I move as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

In terms of Standing Order No. 50, I wish to indicate that the debate on the second reading of the Bill, excluding the reply of the member in charge, will terminate not later than 10.22 p.m. today.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned yesterday I had pointed out that any legislative powers conferred in terms of Clause 21 was delegated legislative power, not by this Parliament, as has happened in the case of many other subordinate bodies, even such minor ones as irrigation boards. In this case there will be sub-delegated legislative power derived from a Government proclamation; and those powers will be subject firstly to pre-enactment control by the Government and, secondly, to post-enactment veto by the Government, and in any event they will only last for so long as the proclamation is not revoked. This in itself is quite a new pattern of legislative delegation in this House to subordinate bodies. Looking at the terms of the legislation, it is quite clear that what Parliament is being asked to do here is simply to legislate blindly and that the Minister will be empowered in terms of this Bill very effectively to keep the council itself blindfolded as regards its powers. To what extent this committee will be subject to the direction or will be answerable to the council for what it has done or does are matters in regard to which I can find no clarity in the Bill itself. Seemingly this committee will be responsible to no one, unless it be to the Minister himself. I make that deduction firstly because in terms of Clause 17 (6) (a) the committee functions not on behalf of, but in place of, the council whenever the council is not in session; and, secondly, because in terms of Clause 20 (4) the Minister, as the political head of the Department, and the Secretary as the permanent head of the Department of Coloured Affairs, can both have a deliberative say, although not a vote, in what either the executive committee or the council may be empowered to do. Lastly, I draw that conclusion because in terms of Clause 17 (6) (c) the Minister or an Administrator may assign authority to particular members of the committee, but they assign it not in any prescribed or public form of delegation such as notice in the Gazette, but in some informal or underhand act of delegation. Who then is to know what powers have been placed in the hands of the committee or its members, and who, in those circumstances, will know how those powers are being used are questions which appear to be quite unresolved in the Bill itself; and I hope the Minister will in his reply give us some clarity because it is certainly not clear how these two bodies will function in relation to each other. I raise these questions because as a prelude to the second reading of this Bill the Minister has gone on record as having said to the Press—

There is a bit of arrogance, of course, in a statement of that nature, but a demonstration of paternalism in that way may comfort some people, but the Minister should know that paternalism of that kind is no substitute for constitutional reform at this time or in this Place. To many of the Coloured people to whom the Minister was addressing himself, i.e. the people mostly concerned, this Bill will be seen as an attempt at constitutional reform which is entirely a political fantasy, a figment in the sky of the Minister’s own imagination. Sir, it is a very strange place in which to construct a “grondwet”—in this figment of the Minister’s imagination in the sky! As an effort at constitutional reform for the Coloured people the Bill is conspicuously limited in scope and vague in concept, and there will undoubtedly have to be early revision of this Bill unless one must read more into it than is really there. I myself believe that what the Bill aims to do is to cover up rather than to remove some of the scars left by the Government on the political scene in South Africa after its prolonged constitutional struggle with the Legislature and the courts, which ended in the passing of the South African Amendment Act, No. 9 of 1956, and which finally gave force and effect to the Separate Representation of Coloured Voters Act, No. 46 of 1951. But even as a cover-up measure it will need early revision if it is to serve its avowed purpose and if it is to provide, as the hon. the Minister himself has said, nothing second rate in the administration of the political, social and economic future of the Coloured people of South Africa. Therefore I end as I commenced by predicting that the legislative pattern of this Bill is perfectly clear already, e.g. new legislation, a new law, followed by amending laws and laws to amend amending laws.

The hon. member who has just sat down has described the council to be established by this Bill as a kind of toy parliament. He spoke about a toy-like executive committee and even the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) spoke about “political deception”. Mr. Speaker, we have had the same chorus from Opposition members in this debate; we had the same chorus from the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), from the hon. member for Wynberg and from the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan). All of them referred sneeringly to this Bill. Their approach is completely different from that of the hon. the Minister. He dealt with this Bill against the background of two conflicting, irreconcilable policies. The hon. Minister pointed out that the one policy would lead to integration, to a kind of common community in which there would ultimately be tension and racial friction, where you would have a Bantu-controlled Parliament in this country at the cost of the Coloureds and the Whites in this country. The Minister also referred to this Bill as introducing an emancipation process and he also referred to the confidence and goodwill which was so essential between the Coloureds and the Whites. But what do we find on that side? Practically the very first speaker started to oppose this measure and to create an atmosphere of hatred and venom around this positive apartheid measure which is the bearer of good faith and goodwill. That to me is irrefutable proof that the United Party is continuing the struggle along the road of integration as they have been doing since 1948, because their policy is a policy of gradual and complete equality between White and non-White in this country, it is a policy of absolute equality and it will ultimately lead not only to political integration and even social integration but even to biological integration. The way in which they are opposing this Bill is irrefutable proof to me that they are on that road. [Interjections.] Not even with interjections can they shout down the allegation I have just made because there is one thing which shouts louder and that is the past of the United Party. They cannot deny that ever since we came into power in 1948 they have been fighting tooth and nail the policy of autogenous development, the traditional policy of the White man in this country, also as far as the Coloured is concerned. They have held out a gruesome and lopsided image to the public. They want to hold out that image to this House as well, but the day this Rill is nut into practice they will see that it will be the word of honour of the White man that will occupy the position of honour. Hon. members of the Opposition will remember the unsavoury and dramatic struggle they put up in this House to retain the Coloured voters on the Common Voters’ Roll. The electorate have on successive occasions condemned that policy and that is why the Opposition will always remain in the Opposition benches. They have fought, tooth and nail, every apartheid measure we have introduced, no matter how positive it was.

Are you proud of the way you removed the Coloureds from the Common Voters’ Roll?

Why should I as a Christian White guardian not be proud of the fact that we removed the Coloureds from the Common Voters’ Roll? I shall tell you why I am very grateful and pleased that we took that step. Let me quote to the hon. member what a United Party member said about this matter years ago—

It was a curse and that is why I am proud of the fact that they were removed from the Common Voters’ Roll. Mr. B. K. Long said further—

He was sure it would disappear. Why should I be ashamed?—

We have removed the Coloured vote from the Common Roll and I thought we had drawn the curtain of love over it but the hon. member once again tries to cause bitterness. Mr. B. K. Long ended as follows—

We have now reached that stage where we come forward with something better. Sir, hon. members of the Opposition know that their policy is one that will lead to a common state in which the principle of one man one vote will ultimately be such a decisive factor that it will destroy the political power of the White man in this country. The hon. the Minister has pointed out that it is a condition of the emancipation of the non-Whites that they must ultimately be able to handle their own affairs and that they must also be able to attain self-determination one day. The Opposition must admit that the principle of one man one vote must inevitably lead to a Bantu-controlled Parliament and a Bantu-controlled country. And who will suffer then? Not only the Whites but the Coloureds as well, and that is why it is the duty of the guardian to act the way the Government is acting. Hon. members cannot deny that, as far as the Coloureds and the Whites are concerned, their policy has always been that they should become one nation. I want to read a statement of policy to them, a statement of policy made by Mr. Lawrence, who was at the time a member of the Smuts Cabinet of which the hon. members for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) and Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) were also members. Mr. Lawrence said the following—

The policy of the United Party is not one of residential segregation; they followed a policy of general integration between White and non-White. That was the expectation they roused in the Coloured.

That is not true.

It is the truth; the hon. member cannot deny it. The hon. member will find that confirmed in the report of the Coloured Advisory Board. As a result of that revelation by the then Minister of the Interior the then Chairman of the Advisory Board called out in ecstasy—

Then he went on—

They are, therefore, in favour of complete racial-entwinement and racial intermingling; they do not advocate the maintenance of the identity of the Coloured people. That is what I hold so very much against hon. members. What have the hon. members for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman), Wynberg and Houghton done? Their only object was to ridicule this Bill; they suggested that it did not offer anything. Sir, this Bill introduces a system of government which holds within it important benefits to the Coloured people. I think one of the most important benefits that this governmental system will lead to is that the Coloured people will develop a self-consciousness which is essential if they want to promote their own interests. Surely hon. members know that the Coloureds are not White, or Asiatic or Bantu; they form a recognized, different non-White group with its own specific interests, and for the first time to-day we are coming forward with a Bill which practically gives those people the opportunity of handling their own affairs. We are creating a new political set-up for them which can, as it were, make their interests the focal point of public and political attention and that must of necessity lead to the development of that self-consciousness amongst the Coloured which is so essential and necessary for the promotion of their interests in the social and economic field. Why do hon. members opposite represent this Bill as an oppressive measure? This Bill is of incalculable, inestimable value. I think the most important benefit which flows from this Bill is that in future they will also be able to satisfy their political ambitions in a way that will make them happy. But there is a second important benefit which flows from this governmental system, and that is, that this Representative Council will become the hothouse in which Coloured leaders will be produced, those Coloured leaders who are so badly needed to serve their own community to the benefit and salvation of their own nation. If there is one handicap the Coloured people suffer from it is the shortage of leaders. We are now giving them a Representative Council which will consist of 30 elected members and 16 nominated members. They can now come forward as the leaders of the Coloured people and devote their undisturbed attention to the interests of their own people. What was the position under the old set-up, under the policy of the United Party of political equality? Did the Coloured leaders ever have an opportunity of coming forward? No. Those of them who did come forward got so entangled and entwined in the political structure of the White man that there was no question that they could develop into Coloured leaders. If they did come forward they were subjected to fatal competition. Could they ever become Members of Parliament under the clarion-call of the United Party of political equality? No.

Can they to-day?

In terms of this measure they can in their own field. We are logical, we are consistent; but the policy of the United Party cannot stand the test of logic. The only thing their policy does is to deprive the Coloured community of their natural leaders. Ultimately those people are frustrated and they land in the communist and liberal camp where they blossom into agitators who hate their White guardians.

Mr. Speaker, those are two of the important benefits flowing from this Bill but I think there is a third benefit but hon. members opposite have not referred to that. A third benefit that may flow from this Bill is this: For the first time we are now offering the Coloureds the opportunity of ultimately developing into a full-fledged Coloured community which will bear its own individual stamp. Because the Coloureds are not Whites, as I have already said; they form an individual, separate racial group. What has been the trouble in the past? They wanted to run away from the fact that they were Coloureds. We now have a system under which the Coloured can serve his own people. The big difficulty we were faced with in the past was that the presence of the Coloured vote on the Common Voters’ Roll had a paralysing effect on the coming into being of a full-fledged Coloured community of its own. The main reason for that was that they were negatively attuned. These are the bitter fruits of this pernicious policy of equality. Those people were fighting a battle within themselves; they did not want to be Coloureds; they wanted to escape the fact that they were Coloureds and the Whites did not want to accept them. The United Party lack the courage to say they will allow Coloureds in this Parliament. The United Party did not give the franchise to the Coloured women. They could not be consistent under their policy. Sir, if you lead the Coloureds along the same parliamentary mechanism as that of the White man, not only will it mean that greater demands will be made on you and that you will have to make further concession but there will be such tension that you will never have racial peace. That is why I think one of the most important benefits that will flow from this Bill will be the coming into being of an individual full-fledged Coloured community, a Coloured community that will bear the stamp of a separate nationhood. The Coloured must learn to be himself; he cannot be White; he can only be a pseudo-White. He should be attuned positively; remove that mental conflict and let him develop and reach a stage where he will be able to satisfy all his needs in the right way, where all his potentialities can become reality.

This Bill will in the first place awake in him a consciousness of his own importance and that will lead to the promotion of his own interests. In the second place it will bring forward the natural leaders of the Coloureds.

In the third place it will give us a full-fledged Coloured community which will bear the stamp of separate nationhood. When they manage their own affairs they will naturally be on the road to independence. They will act jointly in the promotion of their own interests. This Bill will also lead to a strengthening of the esprit de corps amongst the Coloureds. They will be proud of the fact that they themselves can manage their own affairs. You will develop a pride in them because a nation without national pride is a nation without self-respect. Here we are giving them an opportunity of retaining their self-respect and of satisfying their own political needs in a way that will make them happy.

Mr. Speaker, I regard these as the beautiful things that will flow from this positive measure. The hon. Minister said that we were dealing with a process of emancipation and here I agree with him wholeheartedly. Hon. members must remember that when we talk about guardianship it is not only a question of the relationship between Coloured and White. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) apparently thinks that when a non-White attends a multiracial dinner he is already emancipated. No, when you deal with guardianship you are dealing with the relationship between the White race and the non-White communities. The United Party places a wrong interpretation on guardianship. The correct interpretation of guardianship is that the Christian guardian must emancipate the ward, the minor, in such a way that he will eventually be able to manage his own affairs—and that is what the Minister is doing. Hon. members must analyse this Bill against the background of Christian guardianship. The Coloured must be emancipated in such a way that he will gradually manage his own affairs. But the United Party want to emancipate the Coloureds in such a way that they will all become enmeshed in the interests of the White man and have a say with the White man in his governing bodies. I maintain that that is placing a false interpretation on guardianship, because if the guardian were to interpret guardianship in that way and apply it to the Bantu and the Asiatic, that will not only undermine the political strength of the White man but you will get a position which will lead to the destruction of the White race in the Republic of South Africa and ultimately to the destruction of all races in South Africa. We must remember that autogenous development and guardianship are related. Gradual development is nothing else than gradual emancipation of the Black man in this country. The greater the extent of the autogenous development the greater your progress along the road of emancipation of the non-Whites of whom the hon. Minister spoke. The day will still come when autogenous development will be known as the antithesis of guardianship in this country, and the day autogenous development has been carried through to its logical conclusion the emancipation of the minor races will be complete but there will not be bitterness and estrangement but mutual goodwill between those various races and the guardian who has emancipated them.

What will be the status of the Coloured once he has been emancipated?

The Coloured will have a much better status than the status he had in the slums in the days the United Party was in power. In those days the Coloureds were relegated to the slums where they were exposed to a pernicious process of miscegenation in our fatherland. In those days denationalization and national degeneration were the order of the day. Those were the burial grounds of the Coloured and the White man in South Africa! We are now giving the Coloured people a new set-up. I think it is completely wrong, in principle, for the hon. member to talk about status now. Does he think a Coloured man only gets status when he sits alongside him in Parliament? Is that status? No, when you want the Coloured to sit next to you in Parliament it means that you have emancipated him in such a way that he wants to do the work of the guardian, and I regard that as wrong in principle.

Does the White man always remain the guardian?

No, under this policy we do not always remain guardian because this is a gradual process of emancipation. The Coloured people can even one day acquire the right of self-determination …

What did the Prime Minister say?

The Prime Minister said they would one day have the right of self-determination. Nothing stands in their way. World opinion demands that every race, irrespective of its colour, must ultimately be allowed to manage its own affairs. We say this policy of ours can be carried through consistently and uniformly. The Coloured now has the vote not only in the Cape Province and Natal but throughout the Republic of South Africa, and not only the Coloured male but also the Coloured female. Sir, any racial policy which does not bear the imprimatur of consistency and logic and uniformity only deals with the fringes of the problem. That is why we come forward with a policy which is consistent and uniform nor are we afraid of its consequences. This process of emancipation is in its initial stage and that is why I hold it against the hon. member for Gardens for having compared the statement of policy of the hon. the Prime Minister with that which is provided for in this Bill. This Bill is the beginning, a beginning with great possibilities and the guardian will have the wisdom of a statesman to canalize things in such a way that we shall not have racial conflict but ultimate racial peace in our country. The United Party, however, dare not carry their policy through to its logical conclusion—and that is the test of our policy. That is why they disguise their policy; they even come forward with a policy of White leadership which savours more of ridicule than goodwill. They will come forward with anything but they can never be logical and consistent with their policy because, if they are, the end will be a Bantu-controlled South Africa to the detriment of the White man, the Indian as well as to the Coloured.

Sir, there is one subject that hon. members on the other side, including the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) are not prepared to discuss and that subject is the contents of this Bill.

We can do that in the Committee Stage.

We have sat here for three days listening to these general descriptions of policy, which has nothing whatever to do with the Bill we are discussing. We are discussing here the form of government which hon. members opposite are prepared to extend to the Coloured people of South Africa, but at the very worst they have had the temerity to refer to the events from 1948 to 1951. Sir, that they should go back, with their guilty consciences, to those days is more than I can understand. There sit the gentlemen who gave us the High Court of Parliament Act, which made them Judges in their own cause.

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

On a point of order, the hon. member for Brits has referred to those days.

I thought the hon. member said he was going to deal with the contents of the Bill.

I am going to do so, Sir, but with the usual courtesy of the House, I am devoting a minute or two to the remarks of the hon. member for Brits before proceeding to the speech I have to make. Sir, these are the hon. members who gave us an enlarged Senate.

What is wrong with that?

That is their black record. These are the gentlemen who told us at one period that one could never think of ignoring the entrenched clause, and then after wards they used every subterfuge to circumvent the provisions of the entrenched clause. Now they come along and talk in general terms about the policy of that side of the House and about the policy of this side. They have a new jargon. The hon. member talks about “the Coloured community will find itself”. The Coloured community, Sir? The Coloured community has been a community in this country for hundreds of years. Finding itself! [Interjections.] Sir, may I please have the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) either silenced or removed. He has been going on like this for two days.

Order!

Sir, many years ago in this House I had the opportunity of paying a tribute to the Coloured community. I am not as familiar with them as hon. members on the other side representing Cape constituencies, but I have served with them in South Africa’s wars, and I attend every year a celebration by the Coloured people on Square Hill Day in September. I want to read just two short tributes to the Coloured people before I deal with this Bill. The first tribute is by a Boer General, General Sir Japie van Deventer. Speaking of the Coloured troops in World War I he said this—

Then I quote a tribute from Field-Marshal Lord Allenby after the battle of Square Hill.

What has that to do with the Bill?

He issued this order of the day—

And at last they are recognized by the hon. the Minister of Defence who is now making provision for them in our forces.

Sir, I should like to deal now with the Bill and not with the generalities to which we have been listening over the last two days. The hon. member for Brits said that our remarks about this Bill have been derogatory. Of course they have been derogatory. This Bill is not a Bill to give parliamentary government; it is a travesty of parliamentary government; it is a burlesque. It is dressed up in the form of parliamentary government. It has the form without the substance. Let us take a look at the form; it is what the poet said about it. It is like:

I want to deal with some of the dead sea fruit in this Bill. The first clause goes through the motions of giving us a parliamentary form of government. They are going to have elected and nominated members on this council. Why nominated? If it is to be representative of the Coloured people why cannot they all be elected? Why should any of them be nominated? Then we have another clause which is familiar; we have it in any electoral legislation, namely, how the voters are to be registered. It almost sounds as if the Government is dealing with a Bill to regulate this Parliament. Here is another one: What the qualifications of voters will be. I am sure there may be Coloured people who are deceived by this. It has been said that the People never give up their liberties excepting under some delusion. If the Coloured people give up their liberties for this Bill they are being deluded.

The next point is how they may be disqualified; after that they are told how to apply to get on the Voters’ Roll. Provision is made for the blind and the infirm—the usual formulae. Then, of course, we must have delimitation. That comes in as well. Then there are the provisions of our Electoral Act that will be applied to them. I come to the main point. Under Clause 10 the Bill says that a member who is nominated must have resided for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the date of his nomination in the province he is nominated to represent and that he must continue to reside there. Now, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has just been made a Member of Parliament for the Cape. I do not know for how long he has lived in the Cape immediately preceding his nomination.

What about Japie Basson?

If the seat of government is to be Cape Town there seems to me to be no reason why a Transvaal representative should not live in Cape Town or why a Free State representative should not live here. If the seat of government is to be in Pretoria I see no reason why a man from the Cape Province should not live in Pretoria. Why should he be tied to his own province as a place of residence? It is quite absurd.

Then, of course, there is the formal oath. That is very necessary; they have to take a formal oath! I now come to the main part of this Bill, namely, the powers they are going to have, the freedom of discussion. They may not even discuss a civil servant; they may not even discuss the work of the secretary or the person of the secretary of Coloured Affairs. There is a Coloured Development Corporation to-day, similar to our Industrial Development Corporation. Why should they not discuss the work of the Coloured Development Corporation? Why should they not discuss the nomination of individuals? If these men are public servants why should the council not be free to discuss these things, if it is to be a parliament?

The next thing is that the Chairman is designated by the State President.

Where do you get it from that they cannot discuss civil servants?

The clause I have just given, Clause 16.

Read it.

When it comes to the Committee Stage I shall read it again. Clause 17 deals with the powers this body will have. It says the Executive Committee shall deal with the following matters in so far as they affect Coloured persons, and then those matters are listed. But how will they deal with them? The hon. the Minister has not told us how they will deal with them. Let us take one item—pensions. How will they deal with pensions? Will they raise the money to provide pensions? Will they be able to raise loans? And if they are to raise loans will those loans be guaranteed by our Government? Because this is a Bill which abrogates the rights of this Parliament; it does not abrogate these rights in favour of the Coloured people but in favour of the Government, the Minister, the Executive. And where the rights of Parliament are abrogated in favour of the Executive we are on the road to a dictatorship. That is the danger of this Bill. Everything is to be decided by the Minister and by the State President, i.e. the Government.

Take the first part of Clause 19 where provision is made for certain allowances. Who will decide what allowances they are to receive? Not this Parliament which raises the money and which has to approve of the spending of that money but the State President; in other words, the Minister, the Government will decide. Our rights are being taken from us, Sir.

I want to come to a very important point which has been discussed by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) and others, namely, the functions and the powers of this body under Clause 20. What will they be allowed to do? They will be allowed to do three things. The first is, they will advise the Government when asked to do so by the Minister. The second is that they may make recommendations to the Minister. The third is that they will serve as a link. It seems to have been some sort of missing link up to now. This is not the first time we have had a representative council in South Africa, Sir. We had one before this and a much better one; we had a Natives’ Representative Council. I should like to compare the powers and privileges of the proposed council with those of that Natives’ Representative Council. As you will have realized, Sir, I am referring to Act 12 of 1936. That Natives’ Representative Council had much greater powers. I want to quote from a document issued by the Native Affairs Department. They had the power to consider and report upon—

1. (a) proposed legislation in so far as it may affect the Native population.

Without being asked by the Minister; they were free to comment on proposed legislation in so far as it may affect the Native population—

1. (b) any matter referred to it by the Minister; and
2. (c) any matter especially affecting the interests of Natives in general.

They did not have to wait for the Minister to ask them to do so, they could immediately submit a report. But what is more important is that they then recommended to Parliament or to any provincial council legislation which they conside ed necessary in the interests of Natives. They had the right to propose legislation that affected Natives …

Did they have the franchise?

