I move—

That the Bill be now read a third time.

We must launch our formal protest at the contents of this Bill as it is now up before us for its third reading. We still feel that the principle is wrong to provide for the extension of this principle that people who are in effect civil servants, can claim these dual pension rights as a result of service in another capacity based merely on previous parliamentary service, which must also in terms of the Bill be tied up immediately, in other words there cannot be a break, there cannot be a gap; from being a member of Parliament, they must go straight to the other position and it is not associated with the new position which they hold or their capacity, but a distinction is drawn between two men who otherwise as far as we are concerned, are equally capable and able and holding the same position; distinction is drawn clearly in this Bill: The one gets those pension benefits and the other one does not get the pension benefits. We feel it is altogether wrong, and we will record our protest and vote against the Bill.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—63: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.: Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges. T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; du Plessis, P. W.; Erasmus, F. C.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Jonker, A. H.: Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. L; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. J. Fouché and M. J. de la R. Venter.

Noes—39: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Butcher, R. R.; Cope, J. P.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, I. S.; Frielinghaus, H. O.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Higgerty, J. W.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Smit, D. L.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Streicher, D. M.; Swart, H. G.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Williams, T. O.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a third time.

I do not intend taking up the time of the House with further discussion of the effect of the various clauses of this Bill. The warnings that some of us have endeavoured to give have fallen on deaf ears and nothing we can say or do, will, I am afraid, deflect the Government from the disastrous course upon which it has embarked.

So far-reaching a measure should have been introduced earlier in the Session; it should not have been brought suddenly into this House in the dying days of a revolutionary Session, without mature consultation with the people of South Africa—not merely with this White Parliament, but with all the racial groups of our multi-racial population whose lives are going to be affected by its provisions.

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

Very well, Sir, but I say that it has brought with it a sense of deep concern to the churches and welfare organizations throughout the country. Liquor control has always been one of the thorniest problems confronting the human race and in a country like South Africa it is complicated by the complex set-up of our society.

The changes in this Bill should have been very carefully considered before a measure of such great import should have been placed before Parliament.

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

Sir, the effect of this Bill will be to flood our countryside with cheap wine and brandy and our towns and villages will be the rendezvous for a lot of drunken, under-developed Natives and Coloured people. It is a strange picture. On the one hand Clause 8 of the Bill will allow these people to get as much liquor as they like. On the other hand in Clause 18 the penalty for the very drunkenness that is being encouraged by this Bill is being increased from a moderate fine of £25 or three months to a fine of £200 or 12 months.

I repeat that the large majority of the Natives in this country are not sufficiently advanced to exercise the necessary self-control in their use of intoxicating liquor, and that Clause 8 permits any Native of the age of 18, of whatever stage of development, to obtain European liquor without limitation at any bottle store or institution authorized by the Minister. It is an abuse by the Government of its position as the guardian of the spiritual and economic welfare of these people. The effect will be to degrade and retard their progress and put the clock back for South Africa for many years to come. Not only that, it will add to our calendar of serious crimes of murder and vice and rape and it will far out-balance the time the police think that they will save in administering the drink traffic.

In conclusion, Sir, I wish to associate myself with the following statement issued by the Federal Council for Combating Social Evils of the Dutch Reformed Church, representing the churches of the Transvaal, Free State, Cape and Natal, in which they condemn all the proposals contained in this Bill. I am going to read now shortly the opinions expressed by this great church—

The Transvaal and Cape Synods of the Church, as well as the Church congress in Bloemfontein and the Federal Missionary Council, had all taken strong resolutions against the extension of liquor facilities and the tot system to the north.

The Government has given no heed to the call of their spiritual leaders, and, Sir, I say they will continue to ignore this warning at their peril. All I can say is “God save South Africa from this Government!”.

At the third reading I want to comment briefly on the contents of this Bill, as amended, particularly as I was unable to be present at the second reading of the Bill.

May I say at the outset that I am not opposed to the principle contained in this Bill, which is to lift the restrictions on the supply of liquor to Natives and to other non-Europeans in the Northern provinces. Clearly one cannot be certain of the effect which this Bill is going to have. One has one’s misgivings because one has seen evils attached to the use of drink, particularly where the people concerned are unable to afford drink. On the other hand, one has seen that there has been a tremendous illicit traffic in drink, that Natives do in fact get drink if they wish in spite of the law, that the drink which they get is often poisonous, and has to be drunk in abnormal circumstances. One has seen that in Southern Rhodesia restrictions have been lifted with advantage; one has found support for the measure from the Institute of Race Relations and from other people, and on balance one feels that this step is a wise one.

As to the contents of the Bill, I feel that the provisions laid down in this Bill are not satisfactory, and I hope that the hon. the Minister when he comes with his further proposed Bill next year, will have profited from the experience gained during the next few months, and that he will lay down with far more precision the manner in which he will give authority to people to supply drink to non-Whites. At present I feel that the provisions are far too vague. In the proposed Section 100bis, the hon. the Minister has a very wide discretion indeed as compared with the very strict limitation of powers to grant licences under the present Act, and it is clear that both the procedure for applying for written authority in terms of 100bis will have to be laid down in detail in the Liquor Act and secondly, that other safeguards will have to be introduced. One of the major safeguards which exists at present against the abuse of liquor and the abuse of the right to sell liquor lies in the opportunity which the public has to appear annually before the liquor licensing boards when liquor licences are reviewed and to raise their objections. Compared with that the only provision in this Bill which acts as any kind of safeguard in the granting of written authorities under Section 100bis is the provision that within 14 days after the start of a session, details shall be laid upon the Table of this House of the authorities given. That in my view is quite insufficient. There will have to be further opportunities for reviewing the grant of written authorities annually I also believe that in regard to applications for written authority, the Bill will have to lay down clearly the procedure to be followed. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has accepted the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Salt River that he shall not be able to grant a written authority in terms of Section 100bis until he has had a recommendation from the National Liquor Board. The hon. the Minister has stated that he will during the recess promulgate regulations as to the manner in which applications will have to be made. I feel it should not only be done by way of regulation; it should be clearly laid down in the Act itself.

A matter which has not been dealt with is the relationship between the present liquor licensing boards and the National Liquor Board in making recommendations for the granting of a written authority in terms of the new Section 100bis, which recommendations are to be considered by the Minister. It seems that there should be provision at least for consultation between the Minister and the National Liquor Board and the liquor licensing boards before any authority is granted in terms of Section 100bis.

Generally, the power of the hon. the Minister is very wide indeed. I want to draw attention, in particular, to the fact, that the hon. the Minister is taking power not only to grant a written authority to sell liquor within the Native urban residential areas and Native villages, but he is taking the power to grant written authority to sell liquor to Natives within the so-called European sections of any town. It may well be that this will seriously affect the sale of liquor through the present channels. Not only has the Minister the right to grant a written authority to sell liquor to non-Whites within an urban area—but in terms of Section 100quin the State President has the right to declare that no liquor shall be sold through the normal channels to Natives in those areas. That clearly would give persons who had a written authority from the Minister a very decided advantage over other sellers of liquor, a virtual monopoly. That, too, is a power which we feel should be severely limited.

It is therefore clear that there are a number of clauses in this Bill which will have to be reviewed when the hon. the Minister introduces his Liquor Bill next year. I am prepared to support the third reading of this Bill although I am not altogether happy about its contents which, I believe, have left the provisions for granting written authority far too vague. I hope that when the hon. the Minister introduces his new Bill next year he will have profited by the experience which he will have gained during the next few months and will present us with a far more precise Bill.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage I wish to register my opposition to the third reading of this Bill, because I believe that the provisions and the effect of this Bill are going to be detrimental to the morals of our people, and more particularly to the Bantu people. I feel it is going to lead to a greater use of alcohol and a deterioration in the behaviour, particularly of our urban Bantu youth. The effects of the provisions of this Bill will lead to a greater consumption of liquor and the abuse of alcohol will become more evident and will in general become aggravated. I feel it is ironic that we should be voting to-day on the third reading of this Bill to make strong liquor more readily available to the great masses of the inhabitants of South Africa when only a few days ago, on 19 June, I read in the Natal Daily News the following—

So at this stage, when an investigation is being carried out on the misuse of alcohol, we are to-day being asked to vote for the third reading of a Bill which will lead to greater drunkenness and which will aggravate the position in regard to the use of alcohol by making it readily available to 18-year-old Bantu youths, and youths of all other races.

In the second reading of this Bill we were told that this measure could be regarded as a measure of social reform and as an experimental measure. I accept it as such. I voted for this Bill in the second reading, and having examined the amendments that have been introduced at the Committee Stage, I propose to vote for it in the third reading. My only regret is that this measure of social reform affecting non-Europeans has been given priority over so many other more urgent measures of social reform, and may I mention particularly the question of poverty, of malnutrition…

Order, order! I cannot allow a discussion on those matters.

Sir, I do not propose to discuss them, I merely mention them in passing. I regret that this Bill was given priority because I do think it has had the effect of creating suspicion in the minds of many people.

Mr. Speaker, my responsibility is a very grave one indeed, because in my constituency I have the whole of the area of Cato Manor. Therefore I am well aware of the vast extent of the evils under the present system in operation to-day. I do not suggest that the conditions that operate in Cato Manor are typical of all the Bantu residential areas, but I do believe that because of the conditions prevailing there, the evils are possibly accentuated and are more easily seen by those people who come in contact with those conditions in that area.

They are frightening enough.

What I propose to do is to refer to one or two clauses of this Bill, because the duty of all of us is to try and assess dispassionately whether the advantages that may be gained by this Bill do outweigh the possible disadvantages, or the possibility that opening the door may have in increasing the consumption of alcohol. I do not accept that this Bill will necessarily lead to a large scale increase in the consumption of alcohol or to an increase of drunkenness. On the other hand, it will undoubtedly lead to a tremendous degree, to the removal of the evils of bootlegging and of shebeening and encourage sane drinking habits. One particular aspect which I think should concern us all is the implacable hatred which is growing up in the Bantu residential areas between the African population and the South African Police who are entrusted with the task of administering the present system of liquor control. To me that is a most important factor, because I do believe that under the existing conditions the police are being misused. They are being regarded as persecutors rather than protectors. They are being used for a purpose for which no Police Force should be used, and I am concerned with trying to get a better relationship between the South African Police and the non-European inhabitants of this country.

I want to refer, very briefly, first of all to Clause 6 which provides that the Minister may give authority to “a person”. Presumably there is nothing to prevent that person from being a person resident in the area of a local authority. The hon. the Minister accepted an amendment moved by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), to provide in the proviso in Clause 11, that any authority may be granted only on the recommendation of the National Liquor Board. That does provide a safeguard to a certain extent, but I do not believe that that provides an adequate safeguard for a local authority. There is no provision for the Minister to consult or secure the concurrence of the local authority or to consider any opinion that the local authority might have for or against such an appointment. I urge that the hon. the Minister should consider that matter when this Bill is reviewed.

The second point I should like to mention is the question of the retention of the tot system in the Cape Province. I believe that that is a very serious defect in this Bill, because although it does not extend the tot system to other provinces we in Natal certainly regard the existence of the present state of affairs in the Cape as a threat to us in Natal. As long as that system operates in any portion of the country, I believe people in other parts of the country will regard that as a possible threat for the extension of that system to other provinces.

Order, order! The hon. member must confine his remarks to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, there are certain defects in this Bill in that it has taken one aspect of the distribution of liquor in isolation from the rest of the liquor trade. I should like to mention these very briefly.

Order! The hon. member may not mention the defects, he must confine himself to the contents of the Bill.

May I say that this does flow from the contents of this particular Bill. I refer to Clause 8, Section 100bis (1). Liquor sold by any person or authority under the provisions of that clause creates certain difficulties. What I want to know is this: Will liquor sold by any person or authority under that clause be sold at established retail prices? Is there going to be any attempt to regulate prices so that they conform with the prices established by hotels and bottle stores in urban areas? If not a most serious position could arise. If the local authorities under-quote bottle stores or hotels with off-sales licences, one may wellhave the position of Europeans in European residential areas buying liquor through Africans or even through their own African servants from local authorities. I believe that that is a serious matter which deserves the Minister’s attention.

The second point I want to deal with is in relation to the new Section 100ter. This provides for the granting of off-sales facilities for non-Europeans in European urban areas. At present there are a very limited number of licences for off-sales in any particular urban area. If this clause is accepted and the Bill goes through, it will mean that a tremendous increase will immediately occur in the number of persons who are able to obtain off-sales from any licencee in an European area. That applies not only to Africans, but in the City of Durban in certain areas it applies more particularly to the Indian group. The number of licences in any area is related to the number of male voters in that area. Therefore if the number of persons who are able to apply for off-sales is suddenly increased by 100 per cent, or even by a greater percentage, chaotic conditions are going to develop in the areas where these off-sales licences are situated unless additional off-sales licences are granted, particularly on a Saturday morning. I think the hon. the Minister should explain to us what he proposes to do about regulating these conditions. Would he also indicate whether, in respect of the purchase of liquor by Africans, it is his intention to give a monopoly of off-sales to local authorities or their nominees in terms of Section 100bis? The position will arise that in these European urban areas where there are off-sales licences at bottle stores or hotels, there will not only be chaotic conditions, but highly undesirable conditions due to the congregation of vast numbers of non-Europeans, particularly on Saturdays, for the purchase of liquor at the limited points of distribution, resulting in highly undesirable social conditions for the people in the area.

I hope, also, that the hon. the Minister will tell us some more, when he replies to this debate, about what he proposes to do about the proceeds from the profits from the sale of liquor in terms of Section 100bis. Is it proposed that these profits are going to be devoted to the local authorities in order to swell the Native Revenue Account, and will those proceeds be confined to the improvement of social conditions for the Africans and the non-Europeans generally, or what is the intention? I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister will deal with these matters in his reply.

Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour to keep very closely to your ruling with regard to dealing with the contents of the Bill. I want to say outright that when one studies the contents of the Bill in its present form, even allowing for the improvements affected by the various amendments which have been incorporated in the Bill as it is now before us, it still comes to us for its third reading in a form which can be regarded as little else but a revolution in the method of liquor distribution throughout the Republic. As a direct result of the contents of certain of the clauses, particularly Clauses 2, 3 and 4 and 9, I envisage a number of difficulties. They provide for what is virtually the complete removal of all restrictions on the supply of strong liquor in unlimited quantities to any section of the community.

Clause 9 in particular, in effect, establishes a dual system of the distribution of liquor, an overlapping system which will come into force as a consequence of the provisions of this Bill vis-à-vis the existing liquor laws operating under the Liquor Licensing Boards. Unless those difficulties are foreseen and carefully provided for, they might cause difficulty and chaos in the distribution of liquor supplies of the country. When we examine these particular clauses as they now are before us, we find that they extend to the hon. the Minister or to his nominee authority to deal with a number of different bodies, enumerated in these clauses. It gives them an authority for the supply of liquor in the same areas and to deal, to a large extent with the same public as under the existing liquor laws. That is why one of my objections to the Bill as it is now before us is that, for instance, in Clause 9 it gives the hon. the Minister very wide discretionary powers in respect of the authorization of the distribution of liquor, and when you take that power in conjunction with the provisions of Clause 3 of the Bill, and other clauses which establish far-reaching measures for the control of liquor supplies, it can lend itself to interference with the legal activities under liquor licences which have already been granted in terms of the existing Act. In previous stages of this Bill the hon. the Minister, when referring to objections to certain of these clauses, has repeatedly stated—and one accepts his statements as being correct—that to a large extent a number of the provisions of this Bill must be regarded as experimental. But in a matter of this sort, and in view of the general information given to us in the contents of this Bill, coupled with the debates which have taken place, I personally would regard it not as experimental but as a very dangerous gamble with certain very important facets of the national life of this country. I think this is something we are likely to regret at a later stage.

As a result of the number of amendments introduced in the Committee Stage, the Bill now before us has had a number of its more glaring defects remedied. In that respect one can accept the Bill up to a certain point, as being a better Bill than the one originally introduced. Despite that improvement, however, and particularly in view of the far-reaching potential for difficulties which any measure—not necessarily this measure—but which any Bill dealing with liquor supply must carry with it, I say the Bill as it is now before us reveals a need for far greater advance preparation than this Bill has received. On that ground I findmyself unable to accept it in the form in which it now appears before us.

This Bill, as you know Mr. Speaker, has been brought before Parliament in an endeavour—which I believe to be a sincere endeavour—to destroy the influence of the people controlling illicit supplies of liquor. In that respect I think the Bill, even in its present form, has the blessings of all of us. But when one studies its contents clause by clause and realizes the possible consequences of this measure, I am not so certain that it will have the desired effect, or, that it does not reveal that in respect of these shebeen queens and illicit liquor traffic, there has been a very marked weakness on the part of those in authority in the control of the supply of illicit liquor at its source. To a large extent this Bill does nothing about that. Hitherto control has been exercised as far as possible over the runner and the distributor, but there has been a marked laxity on the control at the source of supply. If those supplies had been cut off the necessity for this Bill would probably have fallen away to a very large extent. Despite the fact that the Bill before us in its present form has had the benefit of the very searching examination of the Malan Commission, and despite their recommendations—not all of which are now incorporated in the Bill, in fact some of the more important recommendations have been ignored altogether…

Order, order; I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss anything outside the contents of the Bill.

Very well, Sir, I will not pursue that. I was going to say that despite that backing this Bill still reveals in many of its clauses, certain weaknesses. Let us consider Clause 3 which amends Section 53 of the principal Act. It says—

1. (a) by the substitution in sub-section (1) for the words “licence under this Act shall” of the words “licence under this Act other than a temporary liquor licence or a late hours occasional licence shall”; and then we have paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and

other sub-sections. Clause 3 (1) (b) says—

And there are various other sub-sections to that effect. The contents of that clause deals very largely with the extension of liquor distribution points in terms of the Bill and its relationship and application as affected by the provisions of the Group Areas Act, also, the State President’s authority to direct the decisions of the Statutory Liquor Board. When we go into that aspect further—sub-sections (b) and (c)—with the others on page 4 lay down the conditions governing the transfer of liquor licences in respect of premises which were granted licences under the authority of the State President. And here we have one of the points of overlapping which I mentioned and which, unless foreseen and carefully provided for, is likely to cause trouble. In this clause as it is, although it provides for the transfer of licences, (d) reads—

There is no safeguard there to the effect that the premises to which such a licence shall be transferred shall have the same status, the same standing, or the same necessity for the supply of liquor at that particular point, or that the premises themselves are comparable in all respects and not inferior to the premises previously holding the liquor licence. This is a most important point which has to be considered in the transfer of licences. Then we go on to Clause 8. This, as you know, Mr. Speaker, was originally to have been deleted by the amendments, but it will now remain in slightly altered form. It provides that—

That is a very definite banning on the supply of liquor to any of those particular groups. But then, under sub-section (2) of that particular clause, a lot of the authority and value of that banning is undone by the provision that—

The clause as now before us in this Bill certainly provides that the tot system cannot be used as a substitute for the man’s wages. That is made quite clear. But it does re-establish the tot system. It does also, in sub-section (1), prohibit the supply of kaffir beer.

To what clause is the hon. member referring?

Clause 8 which amends Section 96 of the original Act.

That has been omitted.

No, Sir, not by the new clause which is now substituted in the Bill now before us. It was to have been omitted by the original Bill but it has been replaced. It restores, to a large extent, the status quo in regard to the tot system. I will not pursue this, I merely wanted to make the point that one of the reasons why there should be further examination of this provision is that there has been ample evidence as to what was held to be the nutritional value of kaffir beer, the supply of which has now been prohibited.

Turning now to Clause 9—the long clause which may be considered to be the hard core of the Bill—this is the clause which lays down the various people who can be granted authority, and provides for a wide range of liquor distribution points by means of Ministerial authority. It is now Clause 8 but it was previously Clause 9. Sub-section (2) gives the Minister certain powers and goes on to state a number of conditions which apply and also provides for consultation with the local authority. In sub-section (7) it says that all profits derived from the sale of liquor shall be dealt with in the manner specified in such authority after consultation with the Treasury.

Order! What purpose does the hon. member think he serves by reading every clause?

I am referring to the contents of the Bill.

Yes, but the hon. member is reading practically every clause.

I am sorry you put that construction on it, but as there have been such substantial changes in some of these clauses, and as many members did not take an active part in the debate…

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

This clause commences what is practically a new departure in liquor control in the country. Although we have debated it at considerable length there has not been a satisfactory reply which warrants my support of that change. There is no evidence in the clause that the magnitude of the task we are embarking upon has been thoroughly realized or that adequate steps have been taken in this measure to deal with such a task. Despite this lengthy clause, there remains a real danger of chaos developing in the liquor trade as a result of its application.

To go further, on page 8, sub-section (13), we find that there has been a provision that the Minister shall table a report of the next session of Parliament. There again the safeguard imposed comes too late. Once having put the new system into operation, there is little prospect of going back on it later. Section 100quat as now printed deals largely with the consumption of liquor by any Native, Asiatic or Coloured, or the possession of liquor on private premises, and lays down the conditions under which the owner may give authority for that to happen, otherwise an offence is committed. There again, the clause gives ample scope for the creation of a new type of criminal, and the Minister has not been able to satisfy me that that danger is not still inherent in the clause. I do not think we are justified in passing legislation which is vague and which may result in creating further difficulties rather than in improving the position.

Clause 13 deals with the authority to set up the National Liquor Board and the constitution of the Board and its duties. There one can go a long way with the Bill. It has been improved by the acceptance of an amendment in the Committee Stage and it will now undoubtedly give the Minister the benefit of advice.

On a point of order, evidently the hon. member still has the Report Stage of the Bill in mind and before him. This is the reprinted form. I just want to draw your attention to that.

What clause is the hon. member discussing now?

It is the new Clause 12, which was originally Clause 13, and which provides for the establishment of the National Liquor Board. I think the hon. member will see that I am perfectly correct. That clause enables us to go a little further in support of the Bill, because it gives the Minister additional assistance in dealing with applications, but even there one feels that it does not go far enough. There seems to be room for widening the scope of the National Board in order that the Minister may have the benefit of further advice with regard to local matters.

Coming back to the Bill in general, I find it difficult, even after studying the Bill as it is now, to believe that any responsible Government, particularly one which follows the policy of this Government, should have launched what the Minister called an experiment on so tremendous a scale with such obviously faulty advance preparation to deal with the consequences of the Bill. As revealed by the contents of the Bill and by the debate, the effect will be that liquor will be made available to some extra millions of consumers amongst the poorest sections of the community, and they will be exposed to the temptation of spending their money on liquor instead of on food.

Order! That is irrelevant.

Then I will not pursue it. But in conclusion, I think that in a country like this with its vast open spaces and with its multi-racial population, one has the right to expect that before a measure like this comes before the House, drastically changing the liquor laws, the whole of the consequences would have been far better appreciated.

Order! That is irrelevant also.

Then I want to conclude on this note, that taking the Bill as a whole, despite all that has been done to improve it, I am not able to support the third reading and shall vote against it. I believe that a case has been made out for a relaxation of the restrictions on the supply of liquor but the method proposed for applying that improvement is not sound and it is not evident in this Bill. It is ironical and rather frightening that a Bill of this nature which withdraws the restrictions on the supply of liquor to the country has in itself imposed a ban on the members of this House from taking part in the discussion of the Bill where they disagreed with it.

This Bill will make it possible for the Bantu to obtain liquor and thus to enjoy a privilege that could not have been withheld from them much longer. They will now obtain freely what they really are legally entitled to obtain, for it will mean that the Bantu will now be able to obtain liquor lawfully, and they are in any event to-day obtaining it unlawfully.

Order! The hon. member must not talk about the effect of the Bill, but on the contents.

It will stop liquor smuggling, and it is indeed strange that that is not appreciated by everybody.

That is not relevant.

Then I proceed to my third point, and that is that the most important manner of distribution of liquor in terms of this Bill is through the beer halls of local authorities. I want to emphasize that, for it is a method of distribution with which fewer wrong things are associated than any other method of distribution. The Bill therefore makes it possible to create conditions that are as good as any we could get in the circumstances. The fourth point in the Bill, and to which objections have been made, is the powers that are given to the Minister. With such a great change in our method of control of liquor distribution to non-Whites, it is necessary to have control, and through the powers that are entrusted to the Minister it is possible to bring about a great change in the method of distribution of liquor to the Bantu, without bringing about the chaos hon. members fear. It will mean that if there is even a sign of abuse, the Minister shall have the power to act. It can rightly be said that this Bill will be welcomed by everybody.

Order! Are those the contents of the Bill?

I wish to give my blessing to the Bill.

The Bill does not provide for blessings.

I will not detain the House long. Although I voted for the second reading, I intend to vote against the third reading. The contents of this Bill constitute the framework within which a new experiment is to be conducted. This experiment has been referred to as a dangerous one.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the contents of the Bill. What clause is he discussing?

During the second reading I asked the Minister how he would use his powers under 100bis, ter and quin, and the Minister has not given that explanation. I believe that the Minister is to be trusted in regard to this specific matter, but he will not be here forever. In fact, after the next election he may be the Ambassador in Brazil. This Bill gives too much ministerial power and in such an important and dangerous matter I cannot find it in my conscience to vote for the third reading.

I supported the second reading of the Bill and most of the clauses in the Committee Stage, but as the Bill is before us now I have difficulties which, whilst they do not lead me to vote against the Bill, unless dealt with in the Minister’s reply, will compel me to abstain from voting on the third reading. My reason is that the Minister has failed to give a full explanation of how he intends to apply Clause 100. I believe that the principle is correct, but as the clause stands now it leaves too much which should either be detailed in the Bill or by ministerial statement in regard to the method of application. The Minister has said that he will use his discretion and tread warily, but the Bill does not say so. If the Minister will give an indication of the method he intends to follow in the application of 100bis, I may change my mind and vote for the third reading, but failing that detail either being in the Bill or given to the House by the Minister, whilst being in favour of the principle, I cannot commit myself to accept its final form without such explanation.

I will be very brief and confine myself strictly to the contents of the Bill. The contents of the Bill have been improved since the second reading, although not as far as I would have liked to see. I will accordingly vote for the Bill in the third reading. The contents of the Bill make it possible to have reasonable administration of the Bill. That rests with the Minister. He is given the power to do so and if it is done, well and good, but if not, I will have an opportunity of voicing my views when the consolidated measure is introduced.

All the discussions on this Bill have unfortunately not persuaded me to change my mind. The question really amounts to whether social habits are desirable or undesirable. I am one of those who are convinced that the free use of liquor by uncivilised people is undesirable. Formerly it was a crime.

The hon. member must confine himself to the contents.

The contents of this Bill change an act which was a crime into an act which is not a crime. The point I want to make is that it has now brought the non-Whites into the law and it has put the Minister beyond the law. The powers which the Minister has been given by the Bill place him completely beyond the law. He is the only man in this country who has never been able, if he wished to—I do not say he will—sign a decree making all liquor available at all times to all people. Nobody else has ever been able to do that. Parliament has given him the power to be an absolute dictator on the liquor question and that is a power I do not believe should ever be given to any individual.

I shall be very brief. I have listened attentively particularly to the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) who has taken the lead in the protests against the bill. I should like to tell him and other hon. members and persons outside the House who are opposed to the Bill, that one listens with great respect to the objections that have been raised, and we have listened with great respect. But now we have to take into account that it is clear that the vast majority of Parliament and of the electorate outside welcome this Bill, and for that reason we have to resign ourselves to the inexorable.

Now there have been two admissions this morning that were pleasant to hear. The first came from the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) that he is not opposed to the principle of the Bill. I may tell him that the points he raised, if he sees to it that it is clear in Hansard, will be considered by us to see to what extent we can meet him. I do not say we shall be able to give effect to it, but we shall consider it. The other admission came from the hon. member for Simons-town (Mr. Gay). He said it is a better Bill than we have had thus far. He admits it is an improvement.

It is a better Bill than the one first introduced.

While listening to the hon. member I thought of a definition of someone talking about a subject, viz.: “A member of the legislature who, in opposition to the proposed action of the majority, obstructs or prevents action by the extreme use of dilatory tactics.” I do not wish to accuse the hon. member of that, but the definition did come to mind while I was listening to him.

That is not in point.

I appreciate what the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) said. Everybody assisted to get the Bill into a form where it is enjoying more general support.

The hon. member for Berea (Mr. Butcher) asked me what about the price of liquor sold in the authorized places. I can say that it will be one of the conditions laid down that the price of liquor sold at an authorized place should be the same as that usually charged in that area by licencees.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—68: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cope, J. P.; de Beer, Z. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, P. W.; Erasmus, F. C.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Lawrence, H. G.; le Riche, R.; Lewis, H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, E. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Pelser, P. C.; Plewman, R. P.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Streicher, D. M.; Strydom, G. H. F.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.: van den Heever, D. J. G.; van de Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; vander Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. J. Fouché and J. von S. von Moltke.

Noes—19: Connan, J. M.; Dodds, P. R.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Horak, J. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Smit, D. L.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Swart, H. G.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Williams, T. O.

Tellers: H. C. de Kock and A. Hopewell.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a third time.

The debate on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill, I understand, has created a record in this House in respect of its duration and in respect of the many and important matters and subjects that were raised by members of the Opposition. I think it also created history because in spite of its great importance against the background of the times in which we are living, it was boycotted by the Cabinet The only near-members of the Cabinet who participated in the debate were two hon. Deputy Ministers who are better known to the country as politicians than as statesmen and national leaders and their contributions to the debate were of a political nature. We know that those two hon. gentlemen are very often used to undertake tasks of which the Government is either incapable or too tired to undertake, such as meeting the Nationalist voters of the Cape Province for example on the question of the position of the Cape Coloured people. It would seem that in the Appropriation debate they were also used to do work for which the Cabinet was either too tired or in respect of which the Cabinet did not feel itself competent to act. But we had a long reply from the hon. the Minister of Finance, a very long and discursive reply, but no answer to the points raised by the hon. members of the Opposition and I think it should be a matter of interest to the House and the country to note the issues that were carefully avoided by the Government after they have been pertinently raised by the Opposition. I think it is necessary to do it early in this third reading debate to give the Cabinet and the Minister a second chance to do their duty by the country and to give the necessary reassurances and statements of policy to which the nation is entitled to in these days. There was no answer by the hon. the Minister of Finance to the very pertinent question put to him by the Leader of the Opposition as to how he intended to service his loan requirements in the new financial year. The best reply we got was that we will have to restrain our curiosity. That was the furthest he could get. There was no reply to the most outstanding speech made by my hon. friend, the member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) on the position of the Land Bank, the Land Bank which seems to have difficulty in finding the necessary funds to save the farmers who are in difficulty from insolvency; the Land Bank which at the moment obviously does not have the funds to advance to farmers for the development of our agriculture. Again, Sir, the reply of the Minister was no answer. He merely threw up his hands in despair and said: “Here I stand; I can do nothing else; I must try to finance the long-term commitments of the Land Bank by means of short-term money from other sources.” Then there was a very interesting point raised during the debate on the position of the Langeberg Koöperasie, one of the major farming enterprises of South Africa affecting the livelihood of thousands of farmers and whose fate may affect one of our important export industries, the canning industry. But we had not a word from anyone on that side. Then there was the most outstanding speech made by the member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) on the state of agriculture in South Africa. The Minister’s very short reply was no answer. He thought that he had given us a reply when he had quoted figures to show that the increase in the contribution of agriculture to the national income was third on the list after mining and secondary industry. I take it that if the contribution of mining were to drop below that of agriculture, the Minister would not be worried that this is happening to mining; he would make a speech to show how agriculture is flourishing in South Africa. Then there was the very pertinent question put to the Government on this very vexed and very difficult and most worrying question of South West Africa. We know the difficulties, and nobody wants the Government to go into details of the legal issues of a matter which is sub judice, but as my hon. Leader has put it to the Government before, in this case before the International Court at The Hague, the Government is acting on behalf of the nation. The nation is in a manner of speaking the client of the Government in this case in a legal action, and surely it is the duty of anyone who is briefed to defend a client’s interests, to tell that client what his prospects are and above all what the consequences may be to the client if the decision of the court goes the one way or the other. But not a word. As far as this Government is concerned apparently South West Africa does not exist as far as the interests of the people of South Africa in that matter are concerned. Then there was another question. Several speakers on this side of the House wanted to know from the Government what action it proposes to take to protect South Africa’s interests in the light of developments that are taking place in the relationship between the European Common Market and the United Kingdom. We know that for many reasons it is possible that the United Kingdom will gravitate towards the European Common Market; we also know that the United Kingdom is most jealous of the rights against her of members of the Commonwealth should she undertake such a step. We know that consultations are taking place at the moment between the United Kingdom Government and other members of the Commonwealth to discuss the consequences of Britain’s entry into the European Common Market should it take place. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that South Africa’s interests would still be protected should that happen now that we are no longer a member of the Commonwealth On that very pertinent point we got neither a reply nor an answer from the hon. the Minister.

He does not know.

I must say that when one finds that the Government, when it is given the opportunity by a vigilant Opposition to state its case, to reassure the Nation, loses that opportunity, one is compelled to ask oneself whether the Government has an answer; and is that perhaps why there is talk in Government circles that the date of the election should be anticipated and that we should have an election this year? Is it because the Government hopes by refraining from taking the Nation into its confidence, that the effects of the failure of this Government’s policies will not be known to the people by the time the election takes place, and is it their intention to maintain their silence until after the election in the hope that the nation will only discover what is happening to South Africa under this Government once the election has been held. We know what will happen. This Government, if they do go to the nation at an election, will do what we have seen in this Appropriation debate. They will avoid the real issues before the nation and they will fight the election once more on this simple question, “Wil jy hê jou dogter moet met’n kaffer trou?” That will be the theme and the spirit of this election in the hope of diverting the attention of the nation from what is really happening to South Africa after 13 years’ of mis-government by this Government.

