilled labourers, and in 1973, the number was 349 000. It is clear, therefore, that far more Coloureds have entered the skilled than the unskilled market. One finds these Coloureds in every kind of profession in the Western Cape today. Here we find 95%. of the labour force in the clothing, textile, leather and shoe industries is comprised of Coloured labour. In 1960, 66% of all the labour corps in factories in the Cape Peninsula, and 36% in adjoining districts, consisted of Coloured people. In 1977, the figure was almost 84%.

Order! The hon. member must deal more specifically with the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am coming closer to it. I just want to point out that when we are talking about what should be done in the Coloured Council, we should take cognizance of the welfare services, the educational and employment opportunities for these people. These are the tasks that should be entrusted to those people. This is what is expected of them, but then they advocate the exposure of their people to economic pressure as a result of economic boycotts and other actions.

This approach of the CRC—in the light of its complete abolition—came from the members as a whole. In the years before 1974, and in subsequent years as well, very good work was done by the CRC. There was development in the educational sphere, and as has been pointed out, the Administration of Coloured Affairs made enormous progress. However, this Government has always made it clear that it invites the Coloured people to submit their proposals and recommendations so that we can talk and negotiate.

Then Rev. Hendrickse says that they are tired of making a start, but have they ever really tried to make a start? Because they have always simply refused to co-operate, so much so that budgets could not be approved and the activities of the council could not proceed. If this Government had not intervened and paid the people when the CRC refused to approve the budget, where would the Labour Party have been today? We are dealing here with a population group which is very young, economically and politically, and it is the intention and the task of this Government to guide these people along the road to self-determination and to give them equal rights alongside this White community of ours.

Let us look back over the history of the Coloured community. In 1943 it had an advisory council of seven members, a council which had not been established by this Government and which was merely advisory. However, it was not the NP that had established that council. Therefore one can see that the NP has made very great progress since those days in guiding and developing the Coloured people. However, we are surely entitled to expect everyone in this country to receive his fair share in this process. But we also need the support of every population group, because nowadays it is not possible for us to seek aid abroad. We must consolidate and come to an agreement in this country.

Certain remarks have been made on the part of the Labour Party to the effect that they are co-operating with the Patriotic Front and Swapo, that they cannot regard Swapo as a violent organization and that the violent behaviour comes from this side of the House. One asks oneself whether it is in the national interest for these people to behave in this way and whether this is a field for the members of the CRC to venture upon. They must take cognizance of the fact that this view, too, poses a threat to us. It has already been pointed out this afternoon that Coloured boys are also laying down their lives and that the Cape Coloured Corps is being inundated with applications. However, when it comes to the cadet institution, the CRC abolishes that and refuses to reintroduce it, while the request came from my constituency that cadet divisions should be introduced at schools. The hon. the Minister was present when that request came from Coloured people in my area. These people realize the value which cadet training has for the Coloured child as well. However, the CRC refuses to comply with this basic request of its people and to co-operate in this connection.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we need to examine any further the reasons—they have been very clearly explained—why this council is being abolished. The failure of the council was caused by the attitude adopted by the CRC. However, it was also caused by frustration on the part of the members of the council who did not belong to the Labour Party and who could not discuss what they had to discuss under the various Votes, and who could not ask questions or voice criticism in respect of various matters either. For them, too, it ended in a frustrating stalemate. They could not use it as a political platform. The Labour Party adjourned the council and caused them to disband. The result was that the work they were supposed to do was not done. So there is sympathy for these people. But, Mr. Speaker, apart from the negative attitude of the CRC as evinced by the Labour Party, the CRC did very fine work as well. Special structures were expanded and improved.

Mr. Speaker, reference has also been made to the question of attitudes. It has been said this afternoon that the Coloured person is not the friend of the White. I want to quote from a finding made by the Human Sciences Research Council after an investigation—

It goes on to say—

This is what is said in Finding No. S-N-134 of 1978. This shows us that the good faith and good relations do exist between these groups.

