As this is a consolidating and amending Bill, in terms of S.O. No. 54 only those clauses in which proposed amendments are indicated are before the Committee.

On Clause 3,

The amendment in this clause is in respect of Natal only. When the Minister introduced the Bill, he referred in rather scoffing terms to it. What is being removed here is the distinction in Natal between what was known as an inland bill and a foreign bill. An inland bill was one which on the face of it purports to be both drawn and payable within the Province of Natal, and any other bill is a foreign bill. But there was a very good reason for this in Natal. It was that an inland bill did not have to be noted. The protest procedure did not involve the services of a notary unless the holder so required. The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. van Zyl), speaking in the second reading, appealed to the Minister to do away with all this procedure relating to the noting and protesting of bills, and I want to support what the hon. member said. In Natal we have not since the laws dealing with bills of exchange were passed in 1887 had the requirement for the noting and all this procedure through a notary. In Britain, on which all our laws are founded, they also have a distinction between an inland bill and a foreign bill, and they too have done away with this very expensive procedure relating to the noting of bills. In the old days when the original Natal laws were passed there was a very good reason for it. Distances were great and communications were difficult and the obtaining of evidence was also very difficult and so you had to have certain noting procedures. But it does not exist in Great Britain and they have operated their bills of exchange laws without this procedure, and it has never operated in Natal in respect of a local bill. If this Bill is passed like this, I submit that the people in Natal will be saddled with a lot of extra and unnecessary expense—unnecessary, as we have proved in Natal over the past 80 years, and as was proved in Britain. The hon. member for Sunnyside raised the matter, but the Minister did not deal with it then, and I hope the Minister will explain to us why it is that he is insisting, as he does in Clause 49, that this procedure and the services of a notary should be required in respect of every bill.

Mr. Chairman, I can quite understand that many years ago, Natal perhaps had reason to make the distinction between the Greeks and the barbarians, but to ask me now to continue with that distinction and to run counter to the practice and the procedure in the Transvaal, the Cape and the Orange Free State, that I am not prepared to do. If I have to choose between the two, then I will choose the other procedure. What the hon. member is asking for now is not for the use of those words, but that there should be no noting and protesting by means of a notary in regard to unpaid bills. Consolidation is all we are doing here. If there has to be an amendment of the law, that is a matter that can be raised in the future, and if there is a large measure of support for it I will go into it, but this is a consolidating measure and we simply had to choose between the procedure in Natal and that in the other three provinces. I should have imagined that Natal would have been the first to admit that the provisions of the law of 1887 are no longer applicable.

Mr. Chairman, I notice that you are missing certain clauses.

I said so at the beginning.

Sir, I just want to lodge a protest. Only after the second reading did we receive a copy of the clauses …

Order! The hon. member must deal with the clause under discussion. I am afraid I cannot listen to his protest.

Clause 9 is not shown on the list which was given to me after the second reading, and I think the Minister should have given the House a list of the clauses which were of a consolidated nature and those which were not of a consolidating nature.

Order! The hon. member must confine his remarks to Clause 9.

Would the hon. the Minister perhaps indicate which provinces had and which provinces did not have the words “or after” which are being inserted here.

The position is that the words “or after” were not included in the Natal law of 1887. Apparently the position in all the other provinces was the other way. But, Sir, I have some heartening news for the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). I am not going to spoil his pleasure by anticipation, but there are certain clauses in which we have chosen to follow the wording of the Natal law in preference to the wording of the laws of the other three provinces.

You cannot go wrong if you follow Natal.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 55,

Here we have followed Natal in Clause 55 (1) paras, (i) and (iii).

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 95,

Here, too, the words which are to be deleted were included in the Transvaal, the Cape and the Free State enactments but not in the Natal law. They are regarded as being superfluous since they are covered by the words “with a seal of a corporation”.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 101,

The matter I wish to raise under this clause is one which I raised during the second-reading debate; the hon. the Minister did not reply to it then. This clause provides that no bill or note which was made before the commencement of the Act or at the commencement of the Act shall become invalid by reason of the provisions of this measure. What I want to know from the hon. the Minister is this: What about the liability of the parties to the bill? This is not dealt with under this clause and it is not dealt with in this Bill. What I have in mind is an example that I gave the hon. the Minister of joint makers of a bill. In Natal, unlike any of the other provinces, a bill which is jointly made and which does not begin with the words “I promise to pay” brings only joint liability to the joint makers; it does not bring, as it does in the other provinces, joint and several liability. In Natal the position is that only if the joint makers sign a note “I promise to pay”, is there joint and several liability. The custom in Natal, certainly amongst the Indian merchants, is to sign joint notes, and they very often sign joint notes which do not begin with the words “I promise to pay”, and they do so for the reason that in Natal there is only joint liability. As I read this, their liability is likely to be changed into joint and several liability. I would like to know why the hon. the Minister has not provided for the change that this law might bring about in the liability of joint parties to a note in Natal.

The remarks of the hon. member are really applicable to Clause 89 (2), which provides—

Do I understand the hon. the Minister correctly, then, that in fact even though someone has made a note and in making it incurred certain liabilities according to the law then, the note which is now still current and will be current when the Bill is passed, his liability will change? Sir, it is like signing a contract in specific terms and then finding that this Bill has suddenly changed the terms of the contract, to which he would not otherwise have agreed.

The Natal law has been altered. The words which are underlined in Clause 89 (2) were not in the Natal law. They are now considered necessary, and to that extent they do alter the existing law in Natal.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Second Schedule,

The hon. The Minister is here repealing Law No. 15 of 1862 of Natal relating to public holidays and relating to when bills shall become payable if they fall due for payment on public holidays. Is the hon. the Minister going to make any other provision in place of that?

I cannot say off-hand what the position is in that regard. I will find out what the position is and let the hon. member know later on.

Second Schedule put and agreed to.

Title put and agreed to.

When this debate was adjourned on Friday afternoon, I had made it quite clear that we were utterly opposed to this Bill, and that it would further damage the good relations which have always existed between the Coloureds and the Whites, relations which have already been damaged by this Government. I also showed that the statement made by the Minister that bitterness was caused by the fact that the Coloured people were on the Common Roll, was not correct. I pointed out that most White people were not bitter against the Coloured people; that we on this side had never been bitter against the Coloured people, we are not bitter against them now and we shall never be bitter against them. Any bitterness that existed, existed in the minds of those White people who were against the Coloured people being on the Common Roll. The removal of the Coloured people from the Common Roll plus other legislation caused bitterness in the minds of some of the Coloured people against the Whites. This Bill will further damage our good relations and cause further bitterness in the minds of the Coloured people against the Whites.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to move the most radical amendment open to us to indicate our complete opposition to this Bill. I accordingly move—

We move this motion for many reasons, but particularly because we regard this simply as a further instrument to segregate the Coloured people politically. In our view the direction in which this Bill moves amounts to a further retrograde step in the breaching of all the solemn pledges given to the Coloured people in the past. It may be held out as offering something which they have not got at the present time, but what is in fact offered is something which leads in the wrong direction. It can only lead to further frustration; it can only lead to complete loss of faith in the White man’s word, to friction and possibly— heaven forbid—the formation of a solid non-White front directed against the White man in South Africa. This legislation is, of course, being held out to the Coloured people—and to the world—as an important step towards giving them political self-expression, but I want to say that if the Coloured people had been consulted directly or through their representatives in this House it would have been abundantly clear, even to the present Government, that the direction which it represents is contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the Coloured people. Despite what it pretends to be, it is, I fear, the penultimate step in the ultimate denial to the Coloured people of their traditional, special position as a political appendage of the White map in South Africa. The ultimate step will, of course, be the removal from this House of the four members who still sit here as the direct representatives of the Coloured people of the Cape Province. I shall have something more to say about this a little later.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill as a whole to me represents simply an extension of the phoney policy of separate development, of the myth that apartheid of this sort is a feasible policy. And I want to say that the application of this so-called policy must end in the break-up of South Africa into independent and antagonistic racial groups, not even settled in territorial entitites. Particularly, of course, is this latter fact true in respect of the Coloured community. We have heard from members opposite and from the Prime Minister himself that the moral justification for applying the apartheid policy to the Bantu—for depriving the Bantu in the Cape of the limited representation which they enjoyed in this House prior to 1959—is that they shall exercise full rights and grow to independence in their own homelands, the Transkei. But where is the “homeland” for the Coloured people?

What are the historical facts in regard to the Coloured vote? For over a century the Coloureds in the Cape enjoyed the right of voting on a Common Roll provided he could satisfy certain qualifications. Over 50 years ago that right was inserted also into the contract of Union and was made one of the entrenched clauses of the Act of Union, drawn up by the fathers of our Constitution, men like General Botha, General Smuts, General Hertzog, John X. Merriman, ex-President Steyn, General de Wet, General de la Rey, J. W. Sauer and many others. In the 1920s, when General Hertzog at the head of the old Nationalist Party of those days declared it his policy to place the Natives on a separate roll, it was made clear that there was no intention to treat the Coloureds in the same way but rather to treat them politically as Europeans. In the words of General Hertzog, speaking in Parliament in 1930—

With this exposition we on this side of the House fully agree. General Hertzog and his party and his Government gave the solemn pledge that if the Coloured people would help him to remove the Natives from the Common Roll, they in their turn would not be segregated either politically or economically. The National Party under General Hertzog, ably assisted at that time by our present Minister of Lands, thought that it was in the best interest of all, and particularly of the White man, to keep the Coloured on the Common Roll. But in 1936 the “gesuiwerde” Nasionale Party, a small party, thought that if they were to advance they would have to come along with something radical. They thought that if they advocated the removal of the Coloured man from the Common Roll it would be a popular policy with the electorate. They thought that they could stir up a section of the White people and that they could frighten the White people into believing that the Coloureds would dominate them politically. By advocating that policy they thought they would succeed, and they did succeed, in getting a large number of White voters to support them. That is the origin of the removal of the Coloured man from the Common Roll. The removal of the Coloured people from the Common Roll represented a diminution of their political right, and in his second-reading speech the hon. the Minister made a statement from which it seems that he is prepared to bring about a further diminution of the political rights which the Coloured people enjoy at the present time. This is what he said—

In other words the hon. the Minister, if I understand this correctly, is not prepared to have more and more representatives of the Coloured people in Parliament, irrespective of the number of Coloured voters. In other words, if there are 70,000 Coloured voters they will still be limited to four representatives. But, Mr. Havenga, Col. 6233 of 1951, said this—

That is the position as it stands, and according to the hon. the Minister there will be a further diminution of the political rights of the Coloured people; they will never get the increased representation in this House which we always understood they were entitled to. Sir, the Coloured people have never been a danger to the Whites. They have been our close allies; they have stood by us for centuries; they have worked for us and with us; they have fought with us; they have almost had the same rights. They were almost on a par with us, except that socially we have always had separation, to which we all agreed, including the Coloured people. They have respected us and we have respected them. Now with separate development we will drive them further away from us. The result of this legislation may be that the Coloured may develop a new separate nationalism, just as a group often embraces ultra-nationalism, and just as ultra-nationalism developed at one time amongst the Afrikaner people, so much so that the nationalists sympathized with the communists in the 1922 disturbances on the Rand. That is what ultra-nationalism does, and the same thing may happen amongst the Coloured people. Sir, what will the Whiteman’s position be if that should come to pass? They have always stood by us and they want to stand by us. Why take steps to drive them away, make enemies of them and jeopardize the White man’s position? We want to protect ourselves, our children and our grandchildren; we want to protect our future existence. Our policy is also in the best interests of the Coloured people. It is designed to protect them, their children and their future existence. The hon. the Minister spoke the other day of the “ontwisbare reg van voortbestaan van die blanke”. Sir, we on this side equally believe in the “ontwisbare reg van voortbestaan van die blanke”. The only difference is that we on this side of the House believe that that can be attained by supporting the policy of this party. We believe that it will be lost if we support the policy of the party on that side.

Sir, I have already referred to what General Hertzog said. This Government ignores the truth of General Hertzog’s words completely and proceeds with its separation policy, of which this Bill, as I have said, is the penultimate political instrument. It purports, of course, to establish real and effective functions for the Coloureds in respect of their own people in certain spheres. It pretends, in fact, to create that “state within a state” of which the Prime Minister so often speaks. But in fact it gives the Coloured people simply the trappings of power without the reality, and the whole thing is simply a pretence. The Executive Committee which purports to have power in respect of finance, local government, education, community welfare and pensions, rural areas and settlements for Coloureds, consists of five members, four of whom shall be elected. But the chairman shall be appointed by the State President and will clearly be the instrument of the Minister and his Government. The council itself shall have power—the Bill uses the word “power”—to advise the Government on request in regard to the interests of the Coloured population; to make recommendations to the Government and to serve as a link between the Government and the Coloured population. But it has not even the right to introduce any law without the approval of the Minister, granted after consultation with the Minister of Finance. In addition, a Bill, after having been introduced, with the lead of the Minister, and passed does not become binding until it has been assented to by the State President. All this simply indicates a state of tutelage without even, as I have said, the so-called moral justification that these people, like the Xhosas, will one day attain to complete independence in a homeland of their own! So far from being treated as an appendage of the White man in the Hertzog tradition, they are now reduced to a situation inferior to the Transkeian peoples against whom, ironically enough, their forefathers helped the White man defend his frontiers in days gone by.

I stated earlier that I regard this legislation as the penultimate step in the Government’s separatist plans for the Coloured people. The ultimate step, I believe, will be abolition of Coloured representation in this House. I say so for two obvious reasons. The first is that this Bill provides that “by mediation of the Minister, members of the Executive Committee shall have direct access to any Minister in connection with any matters affecting the Coloured population in the Republic. This simply means that the four Members of Parliament representing the Coloured people of the Cape have no locus standi and are completely short-circuited. Surely this will in time be advanced as a reason for their elimination. The second is that this Bill makes provision for the large-scale registration of voters for the election of the Coloured council on a basis which is much easier than that which applies in respect of the registration of voters for the election of the four parliamentary and the two provincial council representatives. This lower registration figure for the parliamentary seats and the higher registration figure for the election of council members will be used by the Government to support the argument that the Coloured people are not even interested in registration for the election of Members of Parliament and that therefore there is no justification for the presence of representatives of the Coloureds in this Parliament. Sir, this Bill is anathema to us. It is a snare and delusion for the Coloured people and it is a step in the wrong direction. Our wise national leaders of the past would not have been in favour of the trend which this Bill embodies, and neither are we. We on this side stand by our pledges in the past in regard to the Coloured people. We shall consult with them in regard to their political future but on the basis of their return to the Common Roll here in the Cape Province and in Natal. We regard them as a Western people. What has the Government done to consult them in regard to this Bill? It was interesting to note the other day that the hon. the Minister mentioned that Mr. Harry Lawrence has established a Coloured advisory council because the system of the Common Roll had failed and that he wanted that council as a channel of consultation between the Coloured people, himself and the Government. The Minister said this—

Must we then also assume that the members of this House cannot advise the Government on economic matters; was that why the Government established an Economic Advisory Council? Surely, Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister was wise in establishing that Economic Advisory Council to advise him further. Mr. Harry Lawrence was also wise in establishing a council to advise him further in regard to Coloured matters.