In so far as the Minister attempted a defence against the criticism of the Opposition, his failure was abject. I would like to give you a few examples. The hon. the Minister depended to a great extent on a comparison that he attempted to make between the situation that obtained in South Africa in 1948 when this Government came into power and the present situation in South Africa. Sir, when I was young and I had to learn a lot of things under compulsion, one of the things that I was taught is that a false analogy is the last refuge of a bankrupt disputant, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he came to this House with a false analogy in referring us to the position that obtained in 1948 and asking us to accept that the position is similar to-day. He quoted from the speech of the then president of the Reserve Bank, Dr. de Kock, to show that there was an adverse trade balance and that gold was flowing out of South Africa. He also quoted that an influx of capital was creating a distorted picture of South Africa’s economic situation because as a result of the inflow of capital it was not obvious that South Africa really had an adverse trade balance. Fair enough, but that speech was made, I believe, shortly after the Government had come into power. Then I want to know, if the Minister to-day tells us that he accepts the judgment of Dr. de Kock in 1948, why he was willing to sit in the Cabinet sharing the responsibility for the statements and policies laid down by Mr. Havenga in August of that year. Because Mr. Havenga painted a completely different picture, and Mr. Havenga showed very clearly that the position that obtained in South Africa in 1948 was utterly different from the misery of South Africa in 1961. First of all we had gold reserves at the end of the war, at the beginning of the 1947 financial year, amounting to £231 million—not rand—gold reserves only. Mr. Havenga told us that during the year 1947 those reserves declined to £187 million, but why Sir? Because people had lost confidence in South Africa, as is the position to-day? Because capital was fleeing from South Africa, as is the position to-day? Because there was disinvestment? Was that the reason? Let me call Mr. Havenga as witness—

Then he went on to say—

Now, Sir, you see what a distorted picture has been painted to us about the situation then as compared with to-day. And what is very interesting is that Mr. Havenga at the time had to face certain interpretations by the Press of the time, which corresponded with the interpretation which the Minister gave yesterday and this is what Mr. Havenga said about that picture—

You see what happened, Sir, under this Government. I wonder if it is going to happen again in ten years that those Press reports which they describe to-day as distorted will be used by them in ten years’ time to defend their position as it will then exist? Because that is what the hon. the Minister did yesterday. What is interesting is that according to Mr. Havenga, the use of our reserves in 1948 was not something about which we had to be as concerned as South Africa is concerned to-day about the loss of our reserves because of capital disinvestment to-day. Mr. Havenga could point out to us that what was happening was really a most commendable process and that South Africa by allowing her gold reserves to be used as they were used in 1948 was making a major contribution as the world’s greatest gold producer to world recovery after the war, and that as a result of that contribution and recovery of world international trade, South Africa too would benefit eventually. Listen to Mr. Havenga—

How bad was the position in 1948? To what extent could it be compared with the position to-day as the hon. the Minister of Finance tried to do? Here is Mr. Havenga’s judgment—

Are we well above the safety limit to-day? What the hon. the Minister should have done, if he wanted to present a true picture to this House, was to contrast South Africa’s position in 1948 where by the use of our gold reserves, according to Mr. Havenga—and he was right—we were making a major contribution to world recovery after the war. But the unfortunate position in which South Africa finds herself to-day is that people who in good faith have invested their money in South Africa and who wish to disinvest are told by the Government that they may not do so, against every assurance given by successive Governments and by successive Ministers of Finance. Sir, what a contrast! And the Minister tried to make it a comparison. The hon. the Minister said that he wanted to say certain things for the record. I too want to say something for the record. Mr. Havenga pointed out why there was a decline in our gold reserves in those days and he gave three reasons. The one was that there was a backlog of demand for consumer goods and for capital goods as a result of the stringencies of the war or, as the Minister put it so picturesquely, the shelves in the shops were empty. They have been replenished. But the interesting thing is that during the war South Africa could build up the reserves to make that replenishment possible and pay off our lend-lease obligations and pay in gold our obligations to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank—a very wise step taken by the previous Government before May 1948 which has on more than one occasion saved the skin of this Government since, because they have been able to make use of the facilities so created in those international financial agencies. The second and most interesting cause given by Mr. Havenga was that our gold reserves declined in 1948 because of the terrific demand for capital goods in view of the spectacular economic development that was taking place in South Africa. He quoted how many secondary industries from overseas seeking greater security and opportunity were rushing to South Africa, and he pointed out that in establishing those industries they required capital goods, and the people who established them also consumed consumers’ goods. Is that the position to-day? Furthermore, Mr. Havenga pointed out that one of the reasons was the limited convertibility of currencies overseas. Is that the position today? How dare the Minister come and make this comparison? It is a stark contrast between South Africa to-day and a country so powerfully placed in 1948 that according to a Nationalist Minister who had just taken over from the United Party Government, South Africa in those days was in a position to make a major contribution to the solution of the trade and financial problems of the world by using its reserves. How can the Minister make these comparisons? How dare the Minister compare South Africa’s position to-day with that of Canada or with that of Great Britain or with that of Australia? The position in Canada is not that Canada is desperatelytrying to save money from flowing out of Canada. What is happening in Canada to-day is that the Canadian Government is taking extraordinary steps to get rid of Canadian dollars, to sell Canadian dollars.

The same trouble that we had in 1948.

Sir, can you imagine the Minister of Finance to-day taking special measures to sell rand? And yet he compares our position with that of Canada.

In 1948. They are having the same trouble now that we had in 1948.

Of course, that would be fair.

That is what I said.

How dare the Minister compare our situation with that of Britain? Britain had to block her currency because of the tremendous expenditure of sterling on the war effort outside Britain, especially in places like Egypt. Is that the position with South Africa? How dare he compare us with Australia? Australia’s difficulties arise from an adverse balance of trade, but it is one of the boasts (which I will not deny) of this Government that we have such a remarkably favourable trade balance on current account…

Exactly.

How then can he say that we must take consolation from the fact that Britain and Canada and Australia are in the same position as South Africa when they are not, when they are in the opposite position?

As far as the reasons are concerned, although the causes are different. That is what I said; do not distort.

Sir, this is when politics become more important to the Minister than financial considerations. In not one of those countries is the problem the fact that world confidence has been shocked in the country concerned, nor was that the problem in South Africa in 1948, and that is the only explanation of what is happening to South Africa to-day. We have a favourable trade balance in South Africa to-day. We have one of the world’s greatest economic potentials, but what has happened to us is that we have become the “muishond van die Westerse wêreld”. It is as simple as that. Sir, what should be tragic to the hon. the Minister, as it is tragic to me, is that all the things that this Government has done, all the bigoted policies of which they have been guilty, which have brought South Africa to this pass, have been done in the name of the Afrikaner—his people and my people.

What is going to happen, Sir, if this Government stays in power with these wrong policies and continues with the defamation of South Africa in the eyes of the Western world? The Government may be able to stop, by special measures, the outflow of capital, but can it recover the inflow of capital? Can it bring a new inflow of capital? You see, Sir, South Africa still needs investment capital from overseas and I should say that if we really want to do something positive, either in accordance with the outlook of the Government or in accordance with the outlook of any of the opposition groups, to relieve race tension in South Africa, we shall need more capital in the coming years than what we have needed before. That is when we really want to do something bold and imaginative, either on the lines of separate development, or of racial federation, or on the lines of surrender. Whatever we do, we shall need capital investment urgently in order to raise the standard of living of all people in the country. During the last 13 years, and on balance, we have had a considerable and the most encouraging inflow of investment capital—hundreds of millions of rounds on balance, yet all the Government could do was to invest something like £100,000,000 for the housing and transport of the urban Native. That is all the money they could spare. At the same time they, or rather the economy of the country, did bring about a slowly rising standard of living for the people without an infusion of capital from overseas. We have been warned by economists that we will have difficulty in maintaining the required increase in the standard of living of our people and to avoid a deterioration in those standards. Where will our capital requirements have to come from, Sir, if any content is to be given to the policy of separate development and if this Government remains in power, if the inflow of capital can only afford an amount of £100,000,000 in 13 years for the urban Native? If there is going to be a similar inflow of capital, a similar expansion, and similar available capital resources for the next 13 years, and even if they were to spend £200,000,000 on the reserves, they will not bring us nearer to a solution of our race problems in South Africa, because it will be inadequate. Unless this Government can restore confidence in South Africa as a fit member of the Western democratic union of states, they will have failed South Africa more utterly than they are failing him to-day, because they will render themselves impotent even to carry what is worthwhile and positive in their own policies. Now one can understand why they want to rush the country into an election before the truth becomes known. I want to suggest that where one has a Government which, as their showing on the second reading of this Bill proved, takes up a flippant and contemptuous attitude to the real problems of South Africa, then it becomes necessary for the Opposition, Sir, to take extraordinary measures to draw the attention of the nation to the truth as it exists in South Africa to-day. Therefore we have no option but to take the unprecedented step of voting against the third reading of this Appropriation Bill. It is not any easy step to take, Sir, because an Opposition normally, after having stated its case, will not attempt to withhold from the Government the funds it requires for the administration of the country’s services. These are, however, extraordinary times, and this is an extraordinary incompetent Government.

You are an extraordinary Opposition!

The hon. Minister will probably in his reply draw great confidence for himself and his party from a dilemma in which any member of the Opposition, or any person who really loves South Africa, may find himself to-day, namely whether one’s opposition to the Government should be carried so far that he may criticize us, as he tried to do, as becoming an embarrassment to the country. I would like to give the hon. Minister of Finance some advice and that is that he must consult the Prime Minister on psychology and to ask him to give him a definition of the sentiment which is known as hatred. He will then find that hatred is a combination of anger, frustration and respect and that is what has happened, namely that they have forfeited the respect of the Opposition, and of the nation, and of the world and hatred towards such a Government is, therefore, a psychological impossibility. I want to put this to you, Sir, that when the people see that a Government, representing the minority of the people and offering the nation policies which it cannot carry out, ruining the nation and the country, that the Opposition also representing that people, should take extraordinary measures within the democratic machinery allowed to it. We are taking such measures to-day because if this decision of ours to vote against the Government on the third reading of this Bill should succeed, should some members opposite realize their responsibilities and do what their hearts and their brains tell them to do according to confessions which they are making to people all over the country, the result will be the immediate collapse of this Government, and a new Government and hope for South Africa and new prospects of restoring the dignity and prestige of our country. How can the Opposition entrust this Government on its own performance with the administration of a Budget running into several hundred million rands, when that includes their own salaries which the people should withhold from them because of their incompetence and utter bankruptcy?

When one makes a statement that statement is only as strong as the weakest link in it, and if South Africa now wants to take note of the irresponsibility of the Opposition they must just analyse the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). I cannot but say that his speech is a Budget vulture speech. The hon. member was not here when certain matters, about which he kicked up such a fuss, were dealt with yesterday under the Appropriation Bill. I just want to mention one example of it. He has mentioned the hon. member for Drakensberg as a person who stated a case in the interest of agriculture in which she criticized the agricultural policy of this Government. I want the country to know that when that debate was replied to by the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) and agricultural matters were discussed, there were only three United Party members in this House for over an hour. The others were conspicuous by their absence. Then the hon. member is so irresponsible as to say that the Cabinet boycotted the Budget debate. This is the hon. member who said that it was difficult for the Opposition to vote against this third reading, but it is not difficult for an irresponsible person to vote like that! They do not bear any responsibility. Besides, they know that even though they vote against the third reading of this Bill it will still become law. It reminds me of the days when the members of the Executive Committee of the Provincial Council assisted in drawing up the Budget, but thereafter ran away from it and voted against it. That is the sense of responsibility now being revealed by those people. He knows that this Bill will in any case become law, even though they vote against it. I think it is scandalous to run away from one’s responsibilities and then, by making a great show, to try to give the public to understand that they voted against the Bill, well knowing that it would in any case have been passed.

The hon. member said a moment ago that South Africa was the polecat of the Western world.

The Burger said so.

That hon. member rejoices in these polecat stories. I will come back to it, because I want to show that if that were true it is because there are people in South Africa who befoul their own nest, and they are the hon. members sitting opposite. I just want to mention one example of this. Mr. Speaker, have you ever in the history of any country read that the Leader of the Opposition writes to the foreign Press to say what his party will do in the country to obtain foreign assistance, or where the foreign Press is used by such a leader against the voters of his own country? That is what this Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly done. A thing like that simply is not done, Mr. Speaker. There is no other leader of a political party in the whole world who knows that his own Press no longer trusts him and no longer wants to state the policy of his party and who then runs away overseas to make use of the Press there in order to try to create an impression. There is no other leader of the party who will invoke the assistance of the foreign Press in his correspondence and letters against his own country. It is this sort of thing, this sort of behaviour, which results in a newspaper stating that South Africa is the polecat of the Western world. [Interjections.] When the Burger said that, it was merely stating a fact to expose why it is so, namely that we have newspapers and members of the Opposition in South Africa who befoul their own nest by besmirching South Africa in the eyes of the world.

They are always using unsavoury political bait.

The hon. member for Yeoville said that the problems and matters raised here by the Opposition yesterday and the day before have not been dealt with effectively. But was that hon. member not here last night when the hon. the Minister of Finance replied fully on every point? I want to mention one example. In order to support this accusation, he referred to agriculture and to the Land Bank. I want the country to know and every farmer producing fruit for canning to know that the United Party is against assistance ever having been given to the Langeberg Co-operation, and that they would have preferred that fruit to lie and rot than that it should have been made possible to can it.

Why did you sell your farm?

That hon. member does not know what he is taking about.

Order! I do not think it behoves hon. members to be so personal.

I think the farmers in South Africa are grateful to the Land Bank for having assisted Langeberg to develop in this way and to carry on. If one reads the annual report of the chairman of the board of directors of Langeberg, it will be noted that he very clearly points out that Langeberg is not insolvent. It is certainly not the first time that a co-operative in South Africa has suffered losses, or that co-operatives have had to write off debts as the results of losses suffered. I would like to tell hon. members opposite that during all the years the Land Bank has financed co-operatives, and provided co-operatives with export advances, with instalments, and supplied capital loans, there has not yet been a single case where the Land Bank or the taxpayer in South Africa regarded it as a loss, because over the years and when the position was consolidated it was found that it has always been a favourable proposition. In the same way, Langeberg will also be a paying concern in the long run, because by having Langeberg with all its branches throughout South Africa the facilities are provided for the farmers to can their fruit.

I want to pause to deal briefly with this accusation in regard to our agriculture. The hon. member for Yeoville has now told us that the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) made out such a good case yesterday of how badly things are going with the farmers and with agriculture in South Africa. One of the aspects she touched on was the meat market, and she said that control of the meat market had now been destroyed because the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing stopped the permit system. But what is the true state of affairs? This, that in 1958 1,122,418 permits were issued, of which only 535,827 were used—in other words, only 48 per cent of the permits issued were used! Does anybody want to tell me that a system where the control is exercised by means of permits can work effectively if only half the permits issued are used? If twice as many permits are issued as are received in the controlled areas, surely there is no control at all! During 1959 1,740,334 permits were issued, of which only 574,355 were used—in other words, only 53 per cent of the number of permits issued. Therefore twice as many permits were issued as were received in the controlled areas. If hon. members want to criticize the fact that the permit system was abolished, they should have the courage of their convictions and tell the farmers that they will again have a permit system with a compulsory clause and a penal provision to the effect that a permit which is issued must be used. But they will not dare to do that. The responsibility of an Opposition here is not merely to come along with Jeremiads, but also to give an alternative and to tell the electorate that it disapproves of a matter and to offer a solution as being its policy. Will this Opposition dare to do that? Let us see what the position is in regard to permits for sheep. In 1959 5,198,532 were issued, of which only 3,420,588 were used, or in other words, only 59 per cent. I repeat that if hon. members want us to revert to the permit system, a permit system of £85,000 which has never been effective, because it represents only a small portion of the total marketing scheme, then they must have the courage of their convictions and tell the farmers that they will add a provision to it, or that they suggest an alternative. This, however, they cannot do because they have no policy. They just remain the old yes-no party of the past.

Let us look at this marketing scheme further. The hon. member also spoke about the marketing of meat. Let us see what the position is there. Has any one of them ever dared to say that the price of meat in South Africa is too low? No, they do not do that because they know that they also have to rely on the consumer for votes, and because they know that the consumer will then have to pay the increased price. Now they just want to criticize one aspect of it whilst failing to have the correct perspective and to realize the true position; they cannot understand that one has to keep the balance—one must satisfy the consumerand also the producer. Therefore one cannot criticize the one and forget about the other because one always has to bear in mind the whole of the community and its purchasing power. What is the position now in regard to meat? I just want to mention a few examples.

If we look at the average floor price and we take the Newtown market for 1959, we find that for the first five weeks there was an average floor price of 99s., whereas the actual price was 133s. 11d. per 100 lb. Therefore the auction price was 135 per cent of the average floor price. During the 19th and 22nd week the auction price was 111s, 11d., whereas the average floor price was 99s. 2d. In the 49th and 50th week the floor price was 111s. 6d. and the auction price 143s. 3d., i.e. 128 per cent of the floor price. With reference to these figures, I want to make out a case that with this system of meat marketing, i.e. where there is a floor price, one does not give the farmer or the producer the opportunity to derive proper benefit from what the consumers can offer over and above the guaranteed floor price. At the moment we find this to be the best system, after having tried all other systems. We also know that the hon. the Minister is not satisfied with the position and just leaves it as it is, but that he appointed a commission to investigate and to report in regard to the slaughtering potential, and that this commission at the same time must investigate the provisional facilities for frozen meat and to have that frozen meat boned in order to be able to offer that boned, frozen meat on the foreign market if there is over-production here. We also know that the hon. the Minister told that commission that when meat is bought in Cape Town at the floor price it should not be transported to Johannesburg to be offered for sale there again so that the buyers will know that there is a surplus of meat which cannot be disposed of, but that this meat should be kept here and offered for sale by catalogue. Then if an acceptable bid is not obtained it must be exported, thereby informing the consumers that meat will not be allowed to pile up and to be sold later at a loss, and to make them realize that they must buy it, or else it will be exported. Has the hon. member in this respect ever expressed a single word of thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister for having taken this positive step, where there is over-production of meat, to create a foreign market, and to make the consumers here realize that they must at least buy at the floor price or else they will not get meat? All we had from that side of the House is criticism without any alternative suggestion having been made. The hon. member for Drakensberg quoted a long list of figures here yesterday, but all those figures did was clearly to show a picture of increased production of progress in production. Do you want to tell me that if agriculture is so uneconomic we will still have increased production? No, Mr. Speaker, we know very well that the commission of inquiry into agricultural credit divided the farmers into three categories. The first group—and that is the largest group—consists of those who require no financial assistance from the Land Bank or from State Advances or any other Government body, but who can obtain the necessary capital in the private sector because they have enough credit to do so. The second group of farmers consists of those who have always got their capital loans from the Land Bank and will still obtain them in future to purchase land on mortgage bond. Formerly the loans were for 66 per cent of the valuation, but that percentage has been increased by the Government to 80 per cent.

You can no longer obtain loans on mortgage bond.

Yes, you can. Only yesterday I still obtained a loan for a farmer. The Land Bank will of course not give that hon. member a loan because he is not a farmer. That group of farmers received the necessary assistance together with the hypothec loan introduced by this Government to give the man the opportunity also to buy cattle and therefore to be able to carry on his farming operations. This commission of inquiry pointed out that there was still a third category of farmers, those who at the moment are being assisted by the Department of Lands and those who are given subsidies in terms of the Soil Conservation Act, as well as those farmers who were assisted by State Advances. Of course we know that the Public Service Commission is now studying this report of the commission with a view one day to take consolidated action in respect of this third category of farmers. In other words, this Government, in regard to its agricultural policy, keeps its eye on the future and its finger on the pulse of the needs of the farmer, and it makes the necessary adaptations whenever necessary. It ensures that these farmers will be kept on the land.

In regard to this matter, I want to say, in conclusion, that when hon. members say that the platteland is becoming depopulated, that is not true. This report clearly proved that the platteland is not becoming depopulated, but is becoming Black because the percentage of farmers on the platteland in South Africa is still higher than in the case of any other country where there is intensive industrial development and industrial prosperity. Do hon. members want the soil of South Africa to be cut up into uneconomic plots in order to keep a larger percentage of farmers on the land where they become impoverished? Does the United Party want a farmer to cut up his farm and divide it between three or four sons, and that this land should now carry four families whereas formerly it carried only one family? This Government is applying a policy in terms of which it is not made possible for all these people to remain living on the land, but it is made possible for them also to be absorbed in the industrial development of the country. Hon. members opposite do not always just come along with a half-truth, because a half-truth is like the white lie with which Eve caught Adam. They have repeatedly told these stories to the voters, but they have been rejected time and again in the platteland constituencies, and that is why the hon. member for Yeoville is so terrified of an election. But their mouths have not been closed, and they can therefore again go and state their policy and receive an even bigger beating than they got in the past.

I should have liked to have said a few words to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education, particularly after his visit to Fort Hare. I noticed that he had returned but unfortunately he is not here, and consequently it will be pointless raising the matter. As far as the hon, member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) is concerned, I want to congratulate him on the fact that he has allowed himself to be misused by the Ministers of Agriculture who are absent but who should have been here, and that he has stepped into the breach for them in the agricultural sphere, one of the most important portfolios in our country. But these Ministers are not even present in the House to reply to the allegations which hon. members on this side have made.

They cannot reply.

As I have said, the hon. member for Wakkerstroom has been used to cover up the incompetence and the inability of the hon. Ministers. While I am discussing this point I want to say that I regard it as a scandal that during an important debate such as this, in view of the critical position in which the country finds itself, there have in fact only been two Ministers who have been regularly in their places, namely the Minister of Finance who must be here because his portfolio is under discussion and the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

He has nothing else to do.

I understand the Minister of Foreign Affairs is absent through illness and we excuse him. Where is the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs? The Minister of Defence is overseas. Where are the others? There are fourteen, fifteen, twenty of them. Where are they? In a debate as important as this not one single Minister as such has replied to the submissions of this side. This is the first time that this has happened in all the time I have been in this House, and it is a pity because we would have expected hon. members opposite who bear the responsibility, the Ministers and also the members—because those benches have in general been empty—to be here.

You have emptied them with your speeches.

No, I have only just risen to speak. But the absence of their Ministers has apparently forced those who have already spoken out of the House, but we would have expected more hon. members opposite to have risen to support their Minister of Finance, seeing that he is in such a critical position.

What has struck me particularly during this debate has been in the first place the financial predicament in which we at last find ourselves after 13 years of this Government, and there is certainly not one single hon. member opposite who will deny that 13 years ago we warned against this kind of thing. I am not going to go into that aspect again, but for thirteen years we have warned that if the Government continues along its chosen course, we would eventually find ourselves in financial difficulties. That is exactly what is happening to-day, no matter what evasive reply the hon. Minister may give. What has struck me in the second place, as the previous speaker on these benches has already said, has been the trivial and unsatisfactory reasons which both the Minister and other members opposite have given for the financial difficulties in which we find ourselves at present. Furthermore, what has struck me has once again been the feeling amongst hon. members opposite, the feeling which they have revealed over the past 13 years, namely the belief in the so-called infallibility of the Nationalist Party. It cannot make a mistake; it does not listen; it does not pay any attention to anyone else; it goes on alone along its chosen course; there is no one who can teach it anything. That is the crux of the arguments of the Nationalist Party; it is always right; it cannot be wrong; you are always wrong; it will see to it that South Africa comes right; it will see to it that South Africa continues to exist even if the whole world is against us.

No, we are looking for an Opposition.

No, you are seeking scapegoats.

I repeat that the country is practically bankrupt; nevertheless that is unimportant as far as my hon. friends opposite are concerned, so long as no one interferes with their own self-importance and the infallibility of the Nationalist Party Afrikaner, because they associate the Nationalist Party with the Afrikaner, just as long as no one derogates from this infallibility, this inviolability of the Afrikaner, this ego of the Afrikaner (of the Nationalist Party). According to the hon. the Minister of Transport and other hon. members opposite, they do not need our assistance; they do not need us and they say that no one—the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk) repeated this yesterday—who is not a Nationalist is an Afrikaner; he is a renegade. It is not the first time that hon. members opposite have said this. Those of us who try to co-operate in South Africa with the other language group are described as Anglicised Afrikaners and renegades.

Order! The word “renegade” is not parliamentary.

It has been said, and the hon. member has done so.

I did not.

However that may be, we are described as traitors to our nation.

The word “traitor” is also unparliamentary.

Perhaps one should explain this psychologically and expect it, because those who speak in this way and insult people who think differently are usually the people who have done the least for the cause about which they have so much to say and people who speak in this way usually have to trumpet the fact that they are Afrikaners because in reality they have done nothing to further the culture or anything else belonging to the Afrikaners. I therefore want to say this: Anyone who attacks us in this way, who attacks so bitterly those who try to co-operate is psychologically ashamed. He feels inferior. He has to make a fuss and trumpet it forth, because otherwise no one outside would be able to see from his actions and behaviour that he is really an Afrikaner. But then the hon. member went further. He has not only attacked people of his own blood, members of his own race, his own people.

I deny emphatically that I said anything against my own people.

He has not only attacked me and other Afrikaans-speaking members of this side; he has also attacked other racial groups in South Africa. Everyone is the enemy of the Afrikaner; everyone is the enemy of the Nationalist Party; and if one is an enemy of the Nationalist Party—as I have said, they associate the Nationalist Party with the Afrikaner—then one is against the Afrikaner.

At present hon. members are also attacking anyone who is not Afrikaans. They are attacking the English-speaking people, the Natives, the Coloureds, the Asiatics, everyone, the whole outside world. There is only one group that is right and that is the Nationalist Party.

Hear, hear!

Yes, there we have it, and this is the most interesting phenomenon which has revealed itself during this debate, particularly on the part of the hon. the Minister of Transport and the hon. member for Boksburg, and this is notwithstanding the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister has pleaded during the past twelve months, and I take it that he was sincere, for the co-operation of the English-speaking section of our population. We on this side of the House have never asked for political co-operation. We realise just as well as the hon. the Prime Minister or the hon. the Minister of Finance that it is impossible to co-operate in the political sphere with the Nationalist Party for so long as the basis of their policy remains unchanged. We have never urged that. It is therefore pointless to argue on that point. What we have urged is that there should be closer co-operation between the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking peoples. That is what we have asked, and that is what the Prime Minister wants, although it is strange that he only does so when South Africa is in difficulties, when the Nationalist Party wants assistance. Then hon. members come and ask for assistance. I must admit that this request has also come from other hon. members opposite who are also saying: “Come, we are now entering a new era; let us see whether we cannot come together.” In the bitter speech which the hon. member for Boksburg made, he asked: “What is national unity?” I think that is a reasonable question. What is national unity? What is racial cooperation? And then he asked: “How can we achieve it?” In my simplicity I am going to give him a few examples of how one can achieve it. In the first place one can achieve racial unity in South Africa between the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking peoples only when both are treated on an equal footing. And it is in this respect that so many of us have tried for so many years (I am now speaking as an Afrikaans-speaking person) to promote the interests of the Afrikaner to such an extent that he could be on an equal footing in every sphere with our English-speaking countrymen, and it was only after that stage had been reached that I personally extended my hand of friendship to my equal, to my English-speaking countrymen. This stage has long since been reached. We need no longer argue on that score, and that is why I want to make an appeal to hon. members to move forward and not to make this type of bitter speech either here or outside this House.

But let us go further. We must be prepared to grant the other language group that which we demand for ourselves and we should not ask anything of the other man or demand anything of him which we do not demand of ourselves. In other words, we must treat one another equally; then we shall achieve racial co-operation. Furthermore we must accept and love the same fatherland; we must be prepared to make sacrifices for our common fatherland; at the same time we must admit that in this fatherland we have two White population groups, two language groups, and that we should never ignore the language, the traditions and the culture of the other race. If we do not recognize the language, the culture and the traditions of the other language group, we shall never achieve co-operation in this country.

We all say that.

That is why I hold it so much against my hon. friends opposite that they do not give themselves the opportunity to achieve that unity.

When business was suspended, I was enumerating certain of the requirements which are necessary if we want to achieve racial co-operation. I said that in the first place I wished to speak as an Afrikaner to Afrikaners, and in the second place that before we could hope for racial unity and racial co-operation, the two races should be on an equal footing; that everyone should be prepared to give to the other the same things as they demanded for themselves; in other words, one should be prepared to demand nothing more than that which one is prepared to give. I went further and said that one should love the same fatherland; that one should be prepared to serve this common fatherland and that one group should not only respect the other’s traditions, but should also regard those traditions as their common traditions, as their own, and that they should respect the other language group’s traditions and culture. But the most important point is that while one may feel in this way and while one may feel in one’s heart that this is what is needed, one should put it into practice.

Why do you not do so?

I do so everyday. It is because I do so that I am sitting on this side of the House. [Laughter.] I have tried to live up to what I feel. There may be much that may be said against me, but one thing hon. members opposite cannot say of me, and that is that I am not an Afrikaner.

You must say it, because otherwise one does not know it.

Unfortunately I cannot say that of that hon. member; I cannot say of him that he is a true Afrikaner!

It is not necessary to do so.

Let us leave it at that. But allow me to add this: If hon. members opposite, or my English-speaking friends on this side of the House, do not give one another the opportunity to get to know one another, to associate with one another—and you will forgive me if I refer to this—if there are not for example more occasions such as you, Mr. Speaker, created the other day, where we were able to get together, to meet one another and to learn to respect one another’s traditions and language, we shall not achieve that desired unity.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Seeing that he is a Transvaler, I just want to ask him whether he can tell me how many private English-medium schools there are in the Transvaal and how many private Afrikaans-medium schools there are?

I do not know, but that brings me to my next point, and it is that one must start young. If we do not start young, we shall not achieve any success if we first reach our age and then try to comply with the requirements I have set out. And it is so easy in South Africa for the two White language groups to do so. Because we have the same origins, and we speak practically the same language; 50 per cent of my language is the same as that of my English-speaking countryman; 50 per cent of his language has the same origin as mine. His outlook on life is the same as mine, his religion is the same as mine. I therefore tell my hon. friend who put this question to me yesterday: There are no obstacles on the road before us; we must just give one another the opportunity to come together; we must be prepared to do so. But if the hon. member for Boksburg goes on in this way and if there are friends on this side of the House who reveal the same bitterness towards the other language group, then we have no future here; then we shall never have national unity in South Africa. The result will be that we shall be destroyed; we shall die out; because we cannot continue divided as we are. We are only a small group of White people encircled by a Black danger, not only here in South Africa, but we are also located on the strategic southern tip of Africa, between the East and the West. We are divided and we fight one another. We are always arguing in this House. I know that the hon. member is one of the most pleasant of persons outside the House. He never reveals any racial feelings outside. That is why I was so surprised that he could make such a speech in this House.

May I ask the hon. member a question? I want to ask the hon. member whether I criticized the English-speaking people in my speech?

Yes, and I think you will be ashamed when you read your speech and when you see what you said about them, and what you said about those who differ from you. That is what I meant. But allow me to say this: If I have offended the hon. member personally, then I apologize because I do not want any division—I am asking that we should come together.

But when we have found unity and have established co-operation between the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking peoples, what then of our relations with the other racial groups, what of our relations with the non-White groups? This problem is just as important and urgent. It is essential that we should build up one South African nation in this country, but it is just as important that we should try to retain the goodwill of the others, of the non-White population groups—whether it be the Coloured people, or the Asiatics or the Bantu—in order to have peace and unity in South Africa. It is so important, and it is for this reason that I have risen and it is for this reason that I am so sorry that there have been so few of our Ministers present during this debate to reply to the questions we have put to them. Their answers could have been important as far as the near future is concerned.

Then you must not ask silly questions.

That may be—with all humility. But I am nevertheless asking the questions, and as a member of this House I have a right to receive an answer from the Minister of Agriculture and not from the inefficient member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins). I repeat: Let us have no more of this type of speech. I can give my hon. friends the assurance that if that speech had come from this side of the House I would have risen and criticized it as strongly as I am now doing.

That is nonsense.

I would have done so. I do not only do so in this House, but outside as well. This does not only apply to one language group, but to both the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking groups, namely that we should act in such a way as to make it possible for us to build up a South African nation.

In the short time at my disposal I should like to say to the hon. member that he objected most strenuously to the judgment of members on this side of the House in respect of Afrikaans-speaking members opposite. I want to ask him whether he is serious. If he is serious, then I should like to say to him, and indicate briefly, what a difficult road he will find within his own party. There is hardly a single man in this House who is keener than I am to see the Whites in South Africa draw closer to each other. When the hon. the Prime Minister appeals to the House and to the public for us as Whites to find one another, and when we listened to what happened during the past few years during this debate, and when one thinks of what was said in recrimination—last night even, Mr. Speaker, let me draw your attention to it—that a serious attempt was made by that side of the House to sow suspicion in respect of that Prime Minister; it is being done in the House every day—that being so, I say the hon. member over there has a long way to go. Mr. Speaker, I should just like to quote a few phrases that have fallen from that side of the House, and then I should like to ask the hon. member, as well as the member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), whether that meets with their approval. I should also like to ask why it happens, and why it persistently occurs in this House, coming from members opposite. Mr. Speaker, was it from this side of the House that this sentence came: “To hell with your Republic”; “Go and be damned”; “To hell with the Government and its English-speaking supporters”? I repeat: That hon. member has a long way to go.

Who said that?

It was said in the House. I do not wish to mention names, for I am not looking for recrimination. Last night the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Miller) said here that the Afrikaans Church during its sitting in Johannesburg, during the sitting of the World Council of Churches, passed a resolution. That is completely wrong; it is not true. Then he made this remark: And then the party organizers came along and they set aside that resolution of the Church—and he says: “The Church had to tow the line.” Mr. Speaker, if he persists in that, then I should like to ask the hon. member for Yeoville, who knows more about the Afrikaans Church than that hon. member, whether he approves of that. Do that hon. member and the hon. member who spoke just now, think that it will promote good racial relations to broadcast from this House such a public lie—to proclaim such a public lie to the world from this House?

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to say that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has broadcast a public lie to the world from this House?

I should like to hear first what the hon. member said.

Mr. Speaker, I said it is a public lie the hon. member for Bezuidenhout told, that the party organizers swooped down upon the church deputies “and they had to tow the line”, and that thereafter they had to support the policy of the Government in relation to the Bantu. That is an untruth and I emphasize it. It is to the disgrace of that hon. member when he wants to defend it.

The hon. member says that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in this House abused his position as a member to broadcast a public lie to the world. I should like to have your ruling whether that is in order.

I do not understand that the hon. member referred to what occurred here in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I think we might have some clarity. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) alleges that the action of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in this House has broadcast a public lie to the world.

The hon. member says that what the hon. member said here in the House, is not consistent with the facts of what occurred outside. Is it so, or not?

That is 100 per cent correct.

Mr. Speaker, when one person alleges that another has told a lie, then it means that that person has told an untruth, well knowing that it is an untruth. In other words, he accuses the hon. member of immoral conduct. If the hon. member had said it is an untruth, we could have no objection. But to use the word “lie”, is to make an immoral imputation against the hon. member, and I should like to ask you with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, not to permit one hon. member to make such a charge against another hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to go further and to say that if that hon. member wishes to defend it, then I wonder whether the charges that are alleged to come from this side of the House do not contain some truth, for the hon. member is aware of the falsity of that statement.

The hon. member accused the hon. member for Bezuidenhout of telling a lie, and whether he referred to facts that occurred outside the House or not makes no difference. The point is that he said that the member told a lie in this House. As the hon. member for Yeoville indicated, he accuses him of an immoral act. I ask you therefore to give a ruling on the point that has been raised by the hon. member for Yeoville, before the hon. member for Pretoria (District) proceeds.

On a point of order, can it now be expected of this hon. member to withdraw if all of us are convinced that it was a lie?

Order!

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when one hon. member says that another hon. member in this House has broadcast a public lie to the world, then surely it is a public lie. Outside it is regarded by the whole of South Africa as a public and infamous lie, for the party did nothing of the sort.

Order! The hon. member is now making a speech. The whole matter concerns something that occurred outside this House, and I cannot control the facts outside this House.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member for Pretoria (District) will not deny that he said it was a lie that was broadcast to the outside world from this House. It is a direct charge that a person in this House has told a lie, and I ask that he be requested to withdraw that.

This matter of a resolution having been adopted at Cottesloe can be checked, and it can be proved that no party organizer influenced the Church to change its attitude. In other words, it is a lie the hon. member told.

That is not a point of order. The hon. member is now arguing about the matter. I shall ask the hon. member to withdraw the words “public lie”. It is not good parliamentary language.

If you rule that it is not good parliamentary language I shall withdraw it. But let me put it this way. Any hon. member opposite who wishes to defend the statement of that hon. member here this afternoon makes himself guilty of a grievous injustice to a church that means so very much to this country, and which has done so much. For what has been said here is devoid of all truth.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who sits next to the hon. member who is speaking has just said: It is a shameful distortion.

Mr. Speaker, no, I said: The hon. member is a disgrace to Israel.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “Israel”, for Israel is not concerned with the matter.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask your guidance…

No, the hon. member must withdraw. The hon. member must not offend Israel.

With all due respect to Israel—I have much more respect for them than for the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—I withdraw the word “Israel”.

Mr. Speaker, I think there are a number of us who have not got clarity. I should just like to ask your ruling. Suppose something is said in this House.

Order! That is not a point of order. We cannot come here and put all kinds of hypothetical cases and ask the Speaker to give an explanation or a ruling.

Mr. Speaker, I ask your indulgence for I should like to have your guidance—guidance for me, if it does not apply to anybody else.

Order! The hon. member can only rise on a point of order.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. When anything is said in this House, you hear it and the House hears it, and I know it is not so, have I to remain silent…

No. The hon. member may not put a hypothetical case.

But here it is not hypothetical; here we are dealing with reality.

Order! The hon. member for Pretoria (District) may proceed.