However, we must not spoil that through our conduct in this House. We can say gratefully today that there are in fact members of the CRC and Coloured people outside who want to talk and negotiate and who want to take the White man’s hand of friendship. We on this side of the House want to invite these people to come forward and to serve on the proposed S.A. Coloured Council, so that they may serve the Coloured community. The leaders of the White group did not adopt an obstinate attitude of all or nothing by means of boycotts, but progressed through continuous negotiation to our present status as the Republic of South Africa In the same way, we ask the Coloured leaders—for there are many knowledgeable people among them—to come forward to serve their people on the South African Coloured Council so that everyone may find his rightful place in this Southern country, for there is a place in the sun for everyone here, for everyone in his own sphere. The standpoint of this side of the House has been stated clearly and unambiguously, i.e. that every population group has its place and must be able to maintain equal, parallel development, but we are not going to tread on one another’s toes. It has been clearly spelt out what the White group considers to be of value and importance to itself, what is of value and importance to the Coloured group and what are matters of common interest, and the Coloured people are being invited to have a say in this. We are not following a policy in terms of which it is said that the Coloured people receive certain things and that that is final. It can be negotiated, considered and spelt out what is of common interest in the sphere of each. I want to invite the Coloured people outside—and there are many of them—to come forward in the interests of their own people and to serve on the proposed Coloured Council in the interests of the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Beaufort West devoted the greater part of his speech to an attack on the members of the Labour Party. If impartial observers had listened to the debate, they would simply have come to the conclusion that in fact, the Labour Party governs the country, because if one listens to the arguments of hon. members opposite, what they are really telling us is that they are doing what the Labour Party wanted them to do, but on the other hand they are also saying that they are doing this because the Labour Party does not want the CRC.

It is the same thing.

No, it is not the same thing. The various facts are interpreted in two ways. I want to give an example. The hon. the Minister said that only 42% of the Coloureds had taken the trouble to register, because they were so dissatisfied with the system and that we should rather abolish the CRC. The hon. member for Beaufort West, however, tells us that only 42% of the Coloureds registered because those people are so busy and so happy where they live that it does not matter to them. If one interprets the simple facts in two ways, then surely he is in trouble. I really thought, however, that it would never again be necessary for us to have this kind of debate in the House. If anyone told me five or six months ago that we would ever again in the history of South Africa—even under the NP Government—have a debate in Parliament on the abolition of rights, I would have told him that it was surely no longer a reality, and that there would not be such an occasion again. If one bears in mind the three-day election in Zimbabwe, one realizes that a new era in history has irrevocably been ushered in in Southern Africa We had better forget about results and whatever they might involve. Independence is just around the comer for Zimbabwe, and with it colonialism will disappear from Africa. No matter what we do, South Africa cannot lose sight of this fact. And yet, at the earliest opportunity we have after these events, legislation is introduced in this House in which that which goes on around us is simply ignored.

†Historically speaking it is significant to remember that the very first legislation that was passed was legislation that constitutionally placed the Coloured people back—whether we like it or not—not only ten years or 20 years as has been mentioned here, but more than a century in their constitutional development They were placed right back, from a fundamental point of having the right to have representation and the right to have access to the central authority of the Government, into the era of colonialism. Let us look a little deeper into this. What is the real hall-mark of colonialism, especially in its initial, blatant and unadulterated form? The real hall-mark of a colonialism is the appointment of advisory councils as the sole means of meeting the political aspirations of those … [Interjections.] I am not the one who is doing these things; these things are being done by the Government. These are the sole means of meeting the aspirations of those who are denied a direct say in the central Government of the country. It is the sole means of participation for those who are denied the right to elect their own leaders through due democratic process. One question we must ask ourselves is: Exactly where will this legislation place us, as far as the Coloured community is concerned, when it comes to the normal evolutionary constitutional process, of which one has had many examples in decolonialization processes which have taken place in many parts of the world. The answer is that it places the Coloured community right back in the days of Crown colony rule. I shall prove this by going back a little into history. I think this hon. House should know what it is doing at this particular point in time, especially when, as I have already pointed out, this type of thing is disappearing from Africa.

What do you suggest?