The hon. member who was so conspicuous in drafting this Bill does not seem to know what its contents are. If he did not consider the Natives’ Representative Council he should have done so. Not only that, but if any legislation came before Parliament they had the right to postpone that legislation until they had given a report on it. Those were the powers of the Natives’ Representative Council. Moreover, the Minister had to discuss with the council financial provisions made before the parliamentary session. Finally, all reports of that Natives’ Representative Council had to be laid before this Parliament so that every member could know what was being done in that council. Those were much better powers than these. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister abolished it, not General Hertzog. General Smuts wanted to improve it by extending its provisions. But the hon. the Prime Minister abolished that council—for what reason? He said he wanted to abolish it because an advisory body could never be a success. If hon. members would like the reference I will give it to them. He said that in a speech he made in this House. I remember that speech very well. After the hon. the Prime Minister became Minister of Native Affairs he said there could be no Natives’ Representative Council; if there were such a council it could never function because it would be an advisory body. Now the same Government are establishing a Coloured Representative Council with powers not nearly as great.

I come to the question the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. de Villiers) kindly put to me and to which I undertook to reply whenever I took part in this debate. The question he put to me—I hope he will correct me if I have not got it quite correctly —was, that should this Coloured Representative Council be established, would members of the United Party take part in elections? I should like to reply to that question. I should like to reply to it in the spirit in which a Coloured citizen and a member of the United Party would have replied to it: Never has this Government given such a loudspeaker for ventilating grievances as this Bill. What a platform this is going to be! Everything they say is going to be reported in the Press.

Are you against that?

I say I would grasp the opportunity if the Government were foolish enough to establish such a body.

Would you want to be elected to it?

Of course I would want to be elected to it so that I could condemn this Government and all it has done to the Coloured people. What an opportunity! I hope that satisfies the hon. member.

What would your attitude be as a White man?

If the Coloured people approached me on the matter I would say to them: I agree entirely with you; this Government has not treated you well and they are now giving you an instrument that you can use against them. That is what this Bill is doing; it is putting into the hands of the Coloured people, particularly into the hands of the agitator, an instrument to hit back at the Government. Think of the good time the agitator is going to have, Sir! This Bill does not assist the Minister to get the views of the Coloured people. This is a Bill of suppression; it is a piece of bluff. It is bluff from beginning to end. You bluff those people that you are giving them a parliament because you give it parliamentary names; you use the terms “executive council” and “power to spend money”. There is no such power. They have to do what the Minister tells them. They are just an advisory body like the Minister’s junior clerks in his Department. We are accused of condemning this Bill. I condemn it root and branch. There is nothing good about it. There is only one thing that should be done with it and that is to tear it up as the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) told us the other day. There is nothing in this Bill that will help the Coloured people; there is nothing in this Bill, in spite of what the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) seems to think, that will lead to better race relations in this country. It will exacerbate race relations; it will never assist us in this country; it will work against the very thing we are trying to do: to cultivate better race relations. Those are my feelings towards this Bill. There is nothing good in it. I wonder whether it can be improved by way of amendment. We might perhaps be able to improve it, not radically, but that may be possible. Some of the provisions are so ludicrous, Sir, that they really must be changed or deleted. Better still, Sir, I would say: Withdraw the Bill. I shall have the greatest pleasure in voting against it.

The hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not react to his remarks in detail because he only blew up a fantastically big balloon only to pop it himself at the end. However, I just want to deal with his remarks in connection with Clause 16. Nobody will tell me that a frontbencher, and an intelligent member like the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), has read that clause. He could not have read it otherwise he is simply mischievous or stupid. He can choose which of the two he wants to be. The remarks the hon. member made about that clause are unworthy of him, but I leave it at that.

At this late stage of the debate, after we have made much progress, I should rather like, for the sake of clarity, to put two simple questions to the next speaker on the Opposition side, questions I want him to reply to. In this connection I want to refer to the position of the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) who is not in the Chamber at the moment. Before he came here he was a member of the Cape Provincial Council where he represented the Coloureds of the Northern Cape. He was a member of the United Party caucus in that council. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, he was the leader of the United Party in the Cape Provincial Council, while he occupied that position. After that he came here as Coloured Representative of the constituency Karoo. Last year, with the by-election, when this hon. member had to be designated as the official candidate of the United Party in that constituency the United Party found itself in a great dilemma. Amongst the large number of Coloured voters in the Cape Province there was not a single member of the United Party who could nominate him officially as the candidate of that party. After that his successor in the Provincial Council had to be nominated for the Northern Cape constituency and once again the United Party said they were appointing an official candidate in that constituency to represent the United Party. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, they once again found themselves in a similar dilemma. Once again there were no members of the United Party within the Coloured group who could nominate that candidate officially as the candidate of the United Party. Do you know what happened? The chairman of the United Party in the Cape Province, the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan), sent people, paid officials, round the Cape Province—not only in the constituency concerned—to collect a number of Coloureds and to bring them to Beaufort West where he asked them, without their being members of the United Party, to pass a resolution that the hon. member for Karoo must be the official candidate. The hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) was there. What is more, Mr. Speaker, at that particular meeting a Coloured person put the direct question to the hon. member for Gardens as chairman: “Why can our people not become members of the United Party seeing we have been brought here to support an official candidate of the United Party?” [Interjections.] The hon. member for Gardens cannot get away from the truth I have just stated. That is so. And that is the party which advances the argument against us that we are discriminating against the Coloureds at political level. That was the main argument used in this debate. At this late stage of the debate I wish to put this very simple little question to the next speaker on the Opposition side: When will the United Party decide that Coloureds can become members of their party?

What has that to do with the Bill?

You hurl the argument of discrimination at our heads but you appoint official candidates in Coloured constituencies and assist them to be nominated. My question is this: Why this discrimination and when are you going to decide otherwise? Then I have a second very simple little question. I put it pertinently to the next speaker on the Opposition side: What will the United Party do with this new Common Voters’ Roll which is being created here if they were again to come into power in South Africa? I trust we shall get replies to these two simple little questions, Sir.

I should like to deal with this legislation in a somewhat more positive manner. As far as I am concerned, this legislation deals with the future arrangement between two minority groups in South Africa, namely, the Coloured and the White group. In the second place, as far as I am concerned, it deals with the future arrangement between two national groups which, because of their Western background, because of their language, their religion and homeland, are perhaps closest together. In connection with these two submissions there are three basic truths that we have to take into account in our discussion, truths which, for the sake of clarity, I once again wish to emphasize at this stage. The first truth is this: As far as the position of the Coloureds in our future pattern is concerned there can be no question of the freedom of a separate homeland. I do not think there can be any difference of opinion in this House as far as this submission of mine is concerned. We in the Western Cape Province must realize that White and Brown are destined to live here next to each other during our time, during the time of our children and during the time of our grandchildren. Here within our own national borders we shall have to find those borders which are necessary to promote good neighbourliness. I say “good neighbourliness”, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is the desire of both sides of the House not to perpetuate this two-fold symbiosis of Brown and White rubbing shoulders together. I think that is the general desire. For the sake of good neighbourliness and for the sake of balance a pattern will have to be evolved for the 1,500,000 Brown people which will make it possible for them to attain their aspirations. Take note, Mr. Speaker, I think it will have to be a pattern which will also have a much broader meaning in the developing conditions prevailing in southern Africa.

Then there are two submissions or basic truths which I want to emphasize and in connection with which I do not think, either, there is any difference of opinion between the two sides of this House, namely, that we cannot, with a clear conscience, push the Coloureds as a minority group, with their Western way of life, over to the Bantu side. In this connection there is no difficulty between us. If we were to do that we shall only be getting approximately 1,500,000 “Brown Bantu”, if I may call them that, here in the Western Province, susceptible to the wave of Black nationalism which is rolling towards us. And remember, Mr. Speaker, they will then be permanently settled amongst us. We shall in that case actually be chasing 1,500,000 people into the other camp, a fact which will increase the difference between White and Black by 3,000,000 and that will have happened here in the Western Cape where we have a natural revulsion of Black infiltration.

In this regard the most important argument in this debate has been advanced by the hon. the Minister himself when introducing this Bill. He said—

Mr. Speaker, this statement by the hon. the Minister is a true statement. If there is one statement with which we with a white skin in South Africa must go to bed in the evening and get up in the morning it is this statement.

There is a third truth which I want to emphasize. We may differ from one another in this regard but we can only differ in our judgment of the facts. If I refer to the “incited Coloured vote” it must not be regarded as an accusation—nor as an accusation against the United Party. I just mention it as a fact. The submission I wish to make is this: Under the previous set-up, when an incited Coloured vote was used between White and White in our political arena, the Coloured had no outlet for his own political aspirations. We cannot deny this truth.

Here I have a booklet, it is a piece of Africana, which is obtainable in the library, called “Political Parties and the Coloured Vote” by one Peregrino. It consists of a number of pamphlets issued in 1915 during the second general election after Union in constituencies such as Gardens, South Peninsula and others in and around Cape Town. If you read these pamphlets, Mr. Speaker, and you think what the position was prior to 1956 you realize that nothing has changed. As far as the Coloured is concerned nothing positive has happened in the political life of the White man. His vote, as a minority group, was simply a cynical, barren, politically powerful factor in the political disputes of the Whites. Surely we cannot deny that. Alongside that there is another truth which we cannot deny either and that is that the present tempo of Brown community development only became possible after the removal of the “nuisance”; if I may call it that.

The doubtful, ambiguous position of the Coloured on the outskirts of the White community could only in a new set-up be changed into a national group within its own right with unalienable residential areas—its own mouthpieces and governmental bodies. Surely, Mr. Speaker, what I am saying here is the truth. Nobody who faces up to the facts can deny these truths. When we analyse this legislation in the light of these three basic truths, there are a few things which I think are true. The first is that this legislation is something new. It is no use, as the hon. member who spoke before me did, digging into the past and producing this and that. We are busy with a new set-up as far as the Coloureds are concerned. This legislation is new, but it is only new as the top of a growing tree is new; it is new like the final stages of a long stretch of road which has been constructed laboriously. Let us see what further satisfaction we can get from this legislation. We can be satisfied and convinced in one respect and that is that along this new road the Coloureds are given an opportunity of developing into an equal partner of White civilization, of the White man. I think we are all satisfied on that. Alongside that there is another truth we must remember, namely, that the main responsibility rests on the Coloured people themselves not to put to shame the ideals the White man harbours in regard to the position he will in future occupy in the South African set-up. That must be remembered under this new set-up. The attitude of the Coloureds themselves can promote and strengthen a national concept which will give further momentum to the present new set-up.

I think the hon. member who has just sat down was very wise when he decided not to scratch around in the past to find some material with which to support the speech he made here, because there is nothing in our past at all to give him any support whatever for this Bill.

Why do you not reply to the questions he put?

I will reply to those parts of the hon. member’s speech which I choose to reply to and I will reply to them when I want to reply to them and I will reply to them in the manner and in the tone I choose. What is more, what I will have to say in this debate in regard to this Bill will not be predetermined by some policy which my Leader has suddenly whisked on my party out of the sky as has happened to all the hon. members opposite who have spoken, including the hon. gentleman who has just sat down. If the hon. member had looked in the past and if he had scratched around in the past, he would have found a relationship with the Coloured people in the Cape—and the hon. member knows it better than anybody else in this House—which was something that we could be proud of and it was something, I believe, that we were in honour bound to keep on the basis on which it was. Sir, the hon. member says that this legislation is like a branch on a tree, a new branch …

The top of a tree.

Yes, it is going to grow. But where is the top, where is the sky to which this tree is growing? The hon. the Minister referred to it when he gave his interview to the Cape Times. Sir, the whole concept of this Bill is founded in a dream, a dream of the hon. the Prime Minister. Nowhere else. There is no other justification for this Bill. There cannot be any justification for this Bill if one looks at the facts in South Africa and if one is really trying to find a solution.

So when hon. members ask me whether I am going to answer those questions about what the policy of this party is, I want to say to the hon. member that the policy of the United Party is in black and white, in a pamphlet; that is more than what the hon. member can say about his party and more than any other party in this country can say. Our policy is very clear, and our policy is determined by our congress, and it will be changed, if necessary, by our National Congress. Our policy is not determined by our Leader standing up here in a debate and then determining for us, the members of the United Party, exactly what that policy is going to be. But where does this concept come from, the concept about which so many hon. members there have spoken, the concept of a national council for the Coloured people? Since when have the interests of the Coloured people been separate and distinct on a national basis? Since when are the interests of the Coloured people of Durban the same as the interests of the Coloured people of Cape Town or the interests of the Coloured people of Johannesburg? Because that is also what this Bill envisages. Since when has that been the case? I am sorry the hon. member for Brits is not here. He says that this is the traditional road of South Africa, that this Bill is part of the traditional road of South Africa. How can the hon. member say something like that? What are the traditions of the Coloured people who are basically and traditionally people of the Cape Province? What are the relationships between the White people and the Coloured people? The best traditions in race relations that this country can look to, and one of the best traditions that any multiracial country can look to. But there was an attitude which nurtured it, an attitude of mind which presented it, and that attitude of mind was the attitude of mind which existed in this province and in Natal in relation to these people over centuries. The tradition nevertheless is that they are an appendage of the White people, despite anything that this Government might say about it, or rather anything the hon. Prime Minister might say about it.

In Natal the Coloured people are to-day, those of them who were there before, on the Common Roll, not on the Common Roll because we put them there ourselves; they are on the Common Roll because this Government decided to leave them there. Why? They were all there in 1951 and the Government then decided that no more could be added, but that those that were there could stay. That position is not altered by this Bill. It is true that the numbers have diminished. But where is the bitterness between the White people of Natal and the Coloured people of Natal? Where was it in 1951? Where has it ever been? Whatever notions has the hon. Minister got about the relations between the Coloureds and the Whites in Natal to make a statement like he did here that there was this bitterness caused by the “Common Roll”?

How many Coloured voters were registered in Natal at any time? A few hundred?

There were not many, but I am told there were 1,300. I accept that it was in the neighbourhood of 2,000. But the principle is nevertheless the same. How many were on the voters’ list in the Cape? I believe in the Cape at that time there were about 34,000 Coloured voters on the roll out of 1,500,000. How is this relevant?

I will tell you.

The fact of the matter is that they are on that roll and that they have been there since 1951 and the race relations between the Whites and the Coloureds in Natal are extraordinarily good. It has not been affected in any way by the fact that they were on the Common Roll. They are still there and here we have the hon. member for Brits telling us what a logical party they are, and the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) telling us that we are political cowards because we will not face up to the logical results of our policy in relation to the non-Europeans.

I have not taken part in this debate.

No, the hon. member makes most of his remarks by way of interjections and he has probably in that form said more than anyone else has said in a single speech. The hon. member for Brits is talking about the traditional policy of South Africa. He is absolutely 100 per cent right if he says that this is the traditional policy of the Transvaal, this attitude to the Coloured people, to anyone who is darker than most of the White people. Their attitude to anyone who does not fall within the category of “White person” is that he should have no rights at all. That is the tradition of the Transvaal. But it is not the tradition of the Cape Province and it is not the tradition of Natal, and the race relations that exist in those two provinces in relation to the Coloured people have been better than anywhere else, and that relation is an example to anyone else.

When the hon. Minister introduced this Bill he talked about a Black proletariat and included everybody who is not a classified White person.

No.

What was he referring to then? Of course he was referring to the Coloureds as well. He talked about the Black proletariat and the dangers of a Black proletariat.

Who did?

The hon. Minister did.

You have not got the faintest idea what I was speaking about.

But I must assume that when the hon. Minister introduced the Bill he was talking about the Coloured people. And the hon. Minister is not the only one who spoke about a Black proletariat. All the speeches have been in relation to Black people. Sir, who are we dealing with in this Bill? We are not dealing with Bantu, we are not dealing with people whose culture is different from ours.

It is clear that you do not understand Afrikaans.

We are dealing with people whose greatest difference is that they are darker in colour than most of the White people. Of course there are other differences in economic development and social development, but what is their background and what is their culture and what are their traditions, what languages do they speak? They are an appendage of the White people of South Africa, they are begotten by the White people of South Africa, their history is the history of the White man in South Africa, their development is the development of the White man in South Africa. If anyone is in any doubt as to how close they stand to the White people in South Africa and how similar they are, then I think there is no hon. member in this House who has not had to deal with the population register and who is not aware of the position. As the late Justice Fagan said in relation to our legislation, “Parliament had wisely refrained from drawing a dividing line where the Creator had blurred it”. Those are the people that we are dealing with here. We are not dealing with a foreign mass of Black savages. We are dealing with people who are but for the grace of God White people. They are a part of the White people, and this is a deliberate attempt to estrange these people.

Rubbish!

If the hon. member for Cradock says it is rubbish, I know I must be right. Sir, with whom do these Coloured people identify themselves and their interests? With us, with the White people. For one reason only and that is that they are in every respect identifiable with the White people. They have had every cause and every provocation to align themselves and their interests with the Bantu, or the non-White people generally, but they have resisted it, in the same way as any other White person in South Africa will resist it. He belongs to that Western civilized group.

Why do you not accept them as members of your party?

I wonder whether the hon. Minister will answer a question in relation to this, a question which he was asked by the Cape Times reporter when he said that he would deal with it in the House, but he has not dealt with it yet, and that is: Are the Coloured Representatives going to stay here?

Yes.

Can they be Coloured people sitting in this House here?

No.

Well, now he has answered the question.

Answer my question now.

Talking about the hon. members who represent the Coloured people, they obviously are going to go in the end.

Why do you say that?

I accept the hon. Minister’s word that they are not going to go now, not immediately. It does not suit their book at the moment that they should go. How do these Coloured Representatives fit into this beautiful picture of a Coloured council? Will the hon. Minister in his reply tell us what their purpose is going to be so long as this council exists? What are they going to do? Why do you have them sitting in this House if you are going to consult with them only through this council? What is the purpose of any Member of Parliament? He is here in this House to represent the interests of the people he represents, his constituents. And the Coloured Representatives are here to represent and to speak for the Coloured people of the Cape Province. What is their function going to be after this? And if the hon. Minister is really sincere that he wants always to keep the Coloured Representatives here, why does the hon. Minister not provide that they also can go to the Coloured council and to the executive committee of that council and participate in and attend their meetings? If they are always going to remain here as the representatives of the Coloured people, why does the Minister not make that provision?

The answer is very simple. Because he does not intend to consult them. He intends to have them here as a sort of facade for a policy that does not exist. But who is allowed to attend the council meetings, who is allowed to attend the meetings of the executive committee? The Minister or the Secretary for Coloured Affairs. That is all. Not the elected representatives of the Coloured people! They are not allowed to go there. And if the hon. Minister is sincere that these hon. members are going to remain here, then I think he should provide that they can also take part in the deliberations of this body. But like everything else that this Government does, they provide, as they have provided here, something which is a facade of a policy. The hon. the Prime Minister was obviously in a difficulty when he dreamed up this wonderful thought of separate independent Bantustans, in difficulty in relation to the Coloured people and the Indian people. So, because he has got to be logical, he now provides for this as being a sort of substitute for a parliament of their own.

Sir, every single member on the Government side who spoke on this Bill, including the hon. Minister, spoke in terms of political rights. That is what separate development means when they talk to the people outside. It only means “political rights”. Sure, they give them political rights of a sort, of an extraordinary sort. I want to deal with that, and it has been dealt with already very fully. They give them some political rights in this body. But what is the real purpose of separate development in relation to the Coloured people? To give them a Parliament or a homeland? No, Mr. Speaker, there is no homeland for them, and this which they are given is in no sense of the term a parliament. This is the façade for them to practice on the Coloured people pure, unadulterated baasskap apartheid, and everything that goes with it, because the policy of separate development includes for example job reservation. That is the policy of separate development. Can anyone deny that? And whether you have a Coloured council or whether you do not have a Coloured council does not make any difference; you are nevertheless going to practise the other aspects of separate development; and ask the Coloured people how they feel about job reservation! We have heard most eloquent speeches here on this subject. Sir, this is separate development for the Coloured people and it is no good wrapping it up in parliaments and lovely bits of tape and calling this whatever you want to call it: Separate development for the Coloured people means that they will not have any opportunity to develop themselves as individuals according to their ability. That is simply and purely what it means. But ask the average Coloured man what he would rather have: Would he like once every five years to put his “X” on a piece of paper so that he can elect members to a body which has no powers, or would he like job reservation abolished? It is quite obvious what his choice would be. But if this hon. Minister were really sincere about wanting to do something for the Coloured people, he would give the Coloured people that opportunity, at least to the individual, to develop himself as he can.

Because in fact the body that is given to them is an emaciated, emasculated talking-shop. No powers are given to the Coloured people, and what is more, as has been pointed out, it allows them to have a talking-shop in relation only to those matters the Government thinks they should discuss. And then this body is not allowed to criticize the Government. A wonderful thing to create! Why does the hon. Minister put that provision in the Bill that they cannot criticize the Government? Because he is afraid of the very thing that the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) mentioned that this might be a platform from which the Government might be attacked and criticized. So the hon. Minister is taking precautions against that and he has provided that they may not criticize even an officer of the Public Service, or an officer of a statutory body.

Where do you get that from? Clause 16?

Clause 16. Let me read to the hon. Minister what is in his Bill.

They will have freedom of speech in the council, and it goes on to say that they cannot be sued in court and that they are not liable to any legal proceedings by virtue of anything that is done … and then it says—

Where does it say that they cannot criticize?

Well, I credited the Minister with more intelligence than he is displaying now. Of course they can criticize. It is like saying: There is nothing in the world to stop you from shooting or stabbing somebody, but if you do, you can be hanged for it. That is the sort of argument that hon. Minister puts up, the sort of nonsense. Of course he can criticize, but if he does, he does so at his peril. He can be penalized and prosecuted. That is freedom of speech!

You have no right to libel.

Why do you do it here, why do you do it in this House?

Order! The hon. member is now going too far. He accused the hon. Minister of libel. Of whom?

I withdraw the word “libel”. Why does the hon. Minister very often say things in this House that he would hesitate to say outside this House? That is the point. Because this is the place where grievances must be aired and they must be aired in a place where you have complete freedom of speech, and freedom of speech in accordance with the meaning of the time-honoured words of the English Constitution. If he is going to use these words then they must mean what they say. He must not come along here and put in words in the Bill like “freedom of speech in council”, and then to define freedom of speech to mean quite the opposite of what in fact it should be. What does he think all those cases starting with Stockdale versus Hansard meant? They were very important in the English Constitution. That was one of the basic privileges of the House of Commons, and freedom of speech in the House meant something. Now the hon. Minister contends that he is doing the same thing for the Coloured people. He uses almost the exact words as those appearing in the Republican Constitution Act. He puts them in here and then he emasculates the words by putting in a proviso saying that they cannot criticize the Government. They cannot even criticize a statutory body. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, they cannot criticize Iscor or Escom, they cannot criticize the Potato Board or the Mealie Board, the Banana Board, the Dried Fruit Board. Why not? What absolute nonsense this makes of what the Bill pretends to be.