Last night when I told the hon. member here by way of interjection that the world outside would note the words he spoke here, he said the world took no notice of me. But this morning it is reported in the Cape Times that the Prime Minister is threatening the Press in South Africa, and the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) went so much further and said that members in the House are threatened in three months’ time as regards their presence. Those of us who listened in to the one o’clock news this afternoon heard that Sir Malcolm Barrow, a Minister of Southern Rhodesia, used virtually the same words that our Prime Minister used in this House a few weeks ago. I could go so far as to say that in Rhodesia he begged the Press to call itself to order and to discipline itself. What more did our Prime Minister do? It is untrue to say that he used a single threatening word. The hon. member on the front bench over there appealed to us for our co-operation, and I should like to ask him why his party persistently comes along with these things that can only cause quarrels. If they persist in propagating those things in our country, can we then have rest and co-operation between White and White in a united South African nation? Those utterances from that side of the House sound so fatuous and insincere to me. I am mentioning to you the untruths that are broadcast to the world in connection with threats, and then coupled with that they say that South Africa is now heading for a Nazi or Hitler state under our Prime Minister. The first thing that is said in that connection is that the Press of South Africa is being threatened. The hon. the Prime Minister has urged that the Press should discipline itself. Here a Minister of Southern Rhodesia comes along and urges the same thing in virtually the same words. Is there a gentleman or a lady in this House this afternoon who will come and tell me that they approve of the Press in South Africa? Let me say I find them disgusting, even on the touchlines of the football field. They run up and down there like a lot of mad men, so that one cannot see what is happening there. I say that in South Africa they are also running up and down the touchlines and they besmirch our fatherland. One asks oneself whether some of those gentlemen have any patriotism at all. All they want to do is to create sensationalism for the outside world to read. I want to repeat that if that hon. member feels as he spoke here so earnestly this afternoon, then he can do much pioneering work and mission work within his own party.

The next point made by the hon. member was the bridge there should be between English- and Afrikaans-speaking people, particularly in our schools. Now I should like to tell him something. I was a teacher in an English school in the Transvaal, where I taught English for 21 years. Let me tell him this, that in the Transvaal we had parallel-medium schools from one end to the other, where the English-speaking child had the opportunity of learning English and Afrikaans side by side with the Afrikaans-speaking child. Those schools existed from south to north and from east to west, but the English-speaking people did not place their children in those schools. I want to make this point. There is the Potchefstroom Boys’ High, which is one of the outstanding English high schools in the Transvaal, and the language in the classrooms and on the playing fields is English, but the language of the staff room is Afrikaans. I once again ask hon. members with all due modesty, as a South African who knows only this fatherland: My future and the future of my children are here. Have those hon. members then the right to say this; was it this side of the House that introduced politics into the Transvaal Provincial Council, and into the schools? Was it this side of the House that did those things?

Of course.

That hon. member knows a lot about medicine, much more than I do for I know nothing about it. But I do know that when it comes to education, and he makes such a foolish remark, it shows that he knows absolutely nothing about it. I have already told the hon. member that for 21 years I was an English teacher at an English school. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) paid me on these benches a compliment that no other hon. member in the House received—and he was an inspector of schools. So, I repeat this and I emphasize it, that the bridge can only be built, firstly when a feeling of belonging together and co-operation comes into existence among the people of the country. It is no good us establishing parallel-medium schools if the English-speaking people refuse to send their children to those schools. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Bootha) asked a question which the hon. member opposite was conveniently able to evade, for in South Africa there are no private Afrikaans schools. The public schools are good enough for our children and my children received their education and their tuition in those Government schools, and they received their degrees in our universities. I am not ashamed to compare them with any young man or woman who received their degrees at another university or in another country.

Now I should like to address the two Jeremiahs of this House, the member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) and the member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). When I came to this House in 1953, and heard the first budget speech of the member for Constantia, I left here feeling very downhearted, for I really imagined that if that was the picture of South Africa we were going to have a very lean time. I have now heard that speech from 1953 to 1961. Now the hon. member must not blame me if I begin to doubt the lamentations he has uttered here. He has now acquired a very good mimic in the hon. member for Johannesburg (North). I put it to this House that South Africa is a country with a gigantic potential. I wish I could shout it out throughout the length and breadth of this country so that everybody could hear it, for the first task that is necessary is for us to acquire self-confidence. If we do not have that, how can we expect other people to have confidence in us? If we constantly paint as gloomy a picture as possible, it is obvious that there must be a dark and gloomy day for South Africa. South Africa is going from strength to strength in the economic sphere. Let me dwell for a moment on agriculture. In passing, I should like to say just this to the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs S. M. van Niekerk). She referred to the land settlers. In the past the United States also tried land settlement. I had a good deal to do with the matter, but I do not know of a single person they settled on the land who is still a supporter of that party. Do you know why? Whether or not he paid the money he owed, he never received his title deeds. They were never his. That is the truth. I am sorry the hon. member for Salt River, who was a member of that Cabinet, is not present now, but he will be able to confirm that that is what happened there. When we talk about land settlement to-day with those people who were settled on the land in the time of those hon. gentlemen they simply scoff at you, for they know what a fiasco it was. It was under the Minister of Lands of this side of the House that land settlement became possible and proceeded on a large scale, and on a larger scale than under any other Government.

When we look at the black picture painted by those gentlemen then we think, on the other hand, of the gigantic potential in our agriculture. We see what agriculture has achieved during past years. We look at the enormous possibilities for to-morrow and the day after. Can we then still have any doubts? Look at the development that took place in the Free State goldfields in a few years. Let us bear in mind that there are gigantic goldfields that are ready for further development. I know what I am talking about. Are hon members here aware of the fact that a large part of the Witbank district, and almost the whole Bethal district and a large part of the Springs district are under option, and that it is anticipated that within five years a gigantic mining area will come into being? Then I ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout what the Prime Minister has done and what this side of the House has done to promote economic development. [Interjections.] I should like to say to the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Horak) that I had the courtesy to remain quiet while he was talking. I should like to receive the same courtesy from him. I want to say just this to the hon. member opposite. Was it the hon. members opposite or was it our present Prime Minister who appointed the Economic Planning Council, and who got a person—not a member of this party—who by his conduct showed what he was capable of—I am referring to Mr. Goldberg.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, hon. gentlemen have unfortunately interrupted me too much already. Is that the conduct of a bigoted and hard block of granite, as the hon. the Prime Minister is called? What right had they to do that? He is the Prime Minister of South Africa, which is our fatherland. Let us vote against him and work against him if we like, but good Lord, surely there are ways in which to do it. The great things done outside by the Opposition, and the great things done by us, are proof of the maturity that we as a nation have achieved; and if we cannot prove it, if we are so naive that we cannot be courteous to each other, I can see no future for the White man in South Africa. What have hon. members opposite done now that fills one with disgust? Think of the language of that member opposite who was a former Minister, where he referred to me, an elected member just like himself, as a hireling of the Government.

Order. The hon. member must withdraw that word.

It is withdrawn, but I am just referring to it in passing.

Yes, but the hon. member must not do so.

The hon member has also used the word “stooge” before. On a point of order raised by me he withdrew it, but last night he repeated it. It seems to me he is a kind of greedy calf. He is hit away from the cow, but he returns again and again, too greedy to drink.

Before I leave this point, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the statistics came to hand last week that the coalfields of South Africa can produce coal for a further 2,000 years at the present rate of consumption. I repeat that the potential of this fatherland of ours is so great that we can refer to it with pride. I am convinced that if we as a nation—and these are the people who should set an example—could bring it home to the people outside, I do not for one moment doubt that it would go well with us. But if we continue at the present rate, hurling recriminations at one another and finding fault with one another, then I can tell you that truly it will not go right with us as Whites. Before we can try to win the confidence of the non-Whites, we must first see to it that we as Whites establish solidarity and co-operation among ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, in this connection I should like to say something to the House. I was recently visited here by an English-speaking member of Parliament from Kenya. He said he was visiting South Africa for two reasons. The first was to find out whether English-speaking people would be welcome here if they were to emigrate to this country. In the second place he wanted to find out whether the White man in South Africa had a hope of holding his own. I had a lengthy letter of eight pages from him. He bought a car here and toured the whole country. He tells me that he is satisfied that the White man will be able to hold his own. Then he comes to the relations between the English- and Afrikaans-speaking people. He writes that he believes, and he gives his reasons—he also refers to recriminations between the English- and Afrikaans-speaking people; time does not permit me to quote from his letter—but he says he believes it, for so many English-speaking people have told him: “Don’t you worry, in time of crisis we will stand together”. One could almost pray for the “time of crisis” to come so that we can escape from these pusillanimous trivialities.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude, and if it is of any value I should like to side with that side of the House which really and sincerely wishes that we as White people would act hand in hand, not for this or that reason, but from sheer love of this fatherland of ours. Then we could proclaim that it is our fatherland; then we could pride ourselves on loving it and being prepared to sacrifice for it. But if we continue to act in a pusillanimous manner towards each other here, as in the past, we shall achieve nothing.

Mr. EGLIN; Much has been said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, and by the other hon. members on the subject of national unity. I hope I will be forgiven if I do not proceed along these lines, not because I do not believe that national unity is important, not because I do not believe that there is a desire among many people to unite, but because I wonder whether South Africa would not have a greater degree of national unity if there had been less talk and more action on the subject. Let us realize that a people does not unite around a vacuum, but around an idea. I believe that when the people of South Africa can find for themselves a common ideal we will have the unity for which we are all striving.

I want to return to the hon. the Minister of Finance and the main subject which has been exercizing the attention of hon. members of this House at this time, and that is our parlous economic and financial position, some of the causes of it and the way out of the difficulty which confronts us. We heard the hon. the Minister replying to the second reading last night. No doubt it was a gallant attempt to square the circle. But seldom have we heard the Minister less convincing and seldom have we seen him more uncomfortable than he was. I do not believe he was uncomfortable so much because of the financial position. That was not the main cause of his discomfort. I believe the main cause of his discomfort was that he found himself in a position, as Minister of Finance responsible for much of the economic well being of the country, trying to defend indefensible ideological policies which have been forced upon him by the Prime Minister. While some of his discomfort may have arisen from our financial position, much of his discomfort, I believe, arises from the fact that he realizes that we will never get on to an even keel in South Africa, either in our racial politics or our economic situation until there is a change of approach and attitude either on the part of the Government or on the part of the people of South Africa. The Minister’s speech was notable not so much for what he said but for what he failed to say and for the many obvious evasions and gaps in the replies he should have given to some of the devastating criticism that came to him from this side of the House. I think it is fair to say that never have we seen the hon. the Minister use arguments which were more specious than the ones he used last night. He explained to this House that one of the major reasons why he has put this embargo on the repatriation of share capital is because he wished to protect other shareholders who, at this stage, did not want their capital withdrawn. But did these other shareholders ask for such protection? We have heard the Minister on previous occasions indicating his desire to extend protection. We have heard, in this House in the past how the coloured people should be protected in the exercise of their political rights, and therefore that they should be placed on a separate roll. We have heard how he wanted to protect the courts from political interference, and that is why he said we should have a High Court of Parliament. We have heard how he wanted to protect our universities, and therefore he has denied them academic freedom in South Africa. We have heard the hon. the Minister in this apparently passionate desire to defend all kinds of people and institutions who do not want his protection; we cannot help being filled with a certain amount of cynicism about his desire to extend his protection to them.

I would have expected that, of all people, the hon. the Minister of Finance would have issued some word of repudiation of certain hon. members on his side of the House. One of the notable features of the debate during the past few days was the unbridled attack and criticism from hon. members on the Government side against business men and financiers who dared to say anything which was critical of the Government. We heard member after member on the other side of the House attacking these people who, just like other persons in South Africa, have an interest in South Africa which, they believe, should be protected by sound policies. We in this corner of the House welcome statements by people, whether they are politicians or not, if it affects the welfare of the country. Who are we as legislators to assume to ourselves the right to be the only people either to criticize the Government or to make constructive suggestions as to how Government policy should be shaped in the interests of the country? Could it be held that we have the monopoly of knowledge and responsibility, and that we are the only people entitled to try to influence the course of events in South Africa? I welcome this very refreshing sign that more and more of the commercial, industrial and farming community are starting to realize that politics and economics are interwoven, and that one cannot be divorced from the other. I think it is a refreshing sign that from all sides of the South African people there is an increasing interest in politics, not only from those people who belong to political parties in the formal sense, but also from others who realize what an important bearing political policies can have on the economy of the country.

Let me mention one or two of the interesting, and I think useful criticisms of the Government which have been made. The hon the Minister of Finance made great play of the fact that during the year 1959/60 there was an increase in the contribution which secondary industry made to our national income. He indicated that that increase was in the order of R41 million. But what he did not indicate was that this represented the worst feature of our expansion programme that year, that this was the very branch of our economy which should have shown the most rapid rate of increase, but that it turned out on the basis of the figures given by the Department of Census and Statistics to be the branch of our economy which showed the slowest progress. And this is what the financial editor of Die Burger had to say on this subject. It is directly contradictory of the glowing terms in which the Minister of Finance reported to this House.—

That is the financial editor of Die Burger writing about the disappointing drop in the contribution made by industry which, by certain skilful verbal juggling the hon. the Minister of Finance presented to this House as a notable increase.

Order, Order! I do not think the hon. member may use the term “skilful juggling by the Minister”.

Mr. Speaker, I mean nothing ulterior by juggling. I think it is a matter of some skill to be able to juggle.

I agree, but the hon. member must withdraw the word juggling.

Mr. Speaker it is not my intention to cast any reflection on the character of the hon. the Minister, and I will certainly withdraw the word if that is your interpretation of it. It was not my intention that it should be used in an incorrect parliamentary sense. I say that the facts and figures which were presented to this House were presented in a way which was really not consistent with the real facts and the real figures and a true analysis of the position, even by an expert such as the financial editor of Die Burger. But criticism of Government policy in the financial field has also come from other people who are expert in the field of our economy. Mr. J. A. Hurter, Managing Director of Volkskas, according to an article in Die Burger, criticized the Government’s raising of the bank rate. He said—

Then there are other people who have referred to the fact that we need additional capital to raise the standard of living of the South African people.

Why do you not quote the first part?

I quote an article from the Natal Mercury on the 16th of March this year in which it is said—

Now that comes from no one other than Mr. C. R. LOUW, the Chairman of S.A.N.L.A.M.

I welcome the fact that people outside this House who have a keen interest in the economic welfare of South Africa are coming to the fore in the economic-political debates which are taking place at this stage. There is little need for me to emphasize the gravity of South Africa’s present economic plight. I think the action of the Minister eight days ago was sufficient to indicate the seriousness of our economic position. The hon. the Minister’s action on Friday a week ago indicated that we are in a graver financial position than he has, up to this stage, been prepared to admit. I regret that the hon. the Minister has not taken his courage in his hands and that he has not taken this House and the people of South Africa into his confidence. When one reflects on the gravity of the step which he took eight days ago, one asks: What could have motivated the Minister? I can only suggest that he was motivated by utter cynicism towards overseas investors, or by the realization that we in South Africa were in a critical financial position. Because what the hon. the Minister has done I presume he has not done without very carefully weighing up our position. He has created a position which cannot easily be redeemed. It is all very well for people such as our Ambassador in the United Kingdom to say that these restrictions will be repealed at an early stage, but this is not a stop gap measure. This is not a measure which can immediately be lifted, and when it is lifted we must not think that we can immediately get back to our former position. It would be naive for anyone to think that the effects of this measure will not linger on for very long in South Africa. While the hon. the Minister has attempted to block the outflow of capital from South Africa. I believe that he has effectively blocked the inflow of capital both for the immediate future and for a very long time to come. Here is a Government which, in spite of the construction the hon. the Minister last night placed on his earlier statements, in the eyes of financiers throughout the world, has gone back on its word. This action of the hon. the Minister comes very close to applying economic blackmail to people who have invested their capital in South Africa. The hon. the Minister has been cynical enough to say “You will not invest more money in South Africa, you are not allowing your capital to come into South Africa, now we are going to see that you will not get it out either.” This is not the action of a Government which has confidence in South Africa’s own ability, through normal financial measures, to redeem the position in South Africa.

We must realize that for a very long time indeed South Africa, as a result of the actions of this Minister will not be able to attract foreign investment capital. What is the effect going to be on South Africa? I believe it is going to have profound political repercussions, not in the short term party political sense; I believe that the action of the Minister in closing the door to foreign capital in South Africa has been the final shuttering on the Government’s pipe dream of separate development. Every economist, every financier, every one who has studied the problem of developing our national potential has come to the conclusion that we require additional capital. There are very few financiers who will say we can manufacture sufficient capital from within. In fact, the overwhelming weight of opinion is that for a very long time in the future we will have to be aided by capital from outside.

We all know that we need capital to maintain our normal rate of development. We need additional capital to see that the standard of living keeps pace with the increase in the population. We believe that there should be rising standards of living. All that, in normal circumstances is possible. But this Government does not depend for the success of its policies on normal economic expansion. It depends for its success on abnormal, extravagant, wasteful economic expansion. The Government policy depends on uneconomic development schemes being proceeded with, of artificially stimulated development in either the borders of the Reserves or in the Reserves themselves. I believe that the South African people can cease to argue about whether they believe in separate development or not. The fact is that as since last Friday, separate development has been dead. Separate development in the sense of really building up separate independent states has vanished into the myths of the past, not because of the arguments of either side of the House but because the Government’s policy has crashed on the hard rocks of economic circumstances.

What is the second thing which has befallen South Africa as a result of these actions? I want to make a direct accusation to the hon. the Minister. I believe he has placed the future living standards of both White and non-White in South Africa in jeopardy. I will go further and say that the action of the hon. the Minister, seen together with the actions of the whole Government in recent months heralds the return of poor Whiteism to South Africa. We know that we can only build up the living standards of the lower income groups in South Africa by a dynamic, progressive industrial expansion. Now we realize that we will have to struggle to maintain existing standards, let alone raise standards in the future. All the evidence before us is that there has been a slowing down in the tempo of economic expansion. There has still been expansion but it has not been at the rate which we have enjoyed in the past or which we could have hoped for in the future. We have now started on a rapid downward spiral.

It is all very well for hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House to say that this is Jeremiah talk, that this is selling South Africa short. I ask them to go and ask their friends who have businesses involving the import of goods from overseas what their position is today. Let them ask those people who are involved in the retail or wholesale trade of so many consumer goods, what their position is to-day. I would ask them to ask their friends who are architects, who are builders, who are building artisans, who are suppliers to the building trade, what their position is. This measure by the Minister at the close of this session heralds a period of increasing insecurity, of unemployment and personal hardship for many people in South Africa.

It would be inadequate of me merely to criticize and to condemn. I believe that at this stage at least one should try to put a constructive note on any address made in this House. Mr Speaker, if we are going to be constructive in this matter it behoves us to try to analyse the basic malady affecting the economy of South Africa. I doubt whether there can be any dispute with the statement I will make, and that is that this is brought about by an acute lack of confidence in South Africa as it is governed by the present Government. This lack of confidence in the ability of the Government to govern is not confined to the outside world alone. Indeed, I believe the Minister’s action in bolting the door against outside capital reflects his own lack of confidence in his ability to remedy the position in South Africa, other than by taking extreme measures of this kind. One might well ask why this lack of confidence; why this lack of confidence in a country which has progressed as well as it has over the past three hundred years? Why this lack of confidence in a country whose economy is basically sound, with its vast untapped resources in both mineral and human fields? We in this corner have stated time and time again that the root cause of this lack of confidence, both inside and outside South Africa, is the persistence of this Government to continue with policies based on racial discrimination. It is their insistence on following policies which amount to a flagrant denial of opportunity to citizens of South Africa on the ground of race or colour. They persist in following policies which amount to a callous disregard of fundamental human rights to people, merely on the grounds of race or colour. We can say, as has been said by the hon. the Minister last night, why should we become the victims of circumstance? Are there not other countries which also do not have their hands clean? I concur that there are very few other nations whose hands are completely clean in the field of race discrimination. But I know of no other country in the world which makes a virtue of this thing. I know of no other country which makes it a matter of high principle. I know that every other country is trying to steer away from race discrimination.

It has been suggested that we are the pawn in the struggle between the East and the West. That may well be, but let us face up to the fact that there is a struggle going on between East and West—and I assume the hon. gentlemen on the other side would like the West to win. It is said that we are the unfortunate victims of the rise of non-White people throughout the world, of the newly gained independence on the African Continent. That may well be, but the fact is that we are now no longer one of the four independent nations of Africa; we are now one of thirty independent nations all of which are non-White. I think we all appreciate, whether we agree with the outside world or not, that it is our racially discriminatory policies which have been the basic cause of our having to leave the Commonwealth, which have earned us the 94 to 0 vote at the United Nations. Indeed we realize that it is this policy of discrimination which has caused us to get a 44-nil vote at the conference of the International Labour Organization.

We have become accustomed to attacks from outside. We can understand, perhaps, the highly emotional way in which the rest of the world considers this thing called race discrimination, but, I want to come to something which is a little more fundamental. I believe that while the rest of the world and the politicians might well act because of their emotions, I cannot believe that the hard headed business men are influenced merely by their emotions and their own political views. Hon. members on the other side of the House have pointed out quite rightly, in the past, that money normally flows to a country with a stable Government. Countries where there is turmoil or impending turmoil, where there is uncertainty, generally tend to lose investment capital or can only attract it at very high rates of interest. Hon. members on the other side have time and time again pointed out that where there are trouble spots in Africa, where there is turmoil, where there is either too rapid evolution or revolution, investment capital has withdrawn from those states. I agree that where there is real stability there is always hope of attracting investment capital, but where there is no real stability that investment capital dries up or flows out. I think we in South Africa should ask ourselves in all seriousness—particularly hon. members on the other side of the House—why it is that in spite of the Government’s electoral successes in recent months, why it is that although there appears, superficially at any rate, that there is every sign of stability in South Africa, money is no longer coming into the country? It is not because of their emotional or political attitudes, but because of their hardheaded business sense that people outside South Africa cease to consider South Africa to be a good risk under the present Government. I believe that others, looking at South Africa from outside, see in the South African situation all the elements of instability, not in the distant but for the comparatively near future.

Government members time and time again have indicated that by taking strong action, by adopting the tough approach, by increasing expenditure on military defence on internal security, by nation-wide bannings, the Government is reassuring the outside world and the foreign investor. Let me tell the hon. the Minister and the other side of the House that these actions by the Government fill the people outside of South Africa with growing alarm for the future of South Africa. These are not seen by these people as signs of strength, these are seen as evidence of weakness. These are seen as evidence that in South Africa you have a Government which is unable to cope with the changing circumstances, unable to govern South Africa except by the use of strong arm measures. People outside see that even the limited democratic tradition which we have had in South Africa is breaking down under the present Nationalist Party Government.

The Government is showing some ability to bottle up the pressures which are building up in South Africa, but the Government is showing no ability whatsoever to ease these pressures and to bring about peaceful co-operation within the country. I believe with others— including some of those who were our traditional friends and are perhaps not motivated by this tremendous emotional surge towards a demand for human dignity by all—that in our multi-racial country sectional domination cannot be maintained indefinitely. I believe that there is to-day in South Africa an accelerating shift, a transfer of what I would call real political power amongst the various racial groups which compose our population. People from outside see a Government that is either unaware of this shift of real political power, or a Government which is defiantly refusing to follow policies which will allow this real political power to be expressed in a peaceful way in South Africa. We must realize that this balance of real political power, this ability to influence the future of South Africa, is coming under the impact of the industrial revolution which is and has taken place in South Africa over the past few decades. We have a duty to guide these growing forces. But I believe it is the height of folly to think that you can cut them off, that you can close your eyes to them merely by passing laws in this Parliament curtailing their franchise rights. I believe that people from outside seeing this thing objectively, and not involved in the emotionalism of the situation are asking themselves not whether the non-White people should or can share in the real political power of South Africa, but how are we, the White people, going to allow them to express it, and how will they use it when they get it. That is the question which we too have to answer, and that is the reason why many people are losing confidence in the ability of this Government to steer the difficult course which lies ahead.

There is one other important force which I would like to deal with and that is what we see before our eyes the development in South Africa, particularly over recent years of two emerging nationalisms. Two emerging nationalisms which are developing with the encouragement of the present Government or as a reaction to Government policies. Can we be unaware that there is developing in South Africa. White nationalism on the one hand and a growing Black nationalism on the other? I see no orderly future for our country if within the borders of our country there are two growing nationalisms, each hostile to the other and each competing with the other for domination. That is the shortest road to ruin and chaos for all of us in South Africa. It therefore behoves us to ask ourselves what is the cause of these two strong emotional forces building up in South Africa; why do we see in South Africa a growing anti-White nationalism amongst the non-White peoples? Perhaps it is fanned on by what is happening elsewhere in Africa. Perhaps it is a result of changing circumstances throughout the world. But I believe the greatest aggravating cause in South Africa is, once again, the racial policies of this Government. If one examines the reasons why people become nationalists, why a group of people separate themselves from others and band together and try to dominate others, then one sees it flows from the way they have been treated in the past. I believe that if we were given unequal treatment merely because of our language, our race, or our religion; if we were denied opportunities on these grounds, if there was implanted upon us the stigma of inferiority merely because of these things, then we would also react as militant nationalists. The present Government—I believe by design because it is part of their policy—is encouraging the growth in South Africa of two separate hostile nationalisms. Our attitude towards this matter, is not the attitude suggested in this House by the Leader of the Opposition. Two or three days ago the Leader of the Opposition in a criticism of the Progressive Party, said certain things all of which I do not want to go into now in detail, but he said that the Progressive Party failed to realize that an educated Black man was just as good a Black nationalist as an uneducated Black man. That is a wrong and superficial interpretation of our real attitude. We realize that education in itself is not an assurance that a man will either be a nationalist or will not be a nationalist. The important thing which will determine whether an educated Black man will be a Black nationalist is the way you treat him. Treat an educated man on the basis of his colour and not on the basis of his merit, and then you have all the ingredients of a virulent nationalist and a militant agitator. So if we in South Africa want to get away from this ugly concept, if we want to destroy these nationalisms, then I believe we must take out of our national life and out of our policies these things which are aggravating the growth of separate nationalisms.

What is the attitude, as I understand it, of the hon. the Prime Minister—and I wish to do no injustice to him—to these two forces, this tremendous shift of real political power and growth of the two separate nationalisms in South Africa? If words mean anything— and clearly there are times when one must doubt whether they do—then I think the Prime Minister does acknowledge the existence of these two forces. He does acknowledge that there is a challenge to be met in respect of both the two forces that I have mentioned. But either because he does not want to get rid of Black and White nationalisms as two separate forces or because he believes it is impossible to get rid of these two nationalisms, he poses to us the solution in the policy of separate development. He says that because it is impossible to unite these people in one nation but because it is necessary to recognize the growing political force of each of these groups, we must have separate areas in South Africa—some areas in which the Black man can express and develop his nationalism and his political rights and other areas in which the White man develop and express his political rights. Obviously to a man with a logical mind like the hon. the Prime Minister, this is a neat and tidy and easy way out of the dilemma, but it is not based on the harsh and unpalatable facts of the South African situation. Can it be seriously suggested by the hon. the Prime Minister that he is going to satisfy the nationalistic aspirations of either the White or the non-White people or that it can satisfy their developing political power on the basis of the unrealistic partition of the territory and the wealth of South Africa which he envisages? I have often heard him criticize members on this side of the House, perhaps more particularly the hon. members in the party on my right, for suggesting that the Bantu would be satisfied with eight representatives in Parliament; for suggesting that their political aspirations could be satisfied with 7 per cent of the political say in South Africa. Does the hon. the Prime Minister really think that four-fifths of the South African people could be satisfied with 13 per cent of the territory of South Africa? I believe that no matter how well meant the suggestion is that there can be a stable solution based on the kind of apartheid, on the kind of separate development suggested by the Prime Minister it is hopelessly unrealistic. The next point is this: Can he be satisfied after 13 years that the tempo of development in the direction of separate development is keeping pace with the demand of people for political expression? I believe that the tempo of separate development, if it were a policy which had a hope of succeeding, would fail because it is not keeping pace with the times. Sir, when one thinks of what this Government has done in the course of 13 years either in the field of territorial separation or the development of political institutions and in respect of economic expansion to satisfy this natural desire of the non-White races in South Africa, then I say this Government has failed and will fail more surely as a result of the measures which the Minister of Finance is introducing. Is there any hope of a peaceful future for the White man of South Africa or for the White man defending his White nationalism against a hostile Black nationalism in a so-called White state which is so far from being economically viable, where the buying power is dependent on the non-White in South Africa and where the key part of the labour force will be people who are not part of the White political institutions or of White nationalism? No, Sir, I believe that for practical reasons South Africa should cease to argue the merits or otherwise of separate development, because separate development as an ultimate solution has already failed in South Africa.

If we are going to attack separate development, if at the same time we are going to realize the forces which are working in South Africa, then I believe we are still faced with a challenge; we still have to take bold action. We cannot continue to think in the traditional way of arbitrarily pegging political expressions by laws passed in this House. I believe that we have to develop a system of representation which will take into account the growing number of non-Whites who are showing the ability to accept responsibility in South Africa. But if we are not going to divide South Africa into separate territories— and let us accept that that is quite impossible that the Prime Minister’s solution has failed —then I think we must make determined efforts to try to break down this growing White and Black nationalism. That means that we must not follow policies which aggravate the situation; we must not follow policies which merely add fuel to the fire of militant anti-White nationalists in South Africa. No, we must get away from a policy of racial discrimination. Without a change of that kind I believe we will not be able to bring stability in our country. We certainly will not be able to restore for South Africa the confidence of the outside world. There is always the danger of over simplification. Just as the Prime Minister over-simplifies the problem by indicating that it may not be necessary to have this economic integration—call it interdependence or whatever you like—I know there are many people in liberal and other parties who over-simplify the problem by denying the existence in South Africa either of prejudices or of loyalties or of differences in standard of education amongst the various people of South Africa. I believe that the policy for South Africa must not only deal with these two major forces but it must be rooted in the hard facts of the South African situation. I do not believe it is expected of the South African people that they should jettison the civilized standards which they have built up in South Africa. I believe it is vital that they should be maintained in the interests of all the people. I do not believe it is necessary for minority groups, whoever they are, to throw themselves at the mercy of majority groups in South Africa. I believe that a very good case can and must be made for protecting individuals and minority groups from domination and oppression by others. When one looks at the South African situation, I think it is also necessary to protect our provinces and our local authorities from increasing dictatorial encroachment by the Central Government. Sir, these things must be done and I believe that they must be done in a hurry, because unless we can grapple with the problem in time, we will find that we have gone too far along the road towards these separate nationalisms, too far along the road of the authoritarian concept of government in South Africa, which has been followed by this Nationalist Party Government.

I do not feel inclined to reply to the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin) because as far as his ideology of a multi-racial state is concerned, it can wait, perhaps for centuries, in this country. As far as the economic aspect of the matter is concerned, the hon. the Minister has already to a certain extent replied effectively and for the rest I leave him to the mercy of the hon. the Minister.

I now want to turn to the matter which has been raised by the hon. member for Hill-brow (Dr. Steenkamp). He has taken us back to this question of national unity, and I think it is quite correct that he has done so because I personally am one of those people who believe that if we had national unity in this country, as every self-respecting country wishes, than many of our problems relating to our economy, Native affairs and also our present external position could be improved and solved. But what I cannot understand is why the hon. member has risen to defend his Afrikanerhood. No one has called him a renegade. As a matter of fact, if anyone had done so, the Speaker would in any case have seen to it that such a person was called to order. I could not help thinking of that Welsh educationist and psychologist, Prof. Saer, who described this sort of thing as psychological compensation. He points out that what he calls a deracine—not a renegade —but a deracine (an uprooted person) has two characteristics. The one is that he has an inferiority complex which causes him to give expression to this inferiority in all sorts of strange ways and the other is his hatred of the cultural group which he has left, precisely because he is seeking compensation and because by so doing he is seeking favour with the group he has now joined. I do not know whether the hon. member for Hillbrow is guilty of this, but if that is so, I would agree with the Caesar who told his opponent: “I would rather be a dog and bay the moon than such a Roman”; I tell him: “I would rather be a dog and bay the moon than such an Afrikaner.”

Shame!

I said I assumed that the hon. member is not guilty of this. That is his affair. Then he has made this strange accusation that we deny the English-speaking people of this country equal rights, equal cultural rights.

I never said that.

In any case he used the same theme during the referendum in a certain place in the north-west where he pointed out as an argument against the establishment of the republic that we were depriving the English-speaking people of all the things they loved and of all their ties—things such as, for example, the flag, the national anthem, etc. I do not know whether he meant that.

[Inaudible.]

Then I want the hon. member to submit the necessary proof and the hon. member has not done so. I accept his correction that we are ignoring them. But what are we ignoring?

Their sentiments.

Their sentiments in respect of what? The English-speaking section of the population accept the Republic just as we do, and one cannot after all retain the symbols such as their national anthem and their flag. Take the three provinces to-day, the Transvaal, the Free State and the Cape, in which the Afrikaans-speaking people are easily in the majority. Is there any proof that we are depriving them of their language and cultural rights? But then I want to point out that we were obliged to force Natal to publish its ordinances in Afrikaans also. The English-speaking people are in the majority in that province. Our Afrikaans-speaking people who had to fight in this province and in other provinces for a century to gain the simplest language rights, still have to fight to-day in Natal for a primary language right such as mother-tongue education for our children.

To turn to the question of national unity, we cannot deny that there are differences between the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking peoples in this country. We have our two languages and in any bilingual country one has a language struggle, but this need not result in discord in the field of national unity. We have two histories and two traditions, and in addition there is a large measure of social heterogenity between the two groups. We must admit that. Until recently—I hope it is going to disappear—there was one difficulty, namely that the ties between the English-speaking people and the population of their country of origin were always in actual fact closer than their ties with the Afrikaans-speaking people who lost their corresponding ties centuries ago. But it is also a fact that there is sufficient common ground between the two language groups to be able to establish a united nation. I mention just a few: Ethnic origin—we are both of Germanic origin, whether our friends want to accept it or not; we are not two races, we are merely two language groups of the same race. The mistake which we often make is that we discuss our race relations. We are not separate races; we are merely two language groups. Our religion, although we belong to two different churches—Afrikaans and English-speaking—are in both instances Christian; we have common political institutions; we believe in democracy; we are both products of Western civilization. Well, when we take these factors into account, it is strange that one can achieve national unity in countries like Belgium and Switzerland and we cannot do so in South Africa. In Belgium there are the Flemish and the French, not only two language groups but two different races. There has never been any question of national disunity in Belgium, and here in this country we lack that national unity. We have the example of Switzerland where there are two races—Latins and Germans. There has never been any question of a lack of national unity in that country either. What is more, Mr. Speaker, there is no country in the world which is as bilingual as South Africa, to the extent that bilingualism can help to bring about national unity. Our difficulty is that we do not interpret “national unity ” in the same way. It means different things to the two sides of the House, both as regards the essence and also the means which should be applied to achieve that national unity. To the National Party national unity has always had a political meaning. We maintain and correctly so, that we must develop our independence to that point, to its logical consequence, the Republic. But in the case of the English-speaking section of the population it has always seemed to me that national unity to them is a question of cultural unity.

What nonsense.

The hon. member says: “What nonsense.” I think it was the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) who has referred to cultural integration; that is the object. I have already referred to Switzerland and Belgium. These are two cases where there are separate languages and cultures— two separate languages and cultures in Belgium and three in the case of Switzerland, and yet they have national unity. I think it was the hon. member for South Coast—he will be able to correct me—who has discussed cultural integration. What does that mean? One achieves cultural integration through evolution; not by means of legislation. One only achieves that by evolution. It has happened in England, it has happened in France, in Germany and in all the countries of the modern world except America, or colonies which later developed to independence. We could pass as many laws in this House as we liked; we could establish parallel-medium, double-medium or any other kind of school, but we shall not achieve cultural integration by those means. I admit that this is a way to achieve national unity, namely the assimilation of the one group by the other. To a certain extent this has succeeded in the United Kingdom but it has not succeeded in Wales or in Ireland, and the result has been that Ireland to-day is an independent state. In Scotland it has succeeded to a certain extent, but if there are Sctos present here to-day, I want to ask them whether it is not a fact that it has succeeded to such an extent in Scotland that they have even lost their kilts. In South Africa we know that it has been a complete failure, and we do not want to return to this concept of assimilation. As regards this accusation that we do not want to grant the English-speaking language group equal rights, that we do not recognize their equal rights, I just want to give a few figures which will show what we have done in the Free State, the Transvaal and the Cape for the English-speaking section of our population. I take the 1956 Cape figures. Hon. members opposite never stop telling us that all we need to achieve national unity is parallel-medium schools. Very well. I take the figures for 1956, and I find that the province has in total 1,170 schools, of which 1,063 are parallel-medium schools—that is to say about 90 per cent—which means that as far as national unity is concerned, if this can make a contribution, 90 per cent of our problem should have been solved. In the Free State there are adequate English-medium facilities. In the Transvaal, despite the criticisms of the Transvaal because of its ordinances, there are adequate facilities for the English-speaking people. Natal is the exception. I hope the hon. member for Hillbrow will give the hon. member for South Coast a little advice. I want to give him the figures for Natal. These figures were mentioned in this House during the previous session. There are 190 Government schools of which 84 are English-medium, 16 Afrikaans-medium and the remainder parallel-medium. There are 35 State-aided schools which are all English-medium schools. There are 38 private schools which are all English-medium. The Afrikaans-medium schools are for the most part small platteland schools where there are no English-speaking children to make even the establishment of a parallel-medium school possible.