I shall deal with the alternatives which we must also put to the people. I wish to challenge any hon. member opposite—I do not know whether the hon. member for Rissik is going to speak during this debate—to deny that once this Bill is passed, the Coloureds will find themselves in a situation identical to that of the colonists vis-à-vis the colonial power or the central Government. I challenge them to disprove this. I wish to point out a few relevant facts. Like the colonists of old they, too, will have no representation in the mother Parliament or in the central authority which controls them. Indeed, it is a typical colonial example of taxation without any representation. Secondly, like the old colonists, they are denied participation, in any form of responsible government, in their own affairs, where Political power is exercised in a Parliament which has powers of taxation and an executive that can truly be held accountable to the elected representatives. Under those circumstances it is so strange to hear phrases such as “selfbeskikkingsreg” and “self-determination”. Thirdly, like those erstwhile colonists, they are denied even the right to elect their own leaders, their own negotiators or their own administrators. If one looks at the Bill one finds that the executive is also going to be appointed. The chairman is going to be appointed and the members holding various portfolios are also going to be appointed. I therefore challenge anyone to prove that this is not exactly the type of situation by means of which the colonial powers used to try to govern their colonies. The Government is, by means of this legislation, trying to place the whole of South Africa in a time machine, but this is not the time machine for advancing into the space age; it is a time machine for going backwards. Here again, merely as an historical exercise, I am going to try to determine how far back we are, in fact, taking the people in their constitutional development.

I think that hon. members, especially those who are intelligent enough to be hon. members of this House will agree that the history of the Coloured community is virtually synonymous with that of the Cape Province, whether one sees the Cape Province in its context as the Cape Province of the Union of South Africa or the Republic of South Africa, or whether one tries to trace the history of the Cape Province back to when it was part of a British colony, or as a possession of the Dutch East Indian Company and a colony of the Netherlands. This Bill is, in fact, taking us back in time. This matter does not stop in 1964 when the old Coloured Council came into being. Neither does the time machine even touch down in the situation of the 1950s. [Interjections.] No matter how people try to belittle it, and no matter how they tell these people that they were political footballs and point out all the various difficulties and exploitation that took place, in the 1950s there were Coloureds who enjoyed a franchise, a common voters’ roll franchise. Now, compared to that position, this takes us right back, in the history of the Cape Province, not only to 1872, when that province was granted Responsible Government, nor even to 1854, when Representative Government was granted, nor even—and this is the tragedy— to 1834 when a legislative council was introduced, because that legislative council, although it had a majority of nominated members, it did have legislative power. With this Bill, the Government is even taking away the legislative power, and the excuse that one gets is that the Coloured Representative Council never used it, or that they only used it two or three times. I do not know where the Government gets this idea from that it must always punish people. Because they did not use it effectively for 10 years, they are now not allowed to have it.

You can be glad that you are not a teacher!

Yes, actually I should have been one, then that hon. member might have been much more clever. It has been brought back to a purely advisory level. Even during the autocratic rule of the Dutch people at the Cape, one found that, through the Burgerrade colonists had a far greater direct say, through the Council of Policy, in the central authority of the country. I know that when I have mentioned all this the hon. members opposite will immediately say, as they have already said, that this is only an interim measure. Nowhere in this legislation is there any indication of how interim or how “tussentyds” this legislation will be. We have so many examples in history of interim measures. In the constitutional history of the French people, there was an interim period of 175 years from 1614 to 1789, when the State General never met, and when it met, it met on the very eve of the French revolution, but then it was too late. We could very well call the whole medieval period an interim period. The question, however, is what has happened to make this Government take these drastic steps? What has brought us to this sad state of affairs? It is undoubtedly the result of confrontation politics, but in this process of confrontation the Government and the NP as a whole have played a leading role. Up to now they have tried to tell us that it was only the Labour Party which was responsible. The NP, however, played a leading role, and it should accept the responsibility for it. The tragedy is that, but for this policy of confrontation on the part of the Government, the Coloured Person’s Representative Council could have worked as an institution. In the execution of its confrontation policy against the Coloureds, the Government excelled in applying double standards. I should like to mention some of them. At the very first election the first confrontation occurred when the majority party found itself in the Opposition seats and not in a position of power. Hon. members will recall the interesting aspect—and I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister of many portfolios, namely Interior, Community Development and Coloured Relations, will just listen for a moment—that the one reason that was advanced for this reversal of the process of democracy was—and he mentioned it a little while ago, as well by means of an interjection—that the Labour Party did not obtain the majority of the votes, because the pro-apartheid parties obtained the majority of the votes. Is that correct? That is why he did not respect the outcome of the first election. [Interjections.] But they have all mentioned this from time to time.