What has the Government done to consult them in regard to this matter? Have they consulted the properly elected representatives of the Coloured people, the four representatives who sit in this House, representatives who sit here by virtue of the Government’s own legislation? What have they done to consult with the Coloured people? The Minister has told us that there was consultation in 1961 with the existing Coloured Affairs Council. But who and what is that council? It is a council the majority of whose members are nominated, members who are prepared to think as the Minister thinks. There is a certain number of elected members and how were they elected? There was no election, the Coloured people boycotted those elections; they would have nothing to do with them. So 12 individuals presented themselves and were elected. The existing council does not by any stretch of imagination represent the views of the Coloured people in this country. Were the four Coloured Representatives consulted? The representatives who are in close contact with the Coloured people of this country; they fight elections; they contact the electorate and in between elections they visit their constituents; they know what the views of the Coloured people are. The elections have shown us that the Coloured people are completely opposed to the policy of the Nationalist Party. Towards the end of last year we had a by-election and Mr. Daantjie Scholtz offered himself as a candidate; he offered himself as an independent candidate. He went to great pains to dissociate himself from the Nationalist Party. He told the Coloured people that he had lost the party nomination because he was too well disposed towards the Coloured people. In other words, anybody who was well disposed towards the Coloured people had no hope of winning a Nationalist Party nomination. At first Mr. Scholtz did very well in regard to the postal vote. We all know how the postal vote system works; he got a fair number of postal votes. But I maintain that on the day of the election itself he did not get more than 300 votes. Anyway, he lost the election, a fair amount of this money went down the drain and the hopes of the hon. Minister for his candidate went up in smoke. The vast bulk of the Coloured people have been completely ignored. I believe the lack of consultation is contemptuous of the Coloured voters, contemptuous of their representatives and bodes ill for the future of the Coloured Representatives in this House.

Mr. Speaker, the Coloured people do not want this legislation. We do not want it. Only this Government with its preoccupation with ideological legislation wants it. I therefore move the amendment which I have read.

The hon. member who has just sat down and who is also one of the leaders of the United Party had practically nothing to say about this Bill. The few questions this Bill poses to the Opposition have definitely not been answered by him. The hon. member had much to say about the Coloureds not having been consulted. When it suits the Opposition they advance the argument that this Coloured Council consists of stooges of the Government. The fact of the matter is that this legislation emanates from that Coloured Council. They have approved of it. If the United Party have to provide us with the people with whom we must consult we shall never have that consultation, but I shall return to that at a later stage.

The hon. member asked the Minister whether, if the number of Coloureds increased to 582,000, the number of Coloured Representatives in this House would remain at four? That number will definitely remain the same. I want to remind the hon. member that in 1951 when legislation in connection with the Coloured vote was discussed for the first time in this House, the then Government issued a statement on behalf of the National Party to the effect that the Coloureds would be given four representatives in this House and that that number would only be increased if the White representation in this House were increased, in which case it would be increased proportionately. That was a promise and we adhere to it. The number will definitely not be increased because they were not appointed on a numerical basis.

The hon. member says the relationship has deteriorated. I can only say this to him: Race relations were never as bad in the history of this country as they were in 1948 when the National Party came into power. He denies that; he says there is bitterness to-day. It was because of the bitterness which existed at the time that the National Party came into power in 1948. The Whites were embittered because of the way in which the United Party had misused the Coloureds. I can tell the hon. member that the bitterness which existed at that time bordered on hatred. There is nothing like that to-day. We have reached the stage to-day where the Whites are extending the helping hand and the Coloured people are in fact prepared to accept that helping hand. The hon. member told us they were opposed to this legislation because it was only another step along the road to separate development. They want to return to the Common Roll, because, says he, under that system there was no bitterness. I repeat: In those days there was bitterness which bordered on hatred; it was a dangerous bitterness. We shall not return to that position, Mr. Speaker. I am firmly convinced that the White people of this country will never return to that position; they will not place the United Party in a position to do so. I am also firmly convinced that even the Coloureds do not ever want to return to that period when nothing was done. We were embittered in those days, but the Coloureds were also embittered because the United Party held out the National Party to the Coloured as his enemy—that was why there was bitterness. I think I have reason today to say that over the past 16 years that bitterness on the part of the Whites and on the part of the Coloured has totally disappeared.

This is not merely a further step in the direction of separate development as the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) has alleged. This is an important step; this is one of the most important pieces of legislation this Government has ever handled. It is equal to the Transkei legislation as far as our fourstream policy is concerned. The machinery is now created to obtain the ideal form of consultation which that party is always pleading for. For years the United Party has been accusing us of not consulting properly. The hon. member for Gardens did so again a moment ago. The peculiar thing about the whole matter is this: Why do they not welcome this legislation? A better opportunity for consultation than this has never yet been created. For the very first time this places the entire Coloured population in a position of electing people. If the United Party lays the charge at the door of the Government that that Coloured Council consists of stooges of the Government, the Government comes forward with this legislation with the very object of giving the entire Coloured population the opportunity of electing their leaders with whom the Government can consult. Why does the United Party not welcome this step? Surely the United Party was dishonest in laying that charge if they do not welcome this legislation; in that case the Opposition is dishonest and they do not really want consultation. It is only a sword they wish to keep over the heads of the National Party.

The United Party have to answer an important question as far as this legislation is concerned because in respect of this legislation the United Party stand arraigned before the people. It is not a case of an attack on the Government. There are questions to be answered to the entire population. This legislation does not only give the vote to the Coloureds in the Cape Province but it gives it to them over the entire Republic. What is more it is an unqualified vote. What is more the Coloured woman also gets the vote. They have never had it in the past. They are given the right to choose those people who have to be consulted. Those people are going to be elected on a very broad basis, Mr. Speaker. In this legislation provision is made for one man one vote and surely that complies with the much-lauded world opinion the United Party always refers to. Are they not always telling us to do those things that will satisfy world opinion? This legislation of one man one vote complies with that requirement. The question the United Party must answer in these circumstances is this: How are you going to return to the Common Roll and with whom? The Opposition who represent the alternative Government must reply to this question: Are you going to revert to the old position of a qualified vote for the Coloured people? If the reply is “yes” they will have to disfranchise the Coloured woman and they will have to disfranchise the Coloureds in the northern provinces. They will have to disfranchise the tens of thousands of Coloureds who are now going to come on the unqualified Voters’ Roll. I want to make this submission to them: In that case they will be taking away vested rights. Are they not the party who are always fighting for vested rights? If ever the United Party should again come into power, by the time they come into power the rights which are given to the Coloured people in this legislation will already have been vested rights for many years. In that case the people who are always fighting for vested rights will be taking vested rights away.

If the reply is “no”, if the United Party say they are going to transfer this general vote to the Voters’ Roll, I predict the few supporters they still have will fall away from them like leaves off a tree. We should like to have a definite reply from them to this question. It is no use their telling us they will revert to the old position, that they will consult. The hon. member for Gardens said they would consult. Whom are they going to consult and what will be the outcome of those consultations? That is not enough. Mr. Speaker, the United Party must tell us what their policy is going to be in future. I predict, as has so often happened in the past, they will say “yes, no”. We shall not get “yes” from them nor shall we get “no” from them; we shall get “yes, no” from them.

This legislation is really the culmination of the National Party’s policy in respect of the Coloureds. With this the National Party and the Government prove that they are continuing to honour their undertakings and that they are serious about separate development because separate development offers the solution to our racial problems in South Africa. This legislation is not being forced on to anybody. Let them say what they like about that Coloured council but those people have served the Coloured population very well; those people have served the Coloured population for five years; they must be very stupid if they do not know what the Coloured people want. That is why we are entitled to say that the will of the Coloured people is to a very high degree reflected in this legislation. Everybody in this world wants to be of some account. That is so in respect of various racial groups. Everyone seeks an opportunity of being of some account. Nobody holds that against the Coloured; you cannot hold it against anybody if he wants to assert himself. No human being has the right to hold it against another human being for wanting to be of some account. We do not hold it against any group in this country if they strive to be of some account. On the contrary we want to give them the opportunity of doing so. This legislation gives the Coloured population the opportunity of asserting themselves, of having a say in the management of the country; of having a share in the upliftment of their own people; it gives them the opportunity of being of some account. We are not depriving them of that.

The United Party pleads for the return to the Common Roll. I am convinced the Coloured people of this country do not want to return to the old position. When this policy of separate development was originally applied in 1948 there was bitterness; there was bitterness on the part of the Coloureds, as I have said, because we were represented as their enemies, as the persons who wanted to suppress and destroy them. But that bitterness has disappeared; that bitterness has to a great extent disappeared. I shall tell you why, Sir. Up to 1948 the Coloured in this country was regarded and treated by the United Party as an appendage to the Whites. Let us admit that that was originally also the attitude of the old National Party but the position was not as stated by the hon. member for Gardens. In 1932 already, when the late General Hertzog was still leader of the National Party, he gave permission to the National Party of the Cape Province to carry on and to submit the question of the Coloureds going on to a separate Voters’ Roll to their congresses.

What about 1930?

I am talking about 1932. In 1932 the old National Party of the Cape Province was given permission to carry on and to submit this matter to its congresses. That happened already during the days of General Hertzog because he was not unsympathetically inclined towards the idea of the Coloureds being placed on a separate Voters’ Roll. This party does not regard the Coloureds as an appendage to the Whites. We regard him as a human being with his own identity and we treat him as such. We have been treating him as such ever since we came into power in 1948. The truth of the matter is that we regard the Coloured as a valuable ally. We want to do everything in our power to lift him out of the morass into which he has landed with the passage of time particularly as a result of the actions of the United Party. This legislation has not been formulated, as is so often suggested by the United Party, merely as a result of a whim. The charge is often made that this is simply a whim on the part of the people from the northern provinces, the granite people; we often hear about the vast difference which exists between the people from the north and those from the south. The truth of the matter is that this policy was formulated by what was known as the Sauer Commission. That commission was appointed in 1943 and the report of that commission was accepted by the National Party Congress in 1945. That became the policy of the National Party. I can say this to the House to-day: There have been few departures from the recommendations of that commission. That was a National Party report; it was a combination of south and north. It was accepted unanimously and it is still our policy to-day.

Time does not permit me to deal with, those recommendations but so many of those recommendations have already become reality, are already a fait accompli. The Department which had to be established, the Department which ultimately had to have its own social welfare section for the Coloureds, is already history to-day; we have the housing which is being provided for the Coloureds. Everyone who is prepared to open his eyes can see what is happening in order to give effect to that report. Take education. It is stated in that report that a university must be established for the Coloureds and that is already a fait accompli. They refer in that report to local authorities and they are already becoming a fait accompli. Instead of accusing us of inflexibility I maintain that we are indeed flexible. That 1945 report recommended that the Coloureds should only have three representatives in this House and that they should be elected by a representative Coloured council. To-day four of them are sitting here and they are not elected by a Coloured council but by the Coloured electorate. The same applies in respect of the representatives in the provincial council in the Cape Province. In terms of the policy which the party accepted at the time they were to have been elected by a Coloured council and not by the Coloured electorate. These things prove that this side of the House, in spite of the fact that we cling steadfastly to a principle—we are anchored to principles—face up to the truth as far as our policy is concerned and that we adapt it to circumstances in a way which will be best for South Africa. The main difference between the National Party and the United Party is perhaps this that the United Party is on a slippery road because its policy is not anchored to a principle; it is simply a policy. That is why they are on a slippery road. The United Party policy of so many representatives for this group and so many representatives for that group is devoid of any principle—ultimately it will be numbers that will govern South Africa and we all know that, if it is to be numbers, and it will be numbers, it will not be the White man who will govern. Then it will be the Black man.

The fact of the matter is that there are no Coloured leaders, recognized Coloured leaders, in our country. Why is that the position? Because they have never yet had the opportunity of developing into leaders. There was not a field in which they have had the opportunity of developing leaders. This legislation now gives them that opportunity. Even in the Cape Town City Council they do not have the opportunity of developing into leaders. There too they are simply treated as an appendage and they can only be there when it suits the Whites. We say this legislation gives the Coloureds the opportunity for the first time of developing leaders, a group of leaders who will be able to serve their own people. We want to give them the opportunity of serving their own people. The United Party, on the other hand, do not want to give them that opportunity. They do with the Coloureds what was done years ago, under the Colonial régime, with the White Afrikaans-speaking section. The cream was welcome in their circles and they wanted to skim that off, the van der Byls and the van der Merwes and the Cloetes, but the rest they discarded and relegated them to the slums to live amongst the non-Whites that was actually the wish and desire of the Colonial power. They want to do exactly the same with the Coloureds. The United Party only have two objects in mind with the Coloureds. Politically they want the Coloureds on the Common Voters’ Roll so that they can, as in the past, trade with the vote of the Coloured, and the second reason why the United Party does not want any separate development is that they do not want the Coloureds to trade; they want to keep the trade for themselves. The United Party would not have been as irritable as they are as far as separate development was concerned if the Government were to decide that the Coloureds should not be allowed to trade and that even in the Coloured areas the trade should remain in the hands of the White man.

Where are those areas?

The separate residential areas of the Coloureds. Surely the United Party is also in favour of social separation. They too wish them to live separately but they do not want to grant them any rights. They wish to obtain the Coloured trade for themselves as they did in those days in the case of the White Afrikaans-speaking section. When you talk to individual United Party members, Sir, they tell you: “We are against the policy of separate development. There are many Coloureds who are the equals of the Whites. Let us skim off that top layer from time to time and bring it over to the Whites.” They do not want to allow the Coloureds to serve their own people; they want to skim them off. What do they want to do with the others? The United Party wish to hand the rest over to the Bantu. Skim off the top layer for the Whites and hand the rest over to the Bantu. There is no morality in their attitude, there is no compassion in it. They still cling to those old Colonial concepts. They raised a loud cry. The hon. member for Gardens raised a loud cry. He referred to Clause 21 in particular and asked what powers were going to be given to the Coloured council and to the executive committee. But surely in no legislation is it stated in advance precisely what the provisions are going to be. Many Bills are passed by this House in which provision is made for the delegation of power. Practically every Bill contains a clause in which provision is made for the delegation of certain powers. But no clause in such legislation lays down specifically which powers may be delegated. [Time limit.]

I will in the course of my speech deal with several points made by the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden). He will forgive me if I do not deal with his speech immediately. I want to concentrate on the Bill now before us.

There is a fundamental difference between the Government’s outlook and mine in regard to the future of the Coloured people of South Africa, and it is this fundamental difference which motivates my reaction to this Bill. The Government’s policy, evidenced by the type of legislation which it has introduced during the past 15 years, is designed to maintain a barrier between the Coloured people and the White population of this country. It is designed to widen the gulf which has been created by Government policy between our Coloured people and ourselves. On the other hand, my outlook towards the Coloured people has been totally opposed to that policy. I have pleaded with the Government, year in and year out, in this House and out of this House, not to alienate our Coloured people from the White population of this country.

That is not our aim.

I hope to show the Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party that this Bill more than anything else will widen this barrier. Sir, I have urged upon the Government to constantly bear in mind the fact that the Coloured people are part and parcel of the White civilization of this country, that their mode of living, their culture, their languages, their education and their religions are identical with those of the White people of South Africa. Despite the fact that this truism that I have enunciated here has been accepted by a very large section of leaders of Afrikaner opinion in this country, I regret to say that the Government has relentlessly pursued the policy of introducing more and more apartheid measures against our Coloured people, with a total disregard to the enormous consequences that are likely to flow from such a policy and completely oblivious of the fact that these measures are widening the unfortunate gulf between the Whites and the Coloured people of this country. Mr. Speaker, this Bill to my mind will perpetuate the barrier which has unfortunately been created between these two sections of our population. It is for this fundamental reason that I am opposed to the principle of this Bill, apart from the other specific reasons in regard to the details of the Bill with which I hope to deal presently. I repeat that the danger that I see in this Bill is not so much the fact that the Government is not really giving anything worth while to the Coloured people, but the fact that the principle of this Bill will create in the mind of our Coloured people and indeed in the minds of many White people in this country, and outside of this country, the inevitable conclusion that a complete and final barrier is now being established between the Coloureds and ourselves. This to my mind is a dangerous principle because it can only have the effect of widening the gulf that exists between us and of alienating the Coloureds from the White people in this country even more than they have been alienated up to now.