You are quite wrong.

These figures were given in this House by the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter).

But he is always wrong.

The hon. member for Vryheid is not here to tell us whether he was right or wrong. But I now want to point something else out. As far as parallel-medium schools are concerned, if they can have any influence on national unity, we have enough of them. Natal does not believe in parallel-medium schools; Natal believes in the parental choice. Parental choice is the bridge which it is building between the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking peoples of Natal. On the one side of the bridge, on the Afrikaans-speaking side of the bridge which leads to the English-speaking side, is written: “ Free entry;” on the English-speaking side of the bridge which leads to the Afrikaans-speaking side, is written “ Entry forbidden ”. This is a one-way bridge which leads from the Afrikaans-speaking group to the English-speaking group …

Nonsense.

Seeing that the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) has interrupted me, I just want to point out to her that it is not only children who cross that bridge and then live in what we call “the land from which no traveller returns” but there are at least two members of this House who were not children when they crossed that bridge but who cannot find their way back.

I think in the dying days of this Session …

There is plenty of life on this side.

There is no life on the other side of the House. As I say, in the closing stages of this Session it is necessary perhaps that we should examine some of the undercurrents that we find in the Nationalist Party in regard to this war of nerves in respect to a possible election, a rumour which has been initiated by the Press of the Government party. But before dealing with that I would like to make one observation in regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) about national unity. I am prepared to admit that the hon. member for Prieska does not belong to the same generation to which I belong, but it continually astonishes me how it is possible for an hon. member belonging to the Government party, which has expressed itself in favour of national unity, can come here and talk about the South African people—and in using the word “people” in this instance I refer to the White groups—virtually belonging to two different races and two different nations. That is the kind of idea of national unity that the hon. member has, because it is inconceivable

On a point of order, I said specifically that we were not two races, but two language groups belonging to the same race. It seems to me that the hon. member was not listening.

A few minutes ago before resuming his seat the hon. member referred specifically to the existence of a bridge between the English-speaking race group and the Afrikaans-speaking race group.

Order! The hon. member must accept the hon. member’s word.

I am not arguing that the hon. member did not use the word “race” in that sense; I am talking about the full implication of his observations. He spoke of a bridge where a notice was erected bearing the words “no admittance under any conditions” or words to that effect. What is the implication of that? What I cannot understand is how the hon. member after his years of experience and having seen the development of the South African nation, can still come along and recognize groups of any sort amongst the White people of the country. Why does the hon. member find it impossible to see the South African people as one people enriched by two languages and two cultures? Why must he always talk in terms of groups?

In the course of the debates over the past six months the hon. the Prime Minister has made an appeal for national unity. He appealed for national unity when he came forward with the proposition that we should change our form of government to a republic. When the hon. Prime Minister, Sir, made that appeal for national unity, he coupled it with another appeal. He did not merely appeal for national unity, but he appealed also to members of his party, and to supporters of his party, that they now, once and for all, should put the bitterness of the past behind them, that they should forget and bury the sores of the past. He reasoned that you could not continue to think in terms of one people and of national unity, while always carrying these sores with you. That was the appeal of the hon. Prime Minister. But what has happened in this debate, Sir? How many members on the Government benches have heeded that appeal from their Prime Minister? Take, for instance, the speech of the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk). It was full of bitterness against his English-speaking brethren. No speech made in the language and spirit of the speech of that hon. member could have been made if he had put the sores and the bitterness of the past behind him. This bitterness, is, moreover, in the generation of the hon. member for Boksburg, is more imaginery than real. The classic example, however, was the speech of the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling). That hon. member was, Sir, not only satisfied to ignore the appeal of the hon. Prime Minister, but set himself out on the road of building a gulf between the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking. He set out on a road of insulting the English-speaking people of South Africa.

He followed the example of the hon. Minister of Transport.

Let us leave that hon. Minister aside for the moment and deal with the hon. member for Ventersdorp. He discarded the English-speaking people of South Africa because he said they failed to accept —a large number of them at least because there may be some who do—the policies of this Government and he described them on that account as being politically immature.

That is how you are!

Let me say, Sir, that if that hon. member considers me to be politically immature, then I hope that my political immaturity reflects a greater appreciation of the South African nation as being one people than is the case with that hon. member. If that hon. member did not see the people of South Africa as two different groups, divided by language, race or something else, he could never have made the type of speech he actually did. If he accepted the South African people as being one people, he could never have come along and drawn the type of distinctions which he did draw in his speech. But let me take the appeal made by the hon. Prime Minister a little bit further. He went further when making a direct appeal to his followers to forget the bitterness of the past. He said that we should all help to build up South Africa, help in a spirit of unity while accepting the thought that we are one people in spite of the political differences that there might exist. He made this appeal on the assumption that, with the Republic becoming an established fact, any feeling of inferiority which might or might not have been held by a large section of the Afrikaans-speaking section of our population towards their English-speaking brethren, was gone forever. That then was the argument of the hon. Prime Minister, namely that because we now had a republic, any possibility of inferiority which might ever have been felt by the Afrikaans-speaking section, was gone forever, because there was no need to perpetuate the bitternesses of the past, and we could now face national issues on common ground. But what is the implication of these views as expressed by the hon. Prime Minister? They mean that a Nationalist Party member on the Government benches, or any supporter of the Nationalist Party, would no longer be considered a traitor to the ideals of the Afrikaans-speaking section, that he would no longer be considered as an outcast from amongst the Afrikaans-speaking community, if he publicly disagreed with any of the policies of the Nationalist Party. This is the full implication of the hon. Prime Minister’s appeal for unity and for the bitterness of the past to be relegated to the past, namely that any member on the Government benches could now rise, inside or outside the House, and differ from his Government in regard to its policies without any longer suffering the danger of becoming—as was intimated on many occasions in the past —an outcast from his community and be thrown on one side. Is it therefore any wonder that in a debate of this nature, an important debate of this nature after my leader has made a most important statement, you have to see from the ministerial benches the Deputy Minister for Social Welfare getting up and making what one can only describe as a most extraordinary speech? The hon. Deputy Minister for Social Welfare spoke for a full 40 minutes in discussing what was happening behind the political scenes in South Africa.

In the Nationalist Party.

No, he said “South Africa”. He was very careful and read at length from a memorandum which could by no means have been considered as favourable to the United Party whoever the authors of that document may be. The Deputy Minister, however, did not tell us that. But why did the hon. Deputy Minister make this type of speech? There is a big contrast between a reasonable-minded man such as the hon. member for Pretoria (District) who certainly expressed no sentiments in his speech to-day having the slightest similarity with those expressed by the hon. member for Ventersdorp or with those expressed by the hon. member for Boksburg. What is this preoccupation with what is going on behind the scenes? What did the hon. Deputy Minister attempt to do? What he attempted to do, Sir, was to couple every type of Afrikaans-speaking intellectual, church leader, or any businessman, or anyone in position of substance and of leadership who disagreed with the Nationalist Party, with leftism and almost with Communism. He attempted to use this House as a platform to intimidate the thinkers of the Afrikaans-speaking community who to-day are becoming more and more aware of the follies of the Government. His words were very clear in this respect—

The objective of the hon. Deputy Minister by making this type of speech, and classing these people as “handlangers van die linkse groepe” was a definite and deliberate attempt in this House to diminish the influence of these Afrikaans-speaking leaders of our community who are opposed to the follies of this Government. That was the plain object of the Deputy Minister by raising the matter in the way he did. The fact of the matter is that, now that the Prime Minister has appealed to the Afrikaans-speaking community to forget the bitterness of the past, a large number of the members of the Nationalist Party have now, in a sense, become politically emancipated because they can now, in the Republic, review the policies of our country in a most objective manner and without any fear that they will be cast out of their community. The hon. Prime Minister, however, went still further. He said that in this spirit of unity which he appealed for, matters of political difference should hinge around such matters as economic policies, and non-White policies. In this great new era of the Republic, it was his view that the great issue of future politics would be based, not on the old questions of the past, but on what non-White policies would be best to ensure the future of White South Africa—in other words, the Prime Minister threw out the challenge that he would make his interpretation of the policy of apartheid, the only political issue of the future and that the future of the Nationalist Party Government would rest on what support it could obtain from the electorate on the question of developing politically independent Bantu states within the borders of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of securing the security of the remaining extent. White South Africa. I do not want to deal now with the effects of this policy because it has been dealt with at length in this debate, but Mr. Speaker, on various occasions during the present Session of Parliament, the hon. Prime Minister has accused the United Party of following an immoral Native policy; that it was immoral because it was based on the principle of discrimination and, if applied, will have the end result of the non-White attaining political control of the country and consequently the White man losing his identity. That was the kernel of the argument of the hon. Prime Minister. He went even further and argued that the principles of discrimination were existent only in our policy and not in his and that South Africa would, therefore, be no better off when the United Party took over the Government because the world would still reject our policy as well. I believe that no member on the Nationalist Party benches, and least of all let me say, the hon. Minister of Lands and the hon. Minister of Finance, believes this to be true. I do not even believe that the hon. Minister for Bantu Administration and Development believes this argument of the Prime Minister to be true.

Let me say immediately that the policy of my leader, as outlined by him the other day, takes into consideration the great developments which are taking place in Africa. The advancement of our non-White policy in a multi-racial state has as its expressed objective, the security and the leadership of the White people of South Africa. Any non-White policy which does not take this cardinal fact into account, and which does not aim at the preservation of White leadership, and has not the preservation of the White man in South Africa as its first objective, would be unrealistic, harmful to the future interests of South Africa, and unacceptable to the electorate. Any non-White policy has to take into consideration the realities of the situation as we find them to-day. That is what the Progressive Party does not do. There are fundamentals in our multi-racial South African society which are not policies, but our South African way of life. There is the fact of social segregation. That is fundamental. Is it discrimination? The Prime Minister says “yes”, but it is fundamental to our South African way of life. There is the fundamental of residential segregation, which we all accept. That is not policy, but is fundamental to our way of life. There is the fundamental principle of justice for all—that we shall all be equal before the law. There is the fundamental principle of the White man’s guardianship and there is the principle of recognizing the differences which exist between White and non-White. I can say this no better than my hon. leader when he said—

There is one other important fundamental to our way of life and that is that, in so far as the interest of our country is concerned, so far as the good of all our people. no matter the colour of their skins is concerned, the political position of the White man must he retained to-day and for the foreseeable future. Now I want to point out to Nationalist members that with these fundamentals of our South African society before us, we have had the ludicrous spectacle of the hon. Prime Minister arguing across the floor of the House that the United Party was immoral in its non-White policy.

It is not ludicrous, but a fact.

The hon. Prime Minister went further and said that he was the great standard bearer of political morality with his dreams of a state within a state. He argued that in a self-governing Bantustan, there will be no discrimination. Sir, the difference between ourselves and the hon. Prime Minister is that we develop our policies on the facts of historical developments and to keep pace with human developments, whereas the Prime Minister shapes his policies by trying first to alter the historical development of our nation. There is, in the view of the United Party, no other way in which to develop non-White policies than to make provision for the eventual political emancipation of the non-White, and that in a united land in which each race group will enjoy its political rights. We in the United Party are concerned about to-day and to-morrow, whereas the Prime Minister is concerned only with to-morrow’s to-morrows. He is legislating for to-morrow—for the year 2000 or 2061. It is the hon. Prime Minister’s ambition, in my opinion, to erect legislative monuments for himself so that he can go down in history as being the White saviour of South Africa. We on these benches argue that it is impossible to determine the pattern of human relationships for the year 2000 or 2061 A.D. because if we accept the idea of a united land and a united state with a multiracial population, then the only alternative is to reject any policies creating escape areas in order to lull our fears of political domination by the non-White.

The Bill at present before the House and introduced by the hon. Minister for Bantu Administration and Development seeking to establish urban Bantu councils, implies an acceptance of the fact that millions of Bantu outside the reserves are there permanently and that they are already established communities. The policy of the hon. Minister of Bantu Education is creating a new Bantu proletariat, although not an educated proletariat which I would like to see. This creation is based on the fact that there is a permanent non-White Bantu population within the European areas. Millions are being spent on housing, on hospitals, on transportation, on roads, on electrification and this is based on a recognition of the principle that there is a permanent Bantu population in the European areas.

The idea of the creation of a Bantustan has as its main purpose the creation of a political safety valve for the Bantu. It is our opinion and I think also the opinion of many members sitting to-day on the Government benches, that this does not stop the political ambitions of millions of non-Whites outside the reserves. Any such idea would be foolish in the extreme. This was also recognized by the hon. Minister of Lands in his now famous Humansdorp speech; it has been recognized by the hon. Minister of Finance who at no time in the course of this Session, has said one word in support of the policies set out by the hon. Prime Minister. Despite the differences between our policies as to the manner in which the non-White will attain political emancipation, there is one great factor which we all have in common. I, for instance, have it in common with the hon. member for Ventersdorp and I share it also with the hon. member for Brits. It is a factor in regard to our White-non-White relationships which is shared for instance by the hon. Leader of the Progressive Party with the hon. Prime Minister; they are completely at one on this. It is, moreover, a fact which has been proved up to the hilt over and over again in the past years by the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister for Bantu Administration and Development. It is the fact that the Bantu people have the ability to develop to full political maturity, and having developed to full political maturity, to operate under democratic institutions in a responsible manner. Has the hon. Minister got that faith, because if he says that he has not got that faith, then the policy of creating a Bantustan is a complete political fraud. The hon. Minister believes in it and I will show the House that he does. He believes that the Bantu is capable not only of exercising political powers, but that he has the ability to exercise it in a responsible manner in accordance with our democratic beliefs. The establishment of Bantustans by legislation proves the faith of the hon. Prime Minister in that fact. The fact that the hon. Minister for Bantu Administration and Development presents a Bill for the establishment of councils for the urban Bantu, proves that he believes in the latent ability of the Bantu to operate them in a responsible manner. Every speech, and every statement, made by hon. members on the Government side is a protestation of their belief in this. Every statement made in support of the hon. Prime Minister’s policy is a complete protestation of this fundamental belief. The hon. member for Queenstown believes in it because he is prepared to share equally with the Bantu in the government of the country and if he does not have that faith then there is no substance in his policies. If the hon. Prime Minister does not believe it then there is no substance in his policy either. The hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development believes that the Bantu can rule himself according to the democratic processes whether in his own areas in a Bantustan, or outside by means of the proposed Bantu councils. If hon. members on the Government side deny this belief, then they must admit that their policy is immoral and that it is completely politically fraudulent. What did the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration say during a special interview he gave to the political correspondent of Bantu. He was interviewed in connection with a resolution put forward in the Transkeian Territorial Authority with regard to self-government for the Transkei. The hon. Minister then said in that regard that it would be premature for him to comment officially at that early stage. Asked whether the people of the Transkei would be permitted to hold elections, the Minister said—

If the hon. Minister is prepared to make such a statement, then he must have tremendous faith in the ability of the Bantu of the Transkei to exercise a responsible vote, and he obviously must have a tremendous faith in the leaders which they will elect. But if that is not so, then I repeat that his policies are immoral and politically fraudulent. What I cannot understand, however, is that the hon. Prime Minister says that our policy is immoral whilst we have exactly the same belief as he has in the ability of the Bantu to exercise power in a responsible fashion. We share that same belief. May I ask whether there is a lesser or a greater danger of preserving the White man’s position on the road chosen by the hon. Prime Minister or that chosen by my leader? What guarantee have we got that in terms of the Prime Minister’s policies, once having granted political independence to the Transkei or one of the other territories, this political power will be exercised in a responsible manner? What guarantee have we got that once these Bantu leaders arise, they will not unite amongst themselves, or with Bantu states across the borders of the Republic? What guarantee has the hon. Prime Minister that they will not take such political action? Is there a greater or lesser danger for South Africa in the hon. Prime Minister’s policies or in the policies of this side of the House? What control will there be over these independent Bantu states once they have got their political independence? Once you have granted political freedom you will be unable to take it back.

What about Basutoland?

Our road of slowly building together bonds of friendship between White and non-White and understanding between the White and the Black African, of exercising trusteeship, will lead to an eventual race federation where true security will rest for the future of White South Africa. This is a future which the erstwhile leader of the hon. Minister of Finance once foresaw for South Africa. I refer to the late Dr. Malan. It was on that policy, Sir, that the Nationalist Party originally came to power. I have here a statement made by the late Dr. Malan to a United States clergyman who asked him to outline the future of South Africa as he saw it in regard to race relations. This is what he said—

And then the hon. Prime Minister of the day concluded by saying—

That is what the present hon. Prime Minister is trying to do, not only to draw up a blueprint for 50 years ahead, but according to previous statements made by him, for future generations a 100 years hence. Dr. Malan continued—

That is precisely the road chosen by the United Party because we recognize that you cannot for ever fix development and the limits of human development. Mankind advances, Sir, it is no longer only a question of what is best in the interest of the non-Whites in South Africa; it is also a question of what is the best policy to secure the interest of White South Africa. That is the kernel of the future political struggle. That is why we have this war of nerves to-day in regard to an election or not, because it is on that issue as to how best to preserve White South Africa that you have the internal war going on within the ranks of the Nationalist Party to-day and the hon. Minister of Finance knows it. The hon. the Minister of Finance knows what is going on in his own ranks. I would not be surprised if the hon. the Minister of Finance is partly responsible for this election war of nerves, conducted by the Burger, because he has a great influence with that newspaper. Because that war of nerves is being conducted in an attempt to shut the mouths of members on the Government benches.

That is a lie.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for Ventersdorp entitled to say that the hon. member is telling a lie?

I did not say that the hon. member was telling a lie. I said that if that is being said, it is a lie—not what he says. He did not manufacture the lie.

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

Then I say that it is a fabrication (“ verdigsel ”).

The fact that the hon. member for Ventersdorp reacts in the manner he has to what I said, is because he belongs to one particular camp, the camp of the extremists, and the hon. member for Ventersdorp disagrees with the statements made by leading members of the Afrikaans-speaking community. We know that he does not accept the words of wisdom that are uttered by them, because the struggle that is going on within the Nationalist Party is on the question: Is the road followed by the Prime Minister the right road to preserve the position of the White man in South Africa for the foreseeable future? In the light of all the criticism, even in the view of the hon. Minister of Lands, hon. members know it is a fact that within their own ranks there is this internal struggle going on, and the fact that we are fighting this war of nerves in respect of an election, is to create fear in the bosom of those gentlemen who have views contrary and do not share the same views of the hon. the Prime Minister. And let me say to the hon. the Minister of Finance that he apparently forgets about the speech he made in this House. You see, Mr. Speaker, if there is one Minister in the Cabinet who has to come up against the facts of life it is the hon. the Minister of Finance. He has got to carry the baby for the Government to-day, Sir. The hon. Minister of Finance knows what he is up against. He has got the realism of finance to face, he has got to balance South Africa’s books. He can’t indulge anymore in this idly-wafty talk. He has to balance the books of the nation and he knows when it goes in the red, more than any other Minister. That is why the hon. the Minister of Finance …

I also know what is happening in the Federation.

Sure, and that is why the hon. the Minister of Finance is looking for this reasonable approach in regard to South Africa’s problems. That is why the hon. the Minister of Finance is prepared to make concessions. That is why the hon. Minister of Finance is prepared to find common ground and to talk to the other side to solve South Africa’s problems, because more than any other man in this House, the Minister of Finance knows that the task of the Nationalist Party Government is not only to sell their policy to the White electorate of South Africa, but they have the impossible task of trying to sell it as well to the rest of the world.

Do you think you can sell your policy to the rest of the world?

And unless he can sell his policy to the rest of the world, the confidence that he wants in South Africa to assist him to solve our economic difficulties will not be forthcoming.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, are hon. members opposite allowed to talk aloud when the hon. member is speaking?

If I had any admiration for the hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke) I would feel hurt about his interjection, but the House knows what the position of the hon. member of Karas is amongst his own members. [Time limit.]

I move—

I second.

The House divided:

Ayes—64: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; Dönges, T. E.; du Piessis, P. W.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; le Riche, R.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. L; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Strydom, G. H. F.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse. J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. J. Fouché and J. von S. von Moltke.

Noes—36: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bronkhorst. H. J.: Butcher, R. R.; Cope, J. P.; de Beer, Z. J.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, I. S.; Frielinghaus, H. O.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V. Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Horak, J. L.; Lawrence, H. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Streicher, D. M.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Williams, T. O.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I said last night that the second reading debate had been a record. It seems to me that we have now achieved another record. I understand that the time devoted to this debate on the Appropriation Bill has already exceeded the customary period which is allotted to the motion to go into Committee of Supply. In other words, we have now had a repetition of what we had at the beginning of the Session and of what we have had on many other occasions. I do not have much time to reply, and I only want to say a few words. I had intended dealing with the comparison regarding the United Party’s legacy of 1948 a little more fully and to give a number of pleasant figures —not pleasant for the Opposition—in this regard, but I shall do so in the Other Place.

I would prefer to reply now to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). You know, it is always characteristic that when the United Party are in difficulties, the hon. member for Yeoville is called in as a sort of sick comforter. He has had to try to infuse fresh courage and he has had to try to revive their morale so that they could take a little fresh courage, particularly with a view to the ideas which they have regarding an election. When the hon. member rose, I could see in what position the United Party found itself. But even the medicine of the best of doctors eventually becomes a little impotent, and if I am to judge by the speeches which followed his, then I can only say that the infusion which the hon. member wanted to give, rather diminished their courage, because there was very little enthusiasm, there was very little life in the speeches which followed that of the hon. member for Yeoville. It is also self-evident when one knows a little more about the hon. member for Yeoville that his words do not easily make an impression once he has addressed the same audience more than once. I think that if I tell the House that this is because there is serious doubt as to the reliability of his arguments and his sense of responsibility, the House will understand why he has not succeeded in giving very much encouragement to hon. members on his side of the House. I just want to illustrate this by referring to the speech we have heard to-day. The hon. member has put forward five points to which the Government has supposedly not replied. The first which he has mentioned was a question which the Leader of the Opposition put to me, namely, how am I going to finance the R30,000,000 deficit on my Loan Account? The hon. member for Yeoville has said that I did not answer that question. Well, I have my Hansard report here.

I have a copy as well.

Very well, then the hon. member must look at page V.8. There I said—

This is the question which the hon. member says I have not answered. I continued—

Then there were interjections, and I said—

I told him: That is the answer. Even if there is a maximum deficit of R30,000,000, in reality we started with an unexpected surplus of R26,500,000, and that will be more than sufficient. And I now want to give the assurance that it will in fact be more than sufficient to meet any deficit on the subscriptions to the loan. But the hon. member for Yeoville has dared to say in this House, in which this speech had been made a short while before, that no reply has been given! This was a shattering reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because it showed that he had not really studied or had any knowledge of the matter which he was discussing.

I was referring to the next loan which you will have to float.

I dealt with the next loan in the same statement, and I told him that there were two future loans. I can read it to the House, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not stub his toe on the same stone twice—there are many animals which do not even do so. I then said—

I said that we would be able to meet those further loans because we would be able to convert a higher proportion than was the position in the case of this loan, and we also considered that as a result of the steps we have now taken, the capital position would be far sounder than at present. This is all contained in my speech. I answered all these questions, but the hon. member with his customary unreliability says that I have not given any reply!

I now come to the second question which he maintains has not been answered. I have supposedly not replied to the “wonderful” speech of the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) on agricultural matters. We heard that speech. I went to the crux of the matter. The trend of her speech was that agriculture was now in dire difficulties, and that if our agricultural industry is not actually bankrupt. it is now on the very brink of bankruptcy. What did I then do? I gave the one answer which was conclusive to this whole type of argument. I showed that the contribution of the agricultural industry to the national income during one year, during last year, had risen by R42,000,000 as compared with the contribution made during the preceding year. How could I have answered that question more effectively? But the hon. member says that the Government has not answered this question!

The third question related to the “wonderful” speech of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) who has discussed the short-term loans, and has said that we have so many short-term loans and that we are now having to accept long-term obligations on the basis of short-term loans. You know, Mr. Speaker, I did say that this was not the first time that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) had put that question. But despite this. I once again gave him the reply which I gave him at the beginning of the year during the Budget debate, and I told him that the percentage of our short-term loans as against our total loans is far lower than the percentage in other countries. It is far less than it was during the régime of the United Party and I told him …

He just did not understand it.

That may be so. In any case I repeated the answer for him once again, and I repeated it in full. But the hon. member has risen once again—and what is more he had a copy of my speech before him—and he has had the temerity to say that these questions have not been answered! The hon. member’s difficulty is, of course, that the answers are not to his liking.

And then he asked two further questions on which this side of the House has supposedly been silent. The one relates to South West Africa and the other to the Common Market. The first three questions which the hon. member claims I have not answered, were examples of the unreliability of the hon. member for Yeoville, because they have been answered fully, and the latter two questions relating to South-West and the Common Market are examples of the hon. member’s lack of a sense of responsibility. If the hon. member will only consider the matter for a moment and if he really has a sense of responsibility, he will realize that if we wish to achieve the position that I assume both he and I would like to achieve, then these are diplomatic matters which should not be discussed in public, and if hon. members on this side of the House have not replied, it is only because this side of the House has a proper realization of its responsibilities.

I now come back to the hon. member’s allegations regarding the wonderful legacy which we supposedly took over in 1948, and he read from the speech made at the time by the late Mr. Havenga in introducing his first Budget in August 1948. Hon. members will remember that I said that the difficulty was that at that time we were faced with a tremendous deficit on our balance of trade current account, but that this was concealed by the fact that so much capital had come in. The public did not know what the true position was. The hon. member for Yeoville has now told us what the Minister of Finance said at that time, but he conceals the crucial point, namely, that although we had these great capital reserves in 1948 when we came into power, although the country had those accumulated funds, the country’s shelves were empty.

I mentioned that, and you say I concealed it.

Let us now examine what the Minister said at that time. If the hon. member mentioned this, then I do not understand his argument. After all the point is quite clear. I just want to read what Mr. Havenga said at the time—

He did not read that.

Mr. Havenga went on to say—

Then he went on to say that the Union was in the most fortunate position that it had been able to save the money required for future purchases of such goods in the form of gold. During those war years when we were unable to import, the money which would normally have left the country was kept in this country, and while we had a great deal of money in the country we had nothing on our shelves and there was a great backlog. That was the crux of our difficulties in 1948 because at that time we had these vast sums of money which were chasing goods, and that was an inflationary position. Because what happened at that time? The first thing that happened was that domestic prices rose and as a result our manufacturers were unable to compete on the export markets because they had to pay higher wages and prices in this country. And does the House know, the hon. member speaks of a wonderful legacy, but as a result of the factors I have mentioned, this same Minister Havenga (whom the hon. member for Yeoville now praises) had to devalue 15 months later, after taking over this legacy. Even Mr. Havenga could not prevent this. There is the answer. Even Mr. Havenga could not prevent it. The position was so rotten under the circumstances I have mentioned that it was impossible for him to do so.

I have many comparative figures which I could use, but if one wants to compare two periods while the value of money has changed, a direct comparison is not possible because the value of money has changed. But there are certain tests that one can apply and in respect of which it does not matter whether money has changed in value or not because one can take it as a percentage of one’s national income. I do not want to embarrass the hon. member unduly by doing so. He has referred to the Land Bank and the Land Bank allegedly cannot fulfil its function in respect of the farmers. I think that is his argument. I just want to tell him that at 31 December 1947, the amount outstanding in the case of the Land Bank in the form of loans to farmers and co-operatives was R70.000.000, and at 31 December 1960. it was R289.000.000. In recent years the Land Bank has been able to fulfil the functions expected of a Land Bank to a far greater extent than in the past. It is not the only provider of agricultural credit, but it has been far better able to play its part. In the past. when we still had to make provision for the Land Bank on our Loan Account, we never made more than R10.000.000 per annum available. When it started to stand on its own feet, it had to advance during the first year— because there was a tremendous backlog. and this, of course, cannot be kept up—£30.000,000 or R60.000.000 in respect of the various types of credit which it can provide.

I have discussed what the President of the Reserve Bank has said, namely, that there was a deficit on current account of £120,000,000 or R240.000.000. That was his estimate. At that time the final figures were not yet available. But if hon. members would examine the figures for 1947, they would find that in actual fact the deficit on the balance of payments current account was not R240,000,000, but R368,000,000. If one deducts the £25,000,000 which had to be paid in respect of lend-lease, this still leaves R318,000,000 as the deficit in the final year of the United Party’s regime, and I ask the House: Compare these figures with the figures relating to the current account for this year, and then the House will find that it is R21,000,000 and if one goes back another year, it is still more. The hon. member has referred to the tremendous imports. Let us examine a little what the imports were. In 1947 they only totalled R610,000,000. In 1960 they totalled Rl,131,000,000. Then the hon. member has also discussed capital formation. In 1947 the figure was R512,000,000; in 1960 it was R 1,150,000,000. I do not want to go into that point any further. I just want to warn the hon. member that if he wishes to discuss the finances of the country, he must ensure that his skates are in very good condition. It is a dangerous sphere to enter if one does not have the required skill. The hon. member is in a difficult position and I do not want to underestimate his difficulties. He had to infuse a little courage into his colleagues, and he has probably done his best. But if we are to judge by the result, then, no matter how much I should like to do so, I really cannot congratulate the hon. member for Yeoville.

I just want to say a few words to the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin). He has made an interesting speech, but he has also not given an answer to the crux of the whole debate, namely, whether the economic crisis in which we find ourselves, that is to say as regards our balance of payments as it affects our capital account, is due to the racial policy of the Government. The hon. member has made generalizations and vague statements. Hon. members cannot get away from the fact that, while the Federation is following a racial policy which is very close to that of the hon. member for Pinelands, it is experiencing far more serious difficulties in this field than we are. The hon. member has quoted from an interview which Mr. Hurter of Volkskas has given. But he did not quote this extract which I want to read. It did not relate directly to his point and I do not blame him for not doing so, but this is nevertheless something in which there is so much truth that I want to repeat it here. Mr. Hurter said—

I hope the hon. member will also agree that any attempt of this nature is to be deplored. I concluded my reply to the second reading debate with these words: “ We shall succeed if we just have the necessary courage, faith and, specially loyalty ”, and I want to conclude on this occasion by saying: “ When I examine the signs outside I believe that in this new republican era which we have now entered, that loyalty will be found to a far larger extent, even if it is not often to be found in this House. But it is to be found amongst the people outside and nothing which any political party can do, can halt this strong desire which is present amongst all the people who love South Africa, to stand with us and to protect the Republic against those who wish to sabotage it.

Original motion put, and the House divided:

Ayes—63: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; Dönges, T. E.; du Piessis, P. W.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C. Grobler, M. S. F.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; le Riche, R.; Luttig. H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Pelser. P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Strydom, G. H. F.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. J. Fouché and J. von S. von Moltke.

Noes—39: Basson, J. A. L.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Butcher, R. R.; Cope, J. P.; de Beer, Z. J.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, I. S.; Frielinghaus, H. O.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Horak, J. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lawrence, H. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.: Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Streicher, D. M.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Waterson, S. F.; Williams, T. O.

Tellers: H. C. de Kock and A. Hopewell.

Original motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

During the second reading of the debate I raised the question of the definitions in this Bill. The hon. the Minister replied to me and tried to give an explanation as to why this nomenclature has been imported into this Bill. In those circumstances, of course, I had no right to reply, but this Committee stage presents to me the opportunity to do so. I want to say that I think when we are dealing with legislation of this kind and we are giving the Bantu people the first right to form councils of their own under urban conditions, where they will have the right to be represented by their own representatives, we should at any rate use the right terms to describe the people for whom we are legislating. We know from our own experience how, when a word is taken from our own language, particularly when it is a word which applies to us as a personal name, there is nothing that hurts peoples’ feelings more than to feel they are being referred to in language, which has been corrupted and is being used in the form of which they disapprove.

There can be no doubt about that language. We can, of course, enforce that by Statute, but surely that is not what we are trying to do. We are trying to take with us the representatives of millions of Bantu in our urban areas. In that case the word “Bantu” has not got the same meaning as the word “native”— that is, “native” for the purpose of the proceeding Act which is referred to here. The word “native” is the singular, and the word “Bantu” is the plural form. Why should we say, by Statute, that the word in its plural form has the same meaning as the singular? Why not use the singular form? The hon. the Minister gave us a sort of schoolroom lecture the other day, and let me now reply to him.

You are just wasting our time.

Who are you to talk?

If the hon. member talks about wasting time why does he not go and have a cup of coffee and let people who want to work get on with the job? He can come in when the closure is moved.

This word has an Nguni origin, as the hon. the Minister said, and in that language all nouns and names finish in a vowel. But in pronunciation the penultimate vowel is lengthened and the ulitmate vowel has a tendency to be elided. So that whilst you always finish with a vowel, in fact you commence with a vowel, you never commence with a consonant. Where you have a noun or a proper name in any of the Nguni languages, that applies. We spell this, and we pronounce it “Bantu”, and because we spell it wrongly there is a tendency for us to pronounce it wrongly by lengthening the penultimate vowel, and calling it “Baantu”. Because we lengthen the penultimate vowel we also stress the ultimate vowel, the “u”. That is not the proper pronunciation. We should elide the ultimate vowel. It should be “Abantu” The root word, as the hon. the Minister said quite correctly, “ ntu ”—a person, and the singular form “Umuntu” is what should be there to represent a native. And the plural form is “Abantu”. “Abantu” should have the same meaning as “natives” and “Umuntu” should have the same meaning as “native”. I again make this plea, because I say when we are giving the Bantu this right for the first time why should we start off by making a mistake of that kind in regard to the name of the people. Let us mess up their language if we are going to do it, but not their name. People have a curious sensitivity in regard to the names by which they are called.

Call the Minister an African and see how he reacts.

That gives me an idea. That shows how it would run. An African is also referred to as a native, and if a Bantu is to be the same as a native, can we call the Minister an African and, by the same token, call him a Bantu? Of course we cannot. But that is how the misuse of names in language comes about.

I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to make the necessary amendment here, either by letting this clause stand over and doing it in this House and coming back with a simple amendment, or by doing it elsewhere. But do not let it be said that we are mishandling the native language where the respect due to their own name for themselves is involved. This is not our name for them. If we are going to give them a name of our own and call them natives or Africans, that is our business but when we use their own name for themselves, do not let us mishandle it. I make this appeal to the hon. the Minister.

Of course quite a number of the things said by the hon. member are quite true. I just want to say that this reference is of course really only a legal reference. In all previous Acts the word “Native” is used. Here we changed it to the word “Bantu”. We are inserting this reference to put it beyond all doubt in every court that “Bantu” means “Native”. The hon. member will agree that this is the correct procedure.