If that is the criterium, or the reason, why did the NP rule South Africa from 1948 to 1958 when it had the minority of the voters in South Africa on its side? When the Government could not respect the results at the ballot-box, it deliberately set out and confronted them right at the beginning. This is why this has failed. What happened then? The Coloured people wished for certain things. One can read the preamble. At times when they asked for more powers, and the ruling party even went as far as to prepare draft budgets, why was the Government not then prepared to listen to their unanimous advice? Again double standards were applied from the beginning. [Interjections.] I think that hon. member is a member of the Schlebusch Commission. Here again we have a glaring example of double standards and of confrontation.

You are wrong once again, as usual.

The Labour Party refused to appear before, and give evidence to, the Schlebusch Commission, but did the NP appear before the Schlebusch Commission to defend their policy and answer questions? [Interjections.] This is again an example of double standards being applied. Did they appear before the commission to answer questions on their constitutional plan which is known at the University of Stellenbosch and in their SRC as “that lot of rubbish”? Did they appear to answer questions on this? Why must these double standards be applied? Why must it always be so that when the NP is doing something, it is invariably right, whereas when it is done by anybody else, it is wrong? Why must there be this stalemate? The answer is clearly—and I am so glad the hon. the Prime Minister is here—that the present Government lacks the ability and the will to negotiate with the elected Coloured leaders. What happened after the very first encounter? What happened in Pretoria was just the first round of negotiations or dialogue. What happened after that? The hon. the Prime Minister surrendered, and with that tried to end the process of negotiation. This can ultimately only result in further confrontation. If their argument is valid that this stage has been reached because the Labour Party adopted a policy of confrontation, they can only expect further confrontation as a result of their actions. The Government’s attitude is crystal clear. It is crystal clear to us—and this should give every person who is concerned about our security a fright—that the Government lacks so much confidence in its own ability to negotiate that it is looking around to find acceptable people with whom to negotiate. It has clearly made up its mind that the elected Coloured leaders who are at present in control of the CRC are unacceptable. If we want to survive in South Africa, we must have a Government which can negotiate with the unacceptable elements in our society as well. Will the Government appoint, for instance, people such as the Rev. Hendrickse, Mr. Currie or Mr. Middleton. Will those people be appointed? Apart from the fact that they will not accept it, the answer is that they will not appoint them. However, through this Bill the Government is making a desperate, but feeble, attempt to escape from the realities of the South African situation. The Currys and the Hendrickses are the people who are part of the realities of South Africa, and by passing this Bill the Government is not going to escape from those realities. Somewhere along the line, if those men are the natural leaders, the men who get elected when the people are granted political rights, they will be elected under whatever system one chooses. If those are the people with whom one must negotiate, then one will have to start negotiating with them. They cannot be by-passed. Not only is this policy an indication that the Government’s own policy has failed, but it also demonstrates the total inability, as I have said, to negotiate. I am sure the Government will find capable, distinguished people to serve on the council, but it can never regard those people as a substitute for the real political leaders of the country elected through a true democratic process. In fact, the Government has already said that these people will be non-political.

If the Government would only allow—and this is where I would like to refer to our amendment as well—the CRC to develop into a fully-elected council quickly, and would grant it real powers, we would not have this problem. Apart from courage, all the Government needed was to put a little trust and have some confidence in the Coloureds. The very fact that a fully-elected council was denied them in the beginning was a vote of no confidence in the Coloured community.

I should like to reiterate that a separate legislative body for the Coloureds—or, for that matter, for the Indians and the urban Blacks—can work providing there is no special deal for any of these three groups or for the Whites, who all share a common geographical area. If all the groups had equal power and they participated as equal components in a federation, we would not have had this stalemate and confrontation, we would not have had to go back in time as we are now doing, but we would have been in a position to go forward, which this Bill does not achieve.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, in his speech, mentioned that he works on the assumption that when the new dispensation is announced there will be a single nationhood for the Indians, the Coloureds and the Whites. I want to ask the hon. member whether there will be equal citizenship in the single nation?

Sure.

He says there will be equal citizenship for all.

What does that mean?

If there is going to be equal citizenship for all, on what practical basis and on what moral basis can he now try to exclude the Coloureds from the negotiating and decision-making process concerning the very constitution within which they will have to function in a single nation and within which equal citizenship would operate?