In the short time still available to me, I want to ask the hon. Minister if he will tell us what these legislative powers are? This body is given powers to make laws in certain circumstances, laws agreed to by the Government in essence, and so on. But once the law is made, the Bill provides that it will have the same powers to make laws in relation to those subjects as is vested in Parliament. This is only in regard to certain matters. They have the same powers in relation to subject-matter to make laws as Parliament. So that their laws will be original laws, they will not be delegated laws. They will be original laws and they will have the status of a statute, the status of an Act of Parliament when some law is in fact passed by them. And so it would seem on the face of it that perhaps they would have the power in relation to that subject-matter to repeal Acts of Parliament which deal with the matter. I do not know. I just want to ask the hon. Minister whether this is so, or rather whether the hon. Minister has looked into that. But nothing is said, as is usual when a legislative body is created, as to the area of jurisdiction of this council. Nothing at all. So what is its area of jurisdiction? Thirdly, nothing whatever is said as to the persons to whom the laws of this council are to apply. Now if we are setting up a new legislative body, it is normal and it is necessary to determine what powers it has and firstly, what the status of its enactments is. That is clear here. In relation to subject-matter their status is that of an Act of Parliament. But then you must define the area of jurisdiction and you must define the persons to whom those laws apply. Now when we had the Transkeian Bill before us, that was quite easy to define because you had a legislative body which had a certain status and powers were defined, and the area of jurisdiction was the Transkei and the boundaries were stated in the Act, it was clear also in respect of whom those enactments would apply. There is nothing in this Bill relating to that. Presumably it has power over all the Coloured people of South Africa, wherever they may be. Now my question is: May it make laws dealing with Coloured people which must be obeyed by White people and by Bantu people and Indian people? Must its laws also be obeyed by them, or are its laws only binding on the Coloured people of the whole of the Republic? Or is the hon. Minister going to provide that there are only certain parts of the Republic to which their laws will be applicable? May they make laws, e.g., in relation to Coloured people who are in an area where only Whites live or trade but which affect Coloureds who visit there but do not live or trade there? These are questions which any person looking at this Bill as a constitutional document is entitled to ask.

I want to reply to the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) who has just sat down. He said a number of things, less than half of which are worthwhile replying to. But he did make a few remarks about the good relationships that exist to-day between the Whites and the Coloureds. It is true that we have good relationships to-day but was this the case in the past before the Coloureds were treated as well as they are being treated by this Government to-day? The Coloureds are being treated in such a way to-day that they are satisfied. I think that the action of the hon. member in saying that the policy of this Government is one of “baasskap” and oppression, is reprehensible; that statement is not true. Statistics are available to enable the hon. member to find out for himself what this Government is doing for the Coloureds. Millions of rand are being spent on their housing. We know how they lived 15 years ago and we also know that millions of rand are being spent to-day on schools for Coloured children. We are trying to make them even more independent by means of this Bill.

But there is another thing. The United Party is a worried party and it is not surprising that that is so. They are worried because their ranks are gradually dwindling. If one compares their numbers 15 years ago with their numbers now, one realizes why they are worried. [Interjections.] They have only one thought in mind and that is to find assistance. There was a difference of opinion between the Afrikaans-speaking people in the past. Many of them belonged to the United Party but their numbers are also dwindling to-day. The United Party now rely on their English-speaking supporters but their numbers are also decreasing to-day because thousands of English-speaking people are joining the National Party.

Order! The hon. member must come a little closer to the Bill.

That proves that the Government has its finger on the pulse of the people. I support this Bill wholeheartedly because in terms of its provisions we are seeking to give the Coloureds what they have never had in the past. We want to make them more independent. All the speeches made by hon. members opposite today simply amount to this—and that is also the policy of the United Party: They want to restore the Coloureds to the Common Roll instead of giving them their own separate development by means of legislation passed by this House. I want to put this question to the United Party: Do they also want to put the Coloureds on the Common Roll in Natal?

They have always been on that roll.

Do they also want the Coloureds on the Common Roll in the Free State and in the Transvaal and do they want the Indians in Natal on the Common Roll as well?

You know what our policy is.

I want to deal with that policy now. I am sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not here at the moment. The hon. member said just now that their policy was recorded in black and white. I also have the United Party policy here before me in black and white, and I want to make use of it. I am sorry that the hon. members for Gardens (Mr. Connan) and Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) are not here. Both of them made statements here which are not correct. They contended that the wedge between the Whites and the Coloureds was being driven deeper by means of this Bill and that the co-operation that already existed was being disrupted by this Bill. How can one follow reasoning such as that when we are giving the Coloureds more than they have ever had? According to the United Party, when we give them more, we drive them away from us but when the United Party offers them less, they draw the Coloureds to them! I want to say emphatically that this party wants to establish and maintain good relationships between the Coloureds and the Whites. We are not in favour and we shall never be in favour of restoring them to the Common Roll because we do not want a repetition of what we had in the past when the Coloureds were simply used as a political football. But the hon. member says that the policy of the United Party is recorded in black and white. I want to ask him whether he agrees with the explanation given by Dr. Silk of the federation plan of the United Party. Dr. Silk said this—

Will the hon. member tell me whether Dr. Silk ever held any office in the United Party?

I do not think he held any office but he was asked to advise the United Party and he was their adviser. Dr. Silk went on to say—

He also said that the same would apply to the Public Service. [Interjection.] When this was published in the newspapers there was no denial of it by the United Party. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said that the Coloureds should be restored to the Common Roll and that he sees no reason why they should not be represented by their own people here, so why is Dr. Silk wrong? He was speaking on behalf of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. That is why I say that if we do not support this Bill, we will be doing a disservice to the Coloureds by making them the political football of the Whites once again. We know how the United Party treated the Coloureds in the past when elections were held. I do not want to absolve this side of the House from all blame, but I remember very well, when I was a student at Stellenbosch, how a Coloured approached me and said: “This is Master Koos’s pound which he gave me to vote for him, and this other pound is what the other Master gave me to vote for him.” We do not want a repetition of that sort of thing, but if we do what the United Party wants us to do, the same sort of thing will happen again. The United Party will again teach them to sign their names as they did in the past. The purpose of this Bill is to improve further the good relationships between the Coloureds and the Whites. We must establish good relationships on a permanent basis. We will need the Coloureds and that is why we must establish good relationship between themselves and ourselves; we must not make a political football of them.

Now you are making fools of them.

I wonder whether the hon. member for Durban (North) has ever approached leading Coloured people to find out what they think about this Bill. I do not think he has. But I took the trouble to approach various leading Coloured people to find out their views in this regard. I asked them to advise me as to what I should say in this House. They asked me to explain the provisions of the Bill to them. I told them that they would be given their own council and after I had explained the functions of the council to them, they were very much in favour of the Bill. I asked them whether they wanted to revert to the old set-up when they were still on the Common Voters’ Roll and all of them said: “Please, not again”. The propaganda that is being made here is being made simply to make the Coloured people uneasy and to cast suspicion on the Bill.

I want to resume my seat but before I do so I want to make an appeal to the United Party. I want to appeal to them not to oppose us when we try to act in the interests of people and not to defeat the object of this well-meant legislation which is intended to improve the standard of civilization of these people.

The hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg (Mr. M. J. de la Rey Venter) told us we must not make a political football of the Coloureds, but I would suggest to him that this Bill is making a fool of them, and I will prove it before I sit down. Every clause of this Bill has been discussed ad infinitum and almost ad nauseum and I do not want to make myself guilty of repetition. I therefore want to deal with this Bill in general terms and say, as I see it, what it must lead to and the repercussions which must follow, taking the medium-term view, and not even a long-term view of those repercussions, and how this legislation will be caught up by events which are moving at such a fast pace to-day. The Prime Minister hoped he would have 50 years to implement his Bantustan policy, but before the implications were even understood events had already caught up and showed how utterly futile and dangerous his theories were. Before even the first step had been implemented, events had already caught up with him and showed that his policy was unrealistic and dangerous to South Africa. But that is not in this Bill, and I do not want to discuss it. I am merely saying that we have seen how events can catch up with us in a few years. I prophecy that this Bill will prove to be just as unworkable and just as dangerous before it has actually started operating in two years’ time. Again and again this side of the House has urged the Government to make a gesture to the Coloureds and not to antagonize them further; not to force them into the camp of the anti-Whites. Sir, a man will forgive practically anything except if you touch his ego or if you patronize him. This Bill does both. If I were an educated Coloured man I would resent every part of it. The upper strata, the educated, middle-class Coloured men, are not children to be patronized by such clauses as Clause 16 and Clause 20. Anyone reading those clauses will know that it is only patronizing them. I will read Clause 16 to show what I mean. Here the council is supposed to have parliamentary immunity so that a member can criticize without fear of running into legal trouble; but what does this clause say? He can have immunity provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall not relieve a member of the council from liability for criticizing, inter alia, an officer of the Public Service. In other words, he cannot even criticize an officer of the Public Service. Is that parliamentary immunity? Is it not essential that if a public servant is found to be doing things which are wrong, or not doing his duty, that he should be criticized in the House?

Criticism is not always defamatory.

I am very glad that hon. member is not my legal adviser, but I do not want to deal with legal principles now. The point is that if I were an educated Coloured man and saw that in this Parliament of mine, about which such a fuss is being made, I was not even entitled to criticize an official, I would look upon it as playing the fool with me.

And yet many of them are prepared to serve.

No officer of the Public Service can be criticized. If a public servant or some other official does something wrong, he should be able to be exposed in such a body as this council; and exposed with impunity. But he cannot even be criticized. What educated man, who is elected to this pseudo Parliament, will not resent such a provision? Then there is Clause 20, where you have exactly the same thing. It says that the council will have power, on request by the Minister, to advise the Government affecting the economic affairs of the Coloureds. Sir, I ask you, would any hon. member of this House offer himself for election to this House as a public representative of the people who elected him if he could only recommend something, however much it might be needed, at the request of the Minister? If I was offered a seat on that condition, I would tell them in no uncertain terms what they could do with it.

On Tuesday some hon. members opposite interjected when the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) was expressing his views and said: “How long did we have to wait before we got all the powers we have in Parliament to-day?” I should like to ask this. Even in the days of the old Cape Legislative Council, which was completely under the Governor, was a member prevented from exposing a dishonest official or one who had neglected his duty; and was a member prevented from giving advice to the Governor unless he was specially sent for and asked to do so? Is this not simply patronizing these people? Sir, this Bill is a fake and a facade. The Coloured people will have less power than a similar body had 100 years ago. I repeat that the Government is not dealing with uneducated children. This pseudo-parliament should not be a school debating society, but a responsible body of men, many of them holding high degrees, elected legally to represent the interests of their constituencies. But under this Bill, on important points, they must ask the Minister whether they can give him some advice, and they cannot even criticize freely.

You are doing yourself an injustice.

I am quite capable of looking after myself. Who does this Minister think he is dealing with? Does he think he is dealing with a preparatory school of illiterates who after having been elected by the constituents must say, “Yes, Sir, Yes, Sir, three bags full”, to everything he says. Is that a parliament? I think the whole set-up is a farce. The same can be said of Clause 21 (2) and Clause 12. But the Coloureds and the world are being told that this is an example of separate development where every race shall have power to deal with its own area and people; and the sky is the limit. I suggest that not the sky but the whole moronic set-up in this Bill is the limit. As the Bill now stands it is absurd and to me it appears to be nothing more or less than a fraud. We must not let the world gain that impression of South Africa. Sir, it was the Coloureds who put the Government into power in 1948. I know that will be contested, so I will make it clear. They came in with a majority of five. If I had won my seat in Bredasdorp, they would have had a majority of three, and with the appointment of a Speaker, and with a hostile Senate, they could not have governed for long enough to entrench themselves as they have. The Coloureds, of whom there were 700 to 900 in my area, voted against me and therefore I lost my seat, and therefore the Coloureds were responsible for putting the Government into power in the first place, and they should be grateful to them.

Why did the Coloureds vote against such a nice man as you are?

I did not want to digress, but I will answer that question. It was because my opponent—and I am not attacking his integrity at all—the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, said publicly he did not want a single Coloured vote, but they behind the scenes were doing “huisbesoek” on the sly, and on the eve of the poll they held a meeting and said, “Are you going to vote for Piet van der Byl? He is the Minister of Native Affairs and he buys land for the Natives, but he does not buy land for you?” That is a fact. I give you my word of honour, Sir, that I am not just trying to make a debating point. I was not going to deal with this, but the hon. member challenged me. The Minister’s supporters went on to say this: “In terms of our apartheid policy we will buy huge a eas for you, just as the Government are doing for the Natives, and you will be the boss of everything there.” In fact, they said that a large part of the Bredasdorp d strict would be made a Coloured reserve, round about Elim. That is how the Nationalists got in. To prove what I say is true: within a year we had a provincial council general election and I admit that the candidate who stood there was a better man than I was, but the fact is that whereas I lost by about 260, he, on the same roll and in the same area, won by some similar amount within one year, which shows that within a year the Coloureds had discovered that a fraud had been committed on them in 1948, and how they had been mislead by my opponent’s agents.

You must have registered more of them by that time.

That is nonsense. I am sorry for digressing, Sir, but I have now given the facts because I was challenged. I have no hesitation in saying that this Alice in Blunderland Bill has been introduced with the sole purpose of trying to forestall the statesmanlike policy of the United Party, where we say we are prepared to treat the Coloureds as part of our Western civilization and put them (with a qualified vote) on the Common Roll. The Government knows we could not put the Coloureds on the Common Roll without qualifications, and if we come into power we could not again take away that one man one vote. And we cannot give every Coloured man the vote on the Common Roll; it would have to be a qualified vote. The Coloureds have never asked for one man one vote because they know many are not sufficiently educated, and have not even asked that the vote should be given to Coloured women. This Government is supporting and following the stupidities of the ex-colonial powers in giving their subjects one man one vote at a time when they were not qualified to exercise it. But this great Government of all the talents is giving the Bantu one man, one vote, however illiterate they may be. In other words, they are agreeing with what all the colonial powers have done in Tanganyika, Kenya, etc., and then they talk about protecting the rights of the White man. Sir, the ordinary Coloured man is just as much against having a Bantu Government in power here as we are. If we make a gesture and accept them on the lines of the statesmanlike policy of the United Party, they will be with us as they have been on every single occasion whenever South Africa has been in a crisis. They have fought for the interests of the White man in every single war. That is something which hon. members opposite do not know very much about. Sir, we on this side of the House call upon the Prime Minister to stop this adolescent play-acting and window-dressing (which he thinks is going to affect public opinion abroad), in an attempt to create a new image, which is a false image anyway; and we ask him to stop making a fool of our country—of our White civilization —and of the Coloured people as well. Sir, this is nothing more or less than window-dressing to impress the world. We saw that the Bantustan legislation, which was introduced to impress public opinion abroad, did not even get a headline overseas. At about the same time as the Bantustan policy was announced a couple who had been married for some years, a man and wife, of different colours living together, were brought before the courts, and that case had headlines on the front pages of the world’s Press. This wonderful Bantustan Bill which was going to change the whole outlook of the world towards South Africa was given a tiny bit of space on some backpage. Sir, it was nothing more or less than window-dressing and an attempt to sell nationalist ideology. It has proved to be a hopeless flop and it has had no impact on world opinion. Surely that should be a sufficiently tragic example to obviate any further fooling around with South Africa’s interests and, what is more important, South Africa’s safety. Our country does not belong to the Prime Minister nor does it belong to the Nationalist Party for them to play ducks and drakes with. It belongs to the people of South Africa. No longer can the Prime Minister use this country as a sort of research station for trying out his various Coloured ideologies. Let the Prime Minister come out of orbit; let him come down to earth and purge himself of these fantasies. Let him get away from this fairy-tale-mentality that is put across in romantic children’s stories. The prince disguised as a beggar, marries the princess and they live unhappily ever afterwards, etc. Let us get away from these fairy tales. [Interjections.] Sir, I feel rather like a kingfisher in a colony of cheerful sparrows with this noise going on around me. Sir, the Prime Minister must stop playing blind man’s bluff or other adolescent games with the country. The stakes are too high; we cannot afford to do these things now. We can already see signs that the Bantustan policy is coming apart at the seams. Let the Government stop bluffing the Whites, the Coloureds and the country as a whole. Nobody will stand for it much longer; not even the Prime Minister’s own followers will stand for it much longer. If I may use a poker term: Our country and the world and particularly his own people are going to call his bluff. The chips are down. They are going to ask to “see him”, and when his hand is seen it will not prove to be a “royal flush”, or should I say a “Republican flush”, but it will be shown to be a broken straight or a four flush, and that is exactly what this Government and this Bill is: a four-flusher.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will permit me, before I come to the few remarks I want to make, to congratulate the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) on his son’s elevation in the country which adjoins our borders.

Sir, in striving for the happiness, the prosperity and the self-realization of every national group in this country, the duty which rests on the shoulders of this national group, which is the most developed group, is to extend a protective hand over those groups which are less developed and to help and to guide those groups so that they can gradually advance until they too are able to stand on their own feet. It goes without saying that in our efforts as Whites in this country to fulfil the role of leaders or guardians, we as Whites will not always see things in the same light and that we will have differences of opinion. That goes without saying. It is necessary for us therefore to state our respective attitudes and to that end to use this Chamber, which is intended for that purpose. But in dealing with a Bill of this kind I can well imagine that the Opposition may say that they do not agree with this Bill; that I fully understand.

I can understand it if the Opposition say that they do not agree with the course which is adopted in this Bill. I can understand it if they say that they have other plans in connection with the development of the Coloureds, with whom we are dealing here. I fully understand all that. But in our efforts to find what is best for those who are less developed than we and over whom we must extend a protective hand, in our efforts to convince one another as to what is best for the population group that we are dealing with here and what will be best not only for them but also for us and for the whole country, we must not become so over-enthusiastic that we say things which harm not only ourselves but which also harm the cause which we are endeavouring to promote.

I should like in the course of my remarks to comment on the attitude adopted here by the hon. members for Kensington (Mr. Moore), Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) and Green Point. The hon. member for Kensington, of course, started off here this afternoon with a bitter tirade against Clause 16 (1) of this Bill. The hon. member said that the provisions of Clause 16 practically emasculated our whole object in establishing this council, because the members of this council, he says, will not even have the right to discuss certain things; they will not have the right, for example, to discuss the actions of public servants. The hon. member for Durban (North) spoke on the same lines as the hon. member for Kensington but the hon. member for Durban (North) was more careful. As a lawyer he refrained from making the wild allegation that this council would not even be able to discuss these things. The hon. member for Durban (North) used the word “criticize”; he said that they would not be able to “criticize”. The hon. member for Green Point said that he could look after himself, and so well did he look after himself that he went on to say in connection with Clause 16 that the members of this council would not even have the right to say that they thought that a member of the Public Service had made a mistake.

They cannot criticize them.

No, the hon. member said that a member of this council would not even have the right to say, for example, that a member of the Public Service had made a mistake. Let us look for a moment what Clause 16 of this Bill provides. Clause 16 provides—

I do not think any clause could have been framed more clearly than this clause. Sir, I do not even want to talk about the wild allegations made by the hon. member for Kensington who said that they would not even have the right to discuss these matters. That is such absolute nonsense, of course, that one cannot even reply to it. But I am dealing with the statements made by the hon. member for Durban (North) and the hon. member for Green Point who said that no criticism would be allowed. Sir, it is as clear as a pikestaff that the members of this council will be able to criticize the Public Service or any of these bodies or institutions outside of the council chamber provided they do it in such a way that it does not amount to defamation. The hon. member for Durban (North) as a lawyer knows that and the hon. member for Green Point knows it.

Will they be allowed to discuss these matters in the same way that we discuss them in this House? Will they have the same freedom there that we have in this House?

It seems to me that the hon. member for Kensington is beginning to see the light. His own members must have taken him to task when we walked out of the Chamber, because the statement which the hon. member made earlier on was that members of this council would not be able to discuss things as we discuss them here in this House; the hon. member for Kensington said that they would not be able to discuss these things. That is what he said and he cannot get away from it.

Sir, before I proceed may I also add this in reply to this question: In the case of the House of Assembly We are dealing with a body consisting of members who have a long history of development behind them, members who do not easily transgress the rules. We have a House of Assembly—you will pardon me, Sir, for saying it here—which is under the leadership of a Chair with a long history of development behind it, and that is why we can enjoy certain freedoms in this Parliament, freedoms which a newly established council such as this consisting of members who do not have the background that we have, cannot be given. Such a council cannot be given the same freedoms at this stage as those we enjoy in this House. Even we with our long history of development very often transgress the rules.

And we are chased out of the House.

We very often transgress the rules and very often you, Mr. Speaker, have to pull up members in this House, with its history of development, for statements made by them.

Sir, I have listened to the reasons advanced by the hon. member for the insertion of this proviso. May I ask him why this proviso was not inserted in the Transkeian Constitution?

We are not dealing now with the Transkeian Act. If the hon. member feels that a mistake was made in the Transkeian Constitution, he should have raised that point when that Bill was under discussion here. I do not admit for a single moment that a mistake was made; the hon. member must not misunderstand me therefore and misinterpret my remarks. Let us assume that a mistake was made in that case; is that any reason why a mistake should also be made in this Bill? Sir, we cannot expect people who do not have our history of development behind them to enjoy the same freedoms that we enjoy in this House. But there is no question of their not having the right to criticize. Sir, the argument which I was advancing when I was interrupted was this: If members of this council criticize various bodies outside of the council chamber and their remarks are not defamatory, they have the fullest right to do so; and if they have the fullest right to do so outside of the council chamber, then they also have the fullest right to put forward criticism within the council chamber. There is not a single grain of truth therefore in the charge that they will be precluded from discussing these matters.

I want to go further. The hon. member for Durban (North) says that legislative powers are being given to this council but that in the first instance it is not clear whether these legislative powers may clash with an Act of this Parliament and he asks what the position would be if laws passed by this council were found to be in conflict with an Act of this Parliament.

Clause 25.

That is precisely what I was about to say. The hon. member would have found the answer to his question in Clause 25 (1), because Clause 25 (1) provides—

In other words, the Bill itself provides the answer to the question put by the hon. member.

It contradicts itself.