I now come to the interesting standpoint adopted by the hon. member and I want to say that if we had only Nguni in South Africa I would have agreed with him 100 per cent. I think he is quite correct there. But now we should not forget that we also have Sotho, and they do not talk of Umuntu or Abantu. They talk of Motho and Batho. We also have the Vendas, who again use other words. Therefore, if we have to refer to every national group it means that we have to include such a word for each of these national groups, which makes the position simply impossible. But I repeat that the International Institute of African Languages and Cultures, after serious consideration by a panel of experts, selected this term as the possible term which would be acceptable to the Bantu peoples. I can give the hon. member this assurance, that 99 per cent of the Bantu-speaking people, and particularly of the national groups in South Africa, are particularly proud of the word “Bantu”. They do not wish to use anything else. There is the unfortunate phenomenon that one finds many of those who have strayed who insist on the use of the term “African”. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) said: Call the Minister by that name and see what the reaction is. Now I can only say that I am an African and I am very proud of it. In that sense it is the correct name. I repeat that I have much sympathy with the hon. member’s approach to the matter if there were only Zulus here. But we have a number of national groups in South Africa—at least eight main national groups, and in view of that fact it is best to put it this way.

The hon. the Minister has missed the whole point of the argument. The Government are the people who have chosen this word “Bantu”. It is not the Zulus or the Sotho or the Venda, it is the Government who have chosen to use the word “Bantu”.

No, the Institute of African Languages and Culture.

The hon. the Minister knows the background to the word “Bantu”. He knows that it developed from the original Ur-Bantu, which was the original language from which all the Bantu languages developed. But he has chosen a word from a living language. We have a law which says “person” in the singular. When that is in the plural it is “persons”. We do not say, because we use the word “person” in English we are going to use the same word singular or plural. We do not say “persons ” we say “person” in the singular. The Government has chosen to use the word “Bantu” which is a word in a living language, a language which this Government is teaching in the schools. If in the schools a person were referred to by a pupil as “Bantu” that would be marked wrong and a mark would be deducted from him. Is the hon. the Minister for Bantu Education teaching in his schools that the word “Bantu” means “person”, or is he teaching that “Umuntu” is “person” and that “Abantu” is “people”? In the schools he is teaching the correct Zulu grammar. He is teaching the language as it is used, as it is written and as it exists. The Minister of Bantu Education would not allow his schools to use a wrong word, so why does he allow his colleague, the hon. the Minister for Bantu Administration and Development, to use a word which is incorrect and ungrammatical?

The clause is quite clear on this point. It says—

But it does not. That is not true. That is a false statement.

This hon. Minister is asking this Committee to pass legislation which is palpably and clearly false. He is asking us to make a false statement as the Parliament of South Africa. I cannot use the word which other people would apply to the making of false statements, because it would be unparliamentary, but this Minister wants us to do that. I therefore propose to move as an amendment—

That is the correct word. The English word is “Native”, and the translation of that is “Umuntu”.

Order! The hon. member may not move to insert a word which is not an English or an Afrikaans word.

In that case, Mr. Chairman, the word “Bantu” does not belong in this Bill, because that is neither an English nor an Afrikaans word. I take that as a point of order before continuing my address.

I shall give a reply to the hon. member in a few minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this clause reads—

It seems to me it is intended that the word “Bantu” in this Act should have the same meaning as the word “Native” in the principal Act.

Order, order! Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?

No, I am trying to assist the Minister.

I do not think it is necessary to reply to the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). I cannot possibly accept that amendment because it is totally out of context. In fact, the Bantu will blame us if we do. It will make him look ridiculous, and I cannot allow the House to make him look ridiculous.

I think the hon the Minister is making a mistake when he refers to the House making them look ridiculous in connection with a matter affecting the national feelings of a large section of the population of South Africa. Let me put it to the hon. the Minister this way. Often when the Afrikaner people are referred to, the name “Afrikaander” is used, with two “a’s” and an “n” and a “d”. In the one case it denotes a breed of cattle and in the other case it is a word which does not exist. It hurts the feelings of the Afrikaner when such a word is used, and is it not possible that the feelings of the Native population will also be hurt if a wrong name is used for them? There is, e.g., the very fundamental difference, which we do not always realize, between the words “Scotch” and “Scottish”. Anyone who comes from Scotland will immediately tell you—I think the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) will support me here—that one cannot talk about “the Scotch language”. One talks about “the Scottish language”. This is another case where we should be very careful in the choice of words. I ask the hon. the Minister please to reconsider his decision.

I am participating in the debate on this particular point because the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) has adopted an attitude which indicates to me that he is approaching this matter in a completely unrealistic way. and also to help you, Mr. Chairman, regarding the question he has asked, namely whether “Bantu” is a Bantu word, a word which belongs to the Bantu language only, and whether for that reason it is not out of place in the Bill. The point here is that we are not dealing with a Bill which has been drawn up in the Zulu language. If only the Zulu language had been involved, he and the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) would have been quite correct. We are dealing with more than the Zulu language, as the hon. the Minister has indicated. Here we are dealing with Afrikaans and English, and in Afrikaans and English, just as in all Bantu languages in South Africa, it is regarded as a common word which comes closest to conveying what is really meant. It is for that reason that the International Institute eventually created this word as one which comes closest to complying with the actual language requirements of the various Bantu languages, and for that reason it can be taken into all these languages as defining the Bantu people in general. For that reason it can also be taken into the Afrikaans and English languages as the word which is suitable for use in referring to these groups of people. That is the point. This is not a violation of the Zulu language itself. It is a fact that the Zulu language has perhaps succeeded in producing the word which is suitable for all languages because it is nearer to the word used in the Zulu language than in any other—actually it is the Umguni group which has produced this word. In the case of the Sotho group it is also very much the same thing. From these two together has come this word which comes closest to expressing this concept. The word “Bantu” is for this reason an Afrikaans word, an English word, a Zulu word, and a Sotho word which gives expression to this concept. The concept “Bantu” can be used in the singular and the plural just as the concept “Afrikaner”, One can speak of “Afrikaner” and it indicates the whole group. One can speak of the Afrikaner nation, of Afrikaner people and one can speak of Bantu people. I do not think it is necessary to go into the philological details. It is sufficient that the International Institute for Bantu Languages and Cultures has chosen this word to indicate this concept.

In regard to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) I must point out that the word “Muntu” cannot be accepted. “Bantu” is the word used both in Afrikaans and English.

I would like to put it to the Minister of Bantu Education that he has said that “Bantu” is accepted as the word which covers the group, that you talk of a Bantu council and the Bantu people. In that sense it is an adjective. In this sense he is using it as a noun, as a person. That is a different matter. I put it to him that the same word cannot be used to describe the group, the individual in the singular and the people in the plural.

But I can say “Jy is ’n onnosel” and I can also say "Jy is ’n onnosel mens ”.

The Minister is always wrong. He should have said “Ek is onnosel”. I want to put this point pertinently, that the word “Bantu” is the word used by the Minister collectively; in this context it is used in the singular to refer to one person, and I challenge him to show me any definition which says that “Bantu” refers to a person in the singular, and which has been accepted internationally. “Bantu”, meaning a group, has been accepted and recognized, but I challenge either of those Ministers to show me where “Bantu” indicates a person in the singular, and until the Minister is able to do that, we cannot accept his argument.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I wish to move the amendment standing in the name of Mrs. Suzman on the Order Paper—

This provision introduces the principle of ethnic grouping into municipal government. This principle was developed by the Government in the reserves and it was introduced, against the wishes of many of the urban local authorities, into housing in the urban areas, and now the Minister wishes to extend it further into the sphere of municipal government. We believe it is quite out of place here. We are completely opposed to the extension of the principle of ethnic grouping into municipal administration. The great majority of Africans in the towns regard themselves primarily as Africans and not as members of a particular national unit. It may be true, as the Minister claims, that the great majority of them retain their link with their tribe in the reserves, but not to the extent of wanting to be divided into groups on an ethnic basis. There is a great difference between being proud of being a Zulu or a Xhosa and wanting to be separated in the towns along ethnic lines for administrative purposes. We are convinced that the majority of Africans in the towns are much more interested in the things they have in common with other Africans than in their ethnic differences. I think that is proved by the extent to which Africans in the towns are intermarrying. According to the report of the Centlivres Commission, only 66 per cent of Xhosa men in the Johannesburg area married Xhosa women. The rest married women of other ethnic groups. The figure for the North Sothos is even lower; only 53 per cent of the North Sotho men in that area were married to North Sotho women. Just as most English and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans regard themselves primarily as South Africans rather than as members of the English or the Afrikaans group, in the case of the Africans I believe that they regard themselves primarily as Africans and not as members of a particular ethnic group. I believe the Government has introduced this principle into municipal government as an extension of its policy of Bantu self-government on an ethnic basis. If the Government cannot attach the Bantu in the towns to a particular ethnic group based on the reserves, clearly they cannot justify denying the Africans in the towns real rights there. We are opposed to the policy and with the Centlivres Commission we believe that it will perpetuate the divisions between the African people rather than build up their unity.

Quite apart from the principle, the provision gives rise to very serious practical difficulties, because what the Government proposes is not a council based on an area—that is provided for in sub-paragraph (a)—but what is provided for in (b) is a council for the people of a particular national unit wherever they may live, in the local authority area, even though people of other national units may live amongst them. In a town where there are Africans of more than one ethnic group living mixed up together, one would therefore have the jurisdiction of the different ethnic urban councils overlapping. That is the clear result of Clause 2 (1) (b). That causes very obvious difficulties when one considers the powers which these urban councils may be given; e.g. in terms of Section 4 the urban council may be given power to lay out the area. Where the jurisdiction of two ethnic councils overlap, which one will have the power to lay out the area, or to remove the persons resident in that area, to take another power? To take it even further, there is also power provided for in Section 4 (2) for the management and control of an area. Which of the two ethnic councils will have that power? Clearly there is a conflict and I want to ask the Minister whether he will not rise at once and give us some further information as to how he will reconcile the powers given to two different ethnic councils which may have jurisdiction over the same area.

In his second reading speech the Minister said that in certain cases, at least, residential areas are already divided on an ethnic basis, and therefore if one establishes a council for an area it may well be that that council can be established on an ethnic basis. If that is so, in those cases it is not necessary to have ethnic councils. But that is not the position everywhere. There are many urban areas where members of different ethnic groups live together, and in those cases, if the Minister wants to establish councils on an ethnic basis, it is clear that their areas of jurisdiction must overlap. I will be very pleased if the Minister will get up at once to give us an indication of the kind of powers which he envisages may be given to an urban council established on an ethnic basis.

Before the Minister gets up, I would like to put a point to him and when he replies to the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) he might deal with this point. The hon. member used the term “ethnic group”, and that is the term which has been used since the early stages of the Group Areas Act, but I am not aware that it has ever been defined. This Bill speaks of a national unit and they are defined in Section 2 of Act 46 of 1949. It refers to national units. The Bill before us does not define “ethnic groups”. Act 46 of 1949 goes on to give the national units. I would like to hear from the Minister whether he considers that all those sections of the Bantu people, the North Sotho, South Sotho, Tswana, etc., do not comprise an ethnic group. They may be national units, as indeed they are. For one thing, the law says they are, so legally they are, but I do not think he is on such good ground when he divides the Sotho into South and North Sotho. It may be that they claim that they are one Sotho nation.

I cannot see how this point is at issue.

It is at issue because it deals with the question of ethnic grouping.

But the Bill refers to national units.

Then I will deal with it from the angle of national units. These national units dealt with in the Bill are not tribes. I think the term “ethnic group” is probably out of order in so far as its application to this particular clause and the succeeding clauses is concerned where they are called national units, or different national units. Is the position that we have to leave out of consideration other definitions than the definition of national units in this Act? In other words, should terms like “ethnic groups” be left out of the discussion?

I can rule that from the Chair. That is so. Other definitions must be left out of consideration.

I wish to support the hon member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld). In doing so, I wish to refer to reports that have been made by authorities with regard to the division of people into ethnic groups—into national units. So when the term “ethnic grouping” is referred to here, it means exactly the same thing, the division of people into national units. We are opposing this division of people into national units. In dividing the Bantu in the urban areas into national units, the idea is that there will be a great deal of difficulty in administration.

Order! The division into national units is not under discussion.

What is under discussion is the creation of separate Bantu councils on national-unit lines, and that is what I take exception to, because to do that will create difficulties in administration and will lead to antagonism between the different groups in the council. In support of that I wish to quote two authoritative statements. The one is a report by the non-European Affairs Department of the City Council of Johannesburg to the Council itself. In this report, on this very question of division into different groups, it is stated as follows—

The point here is that it is proposed to segregate them into different tribes for the purposes of having different councils. This aspect was clearly demonstrated many years ago at the Wemmer Native Hostel, when a particular employer insisted on engaging only Natives from one particular tribe in order to have all his employees together. The report goes on to detail how that led to emphasis being put on the tribal spirit, which again induced others of different tribes round about also to come together on a tribal basis. This report was dated 1958. As the result of that there were clashes, because antagonism arose between the different groups, and there was serious trouble and rioting.

Now the Centlivres Commission has been referred to and I want to refer to the relevant part of the report of the Commission which considered this very question at page 73 of the report—

They came to the same conclusion as the manager of the non-European Affairs Department to which I have referred. They said—

My point is that by projecting this system of division into the urban areas and putting the stamp of approval on it and making the division more sharp. Through creating these councils, I believe it will introduce a dangerous element and that the trend should be in the opposite direction. That is why the hon. member for East London (North) has moved his amendment.

There is something I am not quite clear about, and I shall be glad if the Minister will explain it to me. In paragraph (a) the local authority may establish a council for any urban Bantu residential area in its jurisdiction or any portion of such area or for any such area and such portion for two or more such areas or two or more portions of such areas jointly. In terms of that paragraph, I take it the local authority, if in the residential area under its control there are three different national units but separated into different areas in that one area, it could establish a council for each of those national units in terms of (a). In terms of (b), the council could also do that, but it seems to me that the local authority could establish separate councils for different national units, having control over the same area where the members of those national units live amongst each other and are not separated. I want to know from the Minister whether that is his intention, to give two or more councils having jurisdiction over the same area.

Of course not.

I will be glad if the hon. member will get up and tell us then, because it seems to me that (b) is quite unnecessary and that the Minister can do all he wants to do under (a). I will be glad if the Minister will explain why he put in (b) unless it is to do what I have suggested, i.e. to have more than one council for the same area.

In the first place I want to reply to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchel). His difficulty relates to the terminology which we are using, namely “ethnic units”. We know that the term “ethnic units” is one that is generally used in classifying certain national groups. In Europe they refer to an ethnic unit which belongs to the European race. This is more of a scientific term which anthropologists use and which does not really have much significance. But when we come to the idea of a national unit—the hon. member says he regards the Zulus as a national unit. That is quite correct. When one wants to indicate that concept it is anthropologically speaking also quite correct to speak of a “national unit”. That is the common term which is used throughout the world. The hon. member doubts whether we are correct when we refer to the South Sotho, the North Sotho and the Tswana national units and actually these are three groups which belong to the same language group. But there is the belief amongst the Bantu themselves whereby the South Sotho regard themselves as a national unit. They refuse to accept that they are part of the North Sotho. In the same way one finds that the North Sotho national group which consists of a number of tribes regards itself as a national unit, and so do the Tswana. The hon. member knows that there are the Nguni and there we have the same phenomenon. There is the Zulu national unit, but in the same way the Xhosa insist that they are also a national unit and the same applies to the Swazis. Thus as far as this classification is concerned, the word which the Bantu want is also the word which the Whites want, namely “national units that is why we have chosen this expression. It is a term which is based to a very large extent on the desires of the various Bantu population groups themselves.

Hon. members have expressed doubts regarding the establishment of the various national units in the Bantu areas. I just want to tell the hon. member for East London (North) this. He has alleged that these people themselves prefer not to be separated into separate national units; they prefer to live in a mixed community. I want to challenge the hon. member to do a little research in a few locations as I once did. I investigated this matter in all the large locations, at Durban, Port Elizabeth, Cape Town and elsewhere, long before I became a Minister. Thereafter I also had sample surveys carried out. They showed that the Bantu were very unhappy when they were grouped together in one residential area.

That was not the finding of the Centlivres Commission.

I am coming to that Commission. I say that they are very unhappy. To satisfy the hon. member fully, I challenge him to investigate this matter and I shall make my own time available to him, if possible in order to investigate this matter and I am convinced that he will change his mind. The Bantu do not like being grouped together in one location. One finds a percentage of the Bantu who are denationalized, who advocate exactly the reverse, namely the grouping together of all the Bantu, not only in the Bantu residential areas, but also in the rest of South Africa, but not only the rest of South Africa, but also the rest of Africa. These however are those who have strayed away. Now the hon. member says it has been found that 60 per cent of the Xhosas are not married to women who do not belong to the same group. I must honestly say that I have some doubts regarding this conclusion because my experience has been as follows: One does find Xhosas in Durban for example and also in Johannesburg and elsewhere who live with women of other national groups—with Sotho women for example.

Order! Is the hon. the Minister not going a little too far now? We are now discussing the establishment of urban Bantu councils.

The hon. member has quoted this as a fact showing that such a council should not be established and I am now just giving him the facts—the opposite facts.

Yes, but the hon. the Minister should not cover too wide a field. Nor shall I allow questions which go outside the scope of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I would prefer that and I shall abide by your ruling. When the hon. member mentions an incorrect fact, one just wants to prove that it is incorrect. As I have said, there are these cases, but when one examines them, one finds that in nearly 90 per cent of these cases the Xhosas are not married to these women—they live with them. This is actually a problem with which I am faced in nearly all these places. As a matter of fact, they take pleasure in stealing occasionally from a woman who belongs to another national unit if they can do so. This is one of the problems which is once and for all inherent in the behaviour of the Bantu. The hon. member says that he relies on the report of the Centlivres Commission. I just want to repeat what I have said on a previous occasion, namely that the report of which I and every scientist—and I am not a scientist—take the least notice, is the report of the Centlivres Commission which is absolutely unfounded. As far as this matter is concerned, the hon. member must please not quote the Centlivres Commission report to me. I just also want to tell him that he should not quote that report before an ethnologist or an anthropologist.

The hon. the Minister must please come back to the clause. The Centlivres Commission also has nothing to do with this clause.

The hon. member has also quoted from the report of the Johannesburg non-White Affairs Committee. May I reply to that, Mr. Chairman?

Briefly.

I just want to say that I attach no value to that report either. I say that with all due respect. Here I want to challenge the hon. member once again: Let us go together and examine the clashes which have taken place between the various ethnic groups in Johannesburg before they were separated on an ethnic basis and since they have been separated on that basis. He will find that this ethnic division has reduced the clashes by nearly 75 per cent. Experience has shown that this division is sound. Hon. members have put forward the objection that if we establish such an ethnic council, how will it work in practice as far as the administration is concerned? That is why I am making provision here for two types of council, the one which is established on an ethnic basis and the other which is established on a regional basis. Here especially it is the intention to consult the Bantu themselves to let them decide what type of council they want—one established on an ethnic basis or one established on the ordinary basis. In practice this will be worked out in consultation with them, together with the city council. I have already said that in most cases we already have almost complete ethnic division. Take Cape Town for example. I do not have the exact figures here; I can make them available to hon. members, but the overwhelming majority of Bantu in Cape Town are Xhosas and they want an ethnic council—I am quite convinced of that. Thus we find in East London, for example, that they are nearly all Xhosas and in Port Elizabeth about 90 per cent of them are Xhosas. In Bloemfontein 90 per cent of the Bantu are Basutos. We therefore have no difficulty in this regard. I have already said that in Johannesburg itself nearly 76 per cent of the various Bantu residential areas are already on an ethnic basis; but here we must be practical and work the matter out with the Bantu. The hon. member has asked me how it will work in practice if the Bantu in the same Bantu residential area ask for, say, two ethnic councils. I do not see any difficulty there, because in respect of many matters for which the residential area concerned asks itself, there will of course be direct liaison, and if there are matters of common interest, it will of course mean that the two ethnic councils will have to meet to deal with such matters from time to time. We shall therefore have no difficulty in that regard. I now just want to give hon. members this information. Last year already I appointed a commission consisting of officials of the Department who are actively concerned with these matters, and their experience has been that the overwhelming majority of the Bantu would like to have these ethnic councils. But I want to assure hon. members that it will be worked out on a practical basis together with the Bantu. If they do not want an ethnic council, they will have their regional council. There is no question of us wanting to force something on them. We would prefer the process to develop in co-operation with them and we shall work it out with them.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has asked me with reference to paragraphs (a) and (b) whether one of these paragraphs is not superfluous. He has asked whether one of these paragraphs does not make sufficient provision for the division which we want. I have discussed the matter carefully with my law advisers and we have found that the clause as it stands will best serve the purpose we have in mind so that there cannot be any doubt in cases where doubt could otherwise arise. My law advisers inform me that it is best to word the clause in this way.

Will the hon. the Minister explain to me what power paragraph (b) gives which he does not have under paragraph (a) unless it is to establish more than one council for one area? Is that the only purpose which it serves or does it serve another purpose as well?

The main purpose is actually to lay down that we can establish different councils in terms of (a) for the areas concerned so that we can divide a particular area into different areas.

I have listened with interest to the hon. the Minister’s explanation because quite frankly when I read sub-section (b) I could not see why it had been inserted unless it was for this purpose of having several councils or more than one council for the same area. I really did not think that the hon. the Minister could do such a silly thing as to try to establish different councils for different national units to serve the same area. Sir, can you imagine what is going to happen? You are going to have the Zulu national unit and the Sothos and the Xhosas living in the same area and each group asking for its own council, each group having control and jurisdiction over the same area.

Or portion of the same street.

Yes. There is the question of the expenditure and the collection of revenue. One council will want to do one thing, the other council will want to do another thing, and if anything is going to encourage hostility between the different groups it is going to be this method of having different councils for the different groups controlling the same area and enjoying the same powers. I cannot see how it is going to work. I think it would be a blunder of the first order to do anything like that.

Then we come to another clause under which courts are established by the different councils. One council may have its member holding a court, another council may have one of its members holding another court; you are going to have different courts in the same area, different courts with jurisdiction in the same area, with different ideas of justice and with hostility on the part of one court to the members of the other group. Sir, it cannot work and I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) and to omit (b).

I just want to refer the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) to what seems to me to be a misconception. The hon. member has said that: “The Minister must establish the various councils ”, but the intention is not that the Minister can establish councils on his own. The clause is surely quite clear. The local authority can establish the councils—the one type or the other—and before the local authority established such a council, it must first consult the existing Bantu advisory board, if there is one, and if there is no such board, it must consult the community.

read (3).

Mr. Chairman, may I please speak now, and then the hon. member can speak again after me. I gave him an opportunity to put his case and he must now give me an opportunity to put mine. I want to make it quite clear that there is no question of the Minister being obliged to do so under Clause 2 (1). And in 2 (2) it is clearly provided that the local Bantu are to be consulted. I should like the hon. member for Transkeian Territories to listen to me because I do not want to discuss the same point twice. Then, to understand the very clear intention as to the Minister’s share in this matter, the hon. member must read Clause 2 (3). It makes it clear that a council must be established at the request of the Minister if the Bantu, through their local advisory board, have asked for such a council or if he has received such a request from the community. And on what basis must this council be established? If the hon. member will just read it, line 51 of Clause 2 (3) (a) makes it quite clear. It is stated that the Minister must ensure that the local authority, that is to say the municipality, establishes the Bantu council in accordance with the request of the Bantu. In other words, the Bantu will be consulted by the local authority. As the Minister has explained, the Bantu will say: “Yes, we want a Bantu council and we want it on a national unit basis or we want it on a geographic basis.” If the municipality concerned does not take steps to establish the council and the Minister is of the opinion that it is desirable and that the local Bantu want it, he will then instruct them to do so and they must then do so in accordance with the request of the Bantu. I think that the intention of the clause is quite clear, particularly when seen in the light of the explanation given by the hon. the Minister.

In reply to the hon. the Deputy Minister, even if the Native advisory board were to ask for the establishment of an urban Bantu council on an ethnic basis, I still feel that it is very undesirable and that an impossible situation will arise if the hon. the Minister establishes more than one urban Bantu council for the same area. The hon. the Minister said that if there were two ethnic councils established for the same area they would consult on certain matters; other matters would be matters of concern only for the one ethnic council or the other and could be dealt with by the ethnic council concerned. In my view an impossible situation would be created. Who would decide whether the matter was one for the two councils sitting together or whether it was a matter for one ethnic council sitting separately? In any event, there is no provision for two ethnic councils to get together to take a decision. It is not provided for in the Bill, so if a matter of common concern does arise, there is no provision for dealing with it in terms of this Bill. The hon. the Minister says that already in most urban areas the great majority of Africans belong to one national unit. For example, he said that in Cape Town almost 90 per cent of the Africans here belonged to the Xhosa group. What will the position be if those Xhosas ask for a council on an ethnic basis? What is going to happen to the other Africans in Cape Town? If you have an urban Bantu council on an ethnic basis, what is going to be the position of the other Africans in Cape Town? So far as I can see there is absolutely no necessity for paragraph (b) on the basis that the Minister has presented it to us, that is to say, that in most areas the Natives are very largely of one ethnic group or, as in the case of Johannesburg, that there are separate areas that are inhabited by one ethnic group only. If that is the position, then the position is fully catered for in paragraph (a); you can establish a council for an area which will in fact serve one ethnic group only. I ask the hon. Minister to delete (b). We are very strongly opposed to it and I am afraid the Minister will meet very strong opposition from us on this paragraph.

I first want to deal with the objection which hon. members have raised in respect of paragraph (b). They consider that everything that is necessary can be done under paragraph (a). I can understand this argument which they have put forward, except that if (b) were to be deleted, one would be deleting the whole concept of the establishment of councils on a national unit basis, because it is paragraph (b) which refers to the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act of 1959, in which these national units are defined. It is with a view to the establishment of councils on a national unit basis that it is essential that paragraph (b) should be inserted in this Bill, and that is why the amendment of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) cannot be accepted. We cannot do without (b). It is certainly not the intention to establish a Bantu council on a national unit basis for an area in which various national units are living completely intermingled so that we have, for example, four different councils all operating in the same area on a national unit basis. I do not think that is the intention. The intention is certainly to eliminate mixed Bantu residential areas gradually, to concentrate the various units gradually in the same area; to declare a certain portion of the residential area to be an area for the Xhosa national unit and another area the residential area of the Zulu national unit. Consequently a gradual rearrangement will take place so that each Bantu will live with his own national unit. That is how we would like to see the position and that it is how it will be done in practice. This legislation will after all not be implemented on an unpractical basis. But the point I want to emphasize is that paragraph (b) cannot be dropped because it embodies the whole consent of the national unit basis. It is referred to later in the Bill in Clauses 3, 4 and 5. Reference is again made later to the national unit basis. If we delete paragraph (b), as the amendment asks, we shall in effect be taking the heart out of the whole legislation.

I cannot say that the hon. the Deputy Minister or the member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) have helped the Minister at all. Let me deal first with the member for Heilbron. He says that paragraph (b) is necessary so that we can have the division into national units. When I asked the Minister just now if (b) was required to bring about several councils representing different units in one area, the member for Heilbron interjected “nonsense”.

I did not interject that.

You did.

I did not. The words I used were “of course not”.

Very well. When I asked the Minister just now if that was the purpose the Minister said that that was the purpose. Sir, the member for Heilbron is a member of the Native Affairs Commission and surely he must have been consulted when this Bill was prepared. If the hon. member as a member of the Native Affairs Commission says that it is not required for this purpose, I want to ask the Minister whether he is certain that it is for the purpose of having several units. Who is right—the Minister or the member of the Native Affairs Commission.

They will have to ask the Prime Minister.

The member for Heilbron says that you have to have (b) so that you can divide the area into different national units. I ask him to read (a) again—I am sorry to say he is a lawyer—and tell me why you cannot do it under (a).

Who said he was a lawyer?

What prevents you from doing it under (a)? Paragraph (a) reads—that an urban local authority may establish an urban Bantu council for—

1. (a) any urban Bantu residential area under its jurisdiction or any portion of such area or for any such area and such portion or two or more such areas or two or more portions of such areas jointly.

Where you have different national units living in the same area, the local authority can establish separate councils for that particular area.

Under (a).

How can you legally define what a national unit is if you have not got (b)?

A national unit is defined in the Act.

It is not defined in this Act. Surely you are a legal man.

The Minister himself admitted that he could establish different councils for different national units under (a) but what you cannot do under (a) is to have several national councils units having control over the same area. We will certainly oppose (b) if that is the sole purpose. In any event, I want to move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit)—

The Deputy Minister in his reply said that there seemed to be some misunderstanding on the part of the Opposition and he wanted to make it quite clear that 2 (1) (a) was only permissive, that it was not compulsory; that the local authority was not compelled to establish several councils for one area, and therefore the Minister need not do it. But I want to refer him to sub-section (3).

You did not follow me.

Sub-section (3) says—

Then the council is compelled to do so. Sir, we are opposed to this.

To what?

To both (a) and (b) of subsection (3). Sir, this would compel a local authority, under (a), to establish an urban Bantu council at the request of a subordinate body like a Native advisory board, and it is not in the interests of good administration. There are numbers of important considerations which must be taken into account before the local authority need approve of such a request, particularly in the matter of finance and the functions of the council. It may be required to undertake the setting up and maintaining of complicated machinery. In the circumstances there should be no compulsion on the local authority, and in the second place I do not think that it should be within the power of the Native advisory board to dictate to the council. It should come by way of request from the advisory board and the matter should be left to the discretion of the council.

Would it not serve your purpose if you substituted “may” for “shall” that the urban local authority may do so and so if requested?

Then it is not necessary because I think the council could do it in any case.

Under (1) (a).

Yes, under (1) (a), so it is not necessary. If the town council refuses any request from the advisory board or the Native community to establish this council, the Minister could, I think, compel the council to do it in terms of Section 41 of the Native Urban Areas Consolidating Act, which says—

I think the hon. Minister has power under this Act to act and can order the council to comply with the request, but if he has not got that power, then he should take some such power in this Bill rather than make it compulsory for municipalities to act at the request of the advisory boards. Our objection to paragraph (b), which gives the hon. Minister the power to compel local authorities to establish an urban Bantu council after consultation with the Bantu community, is that such consultation can take place without reference to the local authority concerned. This is arbitrary and contrary to sound local administration. This provision is also unnecessary if we refer to Section 41 of the Urban Areas Act. I submit that the hon. Minister should be compelled, before taking powers under sub-paragraph (b), to consult with the Native Affairs Commission and to give notice to the local authority concerned that he is considering the matter so that the local authority can make representations to him. Local authorities should be given an opportunity of being heard on this issue.

Why?

That interjection is typical of Government policy! Why should they be heard? Because local authorities are directly affected. This is a democratic Republic and yet that hon. member wants to know why local authorities should be consulted! [Time limit.]

I think that in moving these two amendments on behalf of the hon. member for East London (City) the hon. member for Transkeian Territories has been unfaithful to one principle to which they attach great importance in their own policy. I shall explain that later. Allow me first to sum up the position as it exists at present and as it will be under the provisions of this Bill. Under the present advisory board system, municipalities are obliged to appoint such boards. If the hon. member will read the Urban Areas Act, he will see that the municipalities must appoint advisory boards. It is not a question of can or may, but they must do so. It is obligatory throughout.

I agree on that point.

The fundamental reason for that is surely, as it has always been, that the Bantu must in his own interests, be able to carry out certain functions in his area where he lives, subject of course to the authority of the local municipality. In other words, he is given a share in his own control. The Opposition voted for the second reading of this Bill and have therefore approved of the principle embodied in it. The principle is that the Bantu who are living in their own areas must be given increased powers. That is also the intention in establishing these Bantu councils. In sub-section (3) it is stated that if the advisory board of such a Bantu community—which exists at the moment—itself asks to be vested with these increased powers, that is to say, if it asks to become a Bantu council, but the municipality is unwilling to do so and the Bantu make this request through their organ, then the municipality must comply with that request. It is surely right that if the Bantu consider themselves fitted to exercise these additional powers, that they should be helped to obtain them? There is a further provision to the effect that if the Bantu community want such a council, in other words, if their request does not come through the advisory board, then the Minister can instruct the municipality concerned on behalf of that community to appoint such a council because the community wants such a council and because they want to develop further the already existing advisory board. At this stage I come to the point in their policy to which I referred at the outset. The Opposition are always saying that they believe in the principle of “government by consent”. Here the Bantu community and the advisory board ask for a new system for which this Bill provides, but the Opposition have now moved an amendment saying that the desire of the Bantu community to have a council of their own should be suppressed. It should therefore not be obligatory to appoint such a council if the Bantu ask for it themselves, and by adopting this standpoint they are violating their own principle of “government by consent”. I think they have not considered this matter carefully enough, and I therefore make an appeal to them to assist us in adopting this clause as it stands at present for the sake of this principle and for the sake of the principle of “government by consent”.

We have just listened to an amazing statement from the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, namely that “as hulle ’n begeerte daartoe het, dan moet hulle dit kry”. The Bantu must, in other words, get what they want, irrespective of …

Nonsense.

You are twisting what he said.

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

I withdraw, Sir, and I substitute “misrepresenting”.

The hon. Deputy Minister said clearly and unequivocally “As die Bantoe ’n begeerte daarvoor het, …”

To get a council.

That is what I am talking about. I am talking about this clause in the Bill. The position is then that if they want it, they must get it—if they want this board then they must get it irrespective of whether they have proved themselves to be responsible. The Deputy Minister made it very clear that it was the policy of the Government that if the Bantu wants these councils then they must have them—come rain, hail or high water. If the advisory board asks for such a council, it must be established and nobody has any say about it. The hon. Minister said that the majority of Bantu—90 per cent here, 75 per cent there. 100 per cent in another place, etc. —are already grouped in national units and that they are already living in national units. Why does he want this sub-section (b) then if they are already grouped in national units? Surely, if a board is now established for an area and the people living in that area comprise one national unit, then that is automatically a national unit board! What it amounts to is that if there is a board for an area and a national unit living in that area clashes with the board in matters such as legal issues or the allocation of housing, that national unit, although they may be a minority in the area, can get together and ask for a national unit board. Now, in terms of this paragraph which the hon. member for the Transkei desires to be deleted, if the Minister is satisfied that such community desires the establishment of such a board he may then direct that it be established. The operative words the “if he is satisfied that the community desires that council”. Now, there may be a board for an area in which the majority of Bantu living there are say Zulu. If the Sotho group also living in that area clashes with the Zulu group and then can satisfy the hon. Minister that it wants its own national unit board, then the Minister will appoint that board, because in the words of the hon. Deputy Minister “if they want something, they must have it”.

I did not say that. Read paragraph (3) (b).

I am dealing with (3) (b). It reads—

“Is satisfied.”

Well, if 100 per cent of the Sothos in an area ask for such a council, then surely the Minister must be satisfied that they want it. What this amounts to is a separate trade union principle.

“After consultation.”

Yes, with the Zulu or the Xhosa community. It need not be the whole community. Now let us look at the position of two boards covering one area. Every one of the powers given to these boards under Clause 4 deal with a geographical area. How are you now going to allocate sanitary services between a Zulu group and a Sotho group? Are you going to say that this house is a Zulu house and will therefore be dealt with by the Zulu board; that one is a Sotho house and will be dealt with by the Sotho board; that regarding grazing one beast can only eat sweet grass, and another one only sour grass. I want to know how you can have two bodies with exactly the same powers dealing with precisely the same area—a state within a state concept. The Minister said by implication that it was unnecessary to have national unit grouping because that was there already. Yet it is compulsory for the Minister to give a board to any group asking for it even because it clashed with the existing board. It will be impossible to deal with an area where there are two national boards. For these reasons these two amendments are not only necessary, but also an improvement of this measure and the practical application thereof.