Our amendment makes it specific—I would like to reiterate it again—that we believe there must be a representative body with which a new constitutional dispensation in which the Coloureds will have political participation at the highest possible level can be negotiated. I fail to understand even how the hon. the Minister thinks he will ever reach that stage. He either believes in negotiation with elected political leaders or he does not. If he believes in it, he must tell us what constitutional avenue there will be for elected political leaders to be placed in a position where they can negotiate, after this wonderful plan has been drafted for them by an all-White commission appointed by the State President. With whom will the Whites negotiate? The White Paper states that it is the intention to establish a council on a non-political basis. What sort of thing is this? They are going to deal with matters which in fact will have a political connotation. For that matter, if this is really true, why then does the Government not just abolish this Parliament and appoint some body of experts to try to run the country?

Please, do not put ideas into their heads.

Hon. members on the Government side obviously hope that the people they are going to appoint will remain apolitical. On what basis can they exclude, for instance, members of the majority party? Apart from everything else I believe this measure is a slap in the face of the whole Coloured community in South Africa It is also not at all practical. I cannot think how the Government can ever seriously believe that they can improve the situation without negotiating.

You are really afraid to tell us what you are proposing.

Honestly, Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member for Mossel Bay was when we moved our amendment If he had listened then he would have realized that that is particularly what I am dealing with right now. It is my submission that it is absolutely essential that one must have a fully elected body of Coloured representatives in South Africa with whom one can negotiate any new dispensation. Without that, of what value will it be for members of the Schlebusch Commission to report to the State President and to say to him that many Coloured people accept their proposals, but that none of them is a politician and not one of them represents anybody? Of what value can that be? It will be a complete waste of the time of those people who have served on the Schlebusch Commission for so long. This is the sort of thing, I believe, we should avoid at any cost.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens also referred to the Coloured people being treated as second-class Whites. He said that when he was referring to their early history. This Bill, however, quite frankly treats them as non-citizens. They will be the only group left in South Africa with no basic form of representation whatsoever. The only form of representation they will have will be the four nominated senators to whom the hon. member for Umbilo referred in his speech, four senators nominated by virtue of their intimate knowledge of the Coloured people. It is also notable that this takes place at a time when the Government has already announced—and every one of us knows exactly what their real intention is—that the Senate is to be abolished as well.

The last point I should like to raise is this. The Government has definitely rejected now the principle of a separate legislative body for the Coloured people. They will never be able to return to the status quo. All the arguments we have heard from the Government side, if those hon. members still believe what they say, will still be valid even after the so-called new dispensation has become a reality. It could even happen that there will then be greater possibilities of confrontation, especially if the Government has only negotiated with the so-called acceptable people who will be appointed to what in fact is going to be only an advisory council. [Interjections.] What other alternative do they still have? Because we know they have no other alternative we have moved our amendment in which we ask that a fully-elected representative council be established. This council, we believe, must be elected by the Coloured people themselves. This should be done quickly. In heaven’s name, we cannot afford to lose any more time. It is time for all South Africans to decide together about a workable new constitution for the country. Only in that way can any new dispensation have at least a degree of acceptability.

One cannot negotiate with the wind. This is exactly what the Government is now trying to do.

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

No. I am not going to answer any questions now. My time is far too limited. All I can say to the hon. member for Mossel Bay is that he and his party should do everything in their power to come forward and give evidence before the Schlebusch Commission. Only by doing that will they be able to justify themselves in their criticism of the Coloured people. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what they have to do. They should do that instead of continuing to criticize the Coloured people in a hypocritical way for things they themselves are not even prepared to do. The answer, however, is this. Once they have drafted their plan, with whom are they going to consult so that they can come here with a clear conscience and say that they know that this is acceptable to the Coloureds? If it is only going to be with a couple of appointed members, let me tell the Government that it is recklessly gambling with the security and the future of all of us in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we have been listening to a very interesting archaic contribution by the hon. member for Durban Central. In the course of my speech I shall refer to what he said and the questions he asked. Over the past few days—yesterday and today—we have been listening to vehement opposition on the part of hon. members of the Opposition to a measure which seeks to establish an interim council, a council called the South African Coloured Persons Council. We could solve many of our problems in regard to this argument if we could only get a very clear “yes” or “no” from the hon. Opposition members at this stage. They object to the establishment of a nominated South African Coloured Persons Council.

Quite correct.

If the Government were to rescind this measure and were to continue with the existing CRC, would those hon. members support it?

Yes, provided it was fully elected.

I am asking whether the hon. member would support it.

As long as it is 100% elected … [Interjections.]