The hon. member went on to ask on what matters this council would be allowed to pass laws. There too he will find the reply to his question in the Bill itself. The Bill itself says that the council may pass laws on the matters referred to in Clause 17 (6) (a) of the Bill, that is to say, finance, local government, education, community welfare and pensions and rural areas and settlements for Coloureds. Those are the matters which may be assigned to them for lawmaking purposes. In other words, the Bill itself provides the answer to all these questions. That fact, however, is suppressed by hon. members opposite. I want to go further. The hon. member for Green Point has again come forward with the accusation which has been made throughout this debate and which has been replied to throughout this debate in a very capable way by members on this side, and that is that Clause 20 gives this Coloured council no rights and no powers at all, because they argue that in terms of the provisions of Clause 20 (1) (a) the Coloureds can only give advice to the Government in connection with these specific matters if they are requested by the Government to do so. But why do hon. members opposite not read the whole of this clause? Clause 20 (1) (a) provides—

Then Clause 20 (1) (b) provides—

No longer at the request of the Government but on their own initiative—

“Any planning”—which also includes these things which are referred to in (a). They have the right to approach the Government on their own initiative as far as these matters are concerned. But then there is also paragraph (c) which provides—

But there is also Clause 20 (3) which says—

Sir, as long as the one party states its attitude as against that of the other party—and we will naturally differ because as long as people are able to think for themselves they will never hold the same views—as long as we state our respective attitudes when we differ, it can only be in the interests of our country and of our people; but if in our zeal to serve the interests of our party, we give the wrong colour to a Bill such as this and give the outside world an erroneous impression, then we do ourselves and our cause no good. It can serve no good purpose if we do the sort of thing which was done here this afternoon by the hon. member for Kensington who says in one breath that this poor council which is being established here will have no functions and will be able to discuss nothing at all and then says in the next breath that a platform is being created here which the Coloureds will be able to use to attack the Government—a better platform than they have ever had before. The hon. member says that this poor council will not be able to discuss anything at all and in the next sentence he says that this will be the best platform which any agitator has ever had. If that is the sort of attitude that we adopt in this House, if that is the way in which the one party states it attitude against that of the other party, then it augurs ill for our future. If we in this House state out attitude as a party against that of the other party and argue the merits of our policies, then we can achieve something useful, but before we compare our respective policies we must at least read the Bill which is before the House.

The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché) devoted a large part of his speech to the legal aspect of the Bill, and I do not wish to follow him on that level except that I should like to refer to one little point made by him, because I think he tried to extricate himself from it in an extremely shrewd juristic manner, but unfortunately did not succeed in doing so. The point of view of this side of the House is that in terms of this Bill there will not be freedom of speech in the true sense of the term in this Coloured council; that there will not be freedom of speech as the expression is understood in the constitutional sense and in this House. The hon. member agrees. He says: Why is there not the same freedom of speech? He says it is because the Coloureds have not as yet achieved the stage of development the White man has achieved. It sounds like a very good argument, but how then does he explain the fact that in the Transkeian parliament there is the same freedom of speech as in this House? The hon. member tried to extricate himself from that. He says that if we made a mistake there, surely then that does not mean we should make the same mistake here. But that is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is this: Even the hon. member, who is a Freestater, and whom I respect, will have to admit that as a group the Coloureds are much more advanced than the Bantu as regards their stage of development. Why does he make this allegation now? But you see, Mr. Speaker, that is the whole difficulty with Government members. When it suits them, the Coloureds are superior to the Bantu, and when it does not suit them, they are inferior to the Bantu, and then the matter is confused still further; then again he is placed on an equal footing with the Bantu. Sir, the Coloureds occupy their own position in South Africa and the sooner hon. members opposite realize that the better it will be.

In respect of this Bill, as with most other Bills, hon. members on the Government side have tried to adopt the normal tactics, namely that instead of defending and justifying their case, they attack the Opposition. Here they once again availed themselves of aggressive tactics. That does not mean hon. members do not know what their duty is. They know as well as any hon. member in this House that it is their paramount and all-important duty to justify this Bill, which they have introduced in this House, to the public.

And to expose your alternative.

I am coming to that. But hon. members on the Government side just cannot disentangle themselves from an Opposition complex. After 15 years on the Government benches they still imagine they are sitting on the Opposition benches, and instead of explaining and justifying their cause to the people so that the people may judge, they attack, and then the hon. member for Parow and Moorreesburg think they have defended their cause when they perhaps have cornered this side of the House by questioning them on another policy. No, that is not how one vindicates a Bill. This Bill is the creation of the Government, and the Government has to accept responsibility for it. In the first place it is the duty of the Government side not only to explain the Bill so that the people may be able to understand it, but much more even, to prove to the satisfaction of South Africa that this Bill is not only in the interests of the Coloureds—because that would be an extremely sectional attitude—but also in the interests of South Africa and I have up to this stage not yet heard such an explanation from that side. I repeat, it is the paramount duty of the Government side to explain and justify this Bill, and to the extent the Government evades that duty, to that extent they are leaving in the lurch the true interests of South Africa. Hon. members opposite must realize that they are governing South Africa, and even if the United Party had the best policy in the world …

Which one?

The hon. member must not be so worried; I shall come to him just now. Even if the Opposition had the very best policy in the world, that policy would mean nothing because the Government side would probably pursue and implement an inferior policy, and that is the predominant fact we are concerned with here to-day. I shall be the last one to say that the Government side should not be aggressive, but when a debate of this nature, concerning a large and extremely important group of people in our country is characterized by thunderous attacks and evasion on the part of the Government on whom lies the predominant duty of explanation, then I say we are playing politics and then the National Party may win, but every time the National Party wins, South Africa will be losing. What are these attacks which are made against the United Party.

You are now talking merely for the sake of talking. What have we not explained during the past three days?

I shall now tell the hon. member a few things which to his regret he does not know and which he ought to know. What are the attacks that have been levelled at this side of the House? In the first place, they say we have done nothing for the Coloureds as yet. I now wish to put this question to that hon. member sitting over there with all his great wisdom, who is omniscient, and who even at his age wants to tell me that he cannot learn anything more: What did the National Party, when it held the same views regarding the Coloureds as this side of the House did, do for the Coloureds as Coloureds from 1924 to 1933?

Very little.

I expected that answer from the hon. the Minister; he is right. But what was done for the Coloured man was done for him as a South African and what was done for him was done for the White man. If the Government side will refer to the Statute Books of South Africa from 1933 to 1948 to ascertain what the United Party did for the Coloureds, then most of the time they will have to ask and search for what the United Party did for the citizens of South Africa and then they will find the answer.

There is another small matter I should like to put to them. A further attack made upon this side of the House by way of a question was this: They say: “We are giving the Coloureds ‘one man, one vote’; we are even giving the Coloured woman the vote; what are you going to do?” Sir, we must not become too obsessed with this concept of a vote. A vote means nothing. There are people who vote for a hockey club and they also have the vote. The vote as such means nothing. What does have some value, is what one can do with that vote. Will any hon. member on that side tell me whether there is even a vestige of equality between the vote that puts the Coloured Member of Parliament here and the vote that will send a councillor to this miniature Parliament provided for in this Bill? There is no question of equality. The one is a dummy and the other is the real thing.

What is the real thing?

The real thing is the vote that brings you here and which brings the hon. members who represent the Coloureds here. That is the vote with a value. When we refer to one man one vote, let us be honest. Do not let us confuse the terms. Why speak of freedom of speech when we know it means nothing? Why speak of one man one vote when one could equally say we vote one man one vote for the hockey club committee?

May I ask a question?

No, Mr. Speaker. I should like to mention only one more matter, and that is the question of the policy. We are told that we are changing our policy from day to day. I should like to say in all modesty—and I should like someone to contradict me—that this is the third change of policy in respect of the Coloureds as far as the National Party is concerned. It is the second change of policy since 1948 and I am not so sure it will be the last change. The Sauer Commission to which the hon. member for Malmesbury referred so vociferously, decided upon group representation for the Coloureds but in spite of that group representation, there was one basic idea, and that was political unity in the same House of Assembly for the Coloureds and for the Whites; that the Coloureds and the Whites would govern South Africa together. Thereafter we had the Verwoerdian philosophy, if I may call it that with due respect. Then we had something entirely different, namely that this should be the Parliament of the White people and of nobody else. That is the present policy. I say that the hon. members sitting here as Coloured representatives are merely a pretence, and the National Party will keep them here to keep up appearances, for if there is any substance to their philosophy, these members have no place here, and they should be removed. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) particularly referred to their philosophy in a most interesting manner.

Mr. Speaker, this is a most important Bill to me. In my view its implications extend much further than only the Coloured people because the Coloureds are not living in isolation in South Africa, because they do not have their own way of life, but because they constitute more than one-third of a Coloured-White group which has been known throughout the years all over South Africa as a Western group with a Western way of life. So it goes without saying that if one deals with the Coloureds as an integral part of the Western group in a particular manner, one is not only affecting the Coloureds, but one is necessarily also affecting the other element in the Western group, namely the White group. That, in my view, is how we should approach this Bill. This Bill, which brings about a new order, must therefore be regarded not only from the point of view of the Coloureds, but from the point of view of the Western group, and whether it is in the interests of the whole group or not. The effect of this Bill—and this is so important—should be judged not only from the angle of whether it is going to be to the advantage of the Coloureds, but whether it is going to be to the advantage of the greater group, the Western group, including the Whites, to which the Coloureds also belong. As I know the Coloureds, that is certainly the approach they would like to see in respect of this type of legislation. Whatever biological differences there may be, I am convinced of one thing, and that is that the thinking Coloured person is as proud as I am to be a South African. I am convinced that he has the same desire as I have to safeguard the interests of South Africa and of the Western nations.

Indeed, when it affects the continued existence of the Western group and of the Western way of life, I become alarmed over this Bill. For what does it aim at? It is immaterial whether it gives the Coloureds a lot or a little. I do not wish to discuss the question of the granting of powers, about which some hon. members are so concerned, at all. To me the crux of the matter is what this Bill aims at. In the first place, it aims at the destruction of a racial pattern which has been built up over generations between the Coloureds and the Whites in South Africa, a pattern built up by two races whose destinies history has woven together, and who even at the present time, in spite of social differences and separation, in the language of Sabra, have the strongest bonds in the cultural, language, psychological and even racist-biological spheres. These are the bonds which have been forged throughout the ages I could almost say. Whenever the White man found himself in difficulties, it was the policy of the Coloured man to throw in his lot with his fellow-South African, and when South Africa enjoyed prosperity, the Coloureds shared that prosperity with the Whites. It has always been so, and it is so at the present time. I say this Bill now seeks to destroy that racial pattern so that we shall no longer be joint shareholders in the soil of South Africa, but so that the Coloureds and the Whites will be neighbours, each with their own clear boundary lines. This process of destruction is the thing that spells the greatest danger to the Western group, the Western group of which you and I, Mr. Speaker, constitute the major section. What is the Government doing? They are deliberately breaking up the Western group into two sections. Perhaps that may not be such a great crime by itself, but what does this Bill do further? It does not stop there; it is deliberately fostering a racial awareness in the Coloureds whereby it makes of the Coloured man, who at present is first and foremost a South African national, a Coloured national, a man who in the first instance will put the emphasis on race and then only on the interests of South Africa; a man who will ask in the first place: What must I do to to help my own race? and then perhaps: Secondly, what must I do to help South Africa?

The hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg expressed it so aptly. He said the time will come when we shall need the Coloureds. As one of the Western group we do need him very much indeed at this stage, and we ought to be proud of the fact that in him we have an ally. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais), who acted positively this afternoon is the one who said that the Coloureds are the natural allies of the Whites. What does the hon. the Minister say in his Bill? He says to the Coloured man: Do not ask whether you are a South African; that is the second question. In the first place you should ask whether you are a Coloured person, and if you are a Coloured man, you must serve the interests of the Coloureds, and perhaps the interests of South Africa in the second place. This is the greatest danger inherent in this Bill. I think the time will come when the National Party, who regard themselves as the protectors of the Whites in South Africa, will say: If only we had kept the Coloured man with us when we still could keep him with us, and did not send him upon his own national and racist course and make him a group of his own which has turned its back upon us now! We must not think that the Coloured man will necessarily always be a kindly disposed neighbour.

You want to make a henchman of him and not a neighbour.

Mr. Speaker, there speaks a guilty conscience; it is a voice of penance. It will not be the first time that neighbours quarrel. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that thus far the Whites and the Coloureds have not quarrelled as yet? [Interjections.] There have been violent quarrels about them, but such hatred and bitterness as there may be in respect of the Coloured person, have been fabricated for party-political propaganda purposes and for no other purpose. Let me say this: Hon. members opposite do not have clean hands in regard to this matter either. The Coloureds have always been the friends of the White man, and I say this in all sincerity. We do find elements that break away, but as a general group, a group which has adopted the Western way of life, they have always been the friends of the White man, and a group we should have no hesitation in trying to keep with us. I do not think this Bill does anything to strengthen the bonds. I think the basic purpose is to break the bonds between the Coloureds and the Whites and to set the Coloured man on his own road for ever.

Now I come to the question of this road. Where is that road leading?

Are you now dealing with the road of the provincial council?

I hope the hon. member will occasionally become serious on a matter on which he ought to be serious. It is of the greatest importance to know where that road leads to. It is not a matter we can just ignore. In introducing this Bill, the hon. the Minister made a statement which I have read with keen interest. I just want to read it as it appeared in summarized form in the Press. He said this—

Order! The hon. member may not read that. It is something that happened during this Session.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. He said that no arrangement affecting the political development of a nation is ever moulded in a final shape; it is always changing and consequently there has to be adjustments. I think the hon. the Minister made that statement for two reasons. In many respects it is a true statement. Firstly he says that this Bill is only the beginning of the road upon which we are putting the Coloureds; it is not everything and we must not judge it as if it is everything; most of it will come later. That I understand, and I think it was necessary for the Minister to tell us that. The second conclusion I draw from that statement is of a more serious nature, for what the hon. the Minister said is this: Do not ask me now already how we are going to develop upon this road; do not ask me what the end is going to look like either; I do not know yet.

I now wish to see whether we cannot get a reply from the racial philosophy of the National Party. What is the policy of the National Party? Put in a nutshell, it amounts to good neighbourliness with clear boundaries. In ordinary Afrikaans it sounds very simple, but let us translate this into political language. Then it means nothing other than separate freedom and separate states. That is the meaning of good neighbourliness with clear boundaries in politics. That is the philosophy advocated in respect of the Coloureds, the Whites, the Indians and the Bantu. Hon. members opposite must correct me if I am wrong, because it is necessary that we should understand the basis of their philosophy.

You have never been right.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Moorreesburg that when I mention separate freedom for the racial groups. I am really quoting what he said at Tulbagh, but he has forgotten it now. Mr. Sneaker, the Government has already given effect to the idea of separate freedom in the case of the Bantu. The Transkei is the symbol of that.

Separate territorial freedom.

I am coming to that point: It is an interesting point and the hon. member realizes that. The Bantu has already been launched upon his separate road to freedom the end of which will be true freedom, a freedom which will be asserted in his own State. Let us apply the same philosophy—for what other philosophy is there?—to the Coloured people. Then we ask: Where is the Coloured person to live? The hon. member for Kempton Park has explained that philosophical background very neatly to us. What did he say? His basic proposition was this—I tried to write it down, and I hope I understood it correctly—that history has shown that one cannot award homogeneous political rights to a group in the same Parliament, and then subsequently discriminate in other respects again. The hon. member continued and told us, in respect of the National Party: The National Party accepts the fact that it offers no solution to place the Coloureds upon the same voters’ list with the Whites, unless the Coloureds are placed upon an equal footing with the Whites in every respect. Am I quoting the hon. member correctly?

Yes.

Let us put this proposition of the hon. member in positive form. His is a negative proposition. Let us apply it in a positive form to ascertain where their basic philosophy will lead us. Now I am going to put it positively. The National Party accepts the fact that it is a solution to place the Coloureds on a separate voters’ list, for then the Coloureds can be put upon an equal footing with the White man in every respect.

Nonsense.

That is the logic of it, Mr. Speaker. And the moment the hon. member runs away from his own logic we know what they want to do. That is the logical conclusion to which his basic proposition leads me.

If you place him upon a separate list, you can give him separate social rights.

The hon. member says that if you place him upon a separate list, you can give him separate social rights.

Then you can give him social rights of another kind. [Laughter.]

Now it is “social rights of another kind” again. Does the hon. member suggest he is afraid to tell me that even under his own political order the Coloured man, with his own national pride (if I may quote the hon. Whip) cannot have equal rights with the White man?

Qualitatively he may have similar rights, but rights of another kind. [Laughter.]

The hon. member is in trouble. The philosophy of the National Party is theoretically correct in the case of the Bantu, Mr. Speaker, but you cannot apply it to the Coloured people because the Coloured people are residing with you and me within the same national borders. He does not have a state of his own. As long as he does not have that state, you cannot apply that philosophy to him unless the National Party to-day have the courage of their convictions and tell the people of South Africa: Look, we are separating the White man and the Coloured, but somewhere in future they must once again be brought together so that they may govern South Africa together. If they cannot bring the two together somewhere once again, then that philosophy means nothing to the Coloureds; it is no use talking about a commonwealth of nations idea; in the case of a commonwealth you must have free states with their own territories. The commonwealth idea cannot be applied to a multi-racial state. I shall tell you, Mr. Speaker, the National Party are running away from the truth. That is the reason why they are still keeping the Coloured Representatives here; it is to facilitate the process of switching back to the old United Party policy. That is what they have here to do. Because the Coloured population cannot permanently carry on as a separate nation, because somewhere there will have to be a connection, they are keeping the Coloured Representatives here so that the switch-over may be effected more easily.

I thought you said we want to abolish them?

I did not say that. The hon. the Minister cannot say that. We say there is no certainty whether they will remain here or not.

The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) said so this afternoon still.

My contention is that these Coloured Representatives are being retained here so that when the National Party, after ten or 20 years again go to the polls and say: We made a mistake; the Coloureds and the Whites must govern South Africa together; then they will have this “open sesame” in the form of the Coloured Representatives.

Do you also believe they will be abolished?

I do not believe that, because if I believed that …

Tell that to the hon. member for Durban (North).

Because if the Government abolishes them, then the philosophy of the National Party in respect of the Coloured has less substance than I think it has at the moment. At the moment it is a bluff, a bluff perpetrated upon the people of South Africa. The people believe the National Party have a solution, but I say they have no solution. It is a bluff. It is a party without a policy, a party groping about in the dark, and always leading the people of South Africa astray.

The egg dance performed by the hon. member who has just sat down is not something one witnesses every day. In the same speech he suggested that the National Party was on the point of abolishing the Coloured Representatives and also that we were keeping them here in order to find our way back to the old United Party policy. It is very difficult to follow a person’s argument when he talks in such circles as the hon. member who has just spoken. I found it striking that, in looking for something in the positive policy of the National Party in regard to the Coloured people, he went back to the period from 1924 to 1933 and asked what was done then. He was probably afraid to go back to the period from 1948 to 1954, because if he had the facts would have been very much against him. That was why his speech practically amounted to a United Party lament because it no longer had the support of the Coloured community and of the Coloured voter in order to fight the National Party. They yearn for the days when they could harness the Coloured vote to strengthen the United Party in its struggle against the: National Afrikaner. They yearn for the days when they could incite the feelings of the Coloured people to thwart South Africa on her road of constitutional development.

It was interesting to hear from the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) that he lost the election in 1948 because his Coloured constituents voted for his opponent. I can understand that it must have been a terribly hard blow to him at the time and that the memory still hurts to-day but he must not expect us to take him very seriously when he says his opponent at the time, the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, stated publicly that he did not want the Coloured vote but that they nevertheless voted for him. Our imagination definitely does not go as far as that.

The entire opposition of the United Party to this Bill really amounts to two things. In the first place they tried to belittle this measure as much as possible. Some called it a toy parliament and they also referred to the toy executive committee. Others quoted from the various clauses of the Bill to prove that this council will only have a small measure of advisory power. The second point which was often raised by various members was the fear that it would ultimately lead to the removal of the Coloured Representatives from this House. As far as this fear is concerned the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) said it had repeatedly been stated that it was not the policy of the Government and the National Party to remove the representation of the Coloureds from this House. In other words that is an unfounded fear; it is a fabrication of the United Party and not of the National Party. It has been stated clearly over the years that the policy of the National Party Government is that the Coloureds will continue to be represented by Whites in this Parliament.

As far as their belittling of this measure is concerned it reminded me very much of somebody who witnesses a birth and ridicules the fact that the baby which is being born is not an adult. You will say it is foolish to suggest that anybody can poke fun at a baby who is being born because it is not an adult, Sir, but that is the foolishness of which the hon. member for Green Point, worthy man that he is, is capable; that is the foolishness of which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) is capable; that is the foolishness of which the United Party as a party is capable. Why do they do it, Mr. Speaker? They are doing it because the United Party is suffering from a complex of political miscarriages. All the directions of policy they have manufactured over the past decade have been miscarriages. That is why they can no longer understand that something good can be born; that is why they can no longer understand that an idea will take shape which has life inherent within itself; an idea which contains within itself the possibility of development and growth and which will ultimately attain and achieve something. The experience the United Party has had over the years has caused it to develop this complex. We are really not to blame; it is due to their own helplessness and their own infertility.

Since 1948 the National Party has seriously tried to put its policy of separate development, also in regard to the Coloured people, into practice. I am prepared to-day to admit that in that process measures have been adopted which have been painful in more than one respect. We think of the legislation which gave the Coloureds separate representation in this Parliament. I think the majority of the Coloureds, although it may have been under the guidance of the Opposition Press, regarded that, as a measure which deprived them of certain rights. We established separate group areas and many of the Coloureds had to be moved. Many of them asked why they should make the sacrifice. So I can mention a number of things which were painful in the process of developing the policy of separate development, things which demanded sacrifices. But with the passage of time and as this policy unfolded a positive aspect of our policy fortunately also became a reality. We think of what has been done over the years in regard to Coloured education, Coloured education which has developed to such a stage today that Coloured education has been placed under the Department of Coloured Affairs which means not only greater facilities for the Coloured people in regard to their own education, but which has provided the Coloured with something in which he can take part at a responsible level, not only in the education of his own people, but also in the management and administration of Coloured education. We think of what has been done in providing the Coloured people with better housing. We think of what has been done in the field of higher education. The University College of the Western Cape has been established and in that connection I can return to this complex the United Party is suffering from. They also belittled that institution. If they could they would gladly have ruined and thwarted that plan simply because they saw no future in it—not for the Coloureds, nor for themselves. Every positive step which helped this policy to unfold has meant a loss to them and they then realized that they were drifting further and further away from the Coloured people and that they were losing the active support of the Coloured people. That step which was a small beginning—it is still a humble institution to-day—but which was a positive step, was belittled by them. We had the development of the rural areas as far as the Coloureds were concerned. The hon. member for Namaqualand has referred to a speech made by one of the leaders of the Coloured community in Namaqualand. There we have the position that the responsible Coloured people are not only beginning to realize it but are stating publicly that the policy of separate development has opened up a new world to them, has created new opportunities for them and offers a new future to them; they are grasping at it with both hands and they do so gratefully. We come to local government for the Coloured people which is a new field in which the Coloureds can develop a certain measure of responsibility and in which they can take part in their own management. We think of the health services. We think of the Coloured Development Corporation. We think of the general rise of the standard of living and so forth. So I can enumerate a number of the signs of development of the Coloured people as this policy of separate development has unfolded itself. The United Party are confronted with these realities, realities they cannot get away from. Mr. Speaker, in the Cape Peninsula we have large new residential areas for the Coloureds. In that regard the United Party is finding it very difficult to-day to continue to make the Coloureds suspicious of the Government, because the Coloureds themselves point out to them the new University College of the Western Cape, the housing which has been provided for the Coloured community, and the business prospect the Coloureds have in those circumstances. The Coloureds are beginning to say to the United Party: “We no longer believe you; you courted our vote for your own sake and not for the sake of the Coloured people”. That has been the position with the United Party all these years.