May I point out that the Native Urban Areas Act of 1945 does not contain any provisions referring to a national unit—not one single provision. Now the hon. member for Transkeian Territories is arguing that the Minister already has certain powers under that Act, including the powers to oblige municipalities to do certain things. What he has said is however not correct. The position is actually as follows—

Consequently there must first be a provision of the Urban Areas Act which has not been complied with, and which they can be obliged to comply with. As the Urban Areas Act has hitherto not contained any provisions defining a national unit, the Minister cannot compel any municipality to establish a Bantu council on a national unit basis. That is surely quite clear. That is why the provision contained in para. (b) is most necessary in order to insert the concept of “national units” into the Urban Areas Act. The intention is to take this concept from the 1949 Act and to insert it into this Act. The whole object underlying this Bill is to establish the councils on the basis of national units. In those cases where it is still unpractical and impossible to do so, other arrangements will have to be made. In my constituency for example there is a small residential area in which Zulus, Sothos and Xhosas are living. It will then be for the Minister to decide whether it will be best to establish one or three councils. In practice one council would be the obvious step to take when they are living intermingled. However, there are large residential areas which contain many members of each group who are however still intermingled. If the Minister did not have the power given to him under para. (b) he could establish councils on a regional basis but they could never be sorted out on a basis of national units. He could therefore never implement his policy. Hon. members opposite of course want that policy to be a failure. The best would be if the Minister were to say that he will establish a council for the Xhosa on the western side of the residential area so that the Xhosas can in the course of time be moved to that area with the result that the groups will gradually be separated and additional councils can be established. If this paragraph is deleted, however, we shall never be able to do so. We may still be able to do so if there is a residential area the residents of which belong to only one national unit, but in most cases there are mixed residential areas, and it is with them in mind that he must establish such councils on a regional basis for the time being in order to get rid of the advisory boards. The object underlying this Bill is to replace the advisory boards by these Bantu councils in the course of time, but if he does not have the powers provided by para. (a) he will never be able to replace those advisory boards. This is the position in mixed residential areas. When there is not a mixed residential area, we can act at once under para. (b). Hon. members must surely see the practical implications. Without the powers contained in para. (b), this Bill cannot be given substance or meaning, because it introduces the concept of national units into the Urban Areas Act.

I support both the amendments which have been moved on this clause. I want to deal with arguments which have been used by the Government side but which have completely ignored one of the most important aspects of this proposal. The proposal in this clause presupposes that an advisory board is in existence and that, if that is so, there is already an established Native township or village in the area. It is not a question of dealing in that case with a newly established council. Although Clause 4 is the clause which deals with the financial aspects of the matter, I want to touch on one important point in this respect under this clause, a point which must be considered when judging upon the practicability of the proposal contained in this clause. Let us take a big City where there are large Native townships or a small town where there are smaller Native townships. The cost already expended on these townships before this measure comes into operation may run, on the one hand, into several millions of Rands and, on the other hand, perhaps into several thousands, for the establishment of the necessary facilities and services essential for the area already in existence, like water supplies, sewerage, electricity, etc. In all those cases, these services would form an integral portion of similar services for all the local authority area. These services are, as a general rule, not only established for that particular Native area, but are part of the services for the entire area. If the proposal contained in this clause, is carried out, what is going to happen to the very large sums which have already been expended for the provision of those services? You see, Sir, this clause makes provision for consultation with the Bantu community, but not with the general local community which established all the services which are there already and which are now to be transferred to the new authority. No provision is made for their views to be taken into consideration. During the Second Reading debate, the hon. Minister made it clear that he had not established separate local authorities in general—although he referred to one or two specifically with regard to the provisions of this Bill. One of the most important factors which we must consider—and to have this done is the object of the amendments which have been moved— is the financial aspect. It is quite possible to establish the village as a part of the larger area, but it is quite a different proposition when this village has to stand on its own feet and meet its own financial obligations. In the first place, the cost of the village is borne very largely by the whole community, but it is quite clear that the Bantu council which is now going to be set up, will not only have to bear all future expenses, but will also have to provide the security and safeguards necessary to cover the investment which have already been incurred on their behalf.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) asked why there should be any objection, but I was amazed to hear from him—being one of the financial authorities on the Government side —that he failed to realize the financial implications of this Bill. These are, to my mind, most important. It is not a question of providing the facilities, because with that I think we all agree in principle, but it is the question of the practical manner in which they should be carried into effect.

The establishment of Urban Bantu Councils has been agreed to at the second reading.

I am not dealing with that now, Sir, but am merely pointing out the flaw which exists in that there is no provision in this clause for consultation with the remainder of the people of the local authority area and with the local authority in connection with the sharing of the costs. This matter is being dealt with under Clause 4 and this may not be the most appropriate clause to deal with it now. This clause is, however, only another symptom of this Government’s habit of producing legislative twins which die in childbirth because their advent has not been properly prepared for and safeguarded.

I am really surprised at the argument the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has put forward. The whole matter has absolutely nothing to do with finances. How can anyone with a sense of responsibility make such an allegation? The control over financial matters rests in the hands of the municipalities, and not one power of a municipality is being taken over. That argument has therefore nothing to do with the clause. That is all I want to say in that regard.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has raised the objection to which the Deputy Minister has already replied adequately. However, I just want to point out once again that the existing Act gives me powers which I do not have under this Bill. Under the existing Act I can compel municipalities without consultation to establish advisory boards, while I cannot do that under this Bill in the case of Bantu councils. In this case there must first be consultation. The body which will establish the Bantu councils is the municipality concerned, and it will only do so at the request of the advisory board in the area concerned. In other words, here we have followed the golden rule of first gaining the co-operation of the Bantu as the community which is directly affected; then the co-operation of the municipality as the body which must exercise the authority; and then the co-operation of the Department. As regards paragraph (a) I cannot agree that it should be deleted. If an advisory board asks to be converted into a Bantu council, it is self-evident that the municipality concerned must accede to that request. In general the municipalities are so sensible that I do not think it will be necessary for me to make use of these powers. I am convinced of that. But we may have the position where a Bantu community would like to have a Bantu council, and the municipality concerned out of obstinacy simply refuses to accede to that request. In such a case I am once again following the golden rule by having the position investigated and the Bantu community will be consulted.

But not the municipality concerned.

The Bantu will be consulted in the first place—that is obvious. But it is obvious—it is made clearer in a later clause—that the municipality concerned will also be consulted. It is therefore not necessary to embody that in the Bill —it is already being done. There is also no reason why the municipality concerned will not be consulted. The main point is, however, to obtain the co-operation of the Bantu. The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) has said that the question of ethnic division is a matter of principle as far as he is concerned. I now ask: Of whom must I take notice—of the Bantu who come to me and ask me for this. I want to say again in this regard that I appointed a committee consisting of officials of my Department and that this committee went very carefully into the matter, particularly in Johannesburg. The overwhelming majority of the Bantu want such a system to be introduced. To whom should I listen, to the hon. member for East London (North) or the Bantu who have made this request? After all our object is to assist and to make the Bantu contented. It is after all the logical thing that we are trying to do, which will make the Bantu feel contented. But the hon. member now says: “Look, you must not listen to the Bantu at all. Listen to Mr. van Ryneveld; he will tell you what is good for you and what is not good for you.” I really cannot accept these amendments.

I want to deal with an entirely different point, although it follows from the remarks made by the hon. Deputy Minister. He stated that if a Bantu community expresses a desire to have the urban Bantu council system of government, it was the Government’s policy to give them that. In other words he said, it was government by consent. Of course we accept that and we would like to see that extended. But does the hon. the Minister accept the converse. If the Bantu community expresses an adverse opinion, if they are against this form of government, will the Minister see to it that the local authority accepts that opinion? Because in subsection (2) of Clause 2, in paragraphs (a) and (b) provision is made for consultation, first of all with an existing advisory board (under paragraph (a)), or with a Bantu community where there is no existing advisory board (paragraph (b)). Now the idea of consultation is an excellent one provided it results in agreement. It can lead to a very co-operative spirit which is in the interest of every one. But supposing it results in disagreement and it results in the local authority overriding or ignoring the views of the Bantu community? Then you can have an antagonistic atmosphere which might have very far-reaching repercussions. So I query whether it is desirable to introduce this element of consultation. Because what happens if after consultation the advisory board, or the Bantu community object? Could the local authority simply go ahead and ignore their views and establish a council? Because objections might be raised by the Bantu community which are not valid objections, and yet ignoring those views might lead to trouble. I instanced the case of Durban. We have the Lamont Location, the S. J. Smith Location and the Umlazi-Glebe Location forming one homogeneous complex, and for that the establishment of one Bantu urban council would be quite obviously an appropriate thing. But supposing the local authority consult with these three areas. What would be the result? At present they have an advisory board system on which they have 16 representative members. They might object to the establishment of a Bantu urban council because under such a council there might be only six representatives and ten of them might lose their jobs. What is the position in a case like that? May I also mention the difficulty of consulting with the Bantu community under (b) of sub-section (2) of Clause 2? How does one consult with a community, unless of course there are elected representatives. Does the hon. Minister propose to provide machinery under which representatives of such community will first be elected so that the local authority can consult with them? Or does he visualize that the local authority would consult with such a community at a public meeting? Surely that would be a very unsatisfactory way of doing things. Therefore I put this to the hon. the Minister that it may be better rather to omit any reference to consultation and rather to provide that where existing advisory. boards are in operation, they should be given an opportunity voluntary of changing to the Urban-Bantu council system, failing which, a date should be fixed after which advisory boards will automatically cease and a council will be appointed. Similarly in the case of a Bantu community where there is no advisory board, the local authority should have the right to establish a council. It does seem to me that this question of consultation, although it sounds very well could lead to a great deal of trouble, and we on these benches are very anxious to see this form of direct representation and direct administration by the Bantu themselves established, and we believe that that would be a better way of going about it.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister would kindly carry his explanation with regard to the financial control a little bit further.

Read Clause 8.

You see, the hon. the Minister has said that the financial control will remain with the local urban authority, but the Bill at a later stage does provide for the overriding of a local authority’s decision if the Minister has decided that he should override it.

The financial side is not under discussion.

No, Sir, I am not raising the actual question of finances, but I want clarification on a point which bears so strongly on this particular clause: The practicability of this clause. The hon. the Minister has very kindly explained a portion. Could he explain what happens in such a case, either in the repayment of expenditure already incurred and new expenditure to be incurred.

The establishment of councils has already been agreed to.

I should like to understand the Minister correctly because the clause is not very clear in the light of the explanation he has given hitherto. Under (3) (a) there is a Native advisory board which will have the right to submit a request to the authorities for the establishment of a Bantu council under this legislation. Let us assume that we have a city such as Johannesburg where various national units—perhaps, three, four or five of them—have already been divided on a territorial basis. In such a case we shall be able to establish five such councils.

That argument has already been used.

In other words, in those cases where a full division has already been carried out, there are no difficulties. The difficulty arises in an area where the Bantu are intermingled, if I may put it in that way. In such a case (b) becomes of importance. The Minister can now consult that community.

Order! That argument has also been used.

These are not arguments, Mr. Chairman; I am asking the Minister for an explanation, and my argument will become clear as soon as the Minister says that I am correct in my interpretation of the clause. But we are now beating about the bush, and we shall sit here for ever. Paragraph (b) is intended to provide for those areas where the Bantu are intermingled. According to the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), the hon. the Minister can after consultation establish councils for the various national units which are living intermingled in such an area before the population has been sorted out. In contrast with other hon. members I see the necessity for this clause, but is it wise to appoint such councils to serve the various national units while they are still living together, or would it not be better to wait before establishing such councils until such time as the various population groups have also been sorted out in such a mixed area?

I should like to tell the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie) that I agree with him entirely. I think it would be unwise to establish ethnic councils when the Bantu are still intermingled. That is why there must be regional councils. Before they are completely separated, so that the system can work in practice, it will be unwise to establish these ethnic councils. The hon. member can therefore rest assured that we shall not do so in practice.

A regional council and not an ethnic council?

Yes. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Butcher) has discussed the difficulties relating to consultation. I must honestly say that I attach great value to consultation. It is a democratic principle, and a democratic principle which we must systematically inculcate into the Bantu because it is actually something which is characteristic of his own system. The Bantu never adopt a law or establish a council without the community first being called together to take a decision. In the same way we shall consult the advisory boards because we want to make matters easy for the municipalities. The advisory boards will be consulted. But there may be other areas, and this is often done to-day, where a meeting of the community concerned will be called and they will take the decision. Perhaps one meeting, perhaps two meetings. But this is a principle to which I attach great value, and I must say that in this regard we have the co-operation of most of the municipalities because they also attach great value to consultation. I can therefore not accept an amendment in this regard.

Question put: That paragraph (b) of sub-section (1), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—54: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; Dönges, T. E.; du Piessis, P. W.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé. S. F.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk. G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J Tellers: J. J. Fouché and M. J. de la R. Venter.

Noes—36: Basson, J. A. L.; Butcher, R. R.; Cope. J. P.; de Beer, Z. J.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, I. S.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hopewell, A.; Horak, J. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lawrence, H. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller. H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Streicher, D. M.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: C. W. Eglin and T. O. Williams.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. van Ryneveld negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Hughes put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and a division was called.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Messrs. Butcher, Cope, Dr. de Beer, Mr. Eglin, Prof. Fourie. Mr. Lawrence, Dr. Steytler, Messrs. R. A. F. Swart, Van Ryneveld and Williams) voted against the clause, the Chairman declared it agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

The clause as printed provides that an urban Bantu council shall consist of equal numbers of Bantu people elected and selected. I quote from the Bill—

For the moment I don’t want to deal with the question of the selection of the Bantu people who are mentioned here, nor the methods to be adopted. I want to deal with the principle of the clause which provides that there shall be a number of elected and a number of selected members. The selected are obviously in terms of this clause not elected by anybody. The clause is at pains to show how they shall be selected, and there is a fundamental difference between those who are elected and those who are selected. My amendment, if carried, will provide that when the number of a Bantu urban council has been determined, then the whole number of its members shall be elected. The principle of election by the Bantu people of all the members of their council will be established under my amendment and the Bantu who are qualified (as provided for here) will have the right to elect all the members, and the right of selection which is being conferred upon certain chiefs and other authorities under the procedure laid down here, will fall away. I want to emphasize for a moment the principle upon which we stand here, and that is that if we are going to adopt the principle of election by the Bantu people of their own representatives in their council, then let us stick to that principle and give them the right. I want now to refer for a moment to the speech on the previous clause of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I know now why he gave me that knowing look just now because he realizes now what he let himself in for when he used the argument in respect of the previous clause. Here the Deputy Minister explained how necessary it was that when the Bantu, through their community, through their own representatives, sought this higher status, having been constituted as an advisory board, the higher status of an urban Bantu council, they were entitled to have it. That is what the hon. Deputy Minister says. Sir, let that body that makes such a decision get away from the whole concept of an advisory board and appointed people and selected people. Let us get away from that completely. If people are to have that right now of rising to that higher status, let their representatives be elected by themselves as to the whole of the number. Let the principle be adopted, not a 50 per cent adoption; don’t let us start this haltingly, holding back in regard to some of the members of the council and allowing, what I would now call the Bantu electorate, the right to elect only half the number. Otherwise it has got the seeds for its own destruction. We on this side of the House are supporting the principle of this Bill. Even you, Mr. Chairman, with your judicial attitude to these things might be forgiven if sometimes you were to forget that we are supporting the Bill on this side of the House. We want to make a success of this measure. We want such a system of elected councils to work, and I put it to the hon. the Minister that a system, whether it is for the Bantu people or any other race or group of people, whereby people have a council of which a portion of the members are selected and a portion are elected, always sooner or later leads to difficulties, whether it is in the highest councils and you have a system of government that is based partly on elected representatives and partly on appointed or selected representatives like executive committees they have got in some other countries, where that principle of differentiation between the status of the one group of people and the status of the other group in the same body, is maintained, where their authority springs from a different source, there is always trouble. There must be one common status with authority from the electorate. That is the only way of overcoming the difficulties which otherwise are inherent from the commencement of the work of the council. I ask the hon. Minister to accept the amendment which I now move.

Mr. Chairman, we support in principle the viewpoint which has just been expressed by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell), namely, that the councils should consist of entirely elected persons, and that the nominated and selected persons to the council should be eliminated. But we do not think that the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Coast goes quite far enough, and I therefore want to move as a further amendment the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper—

There are slight differences between the two amendments. In the first place, Sir, the amendment I have just moved eliminates sub-clause (3) (b). In other words, it eliminates the references to the ethnic grouping to which we took exception at an earlier stage. Secondly, Sir, you will observe that if my amendment is accepted, which of course also includes the elimination of (3) (b) (ii), which the hon. member for South Coast also wishes to eliminate, then the wording which will remain will be very much tidier and very much better than it would be if we merely accepted the amendment of the hon. member for South Coast. The wording would then be “the members of an urban Bantu Council shall be elected by Bantu residents in the area for which that Council has been established, and having the prescribed qualifications”, This is a simple form, and we feel it would meet the case. I shall not waste the time of the House. I endorse fully what the hon. member for South Coast said in regard to the principle of having wholly elected members. When you introduce the principle of having a number of nominated members, particularly in this case where there will be more or less an equal number of elected members, we feel that we will introduce stresses and strains which are very much better avoided. If a beginning is now to be made in regard to extending this form of elementary democracy to the Bantu, it would be much better to start off on the right foot. We support in principle what the member for South Coast has said and we believe that the amendment which is now being proposed, will have the additional advantage of eliminating the ethnic group aspect which we do not like, and secondly, that the wording will be streamlined and much better.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the amendment to Clause 3 appearing on the Order Paper—

(4) In addition to the members of the urban Bantu council elected as aforesaid, a council may co-opt further members to the said council not exceeding in number one-third of the number of elected members of such council.

I must explain that the amendment I have put forward is consequential on the amendments already submitted by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) and the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell). Sir, my reasons for putting forward the amendment are these: In the principal Act provision is made for the appointment of advisory boards, and at the same time local authorities were given power to make regulations. Under that power in almost every case they provided regulations whereby appointed members were appointed to each advisory board, and in most cases the appointed members were equal in number to the elected members. Now the hon. member for Parktown has provided for the elimination of selected members and for councils to be confined to elected members. The purpose of the nominated members was to enable the local authorities to secure the services of individuals who would not possibly have a chance of being elected to the advisory board, but because of their certain knowledge could be of considerable value to those boards. In providing for the elimination of selected members, I think it is necessary to give the councils the right to co-opt members for the very same reason that in the past nominated members were provided. I do this, Sir, because I believe it is important that the members of the council should bear the full personal responsibility for the administration in their own areas. Now, Sir, if they have selected or nominated members, it is obvious that the responsibility is divided, and I believe in those conditions elected members could shelve their responsibilities by saying they are not responsible for steps that have been taken, and that it was in point of fact selected members who were responsible for any decision. For that reason I think it is important that if anybody is added to an elected council, he should be put there by the elected members themselves. For that reason it is advisable that this amendment of mine should be accepted. You will note, Sir, that it is permissive and not mandatory. In other words, it provides that members of the councils may co-opt further members if they so desire. Members will thus only be co-opted if there are cases where individuals with special qualifications are required by the elected members of the council. I think it is important to ensure that the number of such co-opted members is not excessive and that in no case it can balance or have the effect of negativing the opinion of the genuine elected representatives. In the amendment I have provided that the co-opted members should be limited to one-third of the number of the elected members.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words in connection with the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell). I must say I could not quite see the point he was making. In a quite pleasant way he referred to the fact that we must always remember that his party is supporting this Bill. We on this side do remember that, and various members on this side have already expressed their appreciation of it. The hon. Minister did so, and I personally did it during the second reading debate. We expressed our appreciation of the support given to this measure by the Opposition. But the Opposition themselves did not remember that they promised to support the Bill. When we had a division here just now, half of the Opposition members did not know what to do.

That is nonsense.

That is not under discussion now.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, if we should accept this amendment of the hon. member for South Coast and the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope), which is fundamentally the same thing, it would mean that we thereby destroy the link between these councils in the urban residential areas and the Bantu homelands, and the basis of their national unity in the homelands. That would be the direct result if this amendment were to be accepted. That, of course, is of fundamental importance because we on the Government side, and in terms of our policy of separate development—or apartheid, if you would like to call it that—see the Bantu in the urban areas as directly linked up with the Bantu in the homelands, and the national units as they are organized there. But we cannot allow anything which would sever this link with the Bantu homelands or with the national units.

The hon. member for Berea (Mr. Butcher) also moved an amendment which provides for a system of co-opting extra members on these boards. Mr. Chairman the system of co-opting is not found in any of our systems of constituting authorities in South Africa. We have not got such a system in connection with Parliament; we have not got it in connection with the Provincial Councils. We have not got it in the city councils. We have not got it in the present Advisory Councils in the Bantu areas; we have not got it in school boards. We have it in no bodies which are authorities. It would be something totally new, and I really cannot see the point in accepting this amendment. It is just impossible for us to accept it.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? In lines 38 and 39 on page 4 there is reference to the representatives of Bantu chiefs recognized in a manner prescribed by the Minister. What does that refer to? I cannot find another reference to it in this Act. Does it refer to representatives recognized in terms of the Bantu Promotion of Self-government Act?

It really refers to two matters, chiefs as recognized by the Minister under the other Act; secondly, to people appointed here in a manner to be prescribed by regulations.

As the hon. Minister and the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. Mitchell) have just said, we are supporting the principle of the Bill but we do not support the details. The principle we support is the establishment of Bantu councils …

Order, order! That has nothing to do with this clause.

But I am dealing with the members of the council and I am telling this Committee why I am supporting the amendment.

Order! We are now discussing the constitution of the councils.

Yes, how the council will be selected.

The hon. member may continue.

The reason why we support it is because it is giving the Bantu some way of electing their own members. We do not support, however, that portion of the council which is nominated—the word used by the Minister is “selected”. We do not support that portion of the council which is nominated by the Minister. We insist that all the members of the council must be elected, and that is why, in the first instance, we gave our support to this Bill. It is fundamental. The Minister is given power in Clause 3 (3) (ii) to approve of the representative of the Bantu chiefs “recognized in the manner prescribed by the Minister” and who are—

We object to that. In the first place we are told by the Minister that this is in order to keep contact with the tribe, that by having nominated members of the council—or selected members of the council—the tribe will keep contact with its members living in the urban areas. But the chief himself is not allowed to choose his members on this council. The people he selects have to be approved, not only by the Minister but also by the local authority. It will depend on the standing of the chief with the Government as to who will be allowed to represent that tribe on the urban council. If the chief is a difficult chief and selects a man who is non persona grata with the Government because of policy differences, that representative of the tribe will not be able to serve on that council because the Minister can refuse to have him there.

The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Butcher) has moved an amendment in terms of which he wishes to give power to the council to co-opt further members. We cannot support that either, I am afraid, because the support we are prepared to give to this measure is that the members of the council must all be elected. We do not approve of selection of the members by the Minister or by the council or by a chief, neither do we approve of the co-option by the council itself.

Even if they are elected?

Even if they are elected. Of course, we know what is going to happen. This Bill will be passed as it is now.

Do you support that?

No we are not going to give them the power to nominate extra members to the council as well.

The amendment of the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) is very similar to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Natal (South Coast). In principle it is the same. The first portion will have the effect of laying down that the members of the council will only be elected. The wording is slightly different but, as I say, the principle is the same. However, the hon. member for Parktown has a further amendment which omits sub-section 3 (b) (i). We have not moved an amendment on similar lines and we feel that this provision must now stand because Clause 2 has been accepted by this Committee, and Clause 2 provides for separate ethnic units. Provision is made for them in that clause which has already been accepted by the Committee. We think that sub-section (3) (i) is consequential and will have to remain, otherwise there is no way of selecting these members. For that reason we cannot support that portion of the hon member’s amendment.

I want to say, very briefly, that we are grateful to the hon. the Deputy Minister for what he said this evening in regard to the specific purpose of including the portion of this Bill which we wish to omit. The Deputy Minister has made it quite clear that the Government sees this Bill as part of the overall Bantu Authorities idea. In other words, this is one of the vital links between the urban council system that is being established in this Bill and the Bantu Authority system established in the rural areas. That is now clearly established. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that that is one of the fundamental reasons why we have opposed this Bill, because we are against the concept of Bantu Authorities. It therefore follows that anybody who supports this Bill is voting for the Bantu Authorities concept, because this is a vital part of it.

This is a most interesting clause Mr. Chairman. If one were to look at the possible development in the future, it constitutes, to my way of thinking, something very dangerous …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to Clause 3.

I am confining myself to Clause 3 sub-section (3) (ii) which reads—

It says “by and from representatives of the chiefs”. Well, Sir, we must realize what can happen in future under the Bantu Authorities Act of which this is an extension into the White areas.

That is the whole point.

It really is the beginning of some authority in Bantu areas and Bantu authorities which, eventually, may become independent states. So that you have independent states having authority in the White urban areas of South Africa. I can see, arising out of this sort of thing in the future …

Order, order! I must call on the hon. member to confine himself to the clause. I think he is now going too far.

Mr. Chairman, I am speaking about the implications of this very clause. These elected members will be elected by and from the representatives of the Bantu chiefs. They are not citizens of the White areas merely, they are, in fact, the citizens of your independent Bantu states, now called Territorial Authorities or Bantu Authorities. I say it is the extension of Black power from the emergent Black states on our borders into the White urban areas. It is the beginning of a divided authority. I can visualize a system in the future where we shall have perhaps three or four or five such boards on which each national unit will have representatives, and all the various independent Bantu states will, each one, nominate or select members of those boards and you will have, in fact, a Berlin. We will have virtually dozens of Berlins all over South Africa. I wish to warn the hon. the Minister that this idea of a state within a state, where two-thirds or even more of the citizens of our independent states may live in South Africa …

Order, order! I must point out to the hon. member that that principle was accepted at the second reading.

Not this particular thing, Sir. I am referring to the implications of this particular clause and what it really means.

Order! I must call upon the hon. member to observe my ruling.

Very well, Sir, I will conclude with this—and this is on all fours with what I have said—that it is the beginning of the authority of chiefs in the future, who may be independent presidents …

Order, order! The hon. member is ignoring my ruling.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, could you please give us a ruling: the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie) is now discussing the implications of this specific clause. Surely he is entitled to do that despite the fact that this is the principle of the Bill that was approved at the second reading?

My ruling is that that was decided at the second reading, namely that certain Bantu councils shall be established in the White urban areas, in a certain manner.

But, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member not entitled, on this clause, to explain the reasons why we will vote against this?

That should have been done at the second reading.

But he is dealing with the implications of this clause.

Order! That should have been done at the second reading. I regard it as an attack on the principle of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that it is impossible to discuss this clause without drawing attention to its implications. That is the principle inherent in this particular clause.

Order, order! I must call on the hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler) not to take the matter any further. I have given my ruling and I am not going to depart from it.

On a point or order, Mr. Chairman, your ruling makes it very difficult indeed. We have moved, with the hon. members of the party on my left, for a deletion of certain words which will ensure that the members of this council will be elected and that there will be no selected members. The selected members come from the reserves; they will be nominated in the first instance by their chiefs in the reserves. Now we have moved for a deletion of the word “selected”, and the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) and the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. Mitchell) have both moved similar amendments. If you would look at the clause you will see that they have moved for that deletion. Surely we are able to put forward the case as to why we want this amendment? We cannot just say “I move an amendment” and then keep quiet. The hon. the Minister, if I may say so, in speaking against the amendment said that they insisted on having selected members nominated by the chiefs because it was their policy to do that in order to keep the chiefs in contact with the people in the urban areas. Now we say we want the opposite. Surely, if the hon. the Deputy Minister could use that as an argument we can use the contrary argument in order to refute his?

I will permit the hon. member for Germiston (District) to continue on condition that he does not go too far and that he does not depart too much from the contents of Clause 3 as it now stands.

Mr. Chairman, I will read to you Rule 173 …

Order, order! That is not necessary. The hon. member may continue.

I believe that the principle of this Bill is the establishment of Bantu urban councils. Now the question that I am raising is the kind of council which you are going to establish in these urban areas. It is partly elected and partly selected. Now this side of the House is quite agreeable to having elected members on those councils, but we are against the method by which the selected members will be put on these councils. We would like to see them all elected, by citizens of the urban areas in White South Africa. Our objection against the selected members is that we are extending the Bantu Authorities at the present moment, the authority of the chiefs is being extended into the White areas where they can assist in forming these councils. We are against that because of the implications of this clause. Here, in fact, you have the beginning of authority of the future independent states to appoint Governments, as it were, within the White areas, representing the foreign Bantu states in White South Africa. I say that this is a dangerous principle to start with. It will mean the beginning of literally dozens of Berlins in the White areas of South Africa. Now why does the Minister do this? He does it on the ground that at some future date these national units will be moved back into their own states, and he wants to keep contact between these emergent sovereign, independent Bantu states and the subjects of these states living in the urban areas. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, when I moved my amendment I pointed out that we stood for the principle of the election of the members of the boards. I did not want to deal with the method by which the selected members were to be selected. I left that alone quite deliberately. Now I am in this difficulty, that we have made our position clear. We think that the council should be elected. I cannot understand how the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Butcher) can come now in regard to a council in respect of which some of the members are to be appointed by the chiefs, and give that council the right to co-opt other members to make up the total number of members. I cannot understand that line of thought. We have said from this side of the House that we will vote against the principle of having selected members, people selected by the chiefs initially. The hon. members on our left say that they are against it, but then the hon. member for Berea moved an amendment which allows such a council, if it has selected members, to itself co-opt other members. Surely that is then accepting the principle of some of the members being selected?

It was consequential to your amendment.

On a point of explanation …

The hon. member for Berea will have an opportunity to speak later.

If I understood the hon. member correctly, he said this was consequential on the adoption of my amendment, but if my amendment is adopted there can be no representatives of the chiefs on the council and then the issue would be plain, but the amendment of the hon. member wants to give a council which has representatives of the chiefs on it the right to co-opt other members. I wanted to clear up that point.

I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister a question, but I am not satisfied with his answer. I wonder whether the Minister or the Deputy Minister will go into it a little more fully. In lines 38 and 39 of the English version there is a reference to representatives of the Bantu chiefs recognized in the manner prescribed by the Minister. I can see no reference in the Bill to the power of a Minister to prescribe how they shall be recommended. The Deputy Minister said it would be done by regulation. Is that power given in terms of Section 10? Is the Minister referring to the representatives appointed in terms of Section 4 of the Government Self-Government Act? There the territorial authority in the reserve has the right to appoint a representative in the town. In terms of Section 5, that representative has the right to constitute a board to assist him. So I can understand that the territorial authority in the reserve can appoint a member and also further members to constitute a board to assist him. Are these the people the Minister refers to in lines 38 and 39 from whom people will be chosen to serve on the urban Bantu council? If that is not so, it seems to me that nothing is laid down as to how these representatives of the chiefs will be recognized.

I want to say a few words on the amendments moved by the hon. members for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) and Partkown (Mr. Cope). I want to say at once that here we have a very important principle, in the first place as regards the Bantu themselves. The Bantu themselves desire that their national units should be preserved in the cities. In other words, that there should not be any division between the members of the Bantu national unit living in the cities and those living in the Bantu areas.

Yes, but the hon. the Minister must confine himself to the clause. For the guidance of the hon. the Minister, I want to say that I allowed the hon. member for Germiston (District) to continue in the vein in which he started, and the Minister is in the same position. He may proceed, but if he wishes to link it up, he must link this matter to the selected and elected members.

Then I do not know how to answer. The objection of hon. members is that here we have representatives of the chiefs in the cities. There are elected and selected members. The Bantu do not want any division. It is the desire of the Bantu that we should preserve the national unit. During the second reading I answered this point and I do not want to discuss it any further, but there is a further principle at issue, namely that ethnologically speaking, this is a sound principle. Hon. members will not find an ethnologist of repute who would urge that one should bring about a division between the national unit in the cities and the national unit in the homeland. The hon. member for South Coast put it so well when he said this was one of the mistakes being made in Africa. But they do not want it. However, the Government regards it as a matter of principle that we cannot allow a policy which is aimed at dividing the national units.

Is it not the basic principle of this legislation?

The cardinal principle is the establishment of Bantu councils. I also want to tell the hon. member that in the second place this is being done because we are realistic. If the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) will investigate the position in the cities, he will be surprised how many representatives of the chiefs of the various national units living in the cities are in practice recognized by the Bantu.

How do you recognize them? The Bill says that they must be representatives of the chiefs recognized by the Minister in the prescribed way.

I shall come to that. I say that in practice there are these representatives and it is interesting to see to what a great extent the Bantu themselves recognize the representatives of the chiefs. Very many of these people who are serving on and who have been elected to the advisory boards are in fact representatives of the chiefs. They are people who are living and working in the cities, but they are recognized in Durban by the Zulus as the representatives of the chief. Nearly every tribe has its representatives. Consequently, to be realistic we must recognize this position.

Now the question is: How can we recognize them? I have arranged administratively that the representatives of the chiefs have been recognized for some years. In the Bantu Self-Government Act provision has been made for the appointment of a representative to the Bantu authority concerned.

Are these the only people to whom you are referring, those referred to in Section 4 and 5 of the Bantu Self-Government Act?

I shall give an example. The Northern Sotho have quite a few tribes. Every tribe has a representative in Johannesburg and under the main representative they constitute a sort of council which the Bantu in practice recognize. The position is that we have given administrative recognition to these representatives and this has had a very good effect in recent years as regards the maintenance of law and order and the building up of the moral foundations of the Bantu. The position is that for years already, since about 1928, there have been elected and selected members. This is therefore not a new principle which is being introduced. There are elected and selected members on the advisory boards.

Who nominated the nominated members of the advisory boards in the past?

The municipalities of course. That is why we are laying down this important principle but in these matters the Bantu themselves must be consulted. It has been proved in the past that when an advisory board is elected, the vote has seldom been higher than 20 per cent and in many cases it has been 10 per cent and 5 per cent, and this is an unhealthy state of affairs. In many cases there elected representatives were people who never played an active part in the affairs of the community concerned. By this new system which we are introducing whereby the representatives of the chiefs can nominate the selected members, we are so arranging matters that we shall be giving representation on a very sound basis to a far larger section of the community. In other words, responsible persons who are interested in their affairs will now become members of these councils. We have no doubt as to the success of this system because we are already seeing the results in the case of certain advisory boards to-day. Hon. members are making a very big mistake when they say that half must be elected and half must be nominated. That is not the position. We are laying down that at least half must be elected because that is a democratic principle, but it may be that the representatives of the chiefs will in fact stand for election, and many do so, and that the councils will consist almost exclusively of selected representatives. In some cases I foresee that it will not even be necessary for the chiefs’ representatives to appoint anyone to the council because the chiefs’ representatives will already have been elected by the people. I repeat that, particularly in Johannesburg, I have appointed a committee under the chairmanship of the Chief Bantu Commissioner to enlighten the Bantu in respect of this matter and it is their desire without exception, in all the Bantu residential areas, that the representatives of the chiefs should have the right to nominate these people. The objection of the hon. member for East London (North) is that these people must be approved of by the municipality and the Minister. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has said that they will only be “stooges” of the Government. But that will not be the position. What will happen is this. The representatives of the chiefs will nominate these people, but we must ensure that they do not simply nominate anyone. In other words, it is the duty of the municipality to ensure that only people who are entitled to live in the urban area can be nominated. They cannot simply bring anyone in and nominate him. That is why the municipality must approve of the nomination. But we have our system of recognizing representatives of the chiefs. It is laid down in the legislation and we must ensure that the chiefs’ representatives are really people whom I recognize to ensure that a person cannot come and say that he is Cyprian’s representative when he has never even seen Cyprian. We know that this kind of thing can happen and it is merely to make doubly sure that such a person has the right to live in the residential area and that he is really a representative of the chiefs. That is why this right is being given to the Minister and the municipality, but it is obvious that when the chiefs’ representatives recommend a person there will be very few cases, if any, where the nominations which they make will not be approved of by the Minister or the municipality concerned. This provision is only being made for the sake of proper administration.