To deal with the Bill specifically, I would like to say immediately that I see this measure as an important link in the hon. Prime Minister’s grandiose scheme of developing the Coloured people of South Africa as a separate population entity and of creating his famous state within a state. What does this Bill purport to do? In pursuance of the hon. Prime Minister’s scheme, the Bill purports to establish a Coloured Representative Council and to determine its powers, its functions and its duties. I think it is not inappropriate for us to examine whether this Bill measures up to what the hon. the Prime Minister himself told the Coloured people as to what the Government’s intentions were in regard to their future when this Bill was first adumbrated. In December 1961 the hon. the Prime Minister announced for the first time to the South African nation what he had in mind for the future of the Coloured people in this country. He made this announcement when he addressed the Union Coloured Council on 11 December 1961. I think it is necessary to recall to this House what the hon. Prime Minister said on that occasion. Lest it might be said that the hon. the Prime Minister was misreported by the English Press, who heaven knows has been blamed wrongly for a great deal in this country, let me say immediately that I am not quoting from the English language Press. I am quoting from the official report of that meeting and of the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister on that occasion, a report that was issued under the authority of the hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs by the Information Service of the Department of Coloured Affairs. The report was headed “More powers for Coloureds”. It is obviously not possible for me in the limited time at my disposal to deal with the entire speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister, but I hope to give to this House some of the salient features of the speech as I see it, the features which are appropriate to the Bill that we are discussing at the moment. The hon. the Prime Minister said this on that occasion—

He sketched the Government’s plans for which the framework for full control could be established within five years and the complete take-over of their own affairs could be accomplished within ten years.

Further on in the speech the hon. the Prime Minister dealt with the question of self-management to ensure happiness—he used a lot of grandiose expressions, and then went on to say this—

Further on he went on to say—

I repeat the words “self-determination of that community”—

Then the hon. Prime Minister went on, dealing again with the development of this idea, to say—

And then I want to quote this final portion, which is absolutely germane to the Bill we are discussing here—

And then under the heading of “A Coloured Parliament” he said—

Then he went on to say that there would be an executive council and he said that the control board must also have a permanent council of four persons, each of whom, like a Minister, would be responsible for carrying out the functions which the board as a whole had to carry out.

I have been quoting ipsissima verba the Prime Minister himself. Let us see if this Bill presently before us by any stretch of the imagination measures up to the promises made by the hon. Prime Minister to the Coloured people on that occasion. Let me repeat briefly what those promises were. The Prime Minister said that the Coloured must get control of his own services, such as welfare, health and education; the Coloureds must get their own parliament which will control all Coloured interests in this country, with administrative and legislative powers and officials to carry out its decisions. Let us examine this Bill to see whether it confers upon the Coloured people the powers and functions, or the rights and privileges which the hon. the Prime Minister so glibly spoke about on the occasion when he held out these hopes to the Coloured people and when he first adumbrated this new development for this indigenous section of our South African population.

It must be remembered that the hon. the Prime Minister’s hopes and promises to the Coloured people as enunciated by him, and as mentioned by me this afternoon, must be seen against the background of what had happened to the Coloured people at the hands of this Government. Our Coloured people have been deprived of their political rights and they have been deprived of their status as ordinary citizens of this country, which they had enjoyed for well over a century. Their common suffrage rights which they had enjoyed for over a century were taken away from them. They were deprived of their political rights as citizens of South Africa, their only home, to vote for persons of their own choice becoming members of this Central Parliament, on the Common Roll with their fellow White citizens. They have been deprived of similar political rights to vote for people of their own choice to represent them in the provincial council. Against this background, and in the light of this grievous political loss, the hon. the Prime Minister assured them that consistent with his policy of apartheid, of separate development, they would in due course be given full control of their own affairs, with their own parliament and their own cabinet, so that they would be able to deal with all matters affecting the existence of the Coloured people in this country. He told them that they would be entrusted with legislative powers to deal in their own areas with all matters affecting the interests of the Coloured people in South Africa. Let us for a brief moment examine some of the provisions of this Bill in order to see if this political Utopia, promised by the hon. the Prime Minister to the Coloured people, has in fact been granted to them.

What in fact does this Bill provide for the Coloured people? The general functions of this so-called parliament are set out in Clause 20 of this Bill. This clause provides that the council shall have the power to give advice to the Government when asked to do so. Clause 21 (a) specifically lays down that the council shall have power “on request” to advise the Government in regard to all matters affecting the economic and social, educational and political interests of the Coloured people of the Republic. I repeat that the council can only proffer this advice to the Government when asked to do so. They cannot initiate any advice. The members of the council can only give advice to the Government when they are asked to do so. What sort of powers are these? What sort of parliament is this?

What autonomy or even initiative is vested in such a body, in such a Coloured parliament as described in this Bill? In Clause 20 (b), again dealing with the general functions of the council, provision is made for the council to have power to make recommendations to the Government in regard to any planning calculated to promote the best interests of the Coloured population, and in sub-section (c) it says “generally to serve as a link and means of contact and consultation between the Government and the Coloured population”. From this it is quite obvious that the powers of the council are circumscribed to the extent that recommendations can be made by this council, but they need not be acted upon by the Government. Again, in relation to the acquisition and the disposal of property, or the appointment of servants— I am taking some of the smaller things—or in relation to doing anything which it should consider necessary in the exercise of its powers, the council may do these things only with the approval of the hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs, after he has consulted with the Minister of Finance. That is all they have got. What sort of autonomy is this? What sort of parliament can this be, with such limited powers and functions? And as though these restrictions are not sufficient, there is an over-riding provision in Clause 21 (2) which specifically lays down …

What about 21 (1)?

The hon. member can deal with that. I will come to that in due course. There is an over-riding provision in Clause 21 (2) which specifically lays down that no proposed law shall be introduced in the council except with the approval of the Minister, granted after consultation with the Minister of Finance. It is true that under Clause 21 (1), which my hon. friend has mentioned, a fiction is created of conferring legislative power on the council, but if one reads Clause 21 (1), it appears what that legislative power amounts to. As I see it, the position is that the legislative powers under 21 (1) vested in this so-called parliament will be hamstrung to the following extent: Only if the State President has issued a proclamation that the council may legislate on a specific issue and only if the Minister of Coloured Affairs and the Minister of Finance have approved of a proposed Bill on that issue, and only if the State President has assented to this measure, and only if that measure is not in conflict with any laws passed by this Parliament, then and only then will that measure become law, after publication in the Gazette. That is the extent of the powers that this Coloured parliament will have under Clause 21 (1). The State President, who in this case is the Minister himself—his name is used ex officio—may reject any measure passed by the council. The effect of all this, as I see it, is that the council in terms of this Bill will have no legislative powers whatsoever. It will only be able to advise on specific matters referred to it by the Government and when requested to do so. It will only be permitted to make recommendations on planning which may or may not be acted upon by the hon. the Minister. Only when the State President—the Minister himself—assigns powers in regard to specific matters, will the council have restricted legislative powers to deal with those restricted matters in the way I have indicated. Is this the type of parliament that the hon. Prime Minister had in mind when he addressed the representatives of the Coloured people in December 1961? Is this “the full control” of their own affairs as envisaged by the hon. the Prime Minister on that solemn occasion, when for the first time in the history of this country, the Prime Minister declared what his views were in regard to the future of the Coloured people? How can this Bill possibly be reconciled with the solemn promise made by the hon. Prime Minister to the Coloureds that they would be in full control of their affairs with their own parliament and their own cabinet?

As I see this Bill the powers vested in this council amount to virtually nothing, and even when additional legislative powers are assigned to them, the position will be that the hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs will be able to dictate to the council which Bills they may pass and which they may not pass. He will be able to have the most innocuous Bills of his own choosing passed by the council instead of by this Parliament. In case some of the hon. members there think that I am giving my own interpretation of this portion of the Bill, I want to refer the hon. Minister to what appeared in the South African Digest, a Government issue, on 5 March 1964 on page 6—this is what the hon. Minister himself says—

Should such powers be assigned, the Minister of Coloured Affairs will be able to have Bills of his choosing passed by the council instead of by Parliament.

This is the Government’s own declaration of what the powers of the council are going to be.

No.

I will pass it to the, hon. the Minister. He can read it himself. To my mind this Bill is a mere illusion. It in no way confers upon this so-called parliament the legislative powers promised by the hon. the Prime Minister when he announced his scheme of creating a state within a state. On the contrary I say that in terms of this Bill legislative powers have been denied to the Representative Coloured Council. With regard to the consultation at high level, about which we have heard so much from the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister himself, it must be clear to everyone that the consultation envisaged in this Bill—that is consultation without power to enforce decision—cannot be any real consultation at all. This type of consultation without the power to enforce the considered opinions of the council is only complete illusion. Right through the Bill we get merely illusions for the Coloured people. The council in terms of this Bill will moreover have no powers to tax their own people, even within their own areas. Even in respect of the Coloured people’s own contribution to the national income, either by way of direct or indirect taxation, this council will have no powers to deal with these contributions. Can anyone imagine any worse example of taxation without proper representation? Even in regard to the freedom of speech in this Coloured parliament, a strong limitation is placed upon the powers of this council. Here again the right of free speech is a mere illusion. In terms of Clause 16, the members of the so-called parliament will not have the defence or protection of privilege in respect of anything said or done by them in regard to the Senate, the House of Assembly, a provincial council or a court of law, or a statutory body, or a member thereof or an officer of the public service. This means in effect that this so-called Coloured parliament will not have the right under the cloak of privilege to criticize the Government or the action of any Member of Parliament, or indeed even the action of a policeman because the latter is an officer of the Public Service. They could not even discuss or criticize the actions of a policeman because he is an officer of the Public Service. What freedom of speech is this?

Wherever one looks in this Bill, one comes up against restrictions and reservations which virtually place a muzzle on this so-called parliament. For instance, in Clause 21 of the Bill you will note that the State President by proclamation may confer upon the council powers to make laws in respect of any specified subject set out in Clause 17 (6) (a). Then it says that the council shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have the same powers to make laws in regard to such subjects as are vested in Parliament. Have you ever heard of such hypocrisy, Sir? It is an absolute delusion of the Coloured people. The words “subject to the provisions of this Act” are so wide, in that they bring into operation the limitations and restrictions contained in this Act, which virtually render meaningless these powers to make laws. To my mind this is one of the biggest illusions in the whole Act.

It may be said that the purpose of this Bill is merely to cover a transitional period, and I am sure that some hon. members will say so, but nowhere in this Bill is this made clear. This Bill purports to become a permanent piece of our legislation. If it is intended to cover merely a period of transition, why does the Bill not say so? We must therefore take it that this Bill has been introduced for the purpose of remaining as a permanent piece of legislation of the country; or is it intended that these restrictions and reservations will be imposed on this Coloured body in order to test them, in order just to see how sycophantic this body can be to the Government? I am driven to feel that that is the real purpose behind this Bill. I am afraid that one is led to that conclusion by the Prime Minister’s own words when he told the Coloured people on the occasion I have mentioned that all this would be accomplished for the Coloured people within ten years, but added, “Everything depends on the co-operation of the Coloured people; the fuller the co-operation, the quicker will the changeover take place”. I want to ask the Minister whether this is the real reason for imposing all these restrictions and reservations on the council, so as to see what measure of co-operation can be obtained from the representatives ‘ of the Coloured people? There are many more shortcomings to the Bill. We will have an opportunity at a later stage to deal with many more shortcomings, but I think I have said sufficient about this measure to condemn it in no uncertain terms as an unnecessary piece of sectional legislation which can only have the effect of further alienating the Coloured people from us. and of widening the gulf between the Coloureds and the Whites in this country. In all seriousness, how can this Bill be regarded as compensation for the loss of the political rights which the Coloured people have suffered at the hands of this Government? To my mind, when the Coloured people have had an opportunity to study this Bill—and I doubt whether they have had that opportunity up to now—they will realize its many shortcomings and how they have been led up the garden path by the Utopian promises made to them by the Prime Minister. Sir, I have read a report which was recently presented to the International Labour Conference in regard to South Africa’s continued membership of that organization, and in it the following statement appears—

To my mind, this Bill falls into the pattern of the legislative system referred to in that report. This Bill is another step by the Government designed to maintain an insuperable barrier between the indigenous Coloured people of this country and the Whites. It can only have the effect of widening the gulf which has unfortunately been created by this pattern of legislation which has taken place over the last 15 years.

There is another aspect I should like to deal with very briefly. The impression was created by the hon. the Minister in the course of his speech that the present Coloured council at its private meeting on 24 February had unanimously approved of this draft Bill. In a report in the Sunday Times of 5 April there appears a statement by Mr. M. D. Arendse, an elected member of the council, in which he first of all refutes the claim made by the Minister of Coloured Affairs that as far as the future of the Coloured people are concerned the sky is the limit, and then he denies that the council at its private meeting had approved the draft Bill unanimously, as was reported. He disclosed that when the meeting was summoned, not a single member had a draft copy of the Bill. They only had copies of the recommendations which the council itself had made. These recommendations were approved practically unanimously, and for the rest, Mr. Arendse says that the following resolution was adopted by 14 votes to five—

[Time limit.]

I am surprised at the attitude of the United Party. They wish to return to the old set-up under which they could use the Coloured vote as their ally. What surprised me was the attitude of the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) when he referred in a belittling way to the statement made by the Prime Minister. His entire speech from beginning to end was belittling. He does not fall into the same category as other Opposition members because he represents the Coloureds. No matter how small he regards the start to be, he ought to be a little more appreciative, and show a little more gratitude for the fact that a beginning is being made somewhere to hold out something new to these people. On the occasion of the 400th anniversary of the birth of William Shakespeare I want to tell him that he reminds me of a passage from “As You Like It”—

The hon. member over-emphasized the importance of the words “on request”—“The council shall have power on request to advise the Government”, but he skipped sub-section (b) which says “and to make such recommendations to the Government in regard to any planning calculated to promote the best interests of the said population”. He has not furthered the cause of those people to-day by dissociating that which can be done for the Coloureds in future from that which can be offered for public consumption. That is as far as a Government can go and as fast as the electorate will allow it to go. He need not kiss the feet of the Minister but it is his duty to say: Although we do not see eye to eye, it is nevertheless a small beginning; it is not as good as that which was offered in the Cape Colony from 1852 to 1872 but it is nevertheless something in that direction. Surely all young nations which are under guardianship have to start somewhere. I shall leave the hon. member at that because he has made himself ridiculous by trying to ridicule the motives of this legislation. Professor Edgar Brookes said the following about the franchise: “The franchise is a right that must be seen relative to the recipient’s ability to use it.” I support this legislation for two reasons, firstly, because it rectifies a position which requires to be rectified, namely, the discrimination between the provinces. We who are undergoing this development, both industrially and constitutionally, are hampered by the fact that throughout the years there has not been greater uniformity than there is to-day as far as that is concerned. The second reason why I support the Bill is because it introduces a new principle and confers new rights on people. It does not disfranchise anybody, but gives the franchise to a class of people who have not had it before. Any democrat and anybody who pretends to be idealistic about this sort of thing should show a little appreciation of this. Let us see what pattern was followed in the provinces in that century —and I take the liberty of referring to the past because every speaker who has spoken so far has referred to the “rights existing for over a century”. Two yardsticks were always used. All attempts to extend the Coloured franchise to the northern provinces have come up against difficulties, both in the Convention and under the first Hertzog Government. Even before Union a distinction was drawn between the franchise in the Cape Province and Natal. No distinction was made in granting the franchise to the Bantu and at one time even the Indians had the municipal vote in Natal. That shows that different yardsticks were used. Here we have a measure which, although elementary and perhaps insignificant, is sowing the seed of equal treatment in all the provinces of the Republic. Surely this new principle of an unqualified vote is a step forward in the process of withdrawing our guardianship, as the hon. the Minister has stated, and when you use the words “withdrawing our guardianship” you surely admit that you subscribe to the principle of guardianship, and if you subscribe to the principle of guardianship you have to admit that guardianship is not something to last for ever. The word “guardianship” itself carries within it the quality of change and of growth and development. That is why the process must of necessity be adapted to the ability and the competence of those people who receive those new rights to use them, to handle them and to appreciate them. How will you develop a sense of responsibility in a person if you do not confer responsibility on him? How will you develop a sound sense of values in a person if you do not allow him to acquire a knowledge of those values? That reminds me of the mother who strictly forbade her son to go into the water until he could swim. The world around us offers us many examples of what happens when political rights are injudiciously conferred on people before they are sufficiently mature to receive them. When you look at a country like Indonesia, where Russia and America are competing to see who can pour the most money into it, we realize that there is hardly a place in the world where inflation and corruption are as rampant as there. Nobody appreciates anything handed to him on a platter; you must work for it. The injudicious granting of rights may destroy your very object. Lord Milner and Lord Asquith exchanged many ideas in correspondence on how the Boer and the Britisher could be united in the old Cape Colony. Before the Boer War Lord Milner wrote to Lord Asquith that it would be easy to unite the Boer and the Britisher; you only have to protect the non-White injudiciously then you will unite them, but you will unite them against yourself. That, Sir, is to-day still the kernel of the matter. Wherever you act injudiciously it has a boomerang effect. Any party who lavishly confers political rights on people who are not ready to receive them, will be up against the voters. Because of their attitude towards the Common Voters’ Roll the United Party has on every occasion managed to unite the White electorate of this country against them. The White voters reject this attitude of a Common Roll to such an extent that I can call as evidence what staunch old supporters of that party say, when you tell them that you yourself do not know where you got your own majority from, namely: We are voting for you people until such time as our party changes its policy; then we shall again vote for them. They want to turn to the days when, as Mr. D. K. Long wrote, the Coloured vote was “surreptitiously up for sale”. I am sure there are many members in this House who did not stand as candidates in those days when we still had the Common Voters’ Roll, but some of the older members will remember them and they will know what that term “surreptitiously up for sale” means; and was it “surreptitious”! The hon. member for Peninsula said that was not a reason for the bitterness. Surely he knows he is talking against his better judgment. We who live together as neighbours and friends and who. differ from each other are sufficiently mature and well balanced not to hate each other tomorrow but when the Coloured, whom you taught in the dark only the other day how to sign his name, is called in to act as arbiter between you and me in order to settle a difference we could have settled ourselves, bitterness follows.