What happened at the Karoo by-election?

I want to refer to something a responsible Coloured leader said in the way of criticism of the policy of the Government. He said: “What the Government does for the Coloureds is not so important as what the Government does with us”. I wish to answer this question with reference to the legislation before us: What are we doing with the Coloureds? Are we busy doing them an injustice? Are we busy pushing him down to a lower sphere in our whole social structure or to a lower level in our political structure? Or are we doing something positive for him? What are we doing with him? Where do we place him? I think this really follows upon what was done previously when separate representation was given to the Coloureds in this Parliament. We then took the Coloured out of the arena of the political struggle between White and White, between United Party and National Party. He was a football in that struggle and used mercilessly without deriving any benefit from it. He was humiliated and in that process great harm was done to the goodwill of the Coloureds. I am not only referring to the goodwill of the Coloureds towards the Whites but in that process the Coloureds lost a large amount of the goodwill the Whites had towards them because he allowed himself to be used as a football for the simple reason that he was politically too immature to judge the situation for himself. We have lifted him out of that arena of the political struggle. With this piece of legislation we are to-day placing him on a separate level of political development. When referring to this legislation or to the election which will follow upon this legislation for the representative Coloured council the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) said it might just as well be an election for a hockey club committee. That is the sort of argument the United Party advances. It is meaningless but the object is to belittle whatever is being done. As I have said, they are witnessing the birth of a child and making a mockery of it; they regard it as something ridiculous! We, on the other hand, see a new beginning in the council to be established under this Bill. We regard this legislation which will lead to the establishment of a Coloured Representative Council as a new beginning for the Coloured people. We are placing them on their own plane of political development and we expect them to grow and to go ahead along that road. Hon. members never ridiculed what Great Britiain did to her colonies at the time when representative government was granted to those colonies. Because Great Britain did it it was something wonderful. But when the Republic of South Africa gives the Coloured people a representative council it is ridiculed. I must admit that in those days the British Government still acted wisely, but where they are suddenly handing over political power to-day they are creating a political Dunkirk for themselves.

The United Party uses the term “a state within a state” in regard to the establishment of this Coloured Representative Council. It is not such a ridiculous term at all, Sir. As far as South Africa is concerned we know what a state within a state means. We have the Free State within the Republic of South Africa, and the people of the Free State are proud of it. We are dealing here or we shall ultimately be dealing with a state within a state in the same sense, a state within a state in which these people will be able to govern themselves at provincial level, where they will have local authorities, where they will be able to take part in the education of their own people, and in a variety of other arrangements. Their sovereignty will continue to be seated in the House of Assembly of the Republic of South Africa but that will not prevent the Coloureds from acquiring rights in the field of local government or even in a higher field, rights which the various provinces have to-day. Is that ridiculous? That is a concept well known to us. But without asking themselves what it means, the United Party tries to ridicule the whole concept with their story of a state within a state.

In the second place, by means of this Bill, we are placing the responsible and developing Coloured leaders in a position to exercise that leadership. In this regard I wish to follow upon what the hon. member for Brits has said. In the past the developed and educated Coloured man had very little chance of exercising his leadership within his own community. He was limited to being the handyman of the White, the henchman, the slum-dweller and hovel-dweller, and even there he was automatically prevented in various ways from really exercising any leadership. It is clear to me that the United Party is afraid of that Coloured leadership. The hon. member for Maitland indicated that very clearly. We are not afraid of that leadership. We are trying to create it because if the Coloured people develop and progress and if they can accept part of the responsibility for their own management, South Africa will be a happier and a more prosperous country, because you will have 1,500,000 people who will be moving forward and who will be able to make a more positive and a greater contribution towards the progress of South Africa. Where at least 46 men will come forward with the establishment of this council as the responsible leaders of the various communities over the length and breadth of our country, we are not afraid that they will constitute a danger to anybody. We are grateful. Which community and which nation can move forward without leaders? We welcome these 46 people and are convinced that they too will welcome this opportunity; we are convinced they will use it correctly. What chance did they have in an integrated society? I can tell you, Sir, and you can read it for yourself, what a Negro in America said about integration. He said the tragedy in America was that they only had “token” integration. As soon as integration really comes into play the group in power immediately applies the brakes and holds back the less developed group along the road of development. We do not begrudge the Coloured and the Coloured leaders the chance of exercising leadership within their own community. The United Party do not because they themselves lack leaders. That is why, if Coloured leaders come forward, they must of necessity pass those of the United Party.

I want to say one further thing and it is this that with this legislation we are making it possible for the Coloureds to develop a rightful pride in his South African citizenship. I think one of our problems thus far has been that the Coloured people have not been sufficiently conscious of themselves as South African citizens, that they assumed too little responsibility for the government, for the progress and for the order of the society. We are convinced that if the Coloureds are given an opportunity, although it may be at a humble level, although it may be at the level of local government, although it may be at the level of advisory bodies, they will in due course develop a sense of responsibility towards South Africa as citizens of the Republic of South Africa. They will begin to realize that it is not so easy to govern because so far they have always been accustomed to being governed and not of governing themselves. They will find that there are problems along the road and that a responsibility rests on those who govern. That is why we are convinced that in future they will also criticize the Government of the Republic in a more responsible way and with greater moderation because they will gradually discover that in this regard they have a very responsible function to fulfil. When the Coloured Representative Council is established the Coloured people will be accepting co-responsibility for the progress of their own people, they will be accepting co-responsibility to an increasing extent for maintaining law and order in their own community. I think that is important. It will be a pity if in future the White Police Force will be the only one to maintain law and order in the Coloured community and in the Bantu community. That is why we shall welcome it if these Coloured leaders grow and develop and if their sense of responsibility and their pride in their citizenship will grow and develop and if they assume responsibility to an increasing extent for the maintenance of law and order in the Coloured community. We are very optimistic. If this step of establishing a Coloured Representative Council is but a humble beginning, we should remember that every start the Afrikaner has made in this country has similarly been a humble one; the National Party likewise had a humble beginning. Think of the institutions in the economic field which have been ridiculed by the United Party, institutions such as Iscor and Sasol. They strenuously opposed their establishment but they are silent to-day and reaping the benefits together with us. That will happen in the case of this measure as well. We are convinced it will ultimately prove to be not only in the interests of the Coloured community but in the interests of the Republic of South Africa, in the interests of political, social and economic progress. That is why we welcome this measure. The hon. member for Houghton said our four-stream policy was only a euphemism for racial discrimination. I want to conclude by saying that the policy of integration in South Africa, the policy of the United Party as advocated by a variety of members opposite, again in this debate, is merely a euphemism for a fool’s paradise.

The views that we have just heard expressed by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Treurnicht) I think reveal the agony of soul of the Nationalist Party in trying to defend a Bill which they themselves regard as hollow in view of the promises and the declarations and statements which this country received, and particularly the Coloured people, from the hon. the Prime Minister, and repeated from time to time in varying forms by the hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs. Sir, if you compare the contents of the present Act with the contents referring to a similar issue in the Separate Representation of Voters Act of 1956, you find that in this Bill the provisions of that Bill are repeated almost word for word in this respect. All that has happened is that in addition there is provision for certain possibilities all of which are cloaked in vague phraseology, phraseology which the members of the Government side are unable to substantiate. When the hon. member who has just sat down talks of making use of the Coloured people as a political football, one has only to remind Him once again of what he has heard during the last few days, and that is the history of" the Coloured representation in Parliament, a history which was attended not only by strange legislation which did not receive the approval of the highest court of the land, but legislation which they were forced to use as an extraordinary means in order to bring that legislation onto the Statute Book. That brought political bitterness between the White man and the Coloured man between the years 1953 ‘and 1956 when eventually they established the Union Council for Coloured People and established the validation of that separate representation of Coloured voters. Then it took until 1960 for the Prime Minister to make a statement in which he made it absolutely clear not that they were going to get certain councils established, but—I quote—

Then in 1964, we now have the present Bill before us with the prophecy by the hon. Minister that probably in 1966 will the council contemplated by this Bill actually come into operation. The hon. member who has just sat down for instance says that the attack from this side of the House is an attack on the Government on account of this legislation, but that this side of the House of course would not attack the British Government on matters in which the British Government has taken some interest and legislation that they passed. One is surprised to hear that type of nonsense on the part of a Nationalist member, who must realize that we do not interfere with the affairs of other people and other countries. They would be the first people to take us to task if we interfere in the political life of other countries or in their affairs. We are concerned with the affairs of South Africa, and for that very reason we are attacking the Government for this type of legislation. Then he goes on to say that there are two attitudes of the United Party in this debate, namely, in the first place to belittle the legislation and the other to express a fear that the Coloured Representatives in this House will ultimately disappear. With regard to the question of the belittling of the legislation, the hon. member says that we say that this legislation is only providing for an advisory body. It would be very simple to quote it, but I would merely refer the hon. member to Sections 14 to 19 which were amended in the 1956 Act against the original Act, and he will find that in the present Bill all those clauses are quoted word for word, including the one on which the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché) spent so much time labouring to improve to this House that certain powers are given. I refer to his reference to Clause 20. If he looks at Clause 20 Of the Bill, he will find that that clause is a repetition, word for word; of the legislation to which I have referred. In other words, nothing new has been granted.

What about Clause 21?

I will deal with Clause 21. What has the hon. Minister brought to this House which is new in regard to legislation in this country? He has brought nothing new at all. He is merely reiterating what’ we had. He has expanded the representation in that particular council, but he has allowed it to continue (and entrenched it in this much vaunted Bill) as a purely advisory body and nothing else. I do not think it is necessary to repeat the arguments that have been used to support that point of view, but that is so, because the Bill, as the hon. member for Smithfield himself said, gives the council power, on request, to advise, to make recommendations, and those words one will find are repeated from the legislation to which I have referred. You will find it in Section 18 of the Separate Representation of Voters Act: “The functions of the council are to advise; to make representations; to act as an intermediary and a means of contact and consultation between the Government of the Union and the said population.” We get the very same thing in this Bill.

I want to deal with certain of the viewpoints expressed by the hon. Minister when he introduced this Bill. He based his premises in regard to this Bill on a philosophical dissertation. In order to give some substance to this shadow which is, as I said, purely a repetition of previous legislation, he indulged in a philosophical disseration much of which sounded almost like the Biblical story of the hands being the hands of Esau, but the voice being the voice of Jacob. We heard a philosophy which merely was carried through the mouth of the Minister, but obviously was a philosophy which his Prime Minister had prepared for him and which was necessary to enable him to satisfy the Government side that this Bill has something in it at all. He went to great length to talk of the differences, the historical and biological differences between the White man and the Coloured man, which he felt had to be taken into account in order to understand the purpose of the Bill. I think the hon. Minister should have read the report of a Commission of Inquiry regarding the Cape Coloured Population of the Union which reported in 1937. The report was submitted to this House in 1937 and the members of the commission included Professor J. du Plessis, Professor Wilcocks, Dr. Wöuter de Vos Malan, Dr. J. P. de Villiers, as well as Mr. Fowler and Dr. Abdurahman. If he will peruse the chapter which deals with the composition and distribution of the Cape Coloured population, he will learn the story of the historical and biological differences between the White man and the Coloured man. I do not want to go into detail, but the whole basis of the Minister’s discussion on this issue is completely fallacious. The hon. Minister went further and talked about the fact that we had neglected the interests of the Coloured man over a number of years. In this particular report in 1937 some very pertinent statements were made with regard to the attitude of the White man towards the Coloured man and the Coloured man towards the White man. But before I deal with that, I want to make the point that what this Bill virtually does is to place the Coloured people of this country permanently on an inferiority footing, to make them for all time an inferior people as against the White man. That is a very important factor, because if the hon. Minister will read the report from which I will give certain extracts, and I will read from page 14 of the report, he will find that the report says—

It goes further and says—

Cape Coloured of the upper, class tend to be sensitive to attitudes of condescension and patronage and to discourtesies on the part of Europeans and place insistence on the principle of equality of opportunity for all. There is an increasing dissatisfaction with the position of the Cape Coloured and a growing resentment at being treated as inferiors by the European group in public ! and administrative life and in the affairs of State, a treatment ascribed to a “colour prejudice” degrading to the Cape Coloured.

It goes on further to say—

Frequent among all classes of Cape Coloured is the expression of their dissatisfaction with their political position and the desire to be put on the same footing as Europeans with regard to the franchise.

The Cape Coloured in this Bill is being made for all time an inferior person, and there is no question that this was resented as far back as 1937. Let me tell you that in 1937 the population of the Coloured people amounted to about 750,000 and to-day they have practically doubled their numbers. There has been j no desire on their part to seek the patronage which the hon. member who has just sat down and many others are suggesting they are condescendingly granting to the Coloured people and which will help to solve their particular problem. This particular commission which ranged over a very wide field of the whole sociological life of the Coloured man came to the conclusion that he was sensitive then to the feeling of inferiority to which he was being subjected and to the fact that he was not regarded as an equal. The United Party stands for the policy of maintaining the Coloured man on the Common Roll and all the educational and other consequences that flow from it must lead to development. The boast of what the Government has done for the education of the Coloureds is nonsense. How could they help themselves? How can you hold back development in any community? As the country develops) economically, the integration, economically, also increases and of course you must provide schools and other facilities. But to boast of the fact that you are subjecting them to discrimination by providing a Coloured University in the Cape and things of that nature shows the hollowness of that argument. What the Government wants to maintain is this attitude of master and servant for all time. That is the essence of their whole thinking. They have a patriarchal outlook on the non-Whites, and we have the father image of the Prime Minister and of the Government, as the paternal protector of the weaker groups, and that is an anachronism in the world today. It is all very well to talk about the Negro in America, which I do not want to bring into the debate, but the hon. member should have read the statement by Dr. Ben Marais, which he made recently after studying in the U.S.A. and in which he says that the entire White population is accepting integration, and they are providing all the facilities which are essential if you are to have a happy and contented community. It does not only rest with a vote; it rests with many things, but intrinsic in this Bill is the denial of freedom and economic opportunity and many other freedoms.

Before I come to the detailed content of the Bill, I want to draw the attention of the Minister to another quotation from this report. On page 17 you find the following—

That was in 1937, and this is now 1964. Therefore our viewpoint, which was the one extreme in the early days, as against the other extreme, is the normal approach to a community living with us in a country of which they are the children of this very soil. They are not migrants or foreigners. This is the soil from which they spring and the only land they know. They belong here. [Interjections.] It is a good thing to repeat all this so that the country should realize that we have to discharge certain obligations and we cannot wipe them away by this form or peculiar logic to which we have listened for two days from the opposite side.

If they are so at one with the White people, will you allow them to be members of your party?

I am dealing with the attitude of the Nationalist Party in this Bill. [Interjections.] I want to say further that I do not think it would be foreign to our thinking that Coloured people could belong to the United Party. In fact, we had a member sitting in this House who fought an election as a member of the United Party on a United Party platform. [Interjections.] Therefore these silly trick questions do not mean anything. I should like to deal with the speech of the hon. member for Smithfield. [Interjections.]

On a point of order, Sir, is it possible for the hon. member to get a hearing?

Order! The hon. member may continue.

I just want to deal with this question of free speech which the hon. member for Smithfield dealt with, because it is important. In the legislation protection is provided for freedom of speech in this House. Similar protection is provided in the provincial council, and it is interesting to note that under the local Government Administration and Elections Ordinance of the Transvaal in 1960, special provision was made even to allow this freedom of speech at meetings of the council and its management committees, indicating the importance of giving this protection to people who deal with the affairs of the communities they represent. But not so in this Bill. Here you allow a Coloured man to speak in a Council which has begrudgingly been given to him, and you limit it with all sorts of limitations and then you make sure that whatever he says shall not in any way reflect even on a public servant. [Interjections.] It is not nonsense. As one hon. member said yesterday, you listen here to language which according to the Government side has an entirely different meaning from the normal meaning. This Bill provides that freedom of speech is denied, and I will read it again: “Provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall not relieve a member of the council …

Read the whole clause.

Why should I read the whole clause? [Laughter.] What I should like hon. members to note is that the law of libel prevents a person from even repeating a truth if it is not in the public interest but in Parliament you are permitted to deal with it because it becomes a matter of consequence, and so you are protected. The argument of the hon. member for Smithfield was that it stated here that a person was not protected should he be libellous, but that very protection which is denied here, is provided in these other places. Therefore the accepted interpretation of freedom of speech is denied in this Bill and I should like the Minister, who smugly sits back because he has a majority with him to pass a Bill which he could not otherwise pass …

Order! The hon. member must not be so personal.

Then let me ask the Minister to take into account what I have put to him, and I should like him to give me a legal reply to that matter, because he and others deny that this in any way limits the freedom of speech. A child could compare this clause with similar clauses in the various statutes which provide protection and freedom of speech and see how it differs, yet the Minister wants us to accept that this gives the same protection as a Member of Parliament or a member of any of these other bodies has. [Interjections.] Why is the proviso there? We know the reason. I do not want to go into too much detail, because it has been dealt with already, on the limitations and restrictions binding members of this council, and our objective is to expose this type of legislation and to show the hollowness of the arguments of the Government side. I should like the Minister to tell us why it has taken him since 1960 to 1964 to formulate anything approaching the suggestions of the Prime Minister that they would virtually have the powers of a Parliament? Why has it taken four years when they are dealing with a community which has been close to us for more than 100 years, not only from the legislative but also from the administrative point of view? It has taken them all this time to carry out this solemn undertaking. It does not honour what the Prime Minister said. The Minister appears before a gathering and tells them a story and receives an ovation according to the Department of Information, but when it comes to legislation every possible restriction is applied to avoid something happening, and they will have to wait until 1966 for this council to be established.

Are you in a hurry?

We are in a hurry. South Africa is in a hurry. We are losing time. Hon. members opposite view this whole thing in a vacuum, and that is the tragedy. They have no sense of reality as to what is going on. The whole world is watching us. We are concerned about our future, and this member wants to know whether we are in a hurry, at a time when we are told by Ministers of the dangers facing us. [Time limit.]

I have listened to this debate with great patience. I thought the Opposition would grasp this opportunity to do two things, firstly to make an attack on this measure and on the policy of the National Party—which they are perfectly entitled to do —and, secondly, that they would tell this House and the country what their policy is. As far as the first point is concerned, they did try to attack this measure, but how did they do so? The hon. member who has just sat down attacked a portion of a clause and when he was asked to read the whole clause he refused to do so. I thought they would make use of this opportunity to propagate their policy and to tell us what their alternative is to this measure and to tell the country what they would do if this Bill were rejected. But they are so afraid of their own policy in respect of the Coloureds that a sensible member like the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) stood up and said, “It is not our duty to say what our policy is, nor is it your duty to attack your policy; all you have to do is to defend this measure.” Yes, one of our duties is to defend this measure, but an even greater duty rests on our shoulders and that is to tell the country what will happen if this measure is not accepted and if the alternative that they put forward is accepted instead. The hon. member who has just sat down comes along with this sort of accusation; he says: “You refuse to look upon the Coloured man as an equal.” Is he willing to look upon the Coloured as an equal? Is his party willing to do so? He says that our attitude is a “master and servant attitude” and that we want to keep the non-Whites in a state of permanent subordination. But I am going to prove to him that the whole policy of his party is designed to give the impression that they want to give certain things to the non-Whites, but that what it amounts to in practice is that they are deceiving the Coloureds and that they are in fact the people who want to keep the Coloureds in a state of permanent subordination. They say that our policy is the greatest bluff in the world. Sir, if this debate has proved one thing it has proved that the United Party are deceiving the Coloureds. If ever a political party played a confidence trick on a group of the population it is the United Party as far as the Coloureds are concerned.

Absolute nonsense!

Very well, we shall see whether it is nonsense. When the hon. member for Colesberg spoke, the hon. member for Germiston (District) denied that they were going to allow Coloureds to sit in this House, but the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) says “for a United Party lunch-hour meeting”, and she goes on to say; “The Central Parliament under the United Party race federation plan will be a multi-racial body”. Did she say that?

Yes.

She says she did say it, but the hon. member for Germiston (District) denies that that is so. I say that according to the alternative which they put forward they will see to it that it is impossible for a Coloured ever to become a member of this House. What do they propose? I do not want to misrepresent their attitude. Their policy in respect of the Coloureds, as I understand it, is to put them back on to the Common Roll in the Cape Province only, and to allow those Coloureds to stand as candidates in parliamentary elections. Is that correct? [Interjections.] Now they are afraid. Am I misrepresenting their policy? What does the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) say? [Interjection.] Very well, in that case I must assume that I am setting out their policy correctly, and that is that once the Coloureds are on the Common Roll they will be allowed to stand as. candidates in parliamentary elections. Let me first put this question: Which Coloureds are they going to put back on to the Common Roll? Are they only going to put back on to the Common Roll those Coloureds who were on the last. Common Roll, or are they going to lay down qualifications or, increased qualifications for the Coloureds? In other words, are they going to have no qualifications for the Whites but only for the Coloureds? Moreover, are they only going to put Coloured men only on the roll or are they also going to put Coloured women on the roll, subject to certain qualifications? If they are only going to put Coloured men back on the roll, then it is absolutely impossible for a Coloured to become a member of this House except on one condition, and that is that that Coloured person must become a member of their party and become their official candidate. Because what are they going to do? When the Common Roll was done away with there were 40,000 Coloureds on the roll. They now want to raise the qualification, but let us assume that there will again be 30,000 Coloured men on the roll. In other words, they will be hiding those Coloureds. There will be 3,000 in Salt River, 2,000 in Wynberg, 500 in Riversdale and ten in Sea Point and in no single constituency will those Coloureds command sufficient votes to elect a Coloured person as a Member of Parliament. The only way in which a Coloured can become a Member of Parliament is for the United Party to agree to place Coloured women on the Common Roll as well. Let me ask them a very easy question: Are they willing to put on the roll a Coloured woman who has the necessary qualifications? Does the hon. member for Germiston (District) not think that that is a question bn which he owes an answer to the people of South Africa?

On a point of order, I do not know whether the hon. member has the right to go on asking questions when I have already replied to his question?

Is the hon. member going to answer this question or is he not going to do so?

Sir, I raised a point of order and …

The hon. member will have; an opportunity to speak later on.