We are referring to an existing instrument or institution. There is a choice. Either we proceed with the CRC as it was elected—that is the existing institution—or we replace it with a nominated Coloured Persons Council. Now the hon. member is objecting to it. This is the only alternative, for surely some time must elapse before we can establish the Utopian council of that hon. member. What about the interim period? Must we continue with the CRC?

But our amendment deals with that.

I wonder whether the PFP can reply to this question? Do they want the CRC back as it was?

Any elected body is better than a body that is not elected.

No, we take cognizance of the realities. We have an existing elected CRC, but now problems have arisen. However, a nominated interim council is being envisaged. Those hon. members reject it. They have come forward with another plan, but what about the interim period, until their plan has been put into operation? Whether the Government puts it into operation or they do so, is immaterial, for there is still the interim period. What is their plan then?

One would at least be dealing with the elected representatives of the Coloured people.

No, answer the question. Please answer my question. What about the interim period? They do not want the CRC and they do not want this interim council. In the interim period, however, before their plan can come into operation, what do they propose? [Interjections.] We have not heard a word about what they propose. They object to the interim council and they object to the CRC, but what about the interim period before their plan comes into operation? [Interjections.]

Leave the elected council. [Interjections.]

Order!

You see, Sir, these people object, but they have no solution to put in the place of that which they reject and which is being rejected. Somewhere there must be a very grave misunderstanding. Somewhere there must be a very wide communications gap between the members of the official Opposition, dutifully echoed by the members of the NRP, on the one hand and the elected members of the Coloured community on the other, because it is in fact the elected members of the Coloured community who expressly requested on repeated occasions that the CRC should be abolished. The hon. members of the Opposition must tell us on whose behalf they are speaking. On whose behalf are they speaking when they object to the abolition of the CRC and the establishment of an interim council?

On behalf of their masters.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members opposite complain ad nauseum about the paternalism displayed towards the Coloureds by the Government The hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke this afternoon about the “paternalistic actions” of the Government towards the Coloureds. What is the factual situation? Where would one find a worse form of paternalism than that which is being displayed in this very debate? The elected leaders say “Abolish the CRC”, but their good advice-giving friends know better. They come here and tell the elected leaders in a beautifully paternalistic way: “You do not know what is good for you. We shall decide for you.” The former hon. Leader of the Opposition spoke here yesterday of “the basic right of people to elect their own representatives”. I, and we on this side of the House, have no fault to find with this statement, but we do have serious fault to find with and object most strenuously to the fact that the basic right of such elected members to speak on their own behalf is being denied by the members of the Opposition. They deny that right. The elected leaders demand that right for themselves, but the hon. members deny it. Do they refute that?

That is their right within the system. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the former hon. Leader is weeping crocodile tears at the fact that the Government is introducing legislation “without consulting the Coloured people”. In all fairness I now ask that hon. member and any hon. member of the Opposition: Have any of you consulted the Coloureds in connection with your standpoint in respect of this matter? [Interjections.] They need only say “yes” or “no”.

They have raised the serious objection that these steps are being taken “without consulting the Coloured people”. Now they must tell us whether they consulted the Coloureds on the standpoint they are adopting. Anyone of them can reply. They need only say “yes” or “no”. If the hon. members did consult the Coloureds, whom did they consult and where and when did they do so? [Interjections.] If the hon. members did not do so, what right do they have to hurl the accusation at the Government that it did not consult the Coloureds, while the Government is in fact implementing the wishes and desires of the elected representatives of the Coloureds? If the hon. members on the opposite side did not consult them, they are ignoring and disregarding the desires of those people.

The former hon. Leader of the Opposition went on to say “the NP discredits the CRC in the eyes of the Coloured people” by dissolving the CRC. Is it not in fact hon. members opposite who are discrediting the CRC by paying no heed to the wishes and desires of the elected leaders? I want to go on to refer to another allegation made by the hon. member for Sea Point, viz. that the interim appointed council was nothing but “constitutional blackmail” on the part of the Government, in so far as the council, as he saw it, would remain on a temporary basis until the Coloureds accepted the new constitutional dispensation, regardless of what it could signify for them. The temporary nature of this council is thus being held over the head of the Coloureds and it is being alleged that it will remain temporary until they accept what we give them, regardless of what that may be.

You are on the ball, old chap, keep it up.