The Minister has told us that the principle attached to this clause is important to the Bantu as well as to the Government. He says the Bantu desire to keep close contact with their tribe and the Government also wishes the tribe to keep close contact with the urban Bantu. The Minister has said that the members who will be selected by the chiefs will be approved by the local authority and by the Minister, because they have to be persons who are allowed to live in that area, and he said that the members who are selected by the chiefs will be resident in the area. He went on to say that as the position is to-day the members of the advisory boards are usually representatives of the chiefs who are resident in those urban areas. Now the point is this. If they are so popular with the people, why select them? Surely the people will elect them themselves. If the people in the urban area are so attached to the tribe and to these representatives of the chiefs, surely they will elect them if they want them. In fact, the Minister says they do it for the advisory boards. So it is not necessary to select them. There must be something wrong with them if their own people do not elect them. If the member who is selected lives permanently in the urban area, how does he become a representative of the chief, and what is he there for? The Minister said it was part of their policy to keep contact, but as far as I know none of the ambassadors have been appointed yet, and why are they not appointed? I think it is for the reason that the people in the urban areas do not want them. The Minister shakes his head, but that Act was passed some years ago and I do not know of any ambassadors in the Cape who were appointed from the Transkei. If I am wrong, the Minister can correct me. And if in fact they have been appointed, why is it necessary for the chief to have further contact and further liaison with the members of his tribe living in the urban area, because he has his ambassador there to do it? So surely he needs nothing more than that. Provision has already been made for that in another Act. The Minister and the hon. member for Parktown both said that an important principle is affected here. The hon. member for Queenstown, in a question to the Minister, suggested that the principle of this Bill, and particularly of this clause, was really to establish tribal authorities, but the Minister denied that and said the main principle was to establish urban councils. The hon. member for Parktown has said that by accepting this clause we are in fact bringing tribal authorities to the towns, and the Deputy Minister said that is right.

I did not say that. I said it was a link with the national units in the homelands.

The system of tribal authorities is really being applied to the urban areas. That is their policy. In terms of this clause, at least half the members of the council must be elected. That has never been this Government’s policy, to allow any council to be elected. It is contrary to their policy. You do not get it in the Bantu Authorities Act. In the Transkei there is a small measure of election, but nowhere else does the Government give the people the right to elect at least half of the members of any council. This is the first time the Government has accepted the principle of giving the urban Bantu civic rights. Far from being an extension of tribal authorities, this clause is now accepting the principle that the Bantu living in the urban areas must have some form of political rights, and that is why we said we would support it. Even if there are selected members we will still vote for the clause because of the principle contained therein of giving the urban Bantu a chance to elect a council for the first time, and we can see from this the extension of further rights.

It seems to me that the last speaker was a little confused regarding the representatives who are appointed under the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act and the representatives of the chiefs. He has asked why, if the representatives who are appointed under the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act are so popular, they are not elected. I want to point out that under that Act these representatives are representatives of the regional authority or the territorial authority, and a regional authority and a territorial authority serve several tribes with various chiefs which are represented on such authorities. In this Bill we are dealing with representatives of the chiefs. Each individual chief has his own representative whom he appoints in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Minister. It may be a good thing if I just read to hon. members the instructions issued to the district officers in respect of this matter so they can see what system is followed. There is a 1960 circular which says that in each urban area where a certain number of members of a certain tribe are employed— a regional authority covers various tribes— the chief of such a tribe must appoint a tribal representative in consultation with his council. That is the chief’s appointment for that particular tribe, and if he is a paramount chief with more than one sub-chief under him, the sub-chiefs are also encouraged to appoint representatives for their people, and they are clearly made to understand that their representatives will be subordinate to the representative of the paramount chief in that city. As soon as he appoints someone, he must notify the Bantu Affairs Commissioner that he has appointed a representative, and the commissioner of the area concerned notifies the Minister’s head office and also the local authority concerned. There are already various such representatives in our cities. Hon. members now ask what type of recognition there must be. I just want to read an extract from the circular dealing with this matter—

Take an area such as Langa. Langa has many Gcalekas. The Gcalekas are one large tribe; and there are many Gcaleka chiefs. There are various representatives of Gcaleka chiefs in Langa. The same applies to the Fingos and the Tembus, but they all fall under the one Transkeian Territorial Authority. There are various chiefs’ representatives here, but that territorial authority may have one representative in Langa. That is the distinction which I should like to draw in reply to the hon. member for East London (North). The representatives of the urban Bantu council will be nominated from and by these chiefs’ representatives to represent them on the council, and by so doing to establish the necessary liaison. That is quite clear. May I just emphasize that the whole object is not to look after local affairs, because the local representatives, the elected members, are there for that purpose; the object of the selected members is to strengthen the tribal connection. Mr. Chairman, you know yourself how attached the Natives are to that tribal connection. The tribal connection is built up from the family as a basis and we must nourish those ties by establishing closer links through the medium of the chiefs’ representatives as against the overall liaison provided by the representative of the territorial authority.

In dealing with this question of the selected members of the Bantu urban council, I think we have to come back to the Bill. When I moved my amendment I said that I did not want to deal with the selected members or the method of their selection because my amendment would have the effect of nullifying that part of this particular clause. The hon. the Minister has not indicated that he will accept my amendment, on the contrary he has shown that he is not prepared to accept it. He has not said so in so many words, but he has indicated that, because he wants certain tribal representatives on the council.

The hon. member who has just sat down has given quite a clear exposition and has dealt with it in a manner which, if I may say so, looked as though he was quoting from regulations dealing with another body. It was on this clause in the second reading, if I remember correctly, that I said that it was quite clear that there was a link-up here. The Minister would require a whole lot of regulations to deal with the functions of this clause because let us look what the Bill says in regard to selected candidates. Clause 3 (3) (b) (ii) says—

That is candidates who have to be selected—

They are to be selected by and from the representatives of Bantu chiefs; they will not be selected from the representatives of Bantu chiefs, but by the representatives of Bantu chiefs from among themselves. Hon. members have seemed to indicate that it is going to be a selection by the chiefs. There is no selection by the chiefs. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) agrees with me there. Now we get the picture: Here are the representatives of the Bantu chiefs in the European urban area. Those chiefs must be recognized by the Minister first. They have their representatives here and the hon. the Minister has said that no representatives must be brought in from outside, they must be resident in that area, they are there as the representatives of the chiefs. Presumably, therefore, the representatives of the chief in that area are all qualified to meet in committee, as it were, without any guidance whatsoever, because they are the representatives, but those who can meet in committee must be the representatives of chiefs approved by the Minister and the representatives must have been approved by the Minister and they must have been approved by the urban local authority. So it is not sufficient really that they are representatives of chiefs, they must be representatives of chiefs approved by the Minister and they themselves as representatives must be approved by the Minister. At that stage they get together and from amongst those representatives of the Bantu chiefs they will be selected by themselves. The difficulty that arises there is that you want a lesser number than the total aggregate members of the people who are gathered together there, and who amongst themselves have to find the people who are to be the selected representatives. It is quite clear that what we are really getting in the selected representatives are people, who, if they are not detribalized, are at any rate dwellers in the Native residential area in a European urban area and that group provide the selected ones. The hon. the Minister said that some of those people were so respected by the Bantu people in that area that they have in the past, for the purpose of the advisory boards, actually been elected. They qualified for election and they were elected. My plea to the Minister is to allow that same amount of confidence to be shown here. He can get that class of candidate if he likes, but do not let it be said that they are to be selected by the representatives of the chiefs from amongst themselves. If the hon. Minister wants the representatives of the chiefs to seek nomination, as it were, let the generality of the people then elect them in the same way as they elect others. There will have to be regulations for the nomination of candidates for election. If the Minister wants to have a group of people to be nominated for election from amongst the residents in that Bantu residential area, who are the representatives of chiefs, then he can do that by regulation. There is no need to make any specific reference to that here. If the hon. the Minister accepts my amendment he can still provide for those people, but they would not from themselves select themselves. They would be elected by the generality of the Bantu qualified to vote in an election of that kind.

I listened very carefully to what the hon. the Minister said on this clause a few moments ago. Quite frankly I should like to put it to the Minister that he should not be so naive or imagine the House to be so naive as to accept what I would call a very silly explanation as to what is to be done. The hon. the Minister has introduced into this Bill that urban Bantu councils shall be established in the place of the Native advisory boards. He goes to the trouble to tell us that the system is very similar because …

Order! The hon. member must now come back to the clause.

The hon. the Minister states that a Native advisory board is constituted by elected members and members nominated by a council. But the hon. the Minister will admit that the elected members are in the majority; the number nominated is smaller. If the Minister wishes to establish this council on the basis he suggests whereby they will now have the opportunity of playing a part in their local affairs similar to a local authority, why does he insist that the selected members must be at least one-half of the total council? Why does he not rather follow his own principle of a representative from the so-called homelands being nominated to sit on the council instead of insisting, as he does in this clause, that not less than one-half shall be elected? For that reason it is difficult to understand the motive of the hon. the Minister or to understand his explanation, which is not as simple as he puts it. It is not just a simple matter of having representatives; it is a deliberate intent to ensure a certain slate of affairs where at least one-half of the council will be nominated from a body of people all of whom will be approved by the Minister. As the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) has pointed out it will be from a group of people recognized in a manner prescribed by the Minister, which in effect means that the Minister could, if he wished, ensure that the selected body would come from a pool of people prescribed by him. I do not think that this House can accept that very simple explanation. We know the mechanism of the thing; there is no necessity for the Minister to give us a White Paper on the subject, but we cannot understand, if he is genuinely sincere about giving that Bantu of whom he speaks in such terms of ectasy the right to govern themselves in the urban area, why he insists on a system which is completely different from the system presently in operation whereby the election plus the selection does not take away the majority of the elected members.

The amendment moved by the hon. member for South Coast is to enable the Minister to give evidence of that sincerity because if we delete the word “selection” it means that this whole Bantu council will be established by means of election by the persons resident in that area, persons properly qualified as laid down in the Act. They would be elected representatives and these representatives will then have the opportunity of playing their part in the civic life of that community. As the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has said, we will vote for the clause because it contains the principle of a Bantu council …

Order! That argument has been used previously.

I am not even using it as an argument, if I may say so, Sir, I merely want to use it as my premises to show the Minister that he is storing up a considerable amount of trouble in these urban areas. By this method that he now wishes to entrench in this particular clause the Minister is storing up a considerable amount of trouble, because instead of having representatives, as he intends to have, he is imposing the domination of the tribal chiefs system on to the urban dweller, with an equal number of people on both sides and a chairman appointed possibly from those people with a casting vote it places the whole scheme in jeopardy. Although we are voting for this clause because it contains the principle of urban Bantu councils, I want to ask the Minister to give very careful consideration to the acceptance of the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Coast so that he will be able to carry out not only what he says is his genuine desire, namely, to give them an opportunity of forming some form of executive government in due course in their own affairs, but he will not destroy that system and bring about a state of affairs where, instead of harmony in the area, there will be conflict. We will support the Minister if he wishes to bring about improvements in their conditions and give them a sense of responsibility but we are very much against the introduction of any mechanism which is going to destroy their sense of civic responsibility which he wishes to establish, through the introduction of a completely foreign element in the urban areas which will dominate the whole of the administration in the urban areas. My appeal to the Minister is to delete the word “selected” and we will support him entirely instead of halfheartedly in something which we know may fail.

I did not expect the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Miller) to make such a speech. [Interjections.] I expect greater courtesy from him …

I was not discourteous.

I say that I do not expect it. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has raised a point of some substance. He has asked why, if these people are so popular, I do not allow them all to be elected. I have already pointed out that this is what the Bantu themselves want. Here I am giving effect to a request which I have received from the Bantu themselves. Hon. members must allow me to give effect to this request. It is a request which I have received from Johannesburg, Pretoria and elsewhere. The Bantu themselves have asked that we should arrange matters in this way. In the second place I have also already said that the percentage who vote is usually low. The result is that in many cases the people feel that they are not properly represented while this system will ensure that all groups will be properly represented. The whole motive underlying this provision is to ensure proper representation and to establish links with the national unit. I just want to remove this one misconception, and to say this to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories. Every territorial authority appoints its ambassador and the Transkeian Territories have already decided in principle that they are going to appoint their representatives. The decision has already been taken in principle. The object is merely to ensure sound representation.

The hon. the Minister regards any reasoned argument as discourteous.

You are too offensive (aanstootlik).

Mr. Chairman, I must ask the hon. member to withdraw that …

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) entitled to say that the hon. member is too offensive?

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout may continue.

I am sorry, Sir, that one must be subjected to that sort of remark from the hon. member for Heilbron. We know him as a person who makes unpleasant and jeering remarks at others, particularly when he realizes that he has no argument …

The hon. member must come back to the clause.

Did you not say the Minister was silly?

I said the Minister’s argument was silly. I never said the Minister was silly. I am entitled to my own opinion of the hon. the Minister’s argument and I think many people will agree with me. That is my opinion. The Minister has failed to explain to this House why he insists on a minimum of one-half of the council being selected members. If the Minister would explain that and show the House the courtesy of giving us full details as to why he insists on that we might be quite prepared to deal with the Minister’s argument on a very different basis.

The hon. member asks me to explain. I have already explained but he does not listen; he just talks. I gave a complete explanation of the whole matter a few moments ago but he was not here.

Question put: That the word “elected” in line 8, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause, which was affirmed and the amendments proposed by Mr. Cope dropped.

The Question put: That the words “and selected” in the same line, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—59: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; du Plessis, P. W.; Erasmus, F. C.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé. S. F.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins. H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert. D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel. J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht. N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. I. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. I.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, I. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. I.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. E. Potgieter and M. J. de la R. Venter.

Noes—36: Basson, J. A. L.; Butcher, R. R.; Cope, J. P.; de Beer. Z. J.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, I. S.; Frielinghaus. H. O.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff. de V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Horak, J. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lawrence, H. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw. W. V.; Ross. D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn. S. I. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Streicher. D. M.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Waterson, S. F.; Williams, T. O.

Tellers: H. C. de Kock and A. Hopewell.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments proposed by Mr. Mitchell dropped.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Butcher put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and a division was called.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Messrs. Butcher, Cope, Dr. de Beer, Mr. Eglin, Prof. Fourie, Mr. Lawrence, Dr. Steytler, Messrs. R. A. F. Swart, van Ryneveld and Williams) voted against the clause, as printed, the Acting Deputy-Chairman declared it agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit)—

1. (3)
   1. (a) At least once in every three months a conference shall be arranged between the urban local authority or its appropriate committee and a committee appointed for this purpose by the urban Bantu council concerned.
   2. (b) Departure from the procedure laid down in this sub-section or alternative methods of consultation between the urban local authority and the urban Bantu council or councils within the area of such urban local authority may be prescribed in order to create a more efficient link between the urban local council and such council or councils.;

The object of the first amendment is to introduce a new sub-section which is contained in the Bill annexed to the Fagan Commission Report. In paragraph 33 of this report it is stated—

It is essential, Sir, that when these councils are established there, they should have the closest contact with the local authority in whose area they are established. New councils will be wanting advice because they will be embarking on something new for the Bantu and it is essential, therefore that they be not allowed to drift on their own but that they meet the parent body periodically and that it be an obligation on the part of the municipality to meet them too.

In connection with the second amendment I want to refer the hon. Minister to paragraph (e) of Clause 4 (2), reading as follows—

Sub-section (3), however, lays down—

The word which I ask to be inserted, will have the effect of making it obligatory for the Native Affairs Commission to hold an inquiry at which the local authority shall be allowed to appear and state its case. It must be given a chance of appearing before the Commission to state why it cannot concur. Only after that has been done, can the Minister order it to act.

As far as the first amendment is concerned, I am a little surprised at the logic of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). He has just opposed the principle that the municipalities can be compelled, even if this must be done at the request of the advisory board. Here however he is in favour of the principle that the municipality should be compelled to meet the Bantu councils from time to time. That is what his proposal amounts to. I refer the hon. member to Section 10 of the Urban Areas Act which authorizes municipalities to make regulations laying down that they will meet these advisory boards from time to time. The same applies here. I can give the hon. member the assurance that I am very eager that there should be the closest contact, and this is a field in which we have made good progress during the past few years. There is already such sound co-operation on the part of municipalities that I do not think it will be right to compel them to act in this matter without their consent. However, I am prepared to consult the municipalities in this regard and if they consider that consultation should be made compulsory, I can make the necessary provision when I consolidate the Urban Areas Act next year. At this stage however I do not want to insert a provision which will compel them to consult.

I think the hon. Minister misunderstood me. I did not ask for municipalities to be forced to do anything. If the hon. Minister read paragraph (e) of sub-section (2) of Clause 4, he will see that he cannot give the urban Bantu council the powers specified therein without the concurrence of the respective local authorities. In sub-section (3) of Clause 4, however, provision is made for the Minister, after an inquiry had been held by the Native Affairs Commission, to act without such concurrence in respect of matters where such concurrence has been withheld unreasonably.

I still wanted to come to that point because I had only dealt with the first amendment moved by the hon. member, namely that municipalities should be compelled to confer with the Bantu councils at least once every three months. The second amendment relates to the Bantu Affairs Commission. In this regard I want to point out to the hon. member that when this commission institutes an investigation, it is self-evident that it is obliged to hear both sides. As a matter of fact, I cannot imagine the commission instituting an investigation and only hearing one side of the matter. I do not know of any instance where such an investigation has ever been instituted in South Africa. There is the golden rule, namely that of audi alteram partem, and this applies to all inquiries, and will therefore also apply to this type of inquiry to which the hon. member has referred. The only difficulty which accepting the amendment will cause is that it can result in a protracted correspondence with the administrators. They could even be called before the commission again later on—which I do not think would be altogether a good thing. If I were to accept this amendment, it could therefore entail a whole series of implications. But I want to give the hon. member the assurance once again that I cannot imagine the possibility of an inquiry being instituted by the Bantu Affairs Commission without both sides of the matter being heard. It is a principle that both parties must be heard before a report is submitted. The hon. member can therefore rest fully assured on that point.

The hon. Minister says that he accepts the principle that the other party should also be heard and that he cannot believe that the Native Affairs Commission would carry out an investigation without hearing the other party as well. If that is so, Sir, why cannot he then add the proposed words so as to make it obligatory for the municipality also to be heard? The hon. Minister says that is what he expects will happen and that he cannot believe that it could be otherwise. If that is so, then surely he can accept the amendment which I have proposed.

In regard to the amendment asking for consultation every three months, the hon. Minister has pointed out that I by that wanted to force the municipality to go in for such consultation whereas in discussions on the previous clause of the Bill, I objected to local authorities being forced to do certain things. All I ask now, is that not only the municipality should be compelled to consult with the Bantu council, but also that the latter should be compelled to consult with the local authority. I want the hon. Minister to compel consultation between the Bantu council on the one hand and the relevant local authority on the other hand. After all, the local authority should be the first who should want to consult.

But that is the practice at the moment.

And if they do not want to consult, then they should be compelled to do so. That is a policy which has been accepted by every body, namely that there should be consultation. It may be true that that is what happens in practice, but why not make it obligatory? No harm can be done thereby.

We want to support the amendment which has been moved, and as evidence of the necessity for the consultation asked for. I want to refer to the Bill which was published in 1952—the Bill which was the forerunner of the present one. Sub-section (4) of Clause 9 of that Bill laid down—

In other words. Sir. the principle of the amendment which has now been put forward, was contained in the Bill which was published in 1952 and which was the forerunner of the present measure. The only difference is that on that occasion the period was set at six months whereas this amendment sets the period at three months. Personally I think a period of three months would be better. But the principle was already enshrined in that measure and I cannot, therefore, see for what reason it has been omitted from this Bill. If it was considered necessary in 1952, why not to-day? On the general question of the powers which are being delegated to the proposed Bantu councils, I want to point out that the earlier measure contained far greater powers, and I want to ask the hon. Minister why the councils now proposed to be established, are to have far fewer powers than those proposed in 1952?

The hon. member should not deal with what the position was in 1952 but with the clause now under discussion.

I will do that, Sir. Paragraph (e) of sub-section (2) of the clause under discussion gives the hon. Minister power to confer upon the Bantu councils such additional Dowers as he may deem necessary to confer. It would obviously have been better if those additional powers had been set forth in the paragraph. However. I would like to ask the hon. Minister whether he intends conferring powers in respect of the matters which I am going to mention now. The first of these is finance. In the earlier Bill Bantu Authorities were given considerable powers to regulate finances.

Order! The hon. member should not go beyond the terms of the clause as printed.

I am desirous of finding out. Mr. Chairman, what further powers the hon. Minister has in mind to confer. Has he in mind to confer powers on the Bantu councils to administer financial affairs? I maintain, and many others do also, that it is absolutely essential in the training of people for democracy, to teach them to administer funds. Is it the hon. Minister’s intention to confer such powers here —to set up a treasury, for example, and to levy any rates? I would like to know whether the hon. Minister has thought of this matter and, if so, whether he intends conferring such powers on the councils?

I want to support the amendments moved by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories and his request to the Minister for further consideration to be given to the question of consultation. This clause deals with the financial implications likely to arise from the application of the principle of the Bill. This clause enables the proposed Bantu councils to undertake certain types of work. Now, apart from the financial implications thereof, there is also the question of the services to be supplied, like water, electricity, etc. which in many cases overlap with the services already being supplied in the area of the local authority concerned. Where a new area is to be established, ways and means of finance will be settled at the beginning. But there will, however, be cases where Native residential areas are already established and where vast sums have already been spent on the provision of the necessary amenities the control of which will now have to be divided between the local authority concerned and the new Bantu council. What I want to ask the hon. the Minister is what provision he is. making to control the funding of that expenditure already incurred, which has vast financial implications.

Order! The hon. member must please return to the clause. There is nothing in this clause referring to the financing of Bantu housing.

I am referring to the fact that the Bantu councils now being formed, under this particular clause, will have powers in regard to the provision of sanitary, health and medical services, and various other things.

The provision of such services, yes.

But they cannot be provided without money.

Clause 8 deals with the finances.

I find it somewhat difficult …

Sit down!

I am not prepared to take instructions from you or any one like you. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give us an explanation as to how that adjustment is going to be made. Our object in discussing the details of this clause, which under the Rules of the House we are able to do, is to endeavour to see that the principle we have already agreed to at the second reading, is a practical proposition and under this clause it can be put into effect. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories’s amendments are aimed at introducing practical consultation between the two portions of the local authority now to exist, the Bantu Urban Council and the urban local authority, who have to work together. Some such form of consultation will be necessary. I accept the sincerity of the hon. the Minister when he states that he believes that this consultation will take place, but this goes far beyond the type of thing that should be just agreed to or disagreed to at the wish of one or the other party. It is just as essential that the local authority should be compelled to meet and consult with the Bantu local authority as it is for the Bantu local authority to have to consult with the urban local authority on matters of this sort. It seems to me a straightforward practical method of removing a weakness in this clause by accepting the amendment. This weakness in the clause can react very unfavourably to the smooth administration of the system that we are aiming at, and it is so much a normal part of the normal set-up of local government that I can see no reason why it cannot be accepted: I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to give this matter further consideration.

The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) has the same difficulties regarding the compulsory meetings with the Bantu councils. I just want to tell hon. members that in recent years we have built up a very fine spirit of co-operation with the city councils and municipalities throughout the country. We have achieved an unprecedented spirit of co-operation and consultation and in many cases these councils do not meet only once every three months or six months, but every month. Many of them meet every 14 days and some of them every week. The necessary consultation takes place every week. As we have now achieved this admirable state of affairs through co-operation, I ask whether it will be reasonable of me, without consulting the municipalities, simply to tell them that I am now going to oblige them to act in this way? It would not be fair to the municipalities, and I would not be able to face them again if after the co-operation we have achieved, we should now simply dominate them. Hon. members must not expect this of me. I repeat that if later on we find that the municipalities feel that such an obligation should be imposed, this is a matter to which I can give attention and we can consider it next year, but I do not think it is fair to the municipalities to make it obligatory now. The hon. member for Parktown has also raised the objection that a previous law actually gave greater powers than the present Bill. I concede that readily, but in the present Bill I am keeping the door open for the granting of further powers. It is my intention that further powers will gradually be granted to them. There is also the principle that this must serve as a school for the Bantu. They must learn to do things themselves. They must learn to work with money, they must learn to keep an area attractive, and to undertake all sorts of tasks in that area. This I regard as a very important matter of principle. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) put this matter very well and very pertinently during the second reading debate. This is a matter which must be worked out systematically together with the Bantu and the municipalities and we must not simply force them into it. We must work this out systematically and we must systematically grant them more and more of these rights and powers, and the whole process must be developed together with them, the municipalities and the Department of Bantu Administration. That is the sound process. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has doubts regarding the finances. Here I have been very careful not to give any financial powers to the Bantu councils at this stage. All the financial powers are in the hands of the municipalities and the hon. member can therefore rest assured on that point. But what I should like to see is that when Budgets are drawn up, the representatives of the municipalities and the Bantu councils should meet and draw the Budget up together, instead of the municipalities drawing up their Budget for them. It is my desire that the system will be such that after the municipality has approved of the expenditure, a large proportion of the necessary funds will be handed over to the Bantu councils so that they can carry out certain works themselves. But it will remain the responsibility of the municipality concerned, and in this regard the Bantu councils are not being given any additional powers. I have been very careful not to transfer any of the financial powers of the municipalities before they have been consulted in the matter. We must co-operate in this regard and see how this system can be developed further.

May I just ask whether the Minister will consider including the power to grant trading sites? It was in the 1952 legislation.

I shall have to consult the municipalities in that regard before I can make such a promise.

We were very keenly anticipating the Minister accepting the latter part of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), because it has a reference to all the powers that can be exercised under Clause 4(2). In other words, the establishment of a Bantu Urban Council once having been decided upon and once it has complied with the necessary provisions regarding authority to exercise those powers, the whole of those powers are open to it, and I hope the hon. Minister may yet agree to the final portion of the amendment. In that connection I want to raise two points here specifically. The one is sub-section (2)(b) which says—

That is the first point I want to come to. We had rather thought to deal with this matter under Clause 7, but we have noted that this clause here deals with the power “to control and manage” such a guard, and it is the control and the management that we are concerned with. We are not opposed to the principal of establishing community guards, but we would like the Minister to tell us whether such a guard will come under the control of the police, and whether if so or not, who is going to be responsible for the actions of members of that guard. You see, Mr. Chairman, when you have the power by statute to establish a guard, such as is contemplated here, then you are establishing a body that has authority to act legally, and legally to use force under certain circumstances. When we give that by statute to a body, then we want to know precisely what the limits of the powers are going to be and to whom it is going to be responsible. Here the council will have power to control and manage, and we would like the Minister to tell us to whom it would be responsible. Supposing action were taken that was illegal, and a case was brought against a guard, who would stand the financial racket in the event of damages being awarded? I do not think it can be said that it is sufficient for our purpose to say that it would be the Urban Bantu Council that would be responsible, because their means in the case of a small council might be totally inadequate for the purpose. In the event of a very large council, say in the case of Meadowlands, you may have adequate means for the purpose. But we do want to know who is going to be responsible in the legal sense for action taken by a guard to be established in terms of Clause 7 and whose control and management is authorized under (b).

Then briefly under (f), that provides, as I understand it, for the appointment of really a small executive committee. That is what it looks like. It says that the urban Bantu authority shall have the power to delegate executive powers to a committee of such council. That sounds like an executive committee. But when it also provides for the delegation of executive powers “to any Bantu designated by it”. I want to be a little bit careful here. Who is “it”? Does this mean the delegation of executive powers by the council, or does it mean the delegation of powers to a Bantu designated by an urban Bantu authority? It is not clear at all here. I think it leaves the question of authority for the appointment of a Bantu not clearly defined, and if you read (f), you will see that this embodies the right of delegation, apparently, of all the powers and the performance of functions and duties of the whole of the Urban Bantu Council, and all these powers can be delegated to a committee, which I call an executive committee, but in turn either that committee or the council can delegate those powers to a Bantu, in other words to an individual person. Here we would like a very full explanation from the hon. the Minister, because this is a tremendous power to put in the hands of one man. Who will have the power to appoint such a Bantu? And what safeguards are there going to be in that connection?

Sub-section (c) permits the Chief Native Commissioner or the Native Commissioner to refer matters to the Bantu Council for report, reference or consultation, without reference to, or consultation with a local authority. Surely that seems wrong. Surely it is necessary to get the local authority acting in very close co-operation with the Bantu Commissioners. Unless one can get that co-operation between the local authority and the Bantu Commissioner, one is surely going to have considerable difficulties arising. Surely the urban Bantu Councils are really under the control of the local authorities and if they have dealings direct with the Native commissioners, without consulting with the local authorities or without transmitting their reports through the local authorities, we are going to have conflicts arising between the local authorities and the Bantu Commissioners. That is the last thing we want. The Native Affairs Commissioner should surely refer any matter on which a report is sought through the local authority to the urban Bantu council, and the report should then be transmitted back through the local authority. Very ticklish positions may arise if there is a failure of co-operation between the Native Commissioner and the local authority.

I do not think the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Butcher) need have any fears on that score. Consultation has already been established between the Bantu Commissioners and the advisory committees under the present system and the municipalities, and as the wording is here, it may be that the Bantu Commissioner approaches the urban Bantu council directly, but we can take it that, as far as possible, as a matter of procedure they will always do that in consultation with the local authorities. I don’t think that we should change the wording, because it may be that in exceptional cases here and there it will be necessary for a Bantu Commissioner to have access to the Bantu council without going through the municipalities, if, for instance, the municipality may cause some hindrance here or there. I do not think that it will occur, and I don’t hope that it will occur. I also want to point out in connection with the request that there should be compulsory consultation by inserting here a provision to that effect. But I want to refer hon. members to Clause 10 (1) (c) which will be dealt with later. There it is made possible for the local authority (that is the municipality) to make regulations for the meetings of this Bantu council, on which representatives of the state as well as of the local authority can be present. So by means of regulation that compulsion can be brought about.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) has asked two questions. The first is who will be responsible for the community guards. I want to say that the Bantu themselves have asked for the establishment of such guards, and I have already given the assurance at the second reading that we shall work out a system in consultation with the Minister of Justice and the police so that there can be the necessary control. But it is self-evident that the request will always come from the Bantu councils, and in consultation with the police we must give close attention to working out a system which will ensure sound control.

The hon. member has a further doubt. He has asked what the position will be as regards the delegation of powers, for example, to a Bantu or a so-called executive committee. The whole object of this provision is that it will enable a Bantu council, for example, to appoint a committee to carry out certain functions in the area, and in such a case it may be necessary to delegate powers to such a committee. This is a procedure which municipalities often adopt. Or it may be that one person is appointed. In that case it must be a Bantu. He may be instructed to carry out a certain task, and powers may be delegated to him. This is merely a procedure which I think is often followed by the White municipalities.

Will the council delegate the powers to the individual?

The Bantu council will delegate the powers.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) has an amendment on the Order Paper to the effect that this clause should be negatived. I think it is not necessary to move that amendment, because we can vote against the clause. We advanced our reasons fully at the second reading stage and I do not want to repeat them at length. Nevertheless, we do feel very strongly about this clause. At the second reading stage we stated that it may be necessary and desirable to confer judicial powers of this kind upon chiefs in areas far removed from a Native Commissioner’s office, but there is no reason whatsoever to confer this power on a representative of a chief in an urban area. It may well be, for instance, that in the Transkoi at some point which is far from Umtata or any other town in which there is a Native Commissioner, where it is difficult, for instance, for the parties in a civil dispute to travel a long distance to the town, there may be justification for having powers of this kind. But in your urban area, where that position does not obtain, it is far more desirable to leave the judicial power in the hands of the Native Commissioner. Since the hon. the Minister went ahead with his policy of establishing Bantu Authorities he has extended judicial powers in the reserves. He has, for instance, given the people on whom judicial powers had been conferred in terms of Sections 12 and 13 of the Native Administration Act the power to give default judgments, a power which was not formerly held. Previously, if the defendant was not willing to appear in a civil dispute before the person on whom judicial powers had been conferred, then the matter had to go to the Native Commissioner, but when the Minister went ahead with his system of conferring greater powers on Bantu Authorities in the reserves, they were given the right to hear civil disputes and if a defendant did not appear, they were empowered to enter default judgment. It is clear that the hon. Minister is trying to extend this system of judicial powers conferred upon tribal authorities. Now, apart from the argument that it is justifiable in an area which is very far removed from a Native Commissioner’s court, there is the other point that it is perhaps justifiable where you have a very close-knit community such as a tribal unit may be, particularly in a Native area. But where you do not have that close-knit tribal community, there is very much less justification for it. We feel that it is a system that is completely inapposite in the towns. In the towns you have your system of Native Commissioner’s courts, which has been working very well. We explained that in due course we hoped that even the separate courts for Natives would disappear and that one would merely have one system of courts for the administration of justice, but for the time being the Native Commissioner’s courts are functioning well and we are in favour of their retention. But we can see no justification whatsoever for bringing this principle of tribal courts which up to now has only been applied in Native areas into the urban areas. Not alone is it undesirable in respect of civil jurisdiction, but we feel it is particularly undesirable in respect of criminal jurisdiction where the essential authority is in the state and should be exercised by the state’s judicial system. I think one feature of Section 20 shows to what extent this power has always been regarded as essentially suitable for the reserves and not for the urban areas, and that is the jurisdiction in respect of punishment which has been conferred on chiefs or headmen. The section states that a chief, a headman or a chief’s deputy—

And these are the words I am coming to—

Surely it is clear that this system was never intended to be imposed in an urban area. This is an attempt to bring the system which obtains in the reserves into the towns. It is an extension of the Bantu Authorities system and a retrograde step which is aimed at returning the urban African who has advanced from it back to the tribal system. We are totally opposed to this clause and we hope that the hon. the Minister will reconsider it.

I hope the hon. member and his colleagues will not insist on the deletion of this clause. What is suggested in this clause? This clause provides for civil and criminal jurisdiction in certain matters. Just before we reached this clause we gave the Bantu councils certain powers. The first thing to do to win respect for a particular body is to see that alongside that body there is another body capable of applying disciplinary measures. If you merely confer powers on a body and there is no parallel body to enforce that authority, then the powers which we conferred in the previous clause will be of little avail to increase the prestige of the Bantu councils in those areas in the eyes of the Bantu for whose benefit we are passing this legislation. That is the position. Hon. gentlemen know that the criminal jurisdiction that we are conferring on the Bantu is very limited, whether it be to impose fines or any other penalty. But we must also remember this. The hon. the Minister has already said that he is training the Bantu how to exercise authority, how to govern, how to control and that type of thing. Of what avail would it be if we only trained them in one branch of civilization unless we gave them the opportunity of receiving training in another very essential branch of civilization, in an essential aspect, namely to maintain civilization. What would we achieve if we did not do so?

Would they have the background?

What background? Does the hon. member want to suggest that there is not a Bantu in South Africa who is capable of applying these elementary disciplinary measures? Does the hon. member really want to suggest that the Bantu is so backward and useless? No, I regard it as a serious reflection on the Bantu to say that he is not even capable of applying these elementary disciplinary measures.

What is the limit?

The hon. member knows that the limit is £20 as far as fines are concerned.

And an unmarried man under 30 years of age may be given strokes with a cane.

I wish hon. gentlemen would give me an opportunity of stating my case. As I was saying, the Minister has pointed out that this administrative machinery that we are introducing for the Bantu will to a great extent serve as a training college where they can receive training and equip themselves so that they can undertake greater responsibilities. I maintain that in dealing with the question of administration, the application of disciplinary measures is just as essential as the administrative aspect. Perhaps it is even more essential because the Bantu who will be appointed, provided they have certain prescribed qualifications, will be people who will have better insight to realize what type of penalty to impose, so as to imbue the people with respect. We should cease thinking that it is only the White man’s measures that are good in every respect. The disciplinary measures, which the White man applies, the fines and corporal punishment, etc. may be very effective in the case of White persons, but I think we must admit that it would pro-ably be much better if in the case of the Bantu, those disciplinary measures were applied by his own people. We are dealing here with something very essential but it is a delicate position. Why should the White man’s form of punishment, according to his concepts and his tradition, always be applied to the Bantu?

Will you also apply that to the Indians and the Coloureds?