Let us for a moment see what the history of the qualified vote is. I want to tell hon. members on my right, who so often expatiate on “the right of a century”, how often changes were effected and with what object. Those rights were granted in 1854 and they were changed in 1887 by raising the occupational qualification; that removed 30,000 from the roll. That is disfranchisement. Listening to hon. members one would say that in terms of this measure people were being taken off the Voters’ Roll and disfranchised. In 1892 when the educational qualification was introduced and the occupational qualification raised from £25 to £75 the object was not to get a brighter type of voter or to raise the level of education. We know what the object was. The object was to disfranchise the non-Whites, and that was done. When you read the correspondence between Jan Henrik Hofmeyr and Cecil John Rhodes you see what happened between the parties before that legislation was introduced.

I think the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs made one mistake the other day. He said that over the past 100 years a Coloured person had never sat in this Parliament or was never elected as mayor. After Union that could not happen, but before Union, nearly 60 years ago, I know of a case here in Cape Town where a Malay stood as a candidate for Parliament. His name was Ahmed Effendi. Effendi is a title similar to “sir”; he was not an ordinary Malay therefore. He was referred to in those debates as “an eminent gentleman of very high standing”. In 1893 when the old Cape Parliament met for the last session before an election, there was already talk that he would be nominated. Under the old principle of the cumulative vote where all the Malays could have voted for this candidate, he stood a good chance of being elected. But a certain Mr. Orpen hurriedly piloted a Bill through this House to do away with that system. It was called the Constitution Ordinance Amendment Bill, Act No. 16 of 1893. Both parties worked together and even a person like Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr who said he would not mind sitting in this House with Effendi nevertheless voted for that legislation. Here I have the Hansard of that session in which a person like Mr. Schreiner said this—

Mr. Schreiner differed from Professor Brookes. Whereas the latter said “The franchise is a right”, he said “the franchise is not a right, but a privilege”. That was one instance over that whole period of 100 years where a Coloured person wanted to stand as a candidate but he was not allowed to do so. When they realized he stood a chance of being elected, they hurriedly passed legislation to prevent that. On each occasion when the franchise legislation was changed over that 100 years the object was to compensate the Whites for their lack in numbers. Let us admit that. Throughout the 100 years, whether it was by “hook or by crook” or not, it was to compensate the Whites for their lack in numbers. Even after Union with the removal of the qualification in the case of the Whites and its retention in the case of the non-Whites there was discrimination. They also discriminated later on when the franchise was given to the White woman but not to the non-White woman and the source of the struggle was removed and bitterness ended when the Coloured was placed on a separate roll. Unlike the leader of the Coloured Representatives who belittles everything the Minister does, I do not wish to belittle the way they normally act in this House, but to compliment them on it. If they do not allow themselves to be influenced by the people on their right, when they take up the cudgels in the normal way on behalf of the people they represent here, they act without prejudice and in the interests of their voters, and that is why I say relationships have improved since they have been receiving instructions from their own people without the Coloured being used as arbiter between White and White.

The attitude of the United Party is simply like the dead hand of the past. I actually expected them to say this measure was not really what they expected, or that it did not go far enough. But by saying “We are going to act in a radical way” and moving that the second reading be taken this day six months, they are only putting the clock back and putting a stop to all development and growth. I am sorry my neighbour and constituent, the hon. member for Green Point, has left the Chamber and that the Leader of the Opposition is not here either. I fought them in elections with the Coloureds on the Voters’ Roll and off it. They held meetings for them behind closed doors so that I had to ask on one occasion: What does a White man say to a Coloured that another White man may not hear? [Interjections.] I am not talking about the time when the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) was the election agent of the hon. member for Rondebosch. I can only say that he was successful on one occasion and of the other occasion I can only say “Do not shoot the man at the piano; he’s doing his best”.

Before I sit down I just want to put this question to the United Party. This measure is going through and it will be ridiculed and belittled, just as the present Coloured council is to-day, but on the other hand they say: “We respect them and they have always respected us.” It may perhaps be belittled for a short time but when the registration and the delimitation is complete one envisages a situation where the 30 elected members who will serve on the council will be nominated and where there will be organization. Perhaps they will carry a label. Perhaps the one will have the sign of Taurus and the other one not, but they will wear labels. There will probably be candidates who will be well disposed towards the Government and there will also be candidates who will be hostile to the Government. I think it is normal to expect that; surely there must be organization to win an election; surely a person must adopt an attitude; you have to decide where you fit into the pattern. I want to put this question to the United Party this afternoon. If there are candidates who are well disposed towards the Government and there are no candidates who are hostile towards the Government will they ensure that such candidates are nominated? The hon. member for Gardens may reply to that; he is their leader in the Cape Province. Let us assume the time arrives to elect these so-called “stooges”; there is a Voters’ Roll; the delimitation has taken place and nomination day dawns. Supposing a candidate is nominated who is well-disposed towards the Government and its policy. Will the United Party endeavour to nominate somebody to oppose that candidate? The hon. member need not reply immediately, he can first think about it and reply to me later on when this debate is over. Will the hon. member for Gardens and his party endeavour to nominate a candidate to oppose such a person?

It is a very simple question; that is a question for the primary school, not for a secondary school.

If such a candidate has been nominated and his name appears on the ballot paper will the United Party as a party throw in their weight with him to get him elected because he is hostile towards the policy of the Government? Mr. Speaker, we have to face up to these things. It is no good belittling the first elementary step which is taken here to place a group of people on the road to promote their own interests. Even if this measure is a weak instrument it is nevertheless an instrument that can be used in that direction; it is no good belittling and ridiculing it. You must not only be prepared to co-operate when you can derive some benefit for yourself out of it. Well, I take it that the United Party will not do so; surely that will not be cricket. I take it, therefore, that the United Party will not do so. Very well, if 30 members are elected unopposed the United Party must please not say they are “stooges”.

I must say that I have been very disappointed in the two speakers on the Government side, the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) and the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. de Villiers), because their remarks were devoted entirely to things which had nothing to do with the Bill.

That is a reflection on the Chair. You are not in the provincial council now.

The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) has set out the case fairly and squarely as to what the Government is actually setting out to do, in direct contrast to what the hon. the Prime Minister undertook to do in terms of a speech which he delivered before the Union Council for Coloured Affairs. Sir, I also took the trouble to read the hon. the Minister’s second-reading speech in detail, and here again I must say that I was surprised to find very little to justify the measure which he has placed before the House and much that has nothing to do with the Bill here. First of all, let us ask ourselves whether this Bill finds favour with the Coloured community. Reference has been made to the Union Council for Coloured Affairs. Let me say here and now that the Coloured community, with very few exceptions, is 100 per cent against a Bill of this kind.

When did you meet them?

They reject it, and I would like the House to know that no amount of camouflage, no amount of sweet words, will alter the fact that this Bill does not do what the Prime Minister told the Union Council for Coloured Affairs would be done. After 1951, when the Separate Representation of Voters’ Bill became law, provision was made for a Coloured advisory board, which never saw the light of day because there was the controversy and the circus of the High Court of Parliament Act. Sir, one must look at this thing objectively. I can assure you that it is the wish of the Coloured people to be recognized as part and parcel of the West. They are part; they want to be with us; they want to be friends with us, and when I hear talk about bitterness, and bitterness creating hatred, I shudder, because there are 1,500,000 people involved. These people have been pushed aside; they have been the victims of all the legislation introduced by this Government. By way of interjection the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) mentioned the Group Areas Act. I would like to urge Government members to find out for themselves what the Coloured people think of that piece of legislation. They will be amazed; I think they will even be shocked.

And ashamed.

Well, I was going to say “ashamed” but that will take a little time to take effect. Sir, I work amongst the Coloured people; I know them, and I say that no man in the Cape, and even in the Transvaal, can for one moment suggest or even hope that the type of treatment which is being meted out to the Coloured community will bring any credit whatsoever, anywhere: it simply will not do it.

Let us deal now with the Union Council for Coloured Affairs. I do not call the members of that body stooges. The Union Council for Coloured Affairs has a majority of nominated members. As a member first of the provincial council, for many, many years and now as a Member of Parliament, I thought it would be to my advantage to ascertain what these people discuss; what recommendations they make to the Minister; to find out whether the Minister acts upon those recommendations and what results flow from them. I wrote a letter to the Department asking if I could have that information. The reply I got was that according to Section So and So the proceedings are confidential. They are confidential even as far as we Coloured representatives are concerned. I would say that if there is one group that should know what these people want, then it is the representatives of the Coloureds sitting in this House. I think many men on the Union Council for Coloured Affairs are maligned by their fellows because they are not trying to put up a fight, but their hands are tied; and their tongues are tied by the Minister, because the proceedings are confidential. They may not speak. We find therefore that the members of this council, which we are led to believe was originally set up, according to the Prime Minister, to devise ways and means of preparing the ground for this new type of Council, are frustrated people. We are told that they have been consulted and that the Coloured people have been consulted. Sir, I have yet to meet a Coloured person who has been consulted on any of this legislation—and I meet many of them. I would say to the hon. the Minister that the direction in which the Government is proceeding is wrong; the attitude of the United Party is the correct attitude. We should take these people with us; they want to be with us. I am not impressed by what was said in 1909. We are living in 1964. I suggest and I urge, even at this late hour, that the terms of this Bill should be so amended as to make it an effective measure, although I, personally, and my party feel that this is an entirely wrong process; that it will not achieve anything that we are setting out to do, because the consultations are all vis-à-vis the Minister via the Secretary for Coloured Affairs with the Council. Sir, we have seen the pattern unfolding over the years. Those of us who have been in close contact with the Coloured people know that their attitude is that this is simply another piece of legislation following the same pattern. The hon. the Prime Minister was faced with a difficulty in dealing with the Coloured people, because he had no homeland for them. We therefore find ourselves with this type of hybrid organization where we are going to have a sort of provincial council, almost a Parliament, within the Republic. This council was going to have powers which, according to the reports that we saw before we saw the Bill, were going to cut across the functions of administrators and Cabinet Ministers, because the Prime Minister said in his address to these people in 1961 and in 1960 when a similar address was made—that the Ministers “would have to consult” this council at least once a year. So I take it that for the rest of the 12 months they are to be left to their own devices, and there is nothing that they can do without consultation with somebody, without the permission or authority of somebody or by way of proclamation. Sir, I give the hon. the Minister of Community Development credit for being well aware, through his long political career, of the feeling of the Coloured community. He knows them; he knows them as well as many of us do and perhaps even better. I can say here quite frankly, this afternoon, that the Coloured community is distressed. There is no question of bitterness, but they are distressed, hurt and offended because they are being insulted at all turns and on all levels: They are being told that they are a menace and a danger whereas they are nothing of the kind. They are the friends, the allies and the partners of the White man.

Who says they are enemies? Nonsense.

Sir, these points were settled quite recently at the ballot box; do not let us go into that again. The Coloured people rejected separate development. They reject this type of council. I would go further and say that advisory councils and advisory committees, of which we have had much experience in this country, never succeed. We have had these advisory committees in many fields, set up by well-meaning people who thought that they could achieve something by seeking advice. Sir, what did the Minister say in his second-reading speech? He said that his mind had not crystallized as to what the functions of this council are going to be. They have not got a job. I would say that after his experience over many years with the Union Council for Coloured Affairs he should know precisely what these people are expected to do. But on the Minister’s own admission the thought had not crystallized as to what the functions of this council are going to be. Well, if his thoughts have not crystallized, whose thoughts have? The people who are affected do not know what it is all about either.

Fossilized, not crystallized.

Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Minister a few things about this Bill. He makes provision for 30 elected members and for 16 nominated members. Who is to do the nominating? What organizations are going to be consulted as far as nominations are concerned?

Not the United Party.

I am not asking the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North); I am asking the Minister. Who is to do the nominating? Why are particular nominees selected from the Griquas and from the Malay group? The one is a religious body and the other is a body of people who look upon themselves as a group. There are other groups of people in this country who are Coloured. Are they not going to have a chance to nominate members? I ask the Minister that and I should like to hear his reply. I go further. In examining the Bill in detail one finds that it is very carefully designed to see that the council will be ineffective. In the first place the Voters’ Roll is going to be on a voluntary basis, not on a compulsory basis. The hon. the Minister gives a rather extraordinary reason for making it voluntary. He says that by placing it on the voluntary basis he is going to eliminate undesirable elements. Surely the man who is an undesirable element in the eyes of the Government, or anybody else, is going to see that he is nominated and he is going to-make a lot of trouble. I would say that for a Voters’ Roll to be effective it must be properly compiled, and I ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider that particular aspect of this legislation. Another point is this: A candidate must reside for two years in the province in which the electoral division lies in which he hopes to stand. Why? If he is a Coloured individual and he is on the Voters’ Roll, why must he reside for two years in the electoral division in which he hopes to stand? I will tell you why. I was going to say in parenthesis that it would be a sorry day for many members on the Government side if they had to live in their constituencies for two years before they could be elected to Parliament.

You would not be here either.