The hon. member is an honest person …

I should like to hear from the hon. member whether the Nationalist Party intends to put Coloured women on to a Common Voters’ Roll?

My reply to that is an unambiguous “no”. But my question to them is whether they are going to put Coloured women, who comply with the qualifications, on the Common Roll? [Interjection.] The hon. member says that they are not going to do so. In that case I say that they are perpetrating a fraud upon the Coloureds, because the maximum number of Coloured voters that we ever had in one constituency under the Common Roll system was 3,000 in Salt River. Sir, a Coloured candidate can only be elected if the United Party are willing to allow him to become a member of the party and to be nominated as the United Party candidate. Are they going to allow Coloureds to become members of their party? The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) says: “That is not foreign to our thinking.” That is not what I want to know; I want to know whether they are willing to allow the Coloured to become a member of their party. If they do not allow the Coloured to become a member, then this right which they give him to stand as a candidate in parliamentary elections means less than nothing. Sir, the hon. member for Maitland made a very good point when he said that the vote as such was of little significance, that it depends on the circumstances under which that vote is exercised, and he then mentioned the example of a hockey club. Let me ask that hon. member now what the value of the Coloured’s vote is if he cannot become a Member of this Parliament? What is the value of that guarantee to the Coloureds if it is made practically impossible for them I to become Members of Parliament? Hon. members opposite are either grossly deceiving the Coloureds or what they have in mind, if, they are sincere as far as the Coloured is concerned, is to allow the Coloured to become! a member of that party and to allow Coloured women to get on to the Voter’s Roll so that the Coloureds will have the majority in. certain constituencies and will be able to send their own candidate to Parliament. If they are I willing to allow Coloureds to become members of their party, why not Coloured women? Will they be allowed to belong to the same branches? Sir, these are not frivolous questions. These are questions which have a bearing on what may be their solution, to this problem. They accuse us of having, a bad name in the world because our policy is based; on Colour discrimination, but their policy amounts to; blatant Colour discrimination. They discriminate against the Coloured man merely because he is a Coloured, and they discriminate against the Coloured woman merely because she is a Coloured person. They: discriminate against the Coloureds in the Free. State just because they are Coloureds, and also against the Coloureds in the Transvaal, and then they try to besmirch our name by suggesting that our policy is based on discrimination. They pretend that they want to give the Coloureds a chance but they then proceed to create a position which in practice will forever keep the Coloured in a subordinate position.

The hon. member for Piketberg, in one of the most brilliant speches made here to-day, said that in this situation of integration there was no other choice but to keep the Coloured in a subordinate position; to deny him every opportunity of advancement, political advancement, social advancement, educational advancement and economic advancement. No, the United Party want to go back to the old state of affairs; they want to go back to the days when the only right which the Coloured had was the right to vote for the United Party. That was the only right he had. Sir, this reminds me of the provincial by-election that was held in Riversdale shortly after the 1938 general election. There I met my friend, the present Minister, for the first time. At that time he was organizer for the then Purified National Party and I was organizer for the Coalition Party. His car got stuck in a ditch the other side of Muiskraal …

Did you help him?

Yes, I helped him. There were 270 Coloured voters in the Riversdale constituency and I was asked to go and address them. I addressed them and I spoke at length; I advanced every possible argument that I could think of. After my speech they started asking questions. When the meeting was over and they had to move a motion, a dignified old Coloured, an elder of the church, stood up and said: “I want to thank the ‘master’ very much for the speech which he made here this evening, but it was not necessary for him to speak at such length because we vote for Queen Victoria in any case.” Sir, that is the only reason why the United Party want the Coloured vote. They want the Coloured to vote for “Queen Victoria”, to vote for Sir de Villiers Graaff. That is the only prospect that their promises to the Coloured holds out.

The only real charge which has been made in connection with this Bill is that effect is not being given to the promise which the Prime Minister made to the Coloured council about a year ago. But surely it must be perfectly clear to even a child that this measure is the first step in the implementation of that promise. Sir, I think it was the hon. member for Odendaalsrus who said something here once which made a deep impression on me; he, said; that even a journey of 1,000 miles began with the first step, the first pace! This is a journey of 1,000 miles. There is no easy solution to this problem. This measure represents the first step to give effect to the promise made by the hon. the prime Minister. This Bill gives hope to the Coloureds. This is the foundation on which they can build their political home, where they can gain political experience. It is true that as yet we do not see the end of the road as far as the Coloureds are concerned, but what we are doing here is to create a state of affairs in which the lot of the Coloured can be improved politically, economically, socially and educationally. Mr. Speaker, there is so much that we have to do; let us do those things that we can do at the moment. There is so much to do that for the next few years it is not necessary for us to toy with the idea of going further than we are going here; thereafter we will build further; we will give the Coloureds greater opportunities, but with this measure, thank goodness, we are once and for all placing the Coloured in a position where his vote is not going to be misused in the scandalous way in which it was misused in the past, when the Coloured was used as nothing but a political football between two fairly unscrupulous political parties as far as their organizations are concerned. In the past the Coloured was used as no more than a political football by the United Party. That is why the country rejects their policy with contempt and is willing to give this positive policy a chance.

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) put a number of questions to this side of the House. He said that we on this side, with our policy of a Common Voters’ Roll, would keep the Coloureds in a permanent state of subjugation; that in terms of our policy the Coloureds would never be able to take their seats in Parliament. The hon. member for Vereeniging, who years ago helped the hon. the Minister when his car got stuck in a ditch, has now helped him back into the ditch again because it was the hon. the Minister himself who made much of the fact that in terms of our policy there would be 582,000 Coloured voters on the Common Voters’ Roll, that they would swamp the White voters and that they would be able to take their seats in this Parliament. But the hon. member for Vereeniging told us that in terms of our policy it Would never be possible for a Colopred to take his seat in this House. How does the hon. member for Vereeniging succeed in reconciling those two facts? He tells us that we want to keep the Coloureds on the Common Roll so that they will, vote for. us. But does the hon. member for Vereeniging have so little confidence in the policy of his own party, in the cause of his own party, that he does not think that they will be able to win the support of the Coloureds? This is not the first occasion to-day on which the Coloured vote has become a bone of contention in our politics. In former times the Coloureds often voted, for the Nationalist Party. The Nationalist Party received just as much support from the Coloureds as the United Party did. But the hon. member tells us.: “Yoiir policy is unfair because you do not want to permit these people to become members of your party.” The hon. member is talking nonsense. He ought to know as an ex-organizer of the United Party that the Coloured did have the right to become members of the United Party.

Read Jack Loock’s speech.

How will it be possible for the Coloureds, under the Government’s policy of separate representation for the Coloureds, to play their part in a United Party branch? But the Coloureds were not only members of the United Party; they were also members of the Nationalist Party. Sir, the hon. member for Vereeniging is fond of telling stories; let me tell him one now. Some years ago the father of the hon. member for Swellendam stood as the South African Party candidate against an uncle of mine in Swellendam who was the Nationalist Party candidate. This was in the early ’twenties when there were still many Coloureds on the Voters’ Roll. Uncle Koos Coetzee, the Nationalist Party candidate, held meetings for the Coloureds and he also canvassed amongst them. What happened? A Coloured man, the chairman of the local Coloured organization of the Nationalist Party in one of the polling districts came along to Uncle Koos’s boarding house early one morning and wanted to have breakfast with him. Uncle Koos objected. Uncle Koos Coetzee, the Nationalist Party candidate, was hauled up before the executive of the Nationalist Party in the Cape and had to apologize to a Coloured member of the Nationalist Party. In 1953 when the Coloureds were still on the Common Roll, I was the United Party candidate at Oudtshoorn and my opponent was the then Minister of Agriculture, Mr. S. P. le Roux. There were a large number of Coloured voters in that constituency. Mr. S. P. le Roux held just as many meetings for the Coloureds as I did. Now, however, the great mistake which the United Party apparently makes is to try to win the support of those people or to get them to become members of the United Party.

May I ask a question?

No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Vereeniging now says that the policy of the United Party is nothing less than a “confidence trick”. The greatest “confidence trick” that was ever perpetrated in South Africa was played by that party, not against the Coloureds but against one of their deceased leaders, the late Mr. Havenga.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that has nothing to do with the Bill.

Now the hon. member says that the policy of the United Party is a “confidence trick”.

Order! The hon. member must not wander too far away from the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the Coloured vote. I want to prove that the Coloureds would have had the right to become members of the provincial council and it was because of this fact that Mr. Havenga was prepared to give his support to such a step.

When was he our leader?

He was leader of the Afrikaner Party. When that legislation was introduced into this House, just a year or two after his retirement from politics in 1954, the Nationalist Party did away with that right which Mr. Havenga was prepared to give the Coloureds, the right to become members of the Cape Provincial Council.

That is untrue.

The bon. member says that it is untrue but let me quote to him from the Burger of 12 May 1956. This is a report of an interview which Mr. Havenga himself gave. He had the following to say (translation)—

He was referring to an interview which he had had with another newspaper. He went on to say (translation)—

Then he went on to mention a few things that happened during the 1953 election campaign. He said (translation)—

Hon. members on the other side tell us through the hon. member for Vereeniging that the policy of the United Party is the worst form of fraud against the Coloured! The policy of the hon. member for Vereeniging was not only one of fraud against the Coloureds but was one of fraud against one of the greatest statesmen that this country ever produced!

I want to come back to this legislation. This Government is saddled to-day with a Union Council for Coloured Affairs which has come to the end of its road. Just as there was no excitement and joy at its birth so no tears will be shed when it comes to be buried. It satisfied no one and it had no power at all. The Union Council for Coloured Affairs was the first beacon on the so-called road to separate development. Now, according to the Government, that beacon is being moved further on, and the eventual goal, as the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) said, is no longer separate development but separate freedom. Those terms, of course, are also of application to all non-White population groups. The dilemma in which our Nationalist Party friends find themselves is this: They have made grandiose promises of separate states and independence to the Bantu and promises of a similar nature also have to be made, therefore, to the Coloureds. Legislation has been passed for the Bantu in the Transkei placing them on the road to independence. They now have a Chief Minister and a Cabinet. There is absolutely nothing of that kind in this Bill. It is not a 1964 model Parliament for the Coloureds; it is a miniature provincial council, as the hon. member for Piketberg himself said. Our friends opposite always want to see the end of the constitutional road. According to them it is a question either of complete segregation or complete integration. They admit that a separate state for the Coloureds is an absolute impossibility. The hon. the Prime Minister himself admitted as much to the Coloured people and he has also done so on public platforms. Do they think that the Coloureds will be satisfied with a miniature provincial council indefinitely and with the fact that they can never have their own independent parliament? I want to come immediately now to the hon. member for Kempt on Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) and his particular type of philosophy. He contends, by implication, that a separate roll will also eventually result in the removal of all discrimination in respect of the Coloured who will then be able to enjoy everything in his own area just as the White man does in his area. But the hon. members’ argument collapses immediately because the Coloureds do not have their own State! When the Coloureds come to the end of the road and cannot be given what the Bantu have been given and many forms of discrimination against the Coloured still remain, what then? What will then become of the Coloured? The Government, if it is still in power, will then be compelled to accept the point of view of the United Party that, politically, the Coloured must take his place with the Whites in this country.

This legislation is not legislation to get away from discrimination. It is the most wonderful example of discrimination against the Coloureds who are being given far less than the Bantu have been given. The Coloureds are being discriminated against in comparison with the Bantu and the most important reason for this is that they do not have their own national homeland. That is why I want to put this question to hon. members opposite: Why procrastinate and try to postpone the day when they will be faced with the inevitable choice of getting the Coloureds on the side of the White man? That the Government is trying to hold the door open for closer relationships of this nature in the future is obvious from the argument that this is not the final answer and that the final answer cannot be given at this stage. Or is the Government in the obvious predicament of not being able or not wanting to admit that a few decades ago it chose the wrong policy in regard to the Coloured people? Leading thinkers amongst the Nationalists already accept that the Coloured ought to have a seat in this Parliament. In their view the indirect representation of the Coloureds in this Parliament is an anachronism. Sabra can be quoted as an example in this regard. In 1956 Sabra was asked whether the Coloureds in the other provinces should not also be represented in Parliament and whether or not it was desirable for the Coloureds on the separate Voters’ Roll to be able to elect Coloureds as their representatives if they so desired. This is what Sabra said in this connection (translation)—

As I said, leading Nationalists throughout the country adopted that attitude. About a year or two ago the hon. the Prime Minister told us that it was not their policy to have Coloureds represented here in Parliament by Coloured persons. But what does Mr. Willem van Heerden, one of the best-known columnists in South Africa, have to say about this? He says (translation)—

It would seem that the value of separate representation for the Coloureds lies an the fact that it gives them the opportunity of developing to political maturity without the need for integration.

That is my reply to the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) who said that if one wanted this, one would have to go the whole way as far as biological integration. If Mr. van Heerden has enough confidence in the White man to believe that he will keep himself White, what reason does the hon. member for Brits have for saying that such a step will lead to integration?

But are you in favour of what Mr. van Heerden advocates?

I can also quote what Professor Gerdener has to say in the regard.

Political integration leads to all the other forms of integration.

The hon. the Minister wants to know whether I agree with what Mr. van Heerden says. I have already said that thinking Nationalists already accept that the indirect representation which the Coloureds have in Parliament is an anachronism and that it must be changed. During a Sabra congress at Stellenbosch as long ago as 1955 a certain Dr. J. C. Otto, at present a member of this House—at the time he was the delegate of the Pretoria City Council to the congress—asked, according to the Burger of 13 January 1955 whether it was also Sabra’s view that there should be separate Voters’ Rolls for the Coloureds, whether Sabra was also of the opinion that Coloureds, at a later stage, should even be able to take their seats in our legislative bodies, and whether this was also Professor Gerdener’s personal point of view. Professor Gerdener replies as follows (translation)—

I mention this in order to prove that for some years now Nationalists throughout the country have held the view that the representation of these people as it is at present is simply an anachronism. I can even quote what the Burger had to say some time ago, just after 1960. But this so-called separate Parliament is not the answer; something else must come. There has seldom been unanimity in our country about the future of the Coloureds. The only question on which we have had unanimity is that the social conventions of this country should be maintained and that a different attitude to that adopted towards the Bantu should be adopted towards the Coloureds. That is the only point on which there has been agreement. Of course, I will also admit that there was dissatisfaction in the past in regard to the Common Voters’ Roll but it was an artificial dissatisfaction and the degree of that dissatisfaction depended on the amount of heat which Nationalist politicians were able to generate in regard to this matter. Let me put the question in this way: How much discontent is there in regard to the separate Voters’ Roll? Our people realize to-day how many additional problems this system has created. This system is responsible for a vast amount of duplication and expense. Separate development is continually being preached but I have heard large numbers of taxpayers complaining that they are becoming sick and tired of everything that is being done in the name of so-called separate development.

Who are they?

Does the hon. member not move around amongst the people? I do not agree with it, because much of the expenditure is necessary, whether it be for separate development or race federation but people say they are becoming sick and tired of everything that is being done in the name of apartheid. How satisfied are we with this representation? The Coloured Representatives are doing their best for their voters, but does the hon. the Minister ever pay any attention to what is said by these Coloured Representatives on behalf of the Coloureds? He and other hon. members opposite who are so fond of saying that we never concerned ourselves with the lot of the Coloureds when they were on the Common Roll now act in (his way. Does the hon. the Minister remember how he treated the former member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) in this House when we were discussing Coloured education? He said that he would take no further notice of him in the future. And think of the remarks made by the hon. the Minister in regard to the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) during this debate. Does he ever take any notice of what these hon. members say?

Why not put that question to my Department?

The hon. the Minister is ignoring the Coloured Representatives far more than the interests of the Coloureds could ever have been ignored under a United Party Government. Members of the Nationalist Party were dissatisfied because they had to canvass Coloured votes and had to seek their support every five years while the Coloureds were on the Common Roll. But members of the Nationalst Party are still quite satisfied to work hard amongst the Coloureds, as, they did in the case of Mr. Scholtz. If he had won they would have regarded it as a great triumph for the Nationalist Party! Under the United Party, Government it was considered to be terribly wrong to. seek the vote of a Coloured whereas to-day it is the correct thing to do because there is a separate roll for them! [Interjections.] But a strange concatenation of circumstances and events since the Coloureds were removed from the Common Roll has made the people of South Africa very much aware of the merciless slap in the face they gave … the Coloured a few years ago when, as a valuable potential ally of our Western, civilization, the Coloured was removed from the Common Roll.

When business was suspended I was pointing out that the people of South Africa were realizing more and more that a few years ago they gave a tremendous slap in the face to a section of our people who should have been regarded as a valuable potential ally of our Western civilization in this country. It is also perfectly clear to me that the true South African attitude, the true South African feeling that is revealed by the Coloured has softened the heart of more than one White man who has been so easily influenced by political agitation directed against the Coloured, with the result that to-day he is prepared to compensate the Coloured for the injustice that was done to him. It is a pity therefore that at a stage when we are asking and when the country is prepared to ask and to strive for better race relationships we should have to put up with fear-mongering and suspicion. I am referring here particularly to the statements made by hon. members opposite to the policy of the party on this side of the House that our policy will result in a piebald society; that we want to take away the trade of the Coloured person and so forth. Judging by the questions put by hon. members opposite to hon. members on this side of-the House it looks as though one moment we are oppressing the Coloureds and the next moment we want to give them equality with the Whites. I think that the time has come for us to make it clear that, in discussing relationships between Whites and Coloureds on an: adult level, no person need be afraid any longer, that if’ he, 11 makes a plea for the, Coloureds; he is making a plea for a political leader. The attitude of hon. members opposite this legislation is not that they are seeking to establish good relationships; it merely serves as a camouflage; it is merely an attempt to embarrass the United, Party. That was why when the Coloureds asked for a qualified vote, the Cabinet said: “No, we want to give you the vote on the principle of ‘one man, one vote’,” Questions are now being put to us as to what our, policy will be what our policy will be, for example, in regard to the vote for Coloured women. But according to the Banner, of October 1962, under the heading: “Coloured Parliament in the making; important discussions by Coloured council”, a leading member of that council. Councillor Joseph, had this to say … [Time limit.]

We have heard an impassioned plea in this debate for the retention of vested rights. According to the hon. member who has just sat down, it is precisely because of their moral wish to protect established rights and to restore them that it is their intention, when they come into power, to restore the Coloureds to the Common Voters’ Roll. Is that correct? I hope that in saying this I am interpreting the hon. member correctly.

You know what the policy of our party is.

I just wanted to know whether I was correctly interpreting the hon. member in saying that. [Interjection.] The hon. member says that I have interpreted him correctly. I take it, Mr. Speaker, that the policy of the United Party in this connection is not restricted to the Coloureds but that when the Indians, the Bantu and the Whites are deprived of vested rights, their high moral feelings will also make them want to restore those vested rights. I take it that in those cases too they will restore those vested rights.

Of course, if the rights are taken away without regard to the provisions of the Constitution. Not otherwise.

I want to put this question to the hon. member. If the Indians had vested rights …

They do not have them.

Yes, they do.

Not entrenched rights.

Does, the hon. member not know that …

His own party gave them those rights.

… there were Indians in Natal who had vested rights and who were on the Common Voters’ Roll …

You respected those rights.

Order.!

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), the leader of the United Party in Natal, was not concerned about the vested rights of the Indians. Oh, no! He said—

There is still a small residue of Indians on the Common Roll. These are those who were not affected by the 1924 legislation. It is intended to transfer them to the separate roll without laying down qualifications.

Were those rights which the Indians had not vested rights? At that stage the United Party was not concerned about vested rights. The hon. member for South Coast went even further and said—

The “we” were the United Party. So they wanted a separate Voters’ Roll, they said this was their policy—

And, what was more, they could not vote for Whites; they had to vote for Indians. He said that this was United Party policy. But now that we are giving the Coloureds the right which the United Party wanted to give the Indians, it is against all moral principles and they make a dreadful fuss about it!

What are you quoting from?

From a verbatim report of speeches which the hon. member for South Coast made and replies which he gave to questions before the N.M.A. in 1947. I am quoting from the verbatim report in this regard. In this report he said emphatically that it was the policy of the United Party to place the people on the Common Roll, in this case the Indians, on a separate roll, and that the Indians would not be permitted to vote for Whites but for Indians. But now they suddenly have high moral principles and accuse this Government of wanting to deprive people of vested rights. They also say that they will restore these vested rights when they come into power. I ask: Where is the honesty in the policy of those hon. members? One moment they want to share something but the next moment they do not want to do so.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. I am sorry; my time is limited.

From what are you quoting?

I stated emphatically what I was quoting from. Apparently the hon. member was not listening and so I am not going to repeat what I said. When the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Van Staden) accused the United Party of wanting to integrate only the upper layer of the Coloureds with the Whites, they became very indignant. I want to quote to the House what a leader of the United Party had to say and once again it is the hon. member for South Coast. He said that in Natal—and the House must remember that the United Party and not the National Party is in power in Natal—

Hear, hear!

Just wait a moment. The hon. member for South Coast went on to say—

In other words, the United Party want to absorb the Coloureds with the Whites, and if they pass for Whites, they will have the right to marry Whites and vice versa.

In Caledon you made Coloureds White.

When I made this accusation in 1958, the hon. member for South Coast sent me a heated telegram and asked me to retract my statement because it was a lie. I have here the verbatim report of what he said. He said—

And this as a result of the policy of the United Party in Natal!

You are doing it now. What about the Japanese?

The United Party cannot get away from the fact that they want to assimilate the top layer of the Coloureds with the Whites. That is their policy. I want to ask them this: Once they have assimilated this top layer, what will happen to the rest? What do they have in mind for them? Is this not a discrimination of a far worse kind? They are only prepared to absorb a certain group of Coloureds into the White community, but what about the others? I would like to know what the United Party intends doing with the others. Do they want to throw them to the wolves?

You tell us.

An angel from heaven would find it impossible to understand the policy of the United Party! How then am I to understand it? No, Mr. Speaker, that sheep’s clothing must be pulled off the wolf. They stand up here as the great champions of the Coloureds; they come along here and place themselves on a high pedestal of morality and yet they are prepared to assimilate only a certain section of the Coloured people with the Whites! And what about the rest? Must they be thrown back to the Bantu? Must they be assimilated with the Bantu? Is what the United Party wants to do in this regard not a far worse form of discrimination?

What are you going to do with them?

They must serve their own people.

In contrast to this we have the clear and straightforward policy of the National Party in terms of which the Coloured community as a whole must be uplifted for their own salvation. We do not want to absorb the top layer of the Coloureds in the White community as the United Party wants to do but we want to use them to educate their own people.

And if they do not want that?

Then they can go to blazes!

Order! Will the hon. member repeat what he has just said?

Mr. Speaker, I said that if the Coloureds did not want to do it, they could go to blazes.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speake.