That is not at all relevant. We are dealing with the Bantu at the moment and the hon. member should not drag in irrelevant matters. Those hon. members have a sufficiently high regard for the Bantu to admit him to this House, but they refuse to give him this elementary power which is essential. That is illogical. No, Sir, without this clause the whole legislation will be incomplete and ineffective to my mind. Without it the Bantu who are now to have councils and on whom we have conferred the powers laid down in the clauses which we have disposed of, will say to the councils: Who are you: if we do not do those things and if we do not have respect for you, the police of the White man will come along and we will go to the court of the White man. What respect will he have for the councils in that case? No, Sir, I think we will be making a fatal mistake if we did not give them this criminal jurisdiction, seeing that we are conferring powers of control on them. No. the body that has to command their respect must not be situated far away in the White man’s area. The nearer they are to that body that has to command their respect the greater will be their respect for the law, the better will they observe it, and the greater respect will you instil in those people in whose case it is most essential that they have that respect.

We have been discussing this particular Bill for some hours now and I wondered when we were going to hear from one of these Native Commissioner …

Is he a Native Commissioner! — Oh no!

Yes he is. The hon. member has at last come into the debate, on Clause 5, and a most unfortunate entry into the debate it has been for him, if I may say so, as a Native Commissioner. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has now said that without this clause the whole Bill will be useless, that if we do not give the Bantu in the urban areas civil and criminal jurisdiction we might as well not pass this Bill and give them Bantu councils and allow them to elect their own representatives. He says what will it profit us giving them administrative power and not giving them judicial powers. He also said that unless the council have judicial power it will not have the authority and the respect of the people, and we must build that up by granting them judicial power. Sir, I have never heard an argument of that type before. We might as well say that our municipal councils should be given power to hold court. The traditional chiefs courts which still operate in the Reserves are quite different from the type of courts that we are going to establish under this Bill.

Why?

Because the chiefs have their traditional authority and they do not try the cases by themselves. The chiefs have all their councillors around them.

But does not this clause say so too.

The chief has his councillors around him. men who are trained in Native customs and who are living in the Reserves and who still practise those customs. But the people who are likely to be elected to this council are permanently urbanized, detribalized Bantu. Even the representatives of the chiefs who will be selected, will be, according to the Minister, people who live in the area. They will no longer be closely associated or attached to the tribe. And the Bantu living in the Reserves live according to their customs. The people living permanently in these areas will be urbanized detribalized Bantu. Those people are forgetting their customs. They do not know those customs any longer.

Why do we have Native Commissioners’ courts in the urban areas?

Mr. Chairman, there we have another peculiar question from another Native Commissioner. He asks why we have Native Commissioners’ courts in the urban areas. We have Native Commissioners’ courts in the urban areas …

To deal with Native customs.

Exactly, to deal with Native customs, but we have legally trained officials sitting on the bench, men who have studied law and who know how to apply the Native customs. In the second reading debate I said I differed in this regard from the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope). I said that we must keep the Native Commissioners’ courts because those men are specially trained both legally and to deal with Native customs. They have studied Native customs. I pointed out, too, that even in the Reserves where the chiefs’ courts operate, it is often found that when appeals come to the Native Appeal Court that the chiefs themselves have forgotten their customs. And I explained why that happened. When you refer to statements on customs made in old cases, to evidence given by chiefs and assessors, you often find that the evidence of a chief given in these days as to his customs is completely different.

Order, order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

Excuse me Mr. Chairman, but this is the whole basis of the clause.

Order! The hon. member is discussing Native customs and Native chiefs. The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

But I am, Sir. It is intended in this clause to establish courts with the same powers as the Native chiefs’ courts, under the Native Administration Act, and I am dealing with those Native chiefs’ courts. The hon. member who has just spoken has said that the Natives have their courts in the Reserves and therefore they should have the same courts in the urban areas.

It is something provided by the Act which applies …

Order, order! Will the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) please continue.

The official who will officiate—I do not know what he is to be called, he will not be a chief and he is not a magistrate …

He is a tribal Judge.

He is a member of the council. As the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) savs, he will be a tribal Judge —an urbanized tribal Judge. He may be one of the elected members, but equally he may not be an elected member, he may be selected. If he is going to be an elected member it would have this advantage, that the people have shown their confidence in him by electing him to the council. But he may not be an elected councillor, he may be a selected councillor in whom people have no confidence and no faith. He may be the man who is appointed to officiate as a judicial officer. There is a provision, it is true, that he can consult with other members of the council if he so wishes, but he is the man who will try the case.

He may be a witch-doctor.

Order, order! The hon. member for Salt River must not continually interrupt.

But I am trying to help, Sir.

I think the hon. member can carry on without the assistance of the hon. member for Salt River.

I indicated in my second reading speech that we are in favour of having Bantu try Bantu, and I said that what the Minister should do is to allow only the Native Commissioners’ courts to operate in these areas and appoint legally trained Bantu as Native Commissioners. Let the Bantu themselves sit on the bench and try their fellow beings. We have no objection to that at all. In fact, I wish to encourage it. It will open another avenue of employment for the educated Bantu. And there are Bantu in the Minister’s own Department who have the legal qualifications but for whom there is no opening anywhere else. This is the Minister’s opportunity to put them on the bench, to make them Native Commissioners in these areas. For what period will these men who are to act as judicial officers, be appointed? Will it be for the term of their office as councillors, or how will they be removed? How will they be paid? Will they be paid something extra or will they have to rely upon gifts from the parties to the case? And in an area where you have various ethnic units and the judicial officer—or tribal Judge as the member for Salt River calls him—is a member of one tribe, is he going to be allowed to try all cases which may come before him. irrespective of which tribes the litigants come from?

You will have to have an international court.

Are you going to have a number of officials appointed from these councils to act as judicial officers? Mr. Chairman, this whole position is fraught with danger. What about attachments? Who is going to execute the judgments of the court?

You have the rules of Court.

If that hon. Native Commissioner knew anything he would know that áccording to the rules of the chiefs’ courts, execution must be carried out according to tribal customs. And what happens when the tribal customs differ because you have a number of national units living in one area? There is no necessity for the hon. the Minister, in giving these Bantu in the urban areas further rights to control themselves, to go to this extent of appointing these special courts. The Bantu themselves prefer our present system of justice. They prefer appearing before a Native Commissioner’s court where they have a man trained in the law and the law of evidence to try the case.

I indicated in my second reading speech that one of our main objections to this Bill— although we support the principle of establishing the Bantu councils—was that we disapproved of this provision to establish the Native courts. We will therefore vote against this clause. Everything I have so far said with regard to civil jurisdiction applies even more strongly to criminal jurisdiction. It is quite wrong to give an untrained man in an urban area the powers which it is proposed to give to a member of this council. They should not be given these powers of civil and criminal jurisdiction. If the hon. the Minister insists on going on with this clause and establishing these courts then I appeal to him that they should be only civil courts. They should not be given criminal jurisdiction. The Transkei chiefs did not have criminal jurisdiction until quite recently, and I submit it is wrong to give criminal jurisdiction to these people in the urban areas. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, there are really two reasons why I took this step. The first is that the Bantu in every residential area asked for it and said that they wanted it. Now I again find myself in this unfortunate dilemma, that on the one hand the Bantu asked me for something on a large scale, and on the other hand there are members of the Opposition who say: We know better than the Bantu; do not give it to them.

Did the Advisory Boards ask for it?

Not the Advisory Boards, but the Bantu en masse. I can take the hon. member along with me and he will not go to a single Bantu residential area where this request will not be put to him. It was put to me by people who are very highly developed. It was a request by the Bantu everywhere that they would like to make a start in the urban residential areas with having their own courts. The best start to make is with their own system of course. I have told hon. members that already two experts, one of whom is an eminent lawyer, are busy evolving a system of courts for the Bantu in the cities and in the Bantu areas. I hope it will be ready in a comparatively short time, and then I will go into it further together with the Bantu, in order to get the best system possible. It is not my intention at all to leave them this primitive system for ever. I repeat that Bantu everywhere made this request. Whose advice am I to follow? It is indeed a difficult task! I think it is better to take the advice of the Bantu, because they are the people concerned. Now I want to give hon. members the assurance, and particularly the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), that there is nothing that will force the Bantu to go to these Bantu courts. They can still always go to the police or to the Bantu Commissioner. They will have a free choice.

No, only the complainant has a choice.

Yes, but he is the aggrieved person. If we were to give the defendant that right also, the hon. member himself knows that we would never get satisfaction on their part. However, there is also another important reason. One of the important things which causes racial friction between Whites and Bantu can be eliminated by this means. Therefore I have no other choice but to give effect to it.

Now a series of questions has been asked: How will this person function there; how will he be paid, etc., etc. Let me just say that of course we will be very careful only to recognize persons who are actually recognized by the Bantu as people who in their own national group have a thorough knowledge of their own law. In other words, they will be recognized persons. I have already said that, without hon. members knowing about it, courts are held every day in the Bantu residential areas. Courts are held every day without being recognized. The Zulus go to their own people. That happens daily in practice. Here it is now simply being officially recognized by the law, at the request of the Bantu themselves. These are matters which we will work out very thoroughly in co-operation with the Bantu. I want to say that the Bantu are very sensitive about their own system of law. I want to give hon. members the assurance that together with the persons now engaged on this work we will give the necessary attention to it so that an injustice will not take place. I know that objections have been raised, particularly by the legal fraternity. But that is not because they are interested in the Bantu. In many cases it is because they are interested in their own pockets.

[Inaudible.]

I do not say that is true in the case of the hon. member, but there are certain members of the legal fraternity of whom it is in fact true. I had the privilege of seeing these Bantu courts in operation in Kenya, Tanganyika and the Belgian Congo, etc., and I was deeply impressed by the dignity of the courts and the satisfaction they give. The British officials there told me that there are few things which eliminate friction between the Whites and the Bantu as much as the establishment of those courts do.

The hon. the Minister spoke about a choice of courts in connection with civil jurisdiction. But now there is also criminal jurisdiction. If a person commits a crime within the area for which the tribal judge is appointed, will he have the choice of being heard by the tribal judge or before the other court?

I just want to reply to that question. I have already stated that the procedure is that the complainant decides.

But I am referring to criminal cases.

There the complainant decides whether he wants to go to the police or to this court.

To lay a charge?

The person who lays the charge.

Not the accused person.

These are matters which can all be worked out carefully together with the legal men.

There are two points I want to make arising out of what the hon. the Minister has said. The first is that the Minister has dealt with certain Bantu who are trained in the law, who are knowledgeable and who can, with credit to themselves, and benefit to the course of justice, take their place on the bench as what are now called tribal judges. But I must draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that these people must either be members of a council or representatives of a Bantu chief who has been recognized. In other words, the Minister has no choice in this matter. He does not appoint them. He may have the finest Bantu people trained in the law and available, but if they are not members of the council or representatives of the chiefs, then they cannot be appointed. The Minister can only appoint from that group. He cannot appoint from outside the group. I think that is the great difficulty which is facing the Minister. My hon. friend, the member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has made the point that what is wanted is people trained in the law, in other words, trained lawyers, if they are going to serve the purpose of justice with dignity and adequately fill such a position. But the Minister has not that choice. He must make the appointment from within the ranks of the council or from the representatives of the chiefs within that area.

As a rule the trained members are members of the council. Take Kroonstad and Bloemfontein and Johannesburg for example.

That may be the usual case, but it does not serve in so far as this particular Bill is concerned. The second point I want to make is this: The hon. member for Transkeian Territories asked what the period was to be for which these gentlemen would be appointed, and so forth. I want to say I think it is a very bad principle to have a member of the council—and the Minister has now confirmed that these trained lawyers are often members of the Advisory Boards, and now they will be members of the councils. The point is that the man who is the Bantu judge will be a member of the council. The man who is trying the case, who is trying people who are brought before him for having committed some infringement of the law will himself be a member of the council. He is occupying a duel capacity, and I think that is quite wrong. This looks to me something very like the election of a Western sheriff in the Western States of America in the old days. That is the type of situation that will develop here. Just imagine the position that such a man will find himself in when he comes up for re-election. The people who are going to elect him are the very people who he has had in front of him as malefactors and whom he has been convicting. And his reappointment will rest on the votes of that electorate. I think this is a very bad principle, to have one man occupying these dual positions. I wonder whether the hon the Minister has given full consideration to that particular point?

Some very cogent reasons have been advanced for the proposal that the Minister should drop this clause. On the second reading of this Bill I gave a number of reasons why I felt that it would be very inadvisable to give powers of jurisdiction to a person who may be untrained to try both civil and criminal cases. It may well be that the Minister may find Bantu who are acquainted with the Native customs and who can deal with the civil cases. But there remain the questions of criminal jurisdiction. In any event, on principle I am opposed to this proposal to import tribal courts from the Bantustans to the towns. In other words, I regard this as part of the Minister’s ideological concept of a Bantustan. There is a great deal to be discussed on this matter, and a great deal more that can be discussed. I had intended to-night merely to register my disapproval of this clause and then to leave it to a vote. I draw a distinction between merits which have to be discussed to the bitter end, and those where you make your case and then you vote. I regard this clause as one where you make your case and say that you are against it and then vote. We are new dealing with this matter at a late hour and I feel that, seeing it is already 10.30 on a Saturday night, it is quite improper that we should go on discussing this matter. I believe it would be much better, from the Minister’s point of view, if he were prepared to agree to a proposal to report progress, and then we would deal with this very rapidly on Monday. I do not believe that this needs a long discussion. We are either for this clause or against it. We discussed it in the second reading and I, for my own part, will be quite prepared simply to say I am against the clause and then vote. But if I am kept here longer to-night I will go on talking about it. I want to appeal to the Chief Whip.

Finish it now.

No, there are also the staff to be considered. I have no intention to hold up this Bill. I am against it and I shall vote against the clause. I was against it in the second reading. I shall make my position clear succinctly and clearly if I have the opportunity, but if I am compelled to talk longer I shall do that also. In order to test the position, and I appeal to the Chief Whip to support me, I move—

That the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.

In terms of Standing Order No. 36 (2) I am not prepared to accept the motion.

I move—

That the Question be now put.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—57: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; du Plessis, P. W.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Pelser, P. C.; Rall, J. W.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. E. Potgieter and M. J. de la R. Venter.

Noes—38: Basson, J. A. L.; Butcher, R. R.; Cope, J. P.; de Beer, Z. J.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, I. S.; Frielinghaus, H. C.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Horak, J. L.; Lawrence, H. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Streicher, D. M.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Waterson, S. F.; Williams, T. O.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—58: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; du Plessis, P. W.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Pelser, P. C.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. E. Potgieter and M. J. de la R. Venter.

Noes—38: Basson, J. A. L.; Butcher, R. R.; Cope, J. P.; de Beer, Z. J.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, I. S.; Frieling-haus, H. O.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Horak, J. L.; Lawrence, H. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Streicher, D. M.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Waterson, S. F.; Williams, T. O.

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

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 6,

This is a remarkable clause. It says there must be consultation with urban Bantu councils in the exercise of criminal and civil jurisdiction in the urban areas by the Bantu. This clause refers to the jurisdiction now being conferred on certain Bantu persons in the urban areas. In terms of Section 5 which has just been passed, those Bantu in the urban areas will now have similar criminal jurisdiction to the tribal chiefs in the reserves. That is the jurisdiction conferred by Section 20 of the Act of 1927. I have nothing to add to what was said by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) about the civil jurisdiction, but I am very concerned about the criminal jurisdiction. However, I cannot traverse once again the arguments raised in regard to the clause, but now that this Committee has decided by a majority that tribal chiefs may be appointed in the urban areas with both criminal and civil jurisdiction, we have this novel and startling provision. It says that no judgment, decision or direction given or order issued by any person in the exercise of any power or jurisdiction conferred on him in terms of Clause 5 shall be invalid merely by reason of the fact that it was given or issued by the person in question—and the person in question is the tribal judge—after consultation with any urban Bantu council or any member of such a council. Well, this is a startling enactment. The Minister, in supporting Clause 5, this tribal jurisdiction which has now been transferred from the reserves to the towns, has said that many Bantu had appealed to him to allow them to have their own Judge to try them. [Interjections.] I could understand it if the Minister said he would appoint Bantu judges to the Supreme Court.

Order! The hon. member must speak to the clause.

I am doing so, because it says that these tribal judges will now be able to have consultation with the local authority. But I find it very difficult to understand how it is possible to administer justice properly if a judicial official is now going to be in the position of consulting with a local authority, a Bantu council, before he gives judgment. If a Judge of the Supreme Court has to try a case of theft by an official of the City Council of Cape Town, he is not entitled to consult with the Mayor of Cape Town before giving judgment. How can a Judge consult a local authority? Have you ever heard of a thing like that, Sir? I thought I had been trained in law. I can understand a Judge sitting with one or two assessors to try a case; but I have never heard of a Judge being able to try a case with assessors consisting of the members of the local authority! This is making a mockery of the law, and that is why I am prepared to stay here till midnight and longer to oppose this Bill. I shall talk as long as I can against such a mockery of our law. Have you ever heard of such nonsense, Sir? Not only the nonsense of bringing tribal judges to the towns, but that these inexperienced persons in the law, who need not have any qualifications in law—they may be witchdoctors —should have full jurisdiction, both civil and criminal; and by heavens, they are allowed to consult a council before giving their verdict! This is a travesty of justice. Is this what the Republic is bringing us to? Is this what we have to sit here to do, to pass this travesty of justice?

Order! Will the hon. member confine himself to the clause.

I am dealing with something I am going to fight. I am dealing with the question of justice. How do you administer justice? You have impartial Judges who are prepared to observe the rule of law. They hear evidence whether it is in a civil or a criminal case, and they allow the parties before the court to be defended; the accused can be defended if he so wishes. They allow him to cross-examine the complainant. Then, having heard the evidence, the judicial officer considers argument by the State counsel and by counsel for the defence; and then he sums up the case and comes to his conclusion. He is an independent judicial officer. He gives his findings on the evidence. If any legal points arise, he hears argument on them. It may well be that the matter is of some complexity and that he has a number of legal precedents quoted to him. The case may be difficult and he may have to reserve judgment. In many cases Judges of the Supreme Court have taken several days or weeks before giving judgment. That is the ordinary administration of the law. But I have never known in all my experience, and I doubt whether the Minister can point to a precedent in any other country in the world, of a case where the Judge, having heard the evidence, having heard counsel for the State and for the defendant, then reserves judgment and goes into a huddle with the local city council. How does he do it? Does he go to the Mayor’s Parlour? Where does he meet them? In what circumstances can this consultation take place? Must he go to a mayoral party to discuss the verdict? It is astonishing. No, this is an innovation. It may be a Republican innovation.

Order! The hon. member is being facetious.

No, I am being very factual when I say that this is something I do not like at all. I resent this being contained in the law. I do not regard this as something which is worthy of our system of justice. I am not prepared to allow persons who have to administer justice, and who may be entitled in terms of Section 20 of the Act of 1927 to impose a fine of R40 or several lashes to unmarried Bantu under the age of 30, to have this jurisdiction and to consult a local authority.

Since 1927 justice has been administered in South Africa by Native Judges, by Native chiefs in consultation with their councillors. This system of administering justice is now being perpetuated because it will also operate in the urban areas according to the Native legal system, according to the same custom where justice is administered by the person administering it consulting with his councillors. That was the law in 1927. I think the hon. member was already a member of this House at that time.

No. I came here in 1929.

Then the hon. member is innocent, but he was Minister of Justice during the years 1942, 1943 and 1944.

You are wrong again. I was Minister of Justice in 1945. Get your facts right.

In any case he was a member of the Government in the years 1942-3-4 when this very Native Administration Act was amended in each one of those years. At that time he did not object to it that Native headmen and chiefs should administer justice, within their own areas, according to Native law in co-operation with their fellow-councillors. There was nothing wrong with it at that time.

In their own areas, yes; but that is not the position here.

That was not a violation of the law at the time. Now he says with great indignation that we are doing an injustice to the law. He cannot expect us to believe that story, Mr. Chairman. It is high time we saw that hon. member in his true colours. He is an actor and he ought to have a fez on his head.

I agree with the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). It is an astounding provision to include in any legislation which purports to deal with a system of justice. Here we have a situation in which the person who is going to be the Judge requires no legal qualifications and he can at his option consult with people who will possibly have less. He will be entitled to consult with people who never heard the case, who never saw the parties, who never heard argument and who might have an interest. What safeguard is there to ensure that the persons with whom he consults are not persons who have an interest in the case? How does the poor litigant know who is really giving the judgment? He appears before one person and judgment really derives from possibly some other group of people. To me it is a complete travesty of justice. The whole question of the independence of the court goes by the board. Normally we regard the court as a place where justice is not only done but where it is seen to be done. Here that principle is not observed, because judgment might very well be formulated by people who have no knowledge as to what happened in the court itself. So we have the position that not only is justice not seen to be done but it is positively concealed in this case. It is such an astounding provision that I hope the hon. the Minister will see the farce that is being created by including this provision in this Bill and I hope he will withdraw the clause.

Hon. members who have spoken so far on this clause are experts and I am not. As a layman I see another objection to the provisions of this clause, namely, that this is another example of legislation where we omit to keep the various sections of the authoritative power apart. We are dealing here with the establishment of a court, or a kind of a court, of the judicial authority and we are dealing with a clause which apparently provides that that court should consult with the council which is part of the legislative authority. Time and again we confuse the legislative authority with the executive authority, where the powers of the one overlap those of the other, and where the one is included to usurp powers which actually belong to the other. Here we again have an instance where a judicial body has to consult with a legislative body, namely the council. It may happen that that council may have a real interest in the case which is before the court. In that case it would naturally be very dangerous if there were to be contact or consultation between the two bodies. One of the basic principles of constitutional government are being assailed, namely, that the executive, the legislative and the judicial authority should be kept apart. I find it all the more shocking where this is being done in a case where the hon. the Minister has led us to believe—and I accept that that is his intention—that these sub-courts should be established so that a measure of guidance could be given to the Bantu concerned in regard to the law and the administration of justice. That being the case I find it shocking that we should start by departing from that basic principle of the independence of the Judiciary and by providing that the court should consult the council; the Minister will be guiding these people along the wrong road in his effort to train them in the administration of justice. I know I will be told that this is tribal custom, that it is Bantu tradition. But that brings us to the other important question of principle. It is one thing to say that you wish to retain that which was good in the past, but it is a different thing to say that because something was done in the past it should be retained in the future. I think that the hon. the Minister ought to tell us what his attitude is in respect of the administration of justice amongst the urban Bantu. In the long run the urban Bantu lives under Western conditions, at least in the economic sense. He works from Monday to Friday, he receives his wage; he goes to the shop and he spends it. He has to cope with the same problems as the Western civilized citizen has to cope with. I want to know from the Minister whether he thinks that, under these circumstances, the legal system of Western civilization is the best and the right one and whether he now wishes to change that legal system as far as these particular citizens of Western civilized cities are concerned, whereas the other legal system, the Western legal system as we know it. is to be applied to the other inhabitants of that same city. The danger inherent in this clause is no less than this, that, by introducing a provision such as we have in this clause, we are abandoning the whole concept of justice as Western civilization knows it and as it is practised under Western constitutional forms of government.

Had the hon. member studied Bantu law he would not have made the speech he has just made.

Why not?

Because this whole matter is based on Bantu law, the law which they understand. It is an elementary concept which is recognized throughout the entire world that you should guide a person from the things that he knows to those that are foreign to him. You achieve nothing by thrusting him into a situation which is foreign to him. The Bantu recognizes this system; he practises it in his own areas. Our own legal system admits that there is nothing wrong with it. Now suddenly, however, because we want to introduce it into a Bantu residential area it is wrong. There is nothing wrong with it when applied in the Bantu areas but here it is absolutely wrong! I cannot understand the logic of hon. members. They are the same people and it is practised daily here in Langa. The hon. member does not know anything about that but he wants to teach me. I am as anxious as any hon. member in this House to see to it that right and justice is done. But we must make a start and develop this system. What is more the Bantu have asked for it.

I doubt that.

I am expected to ignore the request of the Bantu and listen to the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). I wonder whether he has ever been to a Bantu residential area.

Often.

Then he could never have attended a Bantu court, otherwise he would not have spoken the way he did. I must allow myself to be guided by the Bantu in this case, and therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

I am surprised to hear the speech of the Minister. The objection to this clause is simply this that you have an official appointed by the Minister, one of the councillors, sitting in judgment himself being allowed to go and consult with any other member of the council on the judgment. The Minister says this is Bantu Custom; that this happens daily in the Bantu territories in the Bantu Courts. The Minister knows very well that what happens is this: The chiefs have their councillors around them and they listen to the case as well; everybody asks questions including the councillors and any of the spectators who may be present. They all take part in the trial and then the chief gives his judgment after consulting with his councillors. The councillors are there to advise the chief and they hear what is happening; they are like a jury. But, Sir, this is going to be quite different.

Why?

Because there is no provision here that the council has to sit in the court with the judicial officer.

Didn’t you read the previous clause?

Where does the hon. member get it in the previous clause?

The previous clause says “ … shall mutatis mutandis apply in connection with any power or jurisdiction conferred on any person in terms of paragraph (a).

I will read that clause—

Where does it say in this clause that the person whom he consults must be there to hear the case. [Interjection.] Let me ask the Minister this: Does he mean to tell me that the whole of the council is going to sit in court every day. When, does he think, are they going to work? The members of the council in the reserves where the chief holds his court are people who have lots of time on their hands; they can attend the court, but the people living in the urban areas have to work for a living, or are they going to be paid full-time officials to run the town and to sit in court? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) must abstain from interrupting.

I am merely trying to get some information.

I am not concerned with what the hon. member is trying to get. He must abstain from interrupting continuously otherwise I shall reluctantly be compelled to take steps against him.

The Minister basis his defence on this: He says that the Bantu want it. We asked the Minister how he knew that. He says he has had requests from every urban area where the Bantu have asked for their own court. I asked the Minister whether the advisory boards had asked for it and he said ‘no’. The Minister told us during the previous debate that he had consulted with the Bantu. I asked him whom he had consulted and he said ‘individuals’. But that, Sir, is not sufficient. I quite admit that individuals may have told the Minister that they wanted this, individuals representing a chief possibly who may get a position in terms of this Bill. But that is not a request from the Bantu as a whole. I am certain of this that if the Minister held a referendum in Langa on this question he would lose. They would not accept this. Will the Minister tell us whom he consulted. I have heard the Bantu talk about these courts and I know what they think of them. I simply cannot believe that the majority of the Bantu want these courts. The Minister has possibly had people asking him to establish these courts, I accept that. He himself said that he had not been asked for this by the advisory boards. The Minister cannot get away from the fact that these councils will not be able to attend the courts like the chief’s councillors do in the reserves. They won’t have the time to do that, unless they all become full-time officials. The Minister has got his court now let him agree to the omission of this clause. As the member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) has said the parties to the case will not know who is giving judgment or who has decided the case; they appear before one man and he goes off and consults other people, people who may have an interest in the case, as the hon. member correctly pointed out. It is quite wrong that he should be allowed to consult people who have not heard what has taken place in court.

I too am strongly opposed to this clause. We have a similar provision in the Bantu Authorities Act of 1951. Section 4 (3) of that Act reads—

That is in respect of the reserves. We are now introducing that principle into the urban areas. Sir, that is not the only link with the reserves. I notice that Clause 6 refers not only to the exercise of jurisdiction by people appointed in terms of Clause 5; it also refers to people who are appointed in terms of Section 5 (2) of the Promotion of Bantu Self Government Act. That Act too provides for the appointment of tribal Judges in the urban areas. Section 5 of that Act refers to the representatives of regional or territorial authorities or boards who have been recognized in terms of the Promotion of Bantu Self Government Act. Sub-section (2) says—

I had hoped under the previous clause to ask the Minister further about the people whom he may appoint to exercise the criminal and civil jurisdiction but it is equally applicable to this clause: Does the hon. Minister intend to appoint persons as Judges in terms of the Promotion of Bantu Self Government Act— he has a choice in terms of Clause 6—or does he intend to proceed in terms of Section 5. Has he appointed any Judges so far in terms of Section 5 of the Promotion of Bantu Self Government? If he does, there is no reason why they should even be persons resident in the urban area. In fact even if he operates in terms of Section 5 there is no necessity for him to appoint a person who is resident in the urban area. He may recognize someone from the reserves. All in all. Sir, it is clear that there is a very close link between the Bantu Authorities Act and this Bill in relation to the conferring of civil and criminal jurisdiction and the type of procedure that is to be followed. This is a very good example of the kind of procedure to which we object in the exercise of jurisdiction by tribal Judges. It is a fundamental to legal practice that a case should be decided by the Judge who hears the evidence. He is not entitled to consult people who have not heard the evidence. For instance, when one appoints a jury to hear a case the Judge’s direction to them is that they shall not consult with any other person until they have arrived at a verdict. That happens in every criminal case in which there is a jury. Similarly in the case of the Judge; he may not consult with a person on a case before him who has not heard the evidence. There has been a dispute between the hon. member for Heilbron and the hon. member for Transkeian Territories in this respect. The hon. member for Heilbron says the procedure is exactly the same as in the reserves. Where this tribal jurisdiction is exercised in the reserves, and other people are consulted by the person who gives the verdict, they have heard the case, as the hon. member for Transkeian Territories has pointed out, but there is no such requirement here.

Why do you say that?

I am prepared to challenge the hon. member for Heilbron to show that the regulations require the attendance of the other members of the urban Bantu Council. If the hon. member for Heilbron can produce that from the regulations I am prepared to bow to him, but I am certain the regulations will not provide that the other members, with whom the chiefs in the reserves consult, have to be present, and so too where the same regulations are applicable in the urban areas there is no requirement that the other members must be present. If they must be present, the system is laughable. Is the hon. the Minister really going to suggest that all the urban councillors should be present or that all people who are to be consulted must be present? If so. why not make them the Judges?

There are other aspects of the procedure similar to this to which we object very strongly. For instance there is no necessity for the evidence to be taken down and recorded. Further, according to tribal custom the accused is not represented by an attorney of the court. That is the procedure in the reserves and as the procedure of the reserves is to be observed here, it seems that attorneys will not be able to appear before these courts in the urban areas. They have been prevented from appearing before the courts in the reserve areas and I assume, as the regulations are to be exactly the same here, that they will not have the opportunity of appearing before these courts. The procedure, therefore, appears to be suitable for the kind of court which is held in the reserves. It is not the best procedure but is followed because of a lack of alternative. The tribal communities may be a very great distance from the nearest Native Commissioner, and because of that it may be desirable to have these tribal courts but nothing could be less suitable for the urban areas.

The hon. member has challenged me to prove on what grounds I say that these courts will administer justice in the same way as the courts in the Bantu reserves. The previous clause says—

The very first section of the regulations that have been promulgated says that the procedure followed should be in conformity with recognized customs and legal practice. What are the recognized customs and legal practice? The very first section says that the courts should follow the procedure which is in conformity with recognized custom and legal practice. And what is that? It is that he should gather his councillors around him.

That is common law.

No, it is not; it is Native law. It says clearly in this section that the existing customs of the Natives should be taken into consideration. And it is the custom in terms of Native law for him to gather his councillors around him. They have to be present when the evidence is given. That is exactly what happens in the Bantu areas at the moment, so it has to happen here because it applies mutatis mutandis. Because the person in the urban areas has no councillors, because the councillors are in the Bantu areas, the law has to indicate whom he can call upon to serve as councillors. That is why we have Clause 6. Surely that is clear. The difficulty which hon. members raise does not exist.

Sir, I tremble when I hear some of the arguments in regard to these courts. The hon. member who has just sat down dealt with Clause 5 and pointed out that the provisions of sub-sections 12 and 20 of the Native Administration Act applied mutatis mutandis. But surely Clause 6 says specifically that “no judgment, decisions or direction given or order issued by any person… shall be invalid merely by reason of the fact that it was given or issued by the person in question after consultation with any urban Bantu council or any member of such a council”, If that is not put in it means that it would otherwise have been invalid. In other words, Sir, it is only necessary to incorporate the provisions of sub-sections (12) and (20) of the Native Administration Act; that will be sufficient if the hon. member’s argument is correct. It would have been sufficient to incorporate those provisions and to say: There is the power, now confer it. But it does not say that. It specifically says that that judgment shall not be invalid merely by reason of the fact that consultation has taken place with the other members of the council. It was there for the obvious reason that it would otherwise have been invalid, because the accused would have been able to say: I have not been fairly judged; this decision is a decision which has been arrived at when the judicial officer who has been trying me has gone and consulted with a lot of other people who were not even present.

I now want to come to this question of the tribal courts. I have attended many of these tribal courts and I want to point out very clearly that the difference is this, namely the counsellors sit there and they all hear what is being said and have the right to question both the plaintiff and defendant. In regard to the point made by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories, namely that the other members of the council will not hear the case at all because they will not be present, I want to focus attention on the ability of the Bantu living in European urban areas, to take time off during the day to attend to various matters associated with the activities of an urban areas council, and to attend the meetings of the council from time to time. I sat as chairman of a special commission for three years taking evidence from the Bantu people and the point was made to us over and over again, namely how could they get the time and opportunity to attend to such affairs, when they are people who have to work. They said that they could not sit in idleness in one of the locations or residential area in a European urban area. Unless some of them have a small business of their own in that area, most of them have to go out to the nearest European town to work. They pointed out repeatedly that they did not have the time to attend to these multifarious activities and that something would have to be done to provide them with the time and opportunity to do that. This is the crisp difference between a tribal court and the urban council within a European area where we do not allow a class of leisured Native to live. That is precisely what we do not permit. This is striking at the root of the whole thing and I hope the hon. Minister is not going to insist that these courts are going to be based on the tribal courts, because there is no point of resemblance between them, apart from the fact that there will be a Native sitting as judicial officer in both courts. Apart from this there is no point of similarity whatever, either in the conduct of the court, i.e. the procedure of the court, nor in the enforcement of the judgment given, or in any other aspect.

I can assure hon. members that a court sits every day in the Bantu residential areas. I am very tempted to move the adjournment of the House so that we may attend such a court and so that hon. members may see what transpires there. Such a court sits every day and the people have time to attend it. That is not their complaint. Their complaint is that they have no legal authority.

Are the people who approach the hon. the Minister people with any legal training and who therefore ask the hon. the Minister to constitute courts of this nature because that will provide them with the kind of work they need?

That is definitely the case. I want to give an example. There is a number of Swazis in a Bantu residential area in Pretoria who hold their own court there because they refuse to go to a European court in any circumstances. Their court has no legal authority, however, although the people concerned are recognized experts in Swazi law. They are chiefs’ representatives. They are now asking me to confer legal authority on them. That is all that I am doing here. It is obvious that where those circumstances do not obtain I shall not confer legal authority on them. I can assure hon. members that I am doing it at the request of the Bantu concerned. It is not my intention to force it on to anybody. On the contrary, I am only meeting those people who have asked me to confer that authority on them. When I was at Kroonstad recently a similar request was made to me by a Sotho there. He is a person who is regarded by his own people as an expert in South Sotho law. In addition to that he has a B.A. and LL.B. degree. They begged me to confer the same legal authority on him as that which the Bantu enjoy in the Bantu areas. In any case their courts follow the same procedure as is followed in the Bantu courts in their own areas. There is no difference. What I am saying here is the gospel truth. I want to issue a challenge to the hon. member for South Coast, which I hope he will accept. I will take him to one of these courts but then he must admit in this House that he was wrong. Does the hon. member accept it?

I do not quite follow the hon. the Minister. Is the hon. the Minister asking me to accompany him in order to convince myself that the Bantu are asking for this power or to watch one of these courts in session? One of which courts? There cannot be any court such as those envisaged here because there is no legal provision for them. How can the hon. the Minister take me to one of the courts to be instituted in terms of this Bill, if no such court has as yet been instituted?

The hon. member must not come with clever excuses. I have already said that such courts did exist in practice and that all we were doing in this Bill was to recognize them, because they have asked for it. Obviously it would be stupid to say that the courts already existed before the Act providing for them was on the Statute Book.

In that case I accept the hon. the Minister’s challenge on condition that the circumstances are precisely the same as those for which provision is being made here, namely that the person who appears in a judicial capacity should consult with another group of people who conform to the council of the Minister’s. That is the system which I want to see in operation, the system as provided for in this Bill. In that case I am certainly prepared to go with the Minister.

That is part of Native law according to the 1927 Act. My officials are there to guard against that. I now move—

That the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Agreed to.

House resumed:

Progress reported and leave asked to sit again.