These things which are so easily reduced to paper look a little silly when examined in the light of reason and experience. If a Coloured person interested in the welfare of his people decided that the place for him to be was in Natal or the Free State or the Transvaal so that he could carry his people along with him, why, if he has the necessary qualifications and he is on the roll, should he not be able to stand for election? After all, he is a South African. What is the object of this provision? I do not want to impute ulterior motives to the hon. the Minister. I simply say to the hon. the Minister that he could not have thought of the implications of this. We are often told that the Coloured people in the other provinces are not as experienced as the Coloured people in the Cape. Surely we want the most experienced people in a council of this kind. Sir, what is going to happen in the ultimate result? In ten years’ time, as the hon. the Prime Minister said, these people can be masters in their own house, controlling everything in which they are interested. Five items are mentioned; let us just run through them quickly. Take finance, for example. Where are they going to get the money from? It is going to be handed out to this council on much the same basis as the province gets a subsidy from the Central Government. I am just wondering to what extend they are going to be hamstrung, as the province was hamstrung in Coloured education for years, by the withholding of money. The result was that they could not get education for Coloured people in the Cape Province in particular, where compulsory education has been the law for some years but has never been carried out, although Nationalist Administrators have wished to do so. Where are these people going to get their money? That is a question which I put fairly and squarely to the hon. the Minister. Once they have developed to the stage where they are all on their own, are they still going to have to come along cap in hand as Administrators have to do? Will the Administrators of the four provinces and the Administrator of the Coloured council all have to sit together and ask for money, or will this council first have to obtain the approval of the Minister of Community Development and the Secretary for Coloured Affairs? These are the points on which I should like to have an answer. Let us take local government. It is a well-known fact that the Coloured community is most unwilling to set up local authorities; in fact they do not act where they are asked by town councils to set up local authorities. What local authorities are going to be responsible to the Minister, and who will be responsible for the setting up of new authorities? It is an easy matter to talk about Athlone; and you might be able to do something in a portion of the Transvaal and in Johannesburg. But I want to know who is going to be responsible for the Coloured people in a place like Beaufort West. Are they going to have their own town council there? There are 13,000 Coloureds and 5,000 Whites there. Are the Whites going to move? There are all these small villages on the West Coast. Are those councils going to be Coloured councils, because the Coloureds are in the majority there? [Interjections.] That is what the Bill provides. Take the question of education. Education is now being handled by the Minister of Coloured Affairs. He has a lot of money and I hope and trust that he is going to spend it well. Sir, it took about eight years, if not longer, for the Nationalist Party majority in the provincial council to be persuaded to pass ordinances and resolutions to get the Government to take over Coloured education. How long is it going to take to transfer Coloured education from the Coloured Affairs Department to this new Coloured council? Because that is what the Bill says. The Bill says that they are going to be the masters in their own house. Take the question of community welfare and pensions. Does the Minister for one moment think that the Minister of this council who is responsible for the implementation of ithe Group Areas Act in Coloured areas is going to act expeditiously? I put these questions to the Minister because I know from experience, from the hard fact of experience, that the Coloured people resent these things. They do not know how to express their resentment; they express it through their representatives here in this House. The hon. member for Malmesbury was very quick to talk about increasing the number of Coloured representatives in proportion to the increase in the number of Whites. Sir, there are Coloured people in the Transvaal who think they should have a Member of Parliament here. Why should they not have one? If the Coloured representatives are going to stay here, surely there should be a Coloured representative for the Transvaal. What about the Coloureds of the Free State and the Coloureds of Natal? All four gentlemen who sit here represent the Coloureds of the Cape Province. I think the hon. the Minister must give very serious thought to the implications of this measure. Sir, we say that we must take the Coloured man with us; he belongs with us; he wants to be with us. Here we have a group of people who have lived with us, who have been our friends for 300 years, who have never caused any trouble, who have never been involved in revolts or strikes, and who are law-abiding people. But the Government Party is afraid of them. Sir, I have listened to many speeches about the Coloured people from hon. members opposite, but I have yet to hear the good old English word “kindness” uttered. The whole attitude of the Nationalist Party is one of fear. The hon. the Prime Minister is a very good psychologist in reverse. Psychology is supposed to get the best out of everybody. The idea of psychology is to get rid of complexes. I think the hon. the Prime Minister might devote his attentions to the members of his own party to get rid of some of their complexes and particularly their fear complex.

Finally I would like to make an appeal. I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Community Development that there are many people who are prepared to help. The Coloured people are prepared to be reasoned with, but they must be reasoned with by people in whom they have confidence …

That would not be you then.

… and I say to the hon. the Minister that the four members who represent the Coloured community should know a lot more about what goes on in the Department than we do. Sir, I say to you quite frankly that I can speak with absolute knowledge, as can the other members who represent the Coloureds in this House; they may have different points of view on other subjects but on these fundamental points they are at one, because they are in touch with the Coloured community; they meet the leaders, the self-appointed leaders as well as the genuine leaders of the Coloured people. They meet people at all levels and in all sections of their society, and they know exactly what the Coloureds think. The Coloured man can be made a very happy man, a most useful member of the community if the Government would leave him alone for five years, and allow him to get on with the job of living, and, if the Government would direct its legislation away from the Coloured man, away from the humiliations which are being thrust upon him, away from all these compulsory moves to which he is subjected, where he is not permitted to trade, where he is uprooted here and uprooted there. I do hope that what I have said this afternoon, even at this late stage, will influence the Minister. I think he can be influenced and I think the Coloured people would like us to influence him. They would like him to know that they do not approve and that they do not accept this Bill.

The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) told us that we were introducing this Bill because we want to abolish Coloured representation in this Parliament. The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden), who has just sat down, also said that it was just a question of time. Mr. Speaker, when one listens to this type of speech, it becomes quite clear to one that no fault can be found with the merits of the separate representation of the Coloureds in this Parliament but that the fault lies with the representatives of the Coloureds in Parliament. Take, for example, the hon. member for Karoo. He is a member of the United Party. He was elected under United Party colours; he is a member of the United Party caucus. How can he be objective in respect of any legislation which deals with the Coloureds? He has to obey the caucus of the United Party, otherwise he will be thrown out of the party. He cannot adopt an independent attitude. Even though he may feel that this legislation is in the interests of the Coloureds, he must nevertheless vote against this measure. I am sorry to have to ask this, but what about the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg)? What about the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett)? They are both members of the United Party and they are both supporters of the United Party. Although they are not members of the United Party caucus, they are nevertheless enrolled members of the United Party and they vote for the United Party at every election. During all the years that they have been members of this House they have never adopted an objective attitude in respect of any legislation affecting the Coloureds.

The hon. member for Peninsula quoted to us what Councillor Arendse had to say, according to a Sunday Times report, namely that they did not know the contents of this Bill. Unfortunately for the hon. member I myself was present and I know what happened on that occasion. I have here an explanatory memorandum on the proposed Bill which was submitted to them.

Give it to me.

Now suddenly the hon. member wants to see it, although they practically accused me of not being honest with the Coloureds. Why did they not first approach me before making that accusation? Here I have the explanatory memorandum in which the whole Bill is explained. I went through the whole of the proposed Bill, which at that stage had not yet been introduced, with them clause by clause, and when we had gone through all the 31 clauses the chairman stood up and said that he would like somebody to move a motion in connection with this Bill. A motion was then moved to the effect that they approved of this whole Bill, and that motion was adopted unanimously. There was one problem. A few of the councillors adopted a certain attitude. Councillor Arendse, for example, asked for certain things which it was impossible for us to agree to. He wanted a portfolio of Foreign Affairs. That was quite out of the question. We were not even prepared to do this for the Transkei. His argument was that Coloured people travelled abroad—by this he probably meant the Williams family and their piano! He wanted a portfolio of Foreign Affairs; he wanted a portfolio of Justice; he wanted portfolios of Posts and Telegraphs and Transport. One of the other councillors, Councillor Fortein, wrote as follows in the March issue of the Banner —March comes after February in case hon. members do not know it—after I had explained this whole Bill to them—

The Opposition talk about a Common Roll, but this is what Councillor Fortein had to say in his article—

These are strong words, Mr. Speaker, and they were written by one of the councillors to whose arguments we have always been prepared to listen, although we have differed from him in many respects. For example, the Proposal that (there should be 18 elected members from the Cape came from him. The original idea was that the Cape should have 12 elected members. He then said that because the Cape had almost 1,000,000 voters and the other provinces had fewer voters, this would not be fair. He then suggested that the Cape should have 18 elected members. I do not want to quote this whole article but I would just like to read out this further quotation—

That is what he had to say.

I want to come now to the hon. member for Karoo, who objected to the fact that provision was being made in this Bill for the representation of the Griquas and Malays. Does he not know as a Coloured Representative that provision is also made on the present Union Coloured Council for separate representatives for the Griquas and the Malays? There is one Griqua and one Malay representative on the present Union Coloured Council and we are now simply making provision in this Bill for two Griqua and two Malay representatives. But this principle is already being applied in the present Coloured council. The hon. member for Karoo went further and said that none of the Coloureds supported this Bill. He told us that he had fought an election on this issue, but the hon. member for Karoo did not discuss this Bill specifically with the Coloured people. Although he made that allegation, at no time during his election campaign did he submit this Bill to the Coloured people.

I want to come now to the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) who objects to the fact that the Chairman of the Executive Committee will be appointed by the State President. The Chairman of the Council will be like the Speaker in this House and the Chairman of the Executive Committee will be like an Administrator. The four Administrators of the Republic are appointed by the State President. Are our Administrators “stooges” of the Government? The same principle is being applied here and the chairman will be appointed by the State President, just as the Administrators of the various provinces are appointed by him.

Hon. members of the Opposition have made a plea here for their race federation policy and the hon. member for Gardens has once again made a plea for a Common Voters’ Roll. According to a statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition which appeared in the Cape Argus of 16 November 1963 he had the following to say—

meaning the four race groups in South Africa —Bantu, White, Coloured and Indian—

You see, Mr. Speaker, he calls it “the present United Party policy”. He keeps the door open in case of a possible change—

I remember that during the Joint Sitting in 1954 the hon. the Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment which, amongst other things, embodied the following objections (translation)—

This was in connection with the separate Voters’ Roll. He said that under his race federation plan only Whites and Coloureds would be able to sit in this House. Does this mean that the Coloureds will be able to represent the Indians here, that they will be able to represent the Bantu and the Whites here besides representing the Coloured people!

That does not form part of the federation plan.

Of course it does. This is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself had to say—

That is perfectly clear. He went on to say—

In other words, the Coloureds will be able to represent the Indians, the Natives, the Whites and their own people in this House. That is the solid bloc that will be formed.

It has also been said by hon. members opposite that the Coloureds reject the separate Voters’ Roll. That may have been so. They say that as a result of this fact the relationships between the Coloureds and the Whites in this country have deteriorated. Is that the case at present?

Definitely.

The hon. member says “definitely” without adducing any proof in support of her statement. Mr. Speaker, that is not so. The hon. the Minister enjoys the full co-operation of the Coloured group today. The people who are actually in favour of a Common Voters’ Roll are not the conservative Coloured people; they are the Coloureds who want equality. Dr. van der Ross told the Select Committee on the Separate Representation of Voters Bill that the Coloureds people wanted a Common Voters’ Roll. He said this in pursuance of a question put to him by Dr. Dönges, the chairman of the committee. Dr. van der Ross: “We want eventual equality and we want to use the Common Voters’ Roll in order to obtain eventual equality.” In terms of the race federation plan of the United Party it seems to me that Dr. van der Ross was right in saying that eventual equality would be the end result.

It has also been said here that we must win the goodwill of the Coloured; that we must make him our ally. I fully agree with those views. I agree that we must win the goodwill of the Coloureds, I agree that we must make him our ally. But that is what this legislation has in mind. Hon. members must tell me why it will be easier for the Coloured to become the ally of the White man once he is on the Common Voters’ Roll. Will he become the ally of the White man simply because he is on the Common Voters’ Roll? Why did the Native in Rhodesia, who had a seat in Parliament and who was on the Common Voters’ Roll with the Whites, not become an ally of the Whites? Why do we have a Notting Hill in England where the Coloureds are able to vote together with the Whites? Why do we have a Little Rock in America where the Negroes are able to vote together with the Whites? Has the Common Voters’ Roll there promoted better relationships between White and non-White? Mr. Speaker, that is not what they want; they do not want an alliance; they want a piebald society in South Africa. The National Party regards the vote as part of the programme of upliftment of the Coloured. The United Party regards the vote as something apart; it regards the vote as something which is separate from the economic, financial and educational development of the Coloured. I remember that during the 1954 Joint Sitting the present President of the Other Place, Senator Naudé, moved an amendment to the effect that the vote should be regarded as part of the plan of uplifting the Coloured. That is also what we have in mind with this legislation. That is what the Coloureds want. The Coloured council, by a majority decision, adopted the principle that the vote should be given to 21-year-olds, and do you know what their argument was, Mr. Speaker? I do not think anyone is prepared to say that the age limit should be fixed at 21 years of age for all time to come. But a very interesting argument was advanced in this regard. They said that they first wanted their people to be uplifted; that this would be achieved through the education given to the Coloureds, and that the Voting age could then be reduced to 18 years. In their original plan which we submitted to the Cabinet, they asked for a qualified vote. The argument which they advanced was that those people would then have something to strive for; that they would know that the vote was something which they could strive for and that in that way they would uplift themselves. The Cabinet did not accept the proposal of a qualified franchise. I just mention this in passing. The Coloureds do not regard the vote as something separate; they regard it as part of the work of upliftment that must be done amongst the Coloured people.

Reference was also made to the two-year residential qualification. Some of the councillors said that a member should be resident in his constituency. The argument which they advanced was that their people were not yet sufficiently mature; that they needed leaders and that because the member of the council was their leader, he should reside in his constituency. This shows how strongly they felt that the vote formed part of the process of uplifting them. But it was not possible to agree to this because if no capable person can be found in a certain constituency, it will be necessary to bring in someone from outside. But the principle underlying their argument is important and that is that they regard the vote as part of the work of upliftment that must be done throughout the whole of the Coloured community.

As the hon. the Minister correctly indicated in his second-reading speech—this has already been accepted by the Coloureds—this is not the final stage of their development because no national or political development is ever final. Let us consider the political development that has taken place in the Republic. Our own political situation has changed and developed during the past 50 years. Consider the development that has taken place within the Commonwealth. Was there any Englishman 25 years ago who thought that one day there would be a Kingdom and a Republic within the same Commonwealth? That development has taken place. The hon. the Prime Minister correctly stated—and his words are completely distorted …

On a point of order …

I withdraw that word; I did not mean it seriously. The hon. the Prime Minister said that this was not the final answer. He drew up a plan for the future and he sketched the portfolios which we have to-day. He said (translation)—

We are still only in the initial stages, Mr. Speaker. This is virtually an interim stage during Which development still has to take place.

Under these circumstances I cannot understand the attitude of the United Party. The Coloured people are now for the first time being enabled to take this most important step forward and the only reason why the United Party is opposing this Bill is because they know that the Coloured people throughout the whole of the Republic will eventually give their support to this new programme. The United Party know that the Coloureds will give their support to this programme; they are already doing so. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister or from anybody else whether any complaints worth mentioning have thus far been lodged by the Coloured community?

No.

Complaints have not even been forthcoming from the liberals.

That does not mean anything—whether they complain or not.

There we have it, Sir. One moment we are told that there must be consultation and the next moment, if no complaints are lodged, we are told: “That does not mean anything!”

The Bill means nothing to them.

The provisions of the Bill were published in the newspapers. Summaries of the provisions of this Bill appeared in the newspapers over a period of some months. These various reports were published by the Banner only recently.

May I ask a question?

Just let me finish my argument. The United Party issued a booklet entitled “The Cape Coloured Vote” and the persons who were responsible for drawing up this booklet were Sir De Villiers Graaff, Mr. Gray Hughes, Mr. Jackson, Mr. H. G. Lawrence and Mr. D. E. Mitchell. On page 58 of this booklet the United Party themselves say that they do not regard the Common Voters’ Roll as the solution to the whole problem, but in this House they try to suggest that the Common Voters’ Roll is the Alpha and the Omega in this whole problem to establish better relationships in South Africa. They say—

They go on to point out what transpired in Ceylon and they say that it did not prove to be the solution there.

But they are members of the Western group.