I want to reject that insinuation, that conclusion, with the contempt which it deserves. However, what are the facts, since we are now referring to blackmail? The hon. member for Sea Point made a number of demands, inter alia “the sharing of power” which will have to be met before the hon. member and his party will accept any new dispensation. Is that not real blackmail in its most blatant form?

However, it is not only hon. members of the Opposition who are guilty of this flagrant form of blackmail. They are slavishly followed in that practice by leaders of the Labour Party. They also make demands, however unrealistic they may be, and then threaten to associate themselves, inter alia, with the Black Alliance and to campaign, and indeed are doing so, for sanctions and a world boycott against South Africa if their demands are not met. These are their threats. They make demands and then hold a gun to the head of the Government. Therefore, in the case of the Government, we have ostensible or supposed black mail as it exists in the mind of the hon. member for Sea Point, but in contrast to that we find the real and flagrant form of blackmail on the part of the Opposition and the present leaders of the Labour Party.

There is another question I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. To carry on debating in a meaningful way it is absolutely essential that we receive a reply. He need only say “yes” or “no”; this is a very simple question. Even the hon. member for Orange Grove will be able to reply to it. It is so true that some people have only a head to keep their ears apart. But let me ask this question: If that party were to come to power, would they place the Coloureds back on the common voters’ roll again?

Yes.

Yes, good; thank you very much. That is very clear. That party and the hon. members of the official Opposition adopt the standpoint that if they come into power—may heaven protect South Africa from that—they will place the Coloureds on the common voters’ roll again. That reply does not surprise me, because it is so true to the old United Party view. I should like to tell hon. members what that view of the old United Party was and I shall quote what a certain Mr. Connan said during a debate on the Coloured Persons Representative Council. I refer to Hansard of 13 April 1964, col. 4085. I ask hon. members of the Opposition, in view of their affirmative reply to listen to what the philosophy was. Referring to the legislation, Mr. Connan said—

These were the words used by the spokesman of the old United Party in 1964, Mr. Connan, on the occasion of the introduction of the CRC Bill. This was the view of the old United Party and it was indeed true that the Coloureds were traditionally seen as a political appendage of the White man in South Africa. This is what the member of the CRC, Mr. Fortuin, said in Banier of March 1964—

These were the actual words of a Coloured leader.

Another Coloured leader, according to a report in the Cape Argus of that time, referred to the common voters’ roll as follows—

So it was and so it will be if the Coloureds are restored to the common voters’ roll.

The performance of the hon. members of the Opposition in this debate attests to absolute disregard of the wishes and desires of the elected Coloured leaders. What proof is going to be given them that if they are restored to the common voters’ roll their fate will not be what it was before 1964?

I had so hoped that the hon. members opposite would say that they would not restore the Coloured voters to the common voters’ roll, for if hon. members had said this, it would have attested to tremendous progress in political thinking and an understanding of the South African political situation, viz. that the Coloured people are a separate political entity with their own political aspirations, a nation that is seeking realization and recognition. But, with the choice that those hon. members have made and the reply they have given, they have failed in what we and the Coloureds expected of them. [Interjections.] That hon. member must not ask me any questions now; perhaps we could have a discussion over a cup of coffee.

If they had made such an admission, we on this side of the House and they would have found common ground from which we would have been able to seek and find a solution together because we would have been striving together towards a common goal, viz. to create a political dispensation which would have meant that all our political entities would live together happily to create a happy, orderly, prosperous and stable South Africa, in which everyone, irrespective of colour, race or creed, could say, “This is my own, my native land.”

If we were to find such common ground, I want to make an urgent appeal to hon. members opposite in all earnest to desist from their negative approach in respect of this vital task that awaits us. I want to ask them to abandon their blind condemnation of everything which is being done for the Coloureds in good faith by this side of the House and has produced positive results. They must abandon the reckless condemnation and denigration they have displayed even in the course of this debate, and which they probably inherited from the Second Reading debate on the Coloured Persons Representative Council Bill of 1964.