We have been accused of always being hostile to the Coloureds but that now, quite suddenly, we again have a great deal of sympathy for them. I reject that accusation and I do so with contempt. There was some feeling against the Coloured but it was not only to be found on the part of Nationalists; it was also to be found on the part of members of the United Party, particularly in the north. When they came down here in 1952 and saw the conditions prevailing during the Van Riebeeck Festival, many of those United Party supporters who had never seen a Coloured or who had never seen conditions in the Peninsula returned to their homes as staunch Nationalists. And do you know, Mr. Speaker, why that feeling to which I have just referred existed? I admit that the feeling did exist but it was directed not so much against the Coloured as against the methods which the United Party used in connection with the Coloureds. That feeling sprang from the fact that the United Party made use of the Brown people in our country as arbiters between White man and White man. [Interjections.]

They are political pedlars.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) asked whether we had so little confidence in our policy that we did not see our way clear to win the favour of the Coloureds if they were restored to the Common Voters’ Roll. He said that we also addressed their meetings. That is so, but the difference is that this party did not make the Coloureds the wild and fraudulent promises which the United Party made them. We cannot let them believe that they can become members of our party or that they will be able to take their seats in this Parliament. We will never be able to promise the Coloured that sort of thing—for example, that he will be able to have representatives of his own race in this House. But that is what the United Party did because they were not honest in regard to the Coloureds. They made those promises to the Coloureds because they were not honest and they made those promises without a blush. On the other hand, this party cannot bring itself to make promises of this nature to people who are still politically immature to a large extent. They are still children, politically speaking, because the United Party have kept them there. They wanted to keep the Coloureds politically immature so that they could make use of them for their own ends. But this party is not prepared to make wild promises of that nature to the Coloureds.

It is a strange thing but they still prefer our policy!

But the action of the United Party which stuck in our craw and which we despised was that the United Party made use of the Coloured as an arbiter between White man and White man. It is a pity that the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) is not here this evening because I would have liked to have told the House how he used the Coloureds.

When one listens attentively to what the United Party have to say not only in regard to this legislation but in regard to all apartheid legislation, one comes to the conclusion that the United Party are following a vandalistic policy. They have become political vandals. They want to destroy everything, even those things that are sacred to the nation. Let me prove this. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) makes himself out to be a very good South African.

Is he not then?

I shall allow him to pass judgment on himself. I say that he makes himself out to be a very good citizen of the Republic but what did he do here today? He said that if the Coloureds approached him in connection with this legislation and said that they felt that the Government had done them an injustice in this regard, he would tell them that he was in full agreement with them.

But that is a fact.

And that he would recommend to them that they use it as a platform from which to attack the Government. Note well: He would not recommend that they serve their own people; he would not recommend that they use this legislation as a platform from which to serve their own people and in this way to work for the good of their own people. Oh, no! They should make use of it to attack the Government! I ask whether this is the action of a responsible citizen of the Republic?

It is in the interests of South Africa to get rid of this Government!

Mr. Speaker, what is in the interests of South Africa, in the view of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), is that if they come into power, they will tell these people that not only will they be compensated in the financial sphere but that they will also be given social benefits. But will the hon. member who is so verbose tell us what social privileges he wants to give these non-Whites?

As a Christian, I shall permit them to live together with their Wives and children.

There again we have that false; morality. I have never heard that hon. member say that the families of the Bantu mineworkers in Johannesburg and elsewhere should be allowed to live with those Bantu, have I ever heard him say that the Railway Administration or the Post Office which have large numbers of relieving staff, should be compelled to ensure that those members of the relieving staff are accompanied by their families. I have never heard him say that the men who are sent to combat outbreaks of foot and mouth disease should be allowed to take their families with them.

But they can do so if they want to.

Mr. Speaker, they will never ask that this be done simply because the people concerned do not have black skins. They cannot misuse the-White man in politics. Logic in politics is a fine thing if it is healthy logic, but if that logic becomes as confused as the logic of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) it then starts to look like a ball of wool after a cat has been at it. No, Mr. Speaker, those hon. members must not talk about families who should be together. They always only make a plea for the Bantu and they do so for only one reason—to place this Government in a bad light, not only in South Africa, but particularly overseas. That is why they do it.

Let me return to the hon. member for Kensington. He said that if the (Coloureds approached him in regard to this legislation, he would tell them that he was in complete agreement with them when they said that they felt that the Government had done them an injustice by introducing this legislation; that he would recommend to them that they use this as a platform from which to attack the Government, and that he would certainly not recommend that they use this legislation as an instrument to help themselves. No, they must attack the Government. But I want to ask him now what advice he will give Chose Coloureds—and there are many of them—who are in favour of this legislation. Will he try to convince them that this legislation is a fraud? Will he also tell them to use it as a platform, not in order to work out their own salvation and to promote their own interests but to attack the Government? I did not hear one hon. member on the opposite side repudiate this remark of the hon. member for Kensington. Let me ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what he will do if the Coloureds approach him in connection with this legislation. What advice will he give them? Will he give them the same advice as that which the hon. member for Kensington wants to give them, or will he repudiate the advice of the hon. member for Kensington? If he is not prepared to repudiate what; has been said by the hon. member for Kensington, then I must accept the fact that the point of view of the hon. member for Kensington is also his point of view. If that is so, then they have no right to make a plea for the Coloured or to say that they are good South African citizens or that they mean well, with the Coloureds.

When one listens to the speeches of the hon. members for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) and Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), one comes to the conclusion that they want to throw away everything that has been sacred to the people of South Africa over the years. They want to do away with apartheid altogether. Listening to them, my thoughts went back to something that happened about a century ago. At that time there was amongst the Xhosa people a beautiful young girl whose name was Nongqausi. At a place near a dark pool amongst the reeds this young girl saw many spirits and interpreted what she saw to the Xhosa people as being messages from their forefathers. According to Nongqausi’s interpretation of the “messages”, the Xhosa people had to destroy all their cattle and then, on a particular day, when the sun would turn blood-red id the heavens, their kraals would again be filled with fat cattle and their granaries filled td overflowing with grain. Just before the meeting of the council members to decide on these messages, a wise counciller, Ngubo told Sarili, the son of Hintsa, that he should remember that the cattle were the people, and that if the cattle die, the people would also die. Let me tell these two hon. members that apartheid in South Africa is the people and if apartheid dies, the people will die. This refers not only to the White man but also to the Coloured, the Bantu and the Indians, because even if the non-Whites were to govern this country, other foreign powers would ensure that South Africa was not theirs for long.

I have not heard one word from any hon. member of the United Party contradicting what has been said here by these two hon. members. I want to tell them that they are trying to destroy apartheid in South Africa. If they succeed in doing so, they must not imagine that it will only be the nationalists in this country who will suffer. They will also suffer. Because they also have a White skip they will not be able to survive in this country. Then will happen to them what happened to the Xhosa girl and Sarili—the one had to flee and the other was killed. This is certainly what will happen to the United Party in the event of the fall of this Government and in the event of the fall of this Government and in becoming the policy of South Africa.

The hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter) made a statement towards the end of his speech by means of which he indivisibly linked the people of South Africa with apartheid. I just want to say that I cannot agree with him in this regard in so far as the Coloureds and the Whites are concerned. I will not say more about it. Over the years it has become clear that the word “apartheid” has cost us much and that we should rather abandon it and instead adapt our race relations to the circumstances prevailing in 1964. We must keep together what belongs together, and not only by paying lip service to it, but in such a way that those who belong with us will also have a share in our country and will be willing to defend it in times of danger.

I have listened attentively to speakers on both sides of the House ever since this debate began. It became clear to me that few of these speakers really know what the ideals and the aspirations of the Coloureds in South Africa are. Éven if they understand it, it seems to me that they have not the courage of their convictions to say so here. They are bound, for reasons I do not want to deal with now. I am not talking about the United Party or the Nationalist Party, but I am referring to everybody who participated in this debate. I belong to no political party and I listened attentively to the speeches made, and I also thoroughly studied the Bill under discussion. The standpoint I want to state here to-night on behalf of the people whom I represent is not influenced in any respect by any group of political organization. I want to say that I understand the people whom I represent in this House. Nor is it such a difficult matter to understand them. To understand them it is only necessary to get acquainted with them to some extent. The trouble with we Whites in South Africa is that, apart from paying lip service, we do not get to know our Coloured fellow-citizens. We talk politics up in the sky, we criticize or support legislation, but do we ever take the trouble to find out under what circumstances these people live, what their views are and how they think? I have already said that it is very easy to understand the Coloureds. All that is required is to get to know them. The Coloured people are just like the Whites—there is no difference, and the person who says that there is does not know what he is talking about. They speak our language, have our religion, follow our way of life, etc. In fact, the only difference between the Coloured and the White man is the economic-educational level on which each group lives. If one meets Coloureds who are economically just as strong as anyone else in this House, and who have reached the same level of education—and in some cases a higher level—we find that they live as we do, that their houses are furnished like ours, and that their language, culture and religion are the same as ours.

They only eat more [ garlic.

I want to ask that hon. member to stop his levity. I mean it seriously and sincerely. These people have a common faith to South Africa which is their only fatherland; they have nowhere else to go. They have a love for our language, our culture and our country which many White people do not reveal. I do not want to dig into the past, but f if South Africa should find itself in danger; our Coloured fellow-citizens will stand by us as faithfully as they did in the past. As such they are loyal South Africans, and I want to tell the House what the aspirations and ideals r and desires of the Coloureds are as loyal South Africans, viz. to have full citizenship of; the country of their birth, If you want to be honest, you cannot say the Coloureds are not entitled to it. We can advance the argument that the broad mass of the Coloured population is still on a much lower economic and educational level than the Whites. But I have previously stated in this House that there was a stage in the history of the Afrikaners, just after the Anglo-Boer War, when their economic and educational level in comparison with other White population groups in South Africa was poor. They were impoverished; we know what history has taught us. But that was never used as an excuse that they could not fight for their rights, or as a reason for their not being granted self-government in the Transvaal and in the Free State, or that they could not obtain Union in 1910. In the bitter depression years, when poverty prevailed throughout South Africa, it was not used as an excuse why they could not enjoy the franchise without qualifications, as Whites.

When I state the case for the people whom I represent and whom I humbly say I know, I must necessarily say that the people whom I represent do not accept the equivocal policy of the Opposition in connection with their political rights, viz. one type of rights for the Transvaal and another for the Cape Province. My people do not accept the discriminatory aspects of the policy of any party. Nor do they accept the political set-up which the Government at this stage is prepared to give them. [Interjections.] I hear those remarks, but I do not say so with the object of hurting anyone; I am just making an honest statement. I have just heard the remark made by the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson): But they vote for us. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delve into the past, but when the Coloureds were still on the Common Voters’ Roll I so often heard them say: We have no choice; we must choose the lesser of two evils.

Which is the worse of the two evils?

That was the difficulty in which they found themselves, they had to vote against the worst. Nor can it be expected that a population group which has reached our economic and educational level of civilization should accept a policy of inferiority and discrimination and ambiguity.

The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) referred in his speech to the bitterness which this Bill will cause. People sometimes talk about the bitterness which will be caused by legislation when they criticize and oppose it here, as it is their duty to do. without having knowledge of the true circumstances. I have encountered bitterness on the part of the Coloureds. The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) has encountered bitterness on their part. We did not encounter it now, but in 1958 when we stood for election. I had an idea that there must be bitterness on the part of people who for hundreds of years always found themselves at the shortest end of the stick and had to live on promises which were never fulfilled, and I encountered that age-old bitterness. The separate voters’ rolls caused great frustration. The hon. member for Boland and the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) will support what I say here, that the greatest difficulty we had at meetings where we came into contact with these people was not because they felt frustrated by the separate voters’ rolls, but because they were embittered because of the fraud that had been perpetrated against them over the years, before 1958. [Interjections.] Yes, but then we should not continue to defraud them further. Then the time has arrived for us to think clearly and honestly and we should prevent a citizen of this country, a citizen who has no other home, and without whose support we cannot do. from feeling embittered.

I just want to say that people who have not had to fight an election in a Coloured constituency, as we had to do in 1958, can have no idea of the venomous bitterness we encountered, and not among uneducated people but among people who are our equals in the educational and economic spheres. They became embittered because they were knee-haltered, because they were in chains in the political sphere, and had no other way of giving expression to their feelings. This Bill has been bitterly opposed and criticized. On the other side it was supported. But as a representative of the Coloureds I found it disappointing that, with all the criticism which was voiced in regard to the Bill—and I also have criticism against it—no alternative was put. I feel that the time has really now arrived for us to be honest with the Coloureds and not only to voice criticism and make promises, but that we should state an alternative so that the Coloureds can say: Very well, the White party now in power is not doing what we want and it is being opposed, but those who may govern in future at least have an alternative and we know what it is.

Reference has been made here to consultation. When I was a faithful member of the United Party caucus, I was threatened in 1959 that I would be kicked out of the party because I insisted on consultation. In 1961 I made a last attempt and said: Very well, I will arrange for consultation in my constituency before you appoint a candidate to oppose me. That offer was refused. In regard to consultation, I want to issue a warning in all honesty and sincerity: If we want consultation with the Coloureds we must do so in a proper manner. Five candidates should not come together at Beaufort West, each bringing along his own supporters whom he has just haphazardly collected. Those were not Coloured leaders. [Interjections.] I know who they were; I also know what they were paid for their motor-cars. My duty in this House is to fight for the interests of the Deople whom I represent here, and if the Government introduces legislation with which I do not agree I must oppose that also. However, we cannot continue bluffing our Coloured fellow-citizens and expect them to swallow it.

Mr. Speaker, I have an alternative. I am glad the hon. the Prime Minister is here. He is a person to whom I can respectfully say that every day I encounter increasingly more Coloureds who appreciate what he is doing, who admit that he is an efficient man: who recognize that he means well with South Africa and that he is honest, whether we agree with him or not. While the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs are here. I want to tell them that I have an alternative. I cannot vote for this Bill, and I shall give the reasons why, but I have an alternative. We know it cannot happen overnight; we know it will have to be done gradually, but cannot we work out a positive set-up in terms of which the Coloureds can see that they are gradually progressing to full citizenship with full political rights, such as they ought to have? I feel that this is an alternative, and I state it honestly and sincerely. If a positive programme is drawn up, even though we begin on a small scale, and the Coloured population can see that they are moving towards full citizenship and that they will be recognized as such when they have attained the necessary economic and educational level, then I give the hon. the Prime Minister the assurance that he will have 1,500,000 of the most loyal South Africans who will stand by him through thick and thin if the outside world threatens us.

Many hon. members who participated in this debate have welcomed this Bill. They evidently want to go back to the old political battles which have been fought in this House since 1948. It would not assist my people in any way if I were to repeat and rehash all those old arguments. If harm has been done, it has been done; if legislation was passed, it has been passed; if mistakes have been made, then they have been made, and now we must make the best of it. I lived through those times. I can also tell many stories here of what methods were adopted by certain parties. I can tell stories in regard to what I myself did, but what is the use of it? It is a question of the pot calling the kettle black. It was always the Coloured who suffered. I am not interested in how Mr. Bruchner de Villiers came into Parliament or in the old man who did not want to eat with a Coloured. What I ask is: What do the present and the future hold for my people? That reminds me of a story I heard of a fairy who came down to earth to gram people their wishes. The first man was an Indian. When she asked him what he wanted he said: “I want a fruit shop.” He got a fruit shoo. The second man she met was a Jewish immigrant. When she asked what he wanted he said “I want to speculate with the cattle of the farmers.” So he became a speculator. The third person who approached her was a South African farmer. When she asked him what he wanted he said: “I want to be the master of everything.” The fourth one was a Coloured, and when she asked him what he wanted he said: “Ney. Missies. I don’t want anything; I just came along with the baas.” Well, Sir, in so far as the Coloureds are concerned, those days are past. We have reached a stage in our history where we cannot expect the Coloureds simply always to come along with the master and to receive from him what they want.

When I heard about this legislation and learnt what it would contain from people who knew more about it than I did. at one stage I expected that legislation would be introduced which could really be regarded as a beginning, as the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland said earlier in this debate, legislation which I could support. For example, it comprises the principle of the extension of the franchise to the northern provinces. I do not want to waste time to-night on the fraud committed in regard to the Coloureds in the north ever since the time of Lord Milner. We know that history. We know of the fruitless deputations which the late Dr. Abdurahman led to Britain and which resulted in nothing. I welcome the extension of the franchise to Coloured women. Here for the first time a voters’ roll is established for the Coloureds in the northern provinces and for the Coloured women. I welcome it, even though it is only a vote for the Coloured Council, because a voters’ roll is being created, but I hope the adage that first to give something and then to take it away is worse than theft will sink in with the Government. While we welcome those steps it is because when those voters’ rolls have been drawn up, we hope it will be a right which will never again be taken away.

You must put that question to the United Party.

I considered it seriously and welcomed those principles. Then the Bill appeared, and what did we find? When I studied the Bill I found that Coloured women and men in the Cape Province, over the age of 21 years, would have the vote on a voters’ roll where they could vote only for members of the Coloured Council; in other words, there will be a separate roll for them to vote for their representatives in Parliament. [Interjections.] The hon. member is wasting my time. Surely he knows that the Coloureds in the northern provinces do not have Members of Parliament to represent them. He should not worry me now. There will therefore be two voters’ rolls. Different people will vote for Parliament and for the Coloured Council. Another point which I cannot accept is that all the legislative powers which this council will have will depend on what the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs allows them to do. How can such a situation be justified, Sir? I can understand that there must be limitations in regard to such a council because they cannot be allowed to pass legislation which the Treasury cannot possibly approve of. But must the Minister in particular be appointed as the person who will in all respects have the final say as to whether the Coloureds may pass a measure in regard to their own people? I must accept that the Government’s intention with this legislation is permanently to give the Coloureds certain political rights. If that is the Government’s intention, then I cannot accept such a set-up. I have clearly stated the alternative which I suggested, viz. full citizenship. Leg’slation which puts the Coloureds in political bondage I cannot accept, nor do my people accept it. I cannot be hypocritical and say that they will not make use of this council. I know there are people, even members of this House, who are already organizing to have their hangers-on elected to that council. But I, as a responsible representative of my voters, cannot accept this measure as a permanent arrangement.

The hon. the Minister is an efficient Minister. I know that very well; I have much to do with him. He is a person who is energetic and positive. But the hon. the Minister has contributed much—and I say this in all honesty and sincerity—to the opposition there is to this Bill. When the hon. the Minister introduced the Bill, he referred to the belittling remarks which had been made about the Coloured Council. But the way in which that council was constituted at the time causes me to be concerned in regard to the future council. The way in which that council was constituted at the time largely contributed to the lack of status which it has had hitherto. I was interested in the composition of that council, because it was born from the same legislation which brought me into this House. But on my travels through my constituency I came to places where there were officials of the Department of Coloured Affairs who were concerned with the composition of the council and who were looking for people to serve on that council, and where those officials told the people: “You must not tell Holland that we have spoken to you.” Then I thought: Well, just appoint your own council and see what you get. [Interjections.] If the hon. member wants to mention anything else which I did, he may do so, but I could tell him more about the constitution of this council if I wanted to rake up old matters. The result was that when the council was appointed most of its members exhibited a spirit of enmity towards the Members of Parliament. They refused to co-operate; they wanted to have nothing to do with us. I also agree with the hon. the Minister that at this stage he cannot allow the Press to have access to that council. I say to-night that if that council is to be held up as the best example of what the Coloured people are capable of, then it is an insult to the Coloureds, because there are many more able Coloureds, and they will also come to the fore. They have discovered that they cannot promote their, interests by means of boycotts and destructive criticism, but by going through the correct channels. Over the years, however, the members of the Coloured Council gained more experience. The sensible and more experienced people feel that they can achieve much more by co-operation.

Are you alleging that the Coloured leaders will make use of this council which will be established?

I have clearly said that the Coloureds have learnt that by boycotting the council and keeping away from it they will get the type of council we have to-day, a council of which the best people were not members. If the Minister had allowed the members of this council to be freely elected, he would have found that the Coloured leaders would have to come to the fore and they would have let their voices be heard in that council in the interests of their own people. The point I briefly want to make is this: When the hon. the Minister last year introduced the Bill dealing with Coloured education, the Coloured Council appealed to their representatives in this House to ask the Minister to delay the Bill so that they would be able to discuss it fully. The Minister, however, took no notice of that appeal. Here we have another case, Mr. Speaker, where individual members of the council contacted the Coloureds’ Representatives and asked: Why did the Minister not meet the deputation we appointed to interview him in connection with this legislation? The Minister was in Cape Town. It would have been no trouble to him. I am sure he could have found the time for it.

I met the full council.

The hon. the Minister knows that I am now referring to the time when the Bill was published.

I met the full council. Did you want me to meet the deputation after you had got at them the previous evening.

The hon. the Minister has now told the greatest untruth. I did not speak a single word to any member of the Coloured Council before that meeting they held. I saw very little of them, and then only incidentally. They had the Bill in their possession. They asked me for copies of the Bill and I sent them copies. Surely I am entitled to do that. Or does the Minister now want to treat me in the way in which he treats some members of the council; if they write him a letter he instructs the Secretary for Coloured Affairs to reply to them. Am I now to go to the Secretary for Coloured Affairs when I wish to discuss a matter with the Minister? Am I not allowed to speak to a member of the Coloured Council? How could I have incited them if they took a decision to interview the Minister? My appeal to the Minister is this: Just be a little more tolerant and patient so that the impression is not created that the Minister does not co-operate with the Coloured Council and does not take their advice. Otherwise he need not be surprised if he comes to be regarded as a dictator in his Department. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) is, I think, the only one of the Coloured Representatives who can express an independent opinion in this House in regard to this legislation because he is not bound by one or other party policy. I want to tell him in the first place that he made an honest effort to do his best for his voters but the solution which he gave us is, I am sure, not the best that he can give his voters. His solution boils down precisely to the solution which the United Party suggested—complete equality between White and Coloured. I shall come back to this point later in order to show how this policy will have an adverse effect upon the Coloured. The hon. member has a golden opportunity to vote for this legislation this evening and so do his best for the Coloureds. In doing so he will give them the opportunity which they have never had before to work out their own salvation and to enable them to climb to the highest rungs of the ladder in that they will not have to compete with a stronger group.