Just listen to that! That is not mentioned in this booklet. They refer to what Sir Herbert Stanley, who gave evidence before the Select Committee, had to say. He said that the committee had investigated the position and that a Common Voters’ Roll in Ceylon was not the solution to the problem. On page 68 of the committee’s report they say—

In his booklet, Sir De Villiers Graaff refers to Ceylon and Cyprus. The hon. member for Gardens does not know his policy. He says that the Coloureds are not mentioned at all in the race federation policy. This is what Sir De Villiers Graaff said—

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) is to-day a member of the United Party. Three years ago his policy was still that of separate representation in this Parliament; he felt that the Coloureds should be represented by their own people in this Parliament. He is now a member of the United Party and I should like to know what his present attitude is in this regard. Is he still in favour of separate representation? Three years ago, in 1961, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout supported a candidate in the Port Elizabeth (North) constituency and the policy which they advocated was one of separate representation on a separate Voters’ Roll but they advocated that the Coloureds should be represented directly by their own people in this Parliament. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is now a member of the United Party and I should very much like to know from him whether he has changed his attitude in this regard or not. I challenge him to stand up during this debate and tell us what his attitude is. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) can now ask his question.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) had a great deal to do with the drawing up of this legislation. He has told us that originally the Coloureds asked for a qualified vote but that they were then told that they could have an unqualified vote. I want to know whether the Coloured people also asked for the vote to be given to Coloured women?

This memorandum which was submitted to the Cabinet was the work of the Coloured council. The proposal which they submitted to the Cabinet was that all Coloured persons, men and women, should be given the vote, but that it should be a qualified vote. The Cabinet approved of the proposal that Coloured men and women over the age of 21 years should be given the vote throughout the Republic, but it did not approve of a qualified vote, and I can appreciate the reason for that. I do not know how the Cabinet argued but I take it that they argued in this way—and this is how the Coloureds accepted it: The Cabinet did not want the Coloureds to be placed in a position different to that of the Bantu in the Transkei or different to that of the Whites in the Republic. I think that was possibly the attitude adopted by the Cabinet. The hon. the Minister will be able to tell us how they argued. But I can tell the House that the recommendation of the Cabinet to the effect that the Coloured vote should not be a qualified one was received with acclamation. The entire council cried out “Hear, hear”! when they were told that the vote would not be a qualified one. That specific clause was approved of. It was not even discussed again. It was simply put to them and they all agreed to it. I do not know what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) wants. Does he want to revert to a qualified vote? [Time limit.]

Listening to what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) had to say, I could not believe that he was the person who drew up this Bill for the Coloured people.

I did not draw it up; I was an adviser.

Very well. I could not believe that he was an adviser. I expected him to explain the provisions of the Bill and give us reasons for those provisions but instead of doing so all he did was to make a political speech, and a poor one besides. He quoted from a United Party publication and accused us of seeking a solution to the problem along certain lines. He also said that things in Cyprus had gone wrong. Does this mean that when a leader of a party makes a statement and uses as an example a country in which things have not worked out as they should have worked out, the policy of that party is completely wrong? [Interjections.] I am very pleased because I have here a statement that was made by the late Dr. Malan when he was leader of the Nationalist Party. In that statement he said that there were only two countries which had the solution to the colour problem. The one was New Zealand where they had a separate voters’ roll and where the Maoris could be represented by their own people, and the other country was Kenya where, he said, there was stability and contentment amongst the various races. Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard such nonsense?

When did he say that?

Dr. Malan said it in this House in 1936. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) should not talk so much. If I remember correctly he issued a pamphlet in this regard and also a £1,000 challenge. I shall show him the pamphlet if he wants to see it. He was one of the persons who drew up that pamphlet—he and Jack Loock.

Mr. Speaker, to my mind this Bill is more important than the talking that is being done here. I come from the Western Province where we know the Coloureds intimately, not the Bantu. I know the Coloureds intimately. They helped to bring me up. I played with them as a child; they work for me to-day. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must come to order.

I had the privilege for many years as a member of the provincial council of representing a constituency in which there were a large number of Coloured voters. Mr. Speaker, let me say this: The Coloured community cannot be regarded as being one community. There are numbers of Coloureds who have as yet not reached the stage of development that has been reached by many of the Coloureds in the urban areas. Does the hon. the Minister still remember the Coloured people who helped me when the hon. the Minister stood against me? The hon. the Minister and the Nationalist Party must not come along here and tell us that this Bill has been introduced out of affection for the Coloured people. There has never been a community in South Africa which has, so undeservedly, had to endure as many insults as the Coloured community has had to endure from the Nationalist Party. Let me mention a few examples. The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) was a member of the provincial council at that time and he will remember how Mr. Jan G. du Toit, who was at the time member of the provincial council for Calvinia, lodged an official objection on behalf of the Nationalist Party because a clerk in the provincial administration was asked by the Administrator to address Golding as Mr. Golding. They objected to the use of the term “Mr.” and they said that a White man should not so lower himself as to address a Coloured as “Mr.”.

Are you not ashamed of yourself?

Hon. members ought to be ashamed of themselves. Let me give another example. Where is the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker)? Does he still remember the time when he had to write an article objecting to remarks made by a certain Mr. Brill who was a member of this Parliament at the time and who said at Gansbaai that the Coloureds should be put into camps guarded by machine guns and that all who tried to escape should be shot dead? At that time the hon. member for Fort Beaufort was editor of the Suiderstem and he had to write an article protesting against this statement. That was the language used by the Nationalist Party. I am pleased to know that this is no longer the attitude of the Nationalist Party. I am pleased to know that. But hon. members opposite must not detract from the value of their conversion by trying to make us believe that this has always been their attitude. Can I believe that they are doing this out of affection for the Coloureds and out of a desire on their part to assist the Coloureds? Have they not had a change of heart because of circumstances? Are these concessions being made out of affection for the Coloureds or are hon. members opposite afraid for the future? I want to deal briefly with another matter. We have heard the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) explain to us that the Chairman of the proposed Executive Committee for the Coloured people and an administrator fall into the same category and that that is why the chairman will be appointed. I accept that statement. But why are the administrators appointed? They are appointed because they are the administrators of provinces, but I am quite sure that they have never been told: “The sky is the limit.” But these Coloured people have been told that there is no limit to the constitutional development that they can enjoy. The hon. the Minister has told them: “The sky is the limit.” I do not think that the sky will be the limit because we have already been told that one of the members of the Coloured Council asked the hon. the Minister to set up a portfolio of Foreign Affairs. The hon. the Minister will never permit that to happen. The sky will never become the limit in this regard. Or will it? No one will tell me. The hon. the Minister knows very well that that is not so. Why then be dishonest with these people; why then say something that he does not mean? Why make statements of that nature? The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) objected to the fact here this afternoon that we in the United Party say that the Coloured belongs with us. We are not ashamed to say it. Not very long ago the Nationalist Party said that the Coloured belonged with them. Does he still belong with them? The hon. member has nothing to say. Because world conditions are what they are to-day, I am sorry to say that when South Africa is facing a crisis, then the Coloureds belong with us, but when everything is peaceful and everything is going well and the Nationalist Party want to exert their authority, then the Coloured no longer belongs with us. In 1960 the then Minister of the Interior, the present President of the Senate, Mr. Naudé, stated in this House (translation)—

At that time they belonged with hon. members opposite. The Minister was right. Listening to speeches made by hon. members of the Nationalist Party this afternoon one would swear that their only purpose was to establish good relationships between the Coloureds and the Whites, but what of the relationships between the Whites and the Coloureds? What were these relationships in the past? I want hon. members opposite to listen to what Minister Naudé had to say in this regard (translation)—

In other words, the Minister said that the good behaviour of the Coloureds contributed towards establishing good race relationships between the White man and the Coloured. If those relationships were good, how could the Minister have made a statement of that nature? We must not tell the Coloured people that they belong with us every time we need them and then when we no longer need them and feel safe, tell them: “Go your way”.

With you it has always just been lip-service.

No, that is the truth. Concessions that are made out of fear are not concessions at all. They do more harm than good. These concessions are being made out of fear and not out of affection for the Coloureds. We who have been in politics since 1943 know all too well how the United Party were accused of being “Kafferboeties” and how the Coloureds were insulted and berated because they supported the United Party. But what was the reason for separate representation? The hon. member for Malmesbury told us that the Nationalists were chained to principles. What principles? Is one of those principles the principle upheld by Dr. Hertzog who said that the Coloureds belonged with that party? They had the Coloured National Union. Coloureds attended their congresses and what happened then? In the years 1943, 1944 and 1945 the Nationalist Party started a strong agitation to place the Coloureds on a separate roll. And what did they give as their reasons for doing so? What reason did Dr Malan give at Paarl? He said: “If we put the Coloureds on a separate Voters’ Roll, we may even win the Paarl seat.” It was not done to save White South Africa but to win the Paarl seat!

We would have taken it whether the Coloureds were on the Common Roll or not!

That was the argument. I know that hon. members opposite feel safe to-day. They feel confident because they have a large number of voters behind them. But they are not as safe as they think. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind them of a little story which I am sure you will appreciate because I know that you know your Bible very well.

Yes, but the hon. member must discuss the Bill.

I want to draw an analogy between this position and a similar position which we find recorded in a Book for which I have great respect. I think that we can all take this story to heart because I feel that it is analogous to the position as it exists to-day. When the Coloureds were placed on a separate Voters’ Roll, what was the attitude of the Nationalist Party? They said: “You have the vote amongst us.” Dr. Malan negotiated with the Coloureds and said that he would give them better representation and a larger vote, a vote which would mean more to them, but a separate vote. What did the Coloureds then say? They said that they did not want it and the reason which they gave was that this vote had been the inheritance of their fathers over the years. Because the Nationalist Party said that Parliament was sovereign, they used their majority in Parliament as a steamroller to remove the Coloureds from the Common Voters’ Roll. We warned them that they would find themselves in the critical position in which they are now and that they would lose the goodwill of these people. They have lost that goodwill. We can use an analogy from the Good Book. Hon. members will remember that the Bible tells us that King Ahab, the husband of Jezebel, coveted a certain vineyard but the owner of that vineyard, Naboth, stood between Ahab and the vineyard. The Nationalist Party were in the same position. They said: “We want this vineyard; we shall give the owner a separate vineyard.” So the owner was given his separate vineyard. They gave him a separate vineyard but first they said: “We will give you a larger vineyard, but it will be a separate vineyard.” What was the answer? “We do not want a larger vineyard because this vineyard is the inheritance of our fathers.” The Coloureds said the same thing to the Nationalist as Naboth said to King Ahab. What happened then? King Ahad returned to his wife Jezebel who told him: “But are you not King of all Judea? Are you not sovereign?”—like the Nationalist Party in this Parliament! The Prophet Elija told Ahab—and this is what the United Party tells the Nationalist Party to-day—“You are misusing your powers. The dogs will lick your blood in the streets.” And turning to Jezebel he said: “You, Jezebel, will find no resting place on earth.” Elija was right; the dogs did lick the blood of King Ahab. I say that if we do not conduct ourselves properly and pass legislation in order to get the Coloureds on our side, it may well be that, our blood will be licked up in the streets of Cape Town! We need the support of all the Coloureds. No matter what the Nationalist Party may say, Mr. Speaker, they do not have the support of the Coloureds to-day. The Coloureds do not support them and do not trust them. Let us look at the result of the election in the Karoo constituency. What happened there? Two thousand two hundred postal votes were issued. It was stated in the Burger, and Mr. Scholtz and Mr. Eden both agreed, that Mr. Scholtz was far in the lead and that Mr. Eden had only won 600 of those votes. All the rest were votes for Mr. Scholtz. But we do not know how they voted. What was the result? Mr. Eden had a majority of 390. In other words, of the 1,700 votes that Mr. Scholtz received, he received, according to his own estimate, less than 300 of those votes at the polling booths. Does this indicate the confidence of the Coloureds in the Nationalist Party? I do not want to discuss the question of postal votes; hon. members opposite will be sorry if I say what I want to say. In any case, I say again that the Coloureds have no confidence in the Nationalist Party. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) can go on telling the Coloureds how Mr. Long apparently told the Coloureds that the United Party were exploiting them. The Coloureds know us and we know them.

I have never said that.

What has that to do with the Bill?

The provisions of this Bill form part of the general pattern that the Nationalist Party is trying to establish; one more thread is being added to the spider-web in which they are already so enmeshed that they can never escape from it. The Government is creating chaos by passing legislation under which future generations will suffer for many years. What is happening here has become quite clear to me since listening to the hon. member for Malmesbury. In this case it is not a question of what is in the interests of South Africa. There is not one member here who can tell me that the Coloureds were placed on a separate Voters’ Roll because they constituted a danger to White South Africa. They were placed on a separate Voters’ Roll because they constituted a danger to the Nationalist Party. What do we find to-day? The hon. member for Malmesbury made the position quite clear to us and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) agreed indirectly with everything he had said. The hon. member for Malmesbury made a very interesting speech. He tried to prove that the United Party were in difficulty because we are now apparently following a policy of “one man, one vote” and he wanted to know what the United Party was going to do about the Coloured woman who still did not have the vote. He was so pleased because they had discovered something which they thought would place the United Party in a difficult position; in other words, he wanted to know what the United Party was going to do in order to place the Coloured on the Common Voters’ Roll again. But what has now become apparent? The fact remains that this clause was not asked for by the Coloureds. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) told us so. This was a trick played on the Coloureds. They were told that the principle of one man, one vote would now be forced down their throats. Anyone would compliment the Coloured Council on having the sense and the responsibility not to ask for a policy of one man, one vote. They advanced good reasons for not having done so. They said that the Coloured people were as yet not all capable of accepting that great responsibility. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) and the hon. the Minister have nothing to laugh about. Apparently the hon. member did his work badly. He said that the Coloureds did not want to give the vote to the 18-year-olds. It seems to me as though the hon. the Minister also wants to force this down their throats. What is the trickery behind this? It is that the Government hopes by means of this legislation to place the United Party in an invidious position. This Bill is being introduced not for the sake of the people of South Africa or of the Coloured community but simply with the idea of promoting the interests of the Nationalist Party; to frighten the people of South Africa with phantoms conjured up by the Nationalist Party and to force these down the throats of the Coloured community in order to see what will happen.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot go on in this way. A Government cannot continue to act so irresponsibly! Sooner or later this sort of thing is going to catch up with us. I know that I cannot use the word “mean” (gemeen) but did you notice, Mr. Speaker, the tactics used by the hon. member for Malmesbury? He contended that the United Party were opposed to separate Voters’ Rolls and to separate development simply because we wanted the Coloured trade. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a shameful accusation? Is the accusation made by the hon. member not really a shameful one? Does he not want to trade with the Coloured? If it is the policy of the Nationalist Party to have two economies in the country, then I want to challenge the hon. the Minister to introduce legislation to provide that no Coloured may henceforward buy anything from a White man. It will be very easy to introduce legislation of this nature. Or is the hon. the Minister going to stand by and allow the hon. member for Malmesbury to incite the Coloureds against the White man by making statements of this nature? Is that what the Nationalist Party want? Are those the tactics that they are following? It is the easiest thing in the world for the hon. the Minister to stand up and say that he is going to be consistent in regard to his policy of two separate parallel developments and is therefore going to introduce legislation to prevent Coloureds making purchases from White shopkeepers, and vice versa. He can do this easily, but will he do it? No, he will not do it, and the hon. member for Malmesbury will not suggest that he do anything of this nature either.

This colour question has been exploited in South African politics for years. We did not drag it into the political arena. On the contrary. We asked that it should be removed from the political arena. On each occasion that the Nationalist Party has dragged this matter into politics, reckless politicians in the Nationalist Party have exploited this question in order to win elections. But at the same time, South Africa has lost something. The hon. the Minister of Justice objected to the fact that my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) said that the Nationalist Party will not initially be destroyed by the electorate. But I want to state as my honest opinion that if we continue on this road on which we are at present long enough, it will not be something that destroys the Nationalist Party; the Nationalist Party will destroy itself! And that stage does not lie in the distant future either. As long as we continue to promote the interests of each section as a group and not as a part of the whole, we will be doing something which will mean the end not of the Coloured or of the Bantu but of the White man himself.

During the provincial council election campaign in 1949 an irresponsible Coloured man in the service of the United Party, a man whose name was Sampie, managed to get possession of a page out of a House of Assembly writing pad—I do not know how he managed to do so—and he forged the handwriting of the present Minister of Coloured Affairs who was then the Provincial Secretary of the National Party in the Cape. It was an obvious forgery. Any man, even a blind man, could see that it was a forgery. But who made use of that letter to sow suspicion amongst the Whites and the Coloureds? Who exploited that letter to the utmost in his constituency? It was the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) who at the time was a candidate in the provincial election!