I want to refresh the memories of hon. members opposite on what was said during that debate by their predecessors. One of the hon. members said here today that we were harping on the same theme. What I am going to read out now, we have also heard in this debate. This is the same theme which has been harped on since 1964. I want to quote what Mr. Moore said at the time (Hansard, 15 April 1964, col. 4247)—

We have already heard this here. In col. 4251 he went on to say—

Hon. members must listen now—

I wonder whether Mr. Moore, if he could have experienced today’s events, would see himself as a prophet or a reckless instigator who helped to destroy a fine instrument of which it was said that “the sky is the limit” for the Coloureds. I shall also quote what Mr. Mitchell said in that debate (Hansard, 15 April 1964, col. 4261)—

In 1980 we hear the same idea being expressed by the hon. member for Sea Point when he refers to a “completely emasculated, misshapen body”. It is strange how the voices of the past re-echo. I can proceed in this vein. The hon. member for Houghton also made a contribution at the time. I quote (Hansard, 15 April, 1964, col. 4204)—

I should very much like us, on a common basis, if we can find it, to give recognition to the Coloured people as a separate political identity.

I want to put it to hon. members of the Opposition that their negative conduct does not serve the cause of the Coloured people, even less that of South Africa and least of all that of their party. If we could find such common ground, I make a second appeal to them to approach the matter positively, as we do, and at least to admit that an opportunity, an instrument was created through the establishment of the CRC so that Coloured leaders could emerge, leaders who were indeed men of high stature and vision. Sonny Leon said, inter alia—

These are the words of Sonny Leon, a Coloured leader who received his schooling in the CRC—

It was Sonny Leon who said this. I also want to quote what Lofty Adams, also a former member of the Labour Party—he was kicked out of it—said in a speech in the Cape Town City Hall on 29 October 1979. He was discussing the problems in which we are now entangled—

He is a Coloured leader who underwent his political training in the CRC—

In view of the above-mentioned statements of Coloured persons who have become acquainted with and experienced the problems of the South African situation as members of the CRC, I feel at liberty to make a serious appeal to Coloured leaders on all levels of the life of our community to use the opportunity positively to accept nomination to the South African Coloured Persons Council as an interim measure …

For how long?

Until the hon. member comes to his senses. They should accept nomination and in this way serve their own people and South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer briefly to the speech by the hon. member for Kimberley North. This hon. member put many questions, but when a question is put to him in return, he does not reply. All he does is suggest a cup of coffee. The challenge which the hon. member issued to the official Opposition is, firstly, whether we have consulted with the Coloured leaders. His purpose is quite clearly to establish whether we have influenced the Coloured leaders in some way, whether we can be held responsible for the policy which the Coloured leaders have followed. This was his first question. His second allegation was that the official Opposition tends to ignore Coloured leaders completely because we are not prepared to accept that they want the CRC to be dissolved. The hon. member cannot be right on both counts. If the Coloured leaders listen to us, then they listen; however, if they do not want to listen to us or do not wish to talk to us because we ignore them, then those two statements cannot both be right. I want to make a suggestion to the hon. member. I think it is necessary that he and his friends on that side of the House realize that the Coloureds are not clay and therefore one cannot cast or shape them as one likes. On the contrary, they are people who think independently, who take decisions independently, who talk to their friends, but who draw up their own policy and do not allow the Government or the Opposition to prescribe their policy to them. This must be understood.

†Mr. Speaker, we have been conducting a debate in the House which I think gives very little credit to the Government and very little lustre to the House, because we have been plunged back—yesterday and today, and I think probably again tomorrow—into a mediaeval adventure. I think the debate we are conducting today, is probably the lowest point that has been reached in the constitutional history of the House. I cannot think of any time when we have actually descended to a lower level of approach to the constitutional questions which confront this country. I think it is quite extraordinary that at a time when we have appointed a commission to investigate what we hope will be a bold, new constitutional future for the country, at a time when hopes have been raised, not only on this or that side of the House but throughout the country, where people are looking forward with a great sense of expectation to the future, with a desire to see progress made, that in this adventurous, exciting new moment in the history of our country, where we really believe that constitutional reform might get us out of the dilemma of the past and open a new way to the future, this particular Bill comes to this House in this mediaeval form. It is absolutely incredible; it is astonishing. This archaic manifestation of political thinking at this time is, I think, an ominous forerunner of the kind of result we may expect from the commission which is sitting to deliberate on our political future. The two cannot go together. One cannot reconcile the one with the other. I believe that we will have to reconsider very seriously whether it is possible to make progress along constitutional channels, progress which will command confidence at home and elsewhere, if we are at one and the same time being compelled to debate a Bill of the kind now before us.