Shame!

Eventually, Sampie appeared in court.

Mr. Speaker, may I give a personal explanation?

No, no!

I ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker; I do not want the ruling of hon. members opposite.

Order!

If you rule that I may not do so, then all I have to say is that this whole, story, this whole affair that is going on here …

What do you mean? What affair?

… is an untruth, a lie!

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

I withdraw it. I say that the allegation of the hon. member is untrue.

I am not prepared to discuss this legislation in the same lighthearted way in which the hon. member for Sea Point discussed it. What I have mentioned here is sufficient to show that no one will expect me to deal with his arguments.

This legislation is in conformity with the policy of the National Party as declared and published in an election manifesto issued before the 1948 election. In this manifesto we read the following under the heading “A Representative Council” (translation)—

In other words, it was to be a council, some of the members of which would be elected on a constituency basis and others appointed by the Government. The National Party fought an election on this policy in 1948 and in accordance with this principle the hon. the Prime Minister made a statement in December 1960 a statement to which this Bill gives effect. In that statement the hon. the Prime Minister said this (translation)—

We have a situation to-day in which the Coloured has limited political rights. He can elect four representatives to represent him in this House and two in the provincial council. We also have the situation, according to the evidence given before the Select Committee on the Separate Representation of Voters Bill in 1951, that the Coloureds have continually demanded that the franchise be extended to the northern provinces and that the vote should also be given to Coloured women. The question is: If we want to give the Coloured man and woman an unqualified vote, as is the case of the Bantu in the Transkei, if we want to extend the Coloured vote to the Coloureds in the northern provinces and if our aim is to give every man his rights without adversely affecting the rights of others, on what basis must we do so? We have these two bases: The one is the basis on which the policy of the National Party is founded, that of parallel development in terms of which we do not want to allow any increase in the political rights of the Coloured as far as this Parliament is concerned. They will retain the right which they have—the Indians have the same right—to vote for the Coloured Representatives. But on the other hand, the National Party is prepared, without imposing electoral qualifications, to give equal political rights, equal in all respects, to all Coloureds throughout the country including Coloured women, in a Coloured representative council. In contrast to this policy of the National Party we have another policy, the policy of the United Party, which is to have a Common Voters’ Roll and a mixed political society.

In discussing the policy of the United Party, I just want to mention that over the past ten years during which the Coloureds have been on a separate Voters’ Roll under the new setup, the United Party has changed its policy on no fewer than three occasions as far as the Coloureds are concerned. I want to mention these three changes of attitude for a specific reason. In the first place there was their attitude just after the Coloureds had been placed on a separate Voters’ Roll. This phase could be called: “The phase of lack of policy on the part of the United Party.” The United Party did not want to tell us then whether they wanted to restore the Coloureds to the Common Roll; Dr. Friedman resigned from the party to register his protest and the Natal Mercury of 20 November 1952 attacked the United Party in the following damning words—

Here we have the first instalment of the policy of the United Party in regard to this matter. Then subsequently, in 1958, the policy of the United Party assumed another shade; it now formed part and parcel of a policy known as the “Key to Constitutional Safety”. In terms of this policy the Coloureds in Natal and in the Cape Province could be restored to the Common Voters’ Roll on the strict understanding that they had to be represented in Parliament not by Coloureds but by Whites, and higher electoral qualifications were laid down for new voters. Mr. Speaker, there was the first stage therefore when they did not want to restore the Coloureds to the Common Voters’ Roll and then there was the second stage, the 1958 policy, in terms of which the Coloureds could be restored to the Common Voters’ Roll but had to vote for Whites. Then we had a further policy statement in May 1962 by Sir de Villiers Graaff at De Aar in which he explained the race federation plan of the United Party and stated, inter alia (translation)—

The Coloureds therefore also got something out of the Cyprus policy! The United Party said: “Not only will we restore the Coloureds to the Common Voters’ Roll, but in the Cape and in Natal they will be able to vote for their own people in Parliament.” But they went on to say—and this is interesting—that the Coloureds in the Free State and the Transvaal would be placed on separate Voters’ Rolls to elect members of the Senate. It is clear from this in which direction the United Party was heading. In 1954 the United Party were opposed to Common Voters’ Rolls, or else they were too cowardly to admit that they were in favour of Common Voters’ Rolls. Four years later, in 1958, they were in favour of Common Voters’ Rolls but opposed to Coloureds here in Parliament. Four years later still, in 1962, they said: “Now we are also in favour of Coloureds in Parliament.” Sir, I predict that in another four years, in 1966, when we again have a parliamentary election, the United Party will come forward with another instalment of this integration policy and in all probability they will say: “We will now also establish Common Voters’ Rolls for Coloureds in the northern provinces.” I do not know how the United Party can regard separate Voters’ Rolls for the Coloureds as immoral in the Cape and Natal and yet find moral justification for them in the Transvaal and the Free State. The election of 1966 will probably mean the end of the United Party. But when the United Party dies its off-shoots will come to the fore. The liberal elements which the United Party harbours in its bosom to-day will devour it from within just as the young of a puffadder devours it from within, and they will then announce the last instalment of the United Party policy: No discrimination; Common Voters’ Rolls with an unqualified vote for all Coloured men and women. Indeed, this will be the logical result of United Party policy. This is the road on which they have set foot and the road which they have been following systematically for the past ten years. If this becomes a political reality in South Africa, it will be the beginning of the end of the authority of the White man in this country, an authority on which the survival and the future salvation and welfare of the Coloured depends just as much as that of the White man.

Let us analyse for a moment the present Colour policy of the United Party. The United Party like to create the impression that if there is one matter on which they have a policy which has been worked out to make provision for future development and to provide for every eventuality, it is their Colour policy; they are fond of pointing an accusing finger at the National Party and saying: “You have your Bantu policy which makes provision for future development, but you have no policy for the Coloureds; you have not worked out a policy in their case to provide for future developments whereas we have.” Let us discuss this policy of the United Party for a moment.

What is the first conclusion that we must draw from this latest policy statement made by Sir de Villiers Graaff in 1962? The first conclusion is that the United Party is prepared, as far as political rights are concerned, to do more for the Bantu than for the Coloured. Notwithstanding the fact that the Coloured has a far higher standard of living than the Bantu and that he has been far closer and will continue to be far closer to the White man politically than the Bantu, in terms of their race federation policy the United Party give all the Bantu in the Republic an equal vote as far as the election of their representatives in this House is concerned, whereas only the Coloureds in the Cape and Natal are given the vote to elect people to represent them in this House. You must remember. Sir, that the Bantu had only three representatives in this House and they could only be elected by the Bantu in the Cape. But in terms of their Cyprus policy the United Party are prepared in the future to guarantee the Bantu a minimum of eight representatives in this House, plus six in the Senate, whereas, as far as the Coloureds are concerned, all that will be done for them is that those who had the vote in the Cape and Natal prior to 1951 will be restored to the Voters’ Roll and those who qualified for the vote after 1951 will have stricter electoral qualifications imposed upon them to disqualify them as voters for members of this House.

I want to issue this challenge to the United Party to-day. They say that they have a Colour policy. I challenge them to answer these frank questions in connection with their policy. The first question is this: Will the vote of these Coloured voters whom they want to place on separate Voters’ Rolls in the northern provinces be subject to electoral qualifications and, if so, what are those qualifications going to be? I would like the United Party to give us a straightforward answer to this question in the course of this debate. Secondly, how many members will these Coloured voters in the northern provinces be able to elect to the Senate? Can those Senators be Coloured people? Are the United Party going to keep the Coloureds in the northern provinces on separate Voters’ Rolls permanently and thus prevent them from ever electing members to this House? My next question is this: Will the Coloureds in the Cape and Natal who were on the Common Voters’ Roll prior to 1951 henceforward have to comply with higher electoral qualifications in order to enable them to be restored to the Common Voters’ Roll? Are the United Party going to maintain the present qualifications for Coloureds at their present level indefinitely? Are the United Party never going to give Coloured women and the Coloured 18-year-olds the vote and if they are going to give them the vote, will it be on separate Voters’ Rolls or on the Common Voters’ Roll? And once they have placed the Coloureds on the Common Voters’ Roll, are the United Party going to allow them to become members of their party within the same branch as the Whites? These are fundamental questions. They are simply, straightforward questions. If one is honest in one’s desire to give political rights to all the Coloureds in South Africa without discrimination, one ought to be able to answer these questions. If the United Party cannot answer these questions frankly, they must not accuse the National Party of not having worked out the details of their policy to cover future developments. The United Party have changed their attitude in regard to their Colour policy three times over a period of ten years and the position to-day is just as unclear as it ever was. All that we know is that, in terms of the policy of the United Party, any developments in regard to the Coloured vote will take place according to the pattern of political integration. The policy of the National Party is that any development or adjustment which may take place in the future as far as the franchise is concerned—for example, giving the vote to 18-year-olds or substituting elected members for nominated members— will take place on the basis of the policy of separate development.

Mr. Speaker, the choice with which we are faced at this stage is perfectly clear. The Government has bound itself irrevocably to the political development of the Coloured on the basis of parallel political rights—two streams which can never flow into one another—whereas the Opposition on the other hand, have set their foot on the road of political integration with all the unpleasant consequences that will flow from it. Why do we prefer the policy of the National Party, the policy of this party, in connection with the development of the Coloured, and why do we reject the United Party’s policy of a mixed political society? We do so, firstly, because the old system that we had, was a hopeless failure. I need only refer to what hon. members have said here about B. K. Long, a leading member of the United Party and editor of a leading English-medium newspaper. But I can go further and mention the infamous “sjambok” pamphlet which the United Party issued at the time. During an election campaign the United Party published a pamphlet bearing the picture of a Coloured man bent over and bound with chains and with a naked torso, about to be struck by a White man with a sjambok while in the other corner of the picture there was a school on which the words “Whites Only” were printed. That pamphlet stated: “This means slave labour. For you it will mean that you will not be allowed to own your own home or land. You will have to live in Kaffir camps that have been specially selected for this purpose. This means that your children will receive no education. This means that there is no hope for you for the future.” That was the sort of propaganda that the United Party used against the National Party at the time. Sir, I do not want to discuss this matter any further. I just want to say that it is unfair once again to let loose this flood of improper, questionable political propaganda upon the Coloureds. On the other hand, the Afrikaner Nationalist profoundly dislikes and loathes the election methods which have been used against him in the past, with the Coloured vote as a passive instrument. To revert, therefore, to those old tactics will be tantamount to committing a crime against the Coloureds as well as the Whites. We reject the United Party’s policy of a mixed political society because it proved a failure. It proved to be of no value for the Coloureds. It gave him nothing. It got him nowhere in politics. Although for more than 40 years the Coloured had the right to elect his own people to the Cape Provincial Council, during that period only two Coloureds were elected as members of that provincial council. Since 1940 the number of Coloured voters in the Cape Province has grown to about 50,000, but since 1940 no Coloured has had the honour of taking his seat as a member of the Provincial Council of the Cape, and the same thing has happened in other spheres. Take the city councils. There are hundreds of city councils and thousands of city councillors in the Cape but only about 12 Coloureds have ever seen the inside of a city council chamber, and the position has been far worse in regard to divisional councils. Although there are far more Coloured children at school in the Cape than White children, only about half a dozen Coloureds have ever been members of a school board. It was for this reason that B. K. Long said (translation)—

That is why we say very definitely that the political integration of the Coloureds with the Whites brought the Coloured nowhere in politics. He was only recognized at elections, and that was the case ever since 1910. I have managed to dig up an old pamphlet dating back to the years when the Coloureds still voted for the Unionist Party and in this pamphlet I find the following—

Our point is that in the past we Coloureds have slavishly supported the Unionists who made all sorts of extravagant promises which they never fulfilled, and it is high time that we should realize the truth of the proverb, “Once bitten, twice shy”.

The position continued in this way for 40 years until the National Party Government put an end to it, and then the words of B. K. Long were borne out. A tremendous fuss was made about it at first. (But what he had said further was also borne out: He said: “Apart from the shock to their dignity the Coloureds will gain far more than they lose when the Common Voters’ Roll is abolished and something more honest—even though at first glance it may seem less impressive—is put in its place.” That is what the Coloureds are realizing more and more to-day—that the old system of the Common Voters’ Roll and a mixed political society was an abject failure; that it was completely worthless to them. I would like to quote what the Coloureds themselves think of the political situation as it was. I want to quote, firstly, what C. I. R. Fortein said according to the Banner of 9 September 1963—

It was not B. K. Long but a leader of the Coloured people who said this. I also want to quote what S. Dollie said according to the Banner—

Mr. T. R. Swartz, Chairman of the Coloured Advisory Council, had the following to say, according to the Banner of April 1962—

And according to a Sapa report in the Argus Mr. Swartz also had this to say—

That is what the Coloureds themselves think of the old system. It is also true that political equality between the Whites and the Coloureds greatly hampered the progress of the Coloured population, firstly, because they were neglected in the socio-economic sphere and, secondly, because they were deprived of their leaders, the people who could encourage them to be uplifted. The better class of Coloured deserted their people and left them to their fate. That is why we believe that the policy of parallel development, in the political sphere as well, will not only keep the Coloured vote out of the political struggle of the Whites, will not only eliminate the malpractices that were rife under the old system, but will also result in establishing and maintaining better relationships between the Coloureds and all sections of the Whites. What is more, it will enable the Coloured to exercise his political rights more in his own interests and in the interests of his own national group. As the hon. the Minister of Finance put it at the time when the 1951 Act was introduced, “it puts the Coloured vote outside the danger zone so that the White man can more readily devote himself to the upliftment of the Coloureds”.

This brings me once again to the ideal visualized by the hon. the Prime Minister, which makes it possible for everyone who is striving for a bright future for South Africa to give every man his due rights in every sphere, including the political sphere, without adversely affecting the rights of anybody else. Because we are at the cross-roads to-day; we have to choose between the two streams that can never meet—in the policy of parallel development, and, on the other hand, the United Party’s policy of a mixed political society. In conclusion I can sum up the situation no better and give the Coloured people no better advice than to quote what was said by one of their own leaders, Mr. Fortein, according to the Banner of February 1964—

Listening to the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé), I do not think he referred to the Bill once during his whole speech. He lived up to his reputation of a party organizer selling his party’s policy. I think most of us in the House were convinced towards the end of his speech that he believed in the policy of his party. I think it is common cause that the Nationalist Party policy, way back in 1948, was to remove the Coloureds from the Common Roll. The history of the process of the removal of these people from the Common Roll is really a black history, of which this country cannot be proud. It has probably done us more harm than good overseas, and since that happened we have been trying to live down this background of removing these people from this House and from the Common Roll.

The hon. member for Parow referred to what has been done for the Bantu in the Transkei, where they have one man, one vote, and to what they were going to do here for the Coloureds, but he stopped there. He did not tell us that this proposed council was very different from what exists in the Transkei. He was very frightened of United Party policy. I should like to tell him that from 1854 the Coloured man was on the Common Roll until this Government removed him. I do not know what he has to be frightened about. He should not be so worried about what the United Party is going to do. I should like to tell him that the United Party accepts one fact which the Government refuses to accept, and that is that this is a multiracial country and that the laws that we make for the people of this country have to take care of that. The policy of the Nationalists, their so-called two-stream or four-stream policy, or total apartheid for all the groups—I will not call it separate development—which they propose to implement will bring this country to a state where I do not know what will happen.

I listened to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel). I understand he is one of the authors of this Bill, although he denied it. But it is peculiar that he only just touched on the Bill and then set up a smokescreen to protect the Minister against attack from this side of the House. He said in his final remarks that this was a great step forward, but I can only tell him that this Bill is a great step backwards, making the Coloureds completely blindfolded and dumb. That is the effect of this Bill. The Minister has introduced this Bill, but he has no real mandate to bring this Bill to the House. When you introduce a measure which affects a certain class of person in the country, one would think that there would have been some form of consultation. We have heard about the Coloured Advisory Council, but I want to talk about the consultation that took place recently. There was consultation between the Coloureds and the Government. The Government had a sponsored candidate there, in the recent Karoo by-election, where the Government was defeated. One wonders what the Minister would have said if that candidate had been returned to this House. He would have acclaimed it as a mandate from the Coloured people to introduce this legislation. But he has no mandate. He comes here without a mandate and without having had any consultation. But we are used to the Government coming forward with measures without any mandate from the people for whom they pass legislation. There is absolutely no mandate from the Coloureds to come forward with a Bill like this. This Bill is just a continuation of the long drawn-out battle to deprive the Coloureds of their rights. It is a deprivation of their rights, to push them back further and further. They will have no real say in their destiny in future in this council. It is nothing, really.

Do you not even know that the Coloured council asked for this Bill?

In setting up this council where they propose giving one man, one vote, one wonders why, in view of the fact that the Coloured man in the past has always had more rights than the Bantu, the Government did not have the courage of its convictions and introduce a Bill similar to the Transkei Bill, and allow them to set up their own Parliament with their own Chief Minister and the various departments. Why introduce a Bill of this nature which gives them absolutely nothing? This Bill conveys no powers at all on this council. They cannot initiate legislation or criticize the actions of the Government. One wonders what they will really do. They will have their sittings in public. One wonders what the Minister had in mind with this Bill. I know he said that his thoughts are crystallizing and that when he has come to a decision he will be able to tell them what they can do.

Where did I ever use those words?

In your speech.

You are talking absolute nonsense. You must have been dreaming of Timoney’s Garage.

No, the Minister said that his thoughts were still crystallizing and that when he comes to a decision he will tell them what they can do. Why are the Coloureds being treated secondary to the Bantu? Why cannot they have their own national anthem and a flag? [Interjection.] The Bantu do not have to swear an oath of allegiance to this country. We know what the background of this Bill is. The party opposite have had the fear all the way through that they would lose power through the Common Roll vote. The Minister tells us that he aims at the socioeconomic uplift of the Coloured, but in 1948 that Minister was the secretary of a party and he lodged objections against Coloured voters and went out of his way to remove them from the Common Roll, and he was doing his best to deprive these people of their rights. Then later on, after the present hon. member for Sea Point was returned to the Provincial Council for Vasco, it was quite apparent that the Government got a shock as a result of the provincial council elections of 1949. A deputation came to see the then Minister of the Interior to get the Coloureds off the Common Roll, and then we had the unsavoury battle which lasted for years to get the Coloureds off the Common Roll, and finally a measure of which this Government should be ashamed was passed in terms of which the Coloured voters were put in an inferior position to that of other voters in this country. Sir, when one looks at the measures passed by the Government in regard to the Coloureds one would think that they were foreigners in this country. I would like to remind this House that the Coloureds have no other country to which they can go. They are part and parcel of this country of ours. They have fought for the right to live here as South Africans; they went overseas and fought in World War I and they fought in World War II. They have fought for their stake in this country, and it is tragic to think that we have come to the stage where the Coloureds have to accept a measure such as this which gives them second-class freedom and which permits them ho say in their own future. That is what this Bill means.

Nonsense.

The hon. member says “nonsense”. I wish he would get up and tell us what real powers are being given to the Coloureds under this Bill. If he studies the Bill closely, he will find that the Coloureds have no powers at all. They are being treated as a secondary group in this country.

You simply want them as voting cattle.

The reason for the introduction of this measure is the same as the reason which prompted the introduction of the Transkei Constitution Bill. This is nothing but window-dressing to convince the outside world that the Nationalist Party are now giving the Coloureds a vote on the basis of “one man one vote”. Once this Bill has been passed I can imagine what will be said in the Information Digest which is published for overseas consumption; they will say, “we are now giving the Coloureds the vote on the basis of ‘one man one vote’; both to the Coloured man and the Coloured woman a right which they have never had before in this country.” But that Digest will omit to say that there is going to be two rolls, one roll for the Coloureds to elect members of this still-born council and another roll to elect members of this House. That is the story that they will tell the outside world, but on that point of the second roll they will be completely silent. Sir, what the Government is doing here is to create a completely voiceless council, a still-born council.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

If the hon. member reads the Bill I think he should be ashamed to be associated with it. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) who is an advocate, came here, armed with a poor brief, to fight the case for the Government. He should have said to the Minister quite frankly that he has no case to make out in support of his measure. Take the question of the election of members, for example. Instead of having elected members only to serve on this council, the Government is going to nominate certain members. Why does the Government not give the Coloured people the right to elect all their members? One wonders what is going to happen if there is an opposition party in this council.

Do you know how many members are to be nominated?

Sir, the word “stooges” has been used here. Naturally I do not want to call the 18 people who are going to be nominated “stooges”, but they will be subject to Government authority. The Government will obviously hand-pick these nominees. Why is the hon. the Minister not quite open with the Coloureds? I do not want to use the word “honest” because I do not think the Minister is dishonest. Why is he not quite open with the Coloureds; why does he not allow them to elect all the members of the council? Why does he not allow them to have the same powers as those given to the Transkei?

Have you read the Bill?

Yes, I have read it. I do not think the hon. member has.

How many members will be nominated and how many will be elected?

Sir, the hon. member has the Bill in front of him and he can read it. I think this is one of the most dishonest Bills ever put before this House, and I feel that even at this late stage the Government should seriously consider withdrawing it because it will do us no good.

The fact that the hon. member who has just resumed his seat sat down so suddenly was as unexpected as the contents of his speech. Just imagine the member who is the successor to Harry Lawrence in this House coming along with such a speech on such a subject in this House. Imagine a member of the United Party of the Cape, and not only of the Cape but of the Peninsula, and of an area where traditionally so many Coloured people have always lived and still are, making such a speech in this House! One is simply astounded; one can hardly believe it. The fact that the hon. member resumed his seat so suddenly was undoubtedly the highlight of his speech.

Sir, if we wish to deal with this piece of legislation in the manner in which it deserves to be dealt with, we have the difficult task of going to the root of the relationship between the two sections of the Western civilization community in South Africa, the numerically and otherwise dominant section, the Whites, on the one hand, and the Coloureds on the other hand, who also constitute a part of the Western civilization community in South Africa. It is an extremely serious and difficult question, and it is nothing less than a tragedy that this legislation has been chosen by the United Party in this debate as an opportunity for petty politicking. For instance, the hon. member who resumed his seat so suddenly asked whether there had been consultation with the Coloured community as such. Is not the basis upon which the parliamentary institutions of the Union of South Africa existed, and upon which these of the Republic exist, that this White community, as the politically dominant community, accepts the responsibility as guardian to make laws for the Indian community, the Bantu community and the Coloured community, in which we have to bring to bear our own consciences? The principle of consultation with these non-White communities has never yet been a constitutional feature of our legislative process. Now the hon. member asks: Where was the consultation and where was the mandate of the Coloureds? and then he comes along with the ludicrous story about the election in the Karoo. The hon. member refers to the Transkei legislation and he seeks to make the cheap politcial point: Why are the Coloureds not dealt with on a basis parallel with that for dealing with the Bantu? Mr. Speaker, in any case we are surely not children, but we should certainly not behave in a childish fashion when dealing with this delicate matter of White/Coloured relations. Surely we know there is no parallel between the Coloureds, who are a part of the Western civilization community, who have always lived among us and will continue to live among us, and the Bantu nations who formerly lived apart from us, then intruded among us and now are once again to an increasing extent being placed in their separate residential areas.

The first crucial point in connection with this matter to which we have to find a reply is this: What form of political representation can be given to a section of the community which is subject to certain legal differentiations? Everybody in South Africa, except the Liberalists, I think even the Progressives, will still say to-day that they believe in certain legal differentiations between Whites and Coloureds. As the United Party says, for instance: We believe in residential separation; we believe in separate schools. They probably also believe in separate army units, although one never knows to what extent they still believe in separate institutions, but even the United Party still believes in a few separate institutions. Our problem is this: What are you to do about political representation for a group which is subject to certain legal differentiations? The first submission I wish to make is that history has shown in our country and elsewhere that one cannot confer homogeneous political rights upon a community and then again introduce differentiation in their political rights. You cannot, as was done in South Africa for almost a century from 1854, give the Coloured people practically the same political representation as that of the White man and say, “Notwithstanding this political similarity with the White man, there still are certain distinctions. In spite of your political sameness, you may not enter the same Public Service; you may not live in the same residential area; your children may not attend the same high and primary schools.” If you treat them as a homogeneously similar section of your body politic you cannot make the other distinctions. The United Party indeed wish to restore the Coloureds to the Common Voters’ Roll, and make them part of the homogeneous body politic and then maintain differentiations in that body. That is the whole point. It is logically impossible, and historically it has proved to be unsuccessful.

I should like to mention three examples. In the first place that of South Africa. The attempt of South Africa to give the Coloureds the same political rights as those enjoyed by the Whites, and in other respects to draw legal distinctions against them, led to three conflicting forces. The one force was that which sought to give the Coloureds increasing general civic rights, in other words, the urge to equality. There was that group which felt that the Coloureds and their voting power should be utilized to bring about complete equality for the Coloureds. There was another group which felt that the Coloured vote would lead to equality, and because they were unable to accept equality they did not want to accept the Coloured franchise itself. Between these two standpoints of support or repudiation on the Coloured vote, the Coloured man as the third force continued to hover between heaven and earth and that franchise which was valueless to him.

It is not only our own history, Mr. Speaker. Let us look at this history of the United States of America over the past centuries since their Civil War. At that time the slaves and their descendants received the franchise in principle and federally but the American States proceeded to make laws limiting the legal rights of those Negroes in the U.S.A. Thus, for instance, we had legislation prohibiting mixed marriages, legislation against admission to the public service of the States, the militia and a hundred and one other discriminations or differentiations, call them what you wish. What has happened in America? In the long run you cannot maintain a position where a man, in this instance the Negro, has the vote, enjoys civil rights, and yet distinctions are drawn against him. From the nature of the situation there, the solution sought by America is the converse to that sought by us. They say the other distinctions existing against the Negroes have to be done away with. Logically they are perfectly correct. They wish to take the equal rights granted to them by law to the ultimate conclusion. In other words, they say that if a man has the vote, he should also be entitled to live where he wishes; he must be eligible to become a member of the army, of the Public Service, etc.; his children should be able to attend the same schools as those attended by the children of the Whites, etc. America accepts, as the fruit of history, that it is logically impossible to maintain a distinction in respect of a community in which homogeneous political rights exist.

The final example I wish to quote to hon. members is the matter which at the present time is receiving international attention, namely the situation on the island of Cyprus. On this island, also, equal civil rights have been granted to the Greek community on the one hand and the Turkish community on the other. However, as against this, certain separate rights have been created for each of these communities. In other words, the position they wish to maintain there is similar to that which the United Party hopes to maintain here in South Africa, namely that you can have a Coloured person and a White man together on the same Voters’ Roll, but in other respects the White man may do A, B and C, whereas the Coloureds again may do D, E and F. We know of course that this hope, in the case of the island of Cyprus, has led to speedy explosion and failure. And with reference to this, I should like to say—and I hope that every man in the United Party who is honest with himself will admit this—that history has shown that it is logically impossible to grant uniform political rights to a community, but at the same time to differentiate between the constituent sections of that community in other respects. It simply cannot be done. In such a case political rights are granted merely as a cloak to disguise other forms of discrimination within the community. If hon. members argue that it is logically defensible for the Coloureds to be on the Common Voters’ Roll, and that at the same time certain distinctions may be made, it may as well be argued that the fair-haired people on our Voters’ Roll, for instance, may not join the public service or become officers of the defence force, etc., while the dark-haired people again may not do something else. Then you will find that those people who have the vote and feel that there is discrimination against them will use their votes for nothing else but for the purpose of setting afoot a process of equalization throughout the whole community, that is to say, in respects other than the political sphere.

Thus we come to the first premise of this legislation. The National Party accepts as a fact that placing the Coloureds on the Common Voters’ Roll offers no solution unless we wish to accept the further concessions, namely that the Coloureds in all other respects should be placed on a footing of equality with the White man in South Africa. Because the National Party does not accept this last consequence, we cannot accept the first solution either. [Interjections.] Ask the hon. member for Maitland why we cannot agree to the Coloureds being placed on an equal footing with the White man in South Africa in all respects.

Will the equality also apply in respect of political power?

Mr. Speaker, this hon. member first asked me why we are unwilling to give the Coloureds equality with the White man in all respects. By doing so he intimated by implication that he and his party wish to do so.

No, no!

Then the hon. member should not make such interjections. I have stated a simple proposition. We regard it as a social impossibility to accept the Coloureds and the Whites as absolute equals in one community. That is why we reject as a possible political solution a state of affairs where the Coloureds share political rights with the Whites. That then is our point of view. As against that we say that the granting of political rights, as urged by the United Party, does not offer a solution. Therefore we have to seek another solution. It is very difficult because we are unable to find examples of solutions of this nature in the history of the world.

As regards our own solution, we accept it as a permanent feature of our political system that the Coloureds will enjoy representation in the Central Parliament. But that is not the subject of debate to-day. However, passing reference has been made to that. In any event, I think we can rightly say that the four representatives of the Coloureds we have here to-day in this House give the Coloureds more effective representation than they have had during the preceding century. As far as I am concerned, even though the voice of the hon. member for Boland may not perhaps sound so elegant to me, I nevertheless feel that it is the authentic voice of the Coloured community, for the Coloureds have elected the hon. member and as such one can listen to him because one assumes that he represents and expresses the views of the Coloureds. That, therefore, is the first thing we feel the Coloured community should have namely representation in this House.

For always?

Yes, Mr. Speaker; there has never been any doubt about that. The hon. ex-member for Namib, now elsewhere in the desert, asks: “For always?” The National Party has never doubted that the representation of the Coloureds in this House, on a separate Voters’ Roll, was a permanent feature of our constitutional development.

The hon. member voted and pleaded for that.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly stated this as the point of view of the National Party. Now, we have been told by the other side of the House, and we ourselves have noticed, that this measure of representation for the Coloureds is not quite adequate. There must be something more. In recent times the Coloured community has increased tremendously numerically. Apart from that they have, under the policy of this party, advanced tremendously as regards their cultural development, their standard of education and their economic development. Therefore they must get something more. Now we are offering this something more by establishing a representative council for them, which will from time to time be able to promote their specific interests in respect of a specified number of aspects under delegated powers. The least an honest critic can say about this is that this contains the germ of a solution. It may be considered that this progress is not sufficient as yet, that for instance, there should not be 16 nominated representatives, but none. But this at least is a step forward. As far as I am concerned, I firmly believe that we are hereby taking an important step in the direction in which the final solution to the political development of the Coloureds lies. This idea of a “State within a State”. …

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave notice to-day of a motion for the adjournment of the House in order to discuss a matter of public importance to-morrow, viz.: The judgment delivered on Saturday, 11 April 1964, by the Judge-President of the Orange Free State Provincial Division of the Supreme Court in the Bultfontein murder trial.

Shortly before the hon. member gave notice of his motion, I was officially informed that one of the accused found guilty in the trial, G. A. Rossouw, had applied for leave to appeal and that the application had been set down provisionally for 21 April 1964.

The notice of motion of the hon. member in general terms seeks to discuss the judgment as a whole, but in view of the fact that the judgment so far as it relates to Rossouw is so closely linked with and inseparable from the rest of the judgment in the Bultfontein murder trial, I have come to the conclusion that the matter which the hon. member now seeks to make the subject of debate, must again be regarded as being sub judice.

In the circumstances I regret I cannot allow the Notice of Motion to be placed on the Order Paper.

I want to point out to the hon. member that after the appellant’s case has been disposed of, I shall be prepared to reconsider the matter.