In their efforts to bring this Bill into discredit, the United Party have approached this matter from two main points of view. The first is that this legislation follows the old pattern of the National Party—the policy of séparate development, and for that reason they have told us that they cannot support it. They cannot support this Bill, according to them, because their policy is to Europeanize the Coloured with the Whites, to make a Westerner of him together with the Whites and to absorb him completely into White society. That was the first reason they advanced in opposing this legislation. The second reason was one which we have often heard before—that this legislation will not help to win the goodwill of the outside world. As far as the last reason is con cerned I just want to say this: If they think that by means of their policy, as far as it affects the Coloureds, they will win the goodwill of the outside world, and if they think that that will be the end of the matter, then I can tell them that they are making a very big mistake. I want to point out to them that when, in 1957, after a period of hesitation, they again decided that the Coloureds should be restored to the common voters’ roll—that decision was taken by their congress in Bloemfontein in August, 1957—this fact was commented on by leading foreign newspapers, including British newspapers. I just want to quote what one of those newspapers had to say in regard to this decision. I want to quote from the Manchester Guardian which had the following to say (translation)—

The leading article went on to say (translation)—

It is clear, that this policy of theirs which they think will be the final step in winning the goodwill of the outside world will only be regarded as a first step on the road to liberalism, a step which will eventually go very much further. That process will simply have to continue. They will simply not be able to stop it.

The other objection of the United Party to this legislation is that the Coloureds cannot go along with the White man but that each must proceed along the road of separate development. The United Party do not regard the Coloureds as a separate group; they regard them as being and want to treat them as part of our White civilization. If that were actually the sincere aim of the United Party and they were honest in their efforts in this regard, there might be something to be said for it. We could then say of them that they were an out and out liberal party; we could then say of them that they were in favour of absolute equality. But what are the facts? They are not consistent in their actions. As the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) also pointed out this afternoon, they are discriminating against the Coloureds as had never before been the case. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) was the person who admitted in this House that there was not one single political party in this country which did not apply discrimination. But the difference is just this, Mr. Speaker: The National Party are gradually moving away from discrimination while the United Party are making discrimination an inseparable part of their policy, although they do not want to admit it. Let us consider a few of these discriminatory measures.

In the first place, I want to come back to a point which was made by hon. members on this side but which has not yet been replied to—the question of membership of the United Party. The United Party simply refuse to reply when this question is put to them: May the Coloureds become members of the United Party under United Party policy? We know that there is a senior member of their party in the Other Place who is perhaps more honest in his approach to this matter than these hon. members—no, who may perhaps have more courage than these hon. members. When the question was put to him by the hon. the Minister of Finance in the Other Place—I am referring to Senator Berman who at one stage was the leader of their party in the Provincial Council—whether, in terms of their policy, the Coloureds would be restored to the Common Voters’ Roll, his reply was in the affirmative. When he was asked whether they could become members of the United Party, his reply was also in the affirmative. When he was asked: “May a Coloured become a member of the executive of your Party?”, his reply was: “Yes, if he is elected thereto.” This whole question was dealt with at length in the Other Place and the hon. the Minister of Finance even mentioned the Indians, but in this connection the hon. Senator adopted another point of view and said: “No, as far as the Indians are concerned, the matter is not so straightforward; the Indians must be consulted.”

I mention this because Senator Berman admitted quite frankly that Coloureds would be permitted to become members of the party and its executive, but hon. members are keeping quiet about that matter this afternoon. Not one single member wants to tell us whether the Coloureds can become members of their party. They are afraid to reply to the simple question of whether the Coloureds may become members of the United Party or not. How is one to understand those hon. members? They advocate equality; they say that the Coloureds should be able to take their seats in Parliament together with the Whites; they say that that is their policy. But they do not want to provide any channels at all by means of which the Coloureds will be able to become members of this House. Judging from the actions of the hon. members of the United Party here, the Coloureds cannot become members of their party. I hope that Senator Berman was right in saying that the Coloureds can become members of the United Party because otherwise I do not know what will happen to those hon. members if the Coloureds cannot become members of their party and have no say in the nomination of candidates for their party. What will happen if that is the case? If that is the case, they will be forcing the Coloureds, whom they want to restore to the Common Roll, into a bloc in opposition to the White members of the United Party. They will then drive those Coloureds into the hands of the Progressive Party who are in favour of full equality for the Coloureds. Do they think that by so doing they will be doing the Coloureds a service? Do they think that they will be promoting co-operation and good race relationships and unanimity between the Whites and the Coloureds if they discriminate against the Coloureds in this way?

There are other ways in which they discriminate against the Coloureds. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) stated at a meeting at Rondebosch in reply to a question on the race federation policy of the United Party that in terms of their policy every race could choose its own Prime Minister in its own federal state. Each one of the non-White races, except of course the Coloureds, because the Coloureds are regarded as being Whites by the United Party, could choose its own Prime Minister. But if the United Party refuse to allow the Coloureds to become members of the United Party, if they deny all access to Parliament to the Coloureds in this way and then come along and say that they want to give the Bantu and all the other races the opportunity to choose their own Prime Ministers in their own federal states in terms of their race federation system, they will be depriving the Coloureds of the privilege of having the opportunity to develop to the full. They will be defrauding the Coloureds of the privilege which they are prepared to give to the Bantu. Is this not discrimination? Is not the worst form of discrimination that which they are using against the Coloureds? They are refusing to assist in promoting the interests of the Coloureds under the pretext that we are not treating the Coloureds fairly. But is what they want to do not discrimination in the extreme? The United Party are completely opposed to separate university training for Coloureds. They say that the Coloureds and the Whites should attend the same university. They were completely opposed to the establishment of the Coloured University College of the Western Cape. They opposed the establishment of that University College tooth and nail. But when it comes to the question of schools, they say that apartheid should be applied and that White and Coloured children should not attend the same schools. If they do not say this, they will lose the votes of the Whites. They do not want to allow that to happen. Is this not discrimination in the extreme against the Coloureds? But their latest policy which they are now advocating is that in terms of their race federation plan the Coloureds in the Northern Provinces must be placed on separate voters’ rolls. A Select Committee was appointed in connection with this matter in 1953 and the minority group on that Select Committee—the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) referred to it—included, amongst others, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. They formed a minority group to make a study of this matter and to bring up a separate report, which was printed. In that minority report they gave emphatic reasons why separate voters’ rolls for Coloureds were so undesirable. They tried to prove how completely and utterly wrong it was to have a separate voters’ roll for the Coloureds because the United Party was trying at the time to prevent the Government from placing the Coloureds on a separate voters’ roll by way of legislation. The United Party are now recommending that the Coloureds in the Northern Provinces be placed on separate voters’ rolls. Have their own arguments now become invalid? Are there no educated Coloureds in the Northern Provinces? Are there no principals of schools, are there no teachers, are there no Coloured nurses there? Are there no educated Coloured people in the Northern Provinces at all? Is this not race discrimination of the most flagrant kind? No, they are playing a game, as is the case in regard to all other matters but they will eventually be found out in their game. I shall tell you, Mr. Speaker, why in my opinion they want the Coloureds in the Northern Provinces to be placed on a separate voters’ roll, and why they do not want to allow them to elect members of this House together with the Whites, although they will permit the Coloureds in the Cape to do so. Those Coloureds in the Northern Provinces have declared themselves to be frankly in favour of separate development and it does not suit the United Party to have those people on the same voters’ roll with them. So that is why they must be placed on a separate voters’ roll: they will only be able to vote for members of the Other Place. They tell us that they want to cultivate good relationships. They say that they want to treat the Coloureds in such a way that they can be absorbed by the Whites. When they discriminate against the Coloureds in this way do they not know that by so doing they are causing the utmost friction between the Whites and the Coloureds? Do they not know that by discriminating in this way they will make the Coloureds hate the Whites? I honestly believe that the game which hon. members opposite are playing in connection with this matter has already been found out. What do the Coloureds themselves say? What do the Coloureds themselves think of this race federation plan of the United Party as an alternative to Government policy? I want to quote what an educated Coloured man has to say in this regard. But let me first say that the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) revealed a shocking fact to us—the fact that the United Party caucus does not want to consult the Coloureds. The United Party are always accusing us of not wanting to consult the Coloureds. A member of their caucus has already told us before that they do consult the Coloureds. But they consult with ex-A.N.C. leaders; in other words, with out-and-out communist non-White leaders. This to my mind is a very clear indication that the Coloureds are on the right track in our country; that responsible Coloured people are not leftists as yet because otherwise they would already have been consulted. But what does one of these leftist Coloured leaders, Dr. Van der Ross have to say? He is discussing the federation policy of the United Party and is dealing with the fact that that race federation policy seeks to make use of the Coloureds. Dr. Van der Ross is dealing with the United Party’s slogan of White leadership and this is what he has to say in this connection—

These are the sort of problems we meet when we base our political thinking on the concept of the group, rather than the individual, as the unit of the nation. God created man; man created group.

It is quite clear that the policy of the United Party is also condemned by that group of people. I want to give my full support to the hon. the Minister as far as this Bill is concerned and I want to ask him to proceed with it.

I would like to react to the speech made by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Sadie) but unfortunately he has not said anything about the Bill, and I would most seriously like to discuss that subject. I would like however, to take him up on one point. He has accused this side of the House of indulging in race discrimination. May I remind, him that we had no troubles with the outside world, or with our friends in the Western World, when the policy which he is now criticising was in force in this country. But since the policy which he supports has been implemented in this country, all kinds of troubles have been experienced. May I remind the hon. member that we lost our Commonwealth membership as a result of that policy. May I remind him of the other world organizations that we are in danger of being thrown out of. May I remind him of all the other things that have happened as a result of this wonderful policy that he put forward to us here to-night.

But to come to this Bill, I want to join forces with the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) and the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) and others on this side who have accused the Prime Minister of not implementing the promises which he made to the Coloured people in 1961, in that this Bill does not contain as much as they were promised at that time. I agree with those hon. members.

I would like to go back and refer to some of the events which have led up to this Bill that is before us to-day. I believe in dealing with this particular aspect, and perhaps coupling with it the question of the Coloured Representatives in this House, we must touch upon the whole principle of this Bill, and I think that in doing that our criticism will become quite clear and so will the reasons why we cannot support this Bill. If we start at the beginning, we must start at the stage when the Nationalist Party was returned to power. One of the first jobs they set out to achieve was to remove the Coloured people from the common roll. They replaced these rights with four representatives in this House. The reason for the removal of the Coloured peole I think has been made quite clear in the course of this debate by the hon member for Parow who said that the Nationalists were not prepared to have the Coloured people keep them out of this Parliament. I think too that another contributing factor was probably the fact that this Government knew what apartheid measures they were going to apply to the Coloured people, and they knew that having applied those measures, they could never hope to get the support of that group of our South African people. Sir, this representation by four members in this House went on without being much disturbed until 1960. Then following pressures within the Commonwealth, of which we were still a member, upon this Government because of apartheid measures being applied, probably more to the Coloured people than to any other group at that time, what happened? I would remind hon. members on the other side of the fact that at that time the group areas were being implemented and we had Such things as the population register which was being compiled

You are dreaming the population register was long before that timel You better wake up.

When these pressures were being put on the Prime Minister by, possibly, fellow-members which were in the Commonwealth and some of the new members who were emerging and becoming members of the Commonwealth, he obviously decided that it was time to make a change and to dress the shop-window a little bit, so that it would appear that this Government was going to give the Coloured people of South Africa—and I restrict my remarks particularly to them— some sort of new deal. So in 1960, he addressed the Coloured Council, and I would just like to read an extract to the House to show the basic things he promised them at that time. This was recorded in the South African Digest of 15 December 1960—

“The main premise,” said the Prime Minister, “is that the Department of Coloured Affairs should be placed under its own Minister and that it must play an active part in a programme of powerful socioeconomic development. It has also been agreed that representation of the Coloureds in Parliament by White people should remain as it is.

Continuing he said—

That basically is what he promised, and he went on in another part of his address and said—

So that at that stage, Sir, what was the promise to the Coloured people? It was that the Department of Coloured Affairs would be expanded to deal with the problems of the Coloured people and they would be given a measure of local self-government and that they would be represented here in this Parliament by four Coloured representatives. I think we can accept that that basically was the position in 1960. Then time went on and we had the walking out by South Africa of the Commonwealth and then we were faced in 1961 with another problem. Although we had got rid of the Commonwealth, or they had got rid of us, we had lost friends who had protected us. So instead of being subject to Commonwealth pressure to change our policy and our direction, we were now becoming subject to world pressures. So in 1961, the hon. the Prime Minister thought fit to make another statement to this same Coloured Council, a statement that extends their powers, makes the position look better. And he did it for a particular reason which he told the council at the time. He did it to appease world opinion from where the pressure was coming at that time. This is what he said—

In other words, this solution, this new policy that he was putting to them in 1961, was a policy designed to satisfy world opinion, and the hon. the Prime Minister believed that he had to go further than he went in his 1960 statement. This is what he said—I quote again from the Digest, although quite honestly it has not printed the statement in full. I quote from the Digest, of 8 January 1962—

Then he went on, and I hope to quote this to make the position quite clear—

You will notice, Sir, that it has now lost its main position of developing the Coloured people. It would now be a bridge—

That is quite clear. So from 1960 to 1961 the position had changed from the Department of Coloured Affairs with four representatives here and local self-government to a Coloured parliament with full powers within ten years. In other words, managing their own affairs. The Afrikaans version, I think, makes that very much clearer. It says this: “Binne vyf jaar behoort ver gevorder te wees met die konstruksie van die raamwerk vir die oorname en binne tien jaar moet al die beheer in Kleurlinghande wees.” That is quite clear. “All the control must be in the hands of the Coloured people in ten years from 1961.” The Prime Minister told them too that he was in a hurry, that he wanted them to get this done for the reason that he wanted to satisfy world opinion. So you had these two positions.

In the debate to-day the opinion has been expressed, and I repeat it, that the Prime Minister did not keep his promise to the Coloured people in 1961 in the introduction of this Bill, that it has not given them the powers which he promised them in 1961. I must agree with that. This Bill before us to-day is not designed to implement the promise given in 1961. It is designed to appear to implement those promises, but the underlying policy is obviously that contained in the Prime Minister’s 1960 statement when he was only going to give these people a certain measure of local self-government, and where the Department of Coloured Affairs was going to hold the reins and develop the Coloured people under this Minister of Coloured Affairs. I would like to say in passing that in the 1961 statement there was no indication whatsoever from the hon. the Prime Minister that four Coloured Representatives would be necessary in this House. On the contrary, the very way in which the hon. the Prime Minister has put the means of consultation, makes it quite obvious that under that 1961 policy the four Coloured Representatives in this House would be quite unnecessary. But we have had to-day from the other side of this House one promise after the other, one assurance after the other that the Coloured Representatives wil remain in this House. Why have we suddenly had this spate of promises?

What are they worth?

I do not think it really matters. I think the underlying factor is that only under the 1960 policy and the reversion to that could the promise be made that the Coloured Representatives would remain in this House. I don’t believe that under the ’61 policy the assurances which have been so readily coming from that side of the House are of great significance. You see, Sir, I believe that the renewed assurance that the Coloured Representatives will remain in this House and the shortcomings in this Bill as compared with the undertakings and the principle of self-government which was promised in 1960, show in my opinion that the Prime Minister has not only gone back on his word to the Coloured people in 1961, but he has made a change of policy since he made that statement in 1961. In 1961, you will remember, he was in a great hurry to implement this policy and to get the Coloured people into a state of organization where he could hand over to them full control of their own affairs in ten years. Here, some three years later, we have a Bill presented in this House to show that he is prepared to implement some promises, but that Bill is a combination of the two. Gone is the wild promise contained in the 1961 statement, this haste to bring them to the full stage of self-government within ten years. That has all disappeared. This Bill does not reflect that haste. The hon. Minister in his introductory speech told us that at the very earliest by the end of 1966, we can create the machinery to implement this Bill. After that, these people have to be led to development. So when is this going to take place? When are they going to get control over their own affairs? So the very contents of this Bill are not encouraging to those who wish to see this policy and these promises implemented to the full. But why has he changed his policy? I cannot give you the answer to that. I believe that there are people within his own party who have had new thoughts, or who are rethinking the whole approach of the Government to the Coloured people, and in the meantime, obviously, I should say. the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister are in a quandary as to what to do. Because if they go on with the implementation of the 1961 promises, what must the end-point be? It must be that the Coloured people will then be set undeniably on the road to full self-government. This Bill does not set them on the road to full self-government, and I think everybody in this House knows it, including members on the Government benches. So the truth is there, the indication is in this Bill—I do not need to give it as an opinion—that this hon. Minister has changed his policy again since he made the promise to the Coloured people in 1961. What has he changed it for? Has he gone forward again as he did from 1960 to 1961? No, he has gone backwards from the improved policy for the Coloured people in 1961 to the harsher policy of 1960 in which there was little or no hope of the Coloured people attaining full self-government in ten years. What has he chosen? The Prime Minister has changed his policy and he has gone backwards and he has chosen, in going backwards, the road of isolation and baasskap apartheid. That is the indication which this Bill now before us gives, and it must give people who have studied all the events leading up to the laying on the Table of this House of this measure to implement in some way or other to some degree, the definite impression that this falls far short of the promises to the Coloured people in 1961.

Is there any wonder that we on this side of the House reject this Bill in to to! Perhaps the points I have made, and I believe I am right, might well be explained by the hon. Minister’s rejection of the idea of a joint Select Committee. When the hon. Minister introduced this Bill, he left us with the impression that this Bill was the result of consultation and presentation of all the subject matter contained in this Bill to the existing Coloured Council. That is the impression I gained and I still hold. It was the impression of members that I have spoken to in this House, and I think that I am perfectly justified in saying that that was the impression that was left with members of this House. But here we find in one respect something that I think we must look into a bit. You know, Sir, this Minister ran away from the question of a joint Select Committee, and I believe he ran away from it because in the joint Select Committee is contained the power which can make a Bill of this nature of any use whatsoever to the Coloured community. As far as I know the Coloured Council was consulted on parts of this Bill. I believe that during 1963, some 16 items contained in this Bill were referred to them for an expression of opinion. They did give their opinion and they accepted those 16 items which are embodied in this Bill. But one of the problems with which they were faced was the problem of how to implement the legislation and the wishes of that council. You see, Sir, these people in considering this Bill knew that they could not under any circumstances hope to usurp the powers of this Parliament which is supreme, and any legislation which they might wish to bring in or which they might like to consider would not have the force of law, without having the approval of this Parliament. They discussed this matter, and they discussed it with the man who I understand was their legal adviser, namely the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Adv. Nel). They chose him and I am not criticizing the fact that he was their legal adviser, and to the best of my knowledge they were quite satisfied with his handling of the affairs which they put before him. But when they were discussing this particular problem, this hon. member in his capacity as their advocate, made the suggestion to them that they should ask for a permanent Select Committee of this Parliament to which the Council could direct its requests and via that medium have them translated into legislation. They decided to do this and they submitted it to the hon. Minister. The Minister did not go back and consult them in any further way. He entirely ignored this request. He took no notice at all, and instead of implementing this particular clause, he introduced into this Bill powers which direct all legislation through this hon. Minister. In other words, that very act makes sure that the powers given to this Council are not worth the paper on which this Bill is printed, because only measures or consultations which this hon. Minister wants to originate or see translated into legislation can possibly go through. I (think this is further proof that the intention in this legislation was the intention conveyed to the Council by the hon. the Prime Minister in 1960 and not ’61.

Further, I want to bring to the notice of this House the fact that this existing Coloured Council were not given copies of this Bill to read before it was presented to this House, but the day before it was read here a first time this Bill was read to the members of the Council; it was not made available to them, but it was read to them. They had little or no hope of then formulating an opinion on the contents of the Bill, whether it was acceptable or not. But later on, after it had been tabled in this House and they had obtained copies of the Bill, they had a meeting and passed a resolution objecting to certain clauses of the Bill. The hon. the Minister has not told us this. They passed a resolution which they submitted to the Minister, objecting to certain clauses. [Interjections.]

Did you see the reply I gave to the hon. member for Houghton on her question last Friday?

I heard the reply, yes, but I am still telling him what the facts are and I will stand by these facts, and the Minister can reply to the debate and correct me if I am wrong. What has he done about this? To the best of my knowledge, he has done nothing; he refused, as we have heard in this debate, to receive a deputation to discuss these matters.

That is not true.

It was said in this debate, and the Minister can reply to it. But what is the position? This Bill was not made readily available when it could have been made available to this Council. The hon. the Prime Minister chose to make policy statements to this Council when it suited him to do so, when he wanted to dress the shop-window to appease the Commonwealth. Why could not this Minister, in regard to this important matter which is going to affect the whole future of the Coloured community, have gone to this Council in a straightforward manner, and why could he not give them adequate opportunity to discuss this Bill among themselves, and to make proper recommendations? So you see, Sir, that this Bill does not come to this House in the smooth manner in which the Minister has presented it to us, and one of the things which worry me is the witch-hunt which will probably go on if my guess is correct, about this flouting of the Minister’s wishes. I feel quite sorry for some of the members of this Council. So I say that this Bill is quite unacceptable to this side of the House. It does not implement the promises made by the Prime Minister in 1961. It is a mixture of the two. The main object of mixing the two promises, of 1960 and 1961, is to remove all power from this Council to govern themselves as the Prime Minister promised they could, and the Afrikaans copy of the Bill makes that much more clear than this Digest does. So we on this side cannot accept this Bill. We believe this Bill constitutes another change in policy and in direction on the part of the Prime Minister in regard to the Coloured people. We believe, too, that the truth of this lies in his change of policy in other directions. Is he pushing on with Bantustans? Can we get a reply from that side of the House as to when the next Bantustan will be established? Of course not. It seems to have come to a fullstop, just as the Coloured development has come to a fullstop. We cannot support this Bill, because in his change of policy the Prime Minister, aided and abetted by this Minister, has returned to the old, hard policy of “baasskap” apartheid which is anathema to this side of the House.

The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) did not really express new views or advance new arguments. The arguments he advanced have been replied to over and over again. I just want to refer to the accusation he made against the hon. the Prime Minister that he did not keep the promise he made in 1961 in the speech he made before the Union Council for Coloured Affairs on 12 December 1961. I want to tell the hon. member that is not so. The broad principles are still precisely the same. He said: “The Prime Minister has made a change of policy, a change of direction.” That is not so. Precisely the same principles expounded in that speech are contained in this Bill.

I want to refer to an aspect mentioned by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais), and also by the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland). It refers to that affair at Beaufort West. I am glad that the hon. leader of the United Party in the Cape Province is in the Chamber now. On that occasion he—and he must tell me if I am doing him an injustice—as leader of the United Party in the Cape promised the Coloureds who were present there, who were transported there, to nominate a person as the Provincial Councillor for the Karoo constituency, that he would raise the matter at the next Union Congress of the United Party, when the Coloureds asked him why they could not become members of the United Party.

I did not make such a promise.

Well, it is just as well that the hon. member did not make that promise, because the same thing would have happened to that promise as happened in regard to all the other election promises made by the United Party in former years.

The United Party accuses the Government of causing estrangement between the Whites and the Coloureds, but let me just relate briefly how they themselves have caused estrangement in their party. Originally Coloureds could be come members of the United Party. I think that after 1933 no more new members could join the United Party, but those who were members could remain members of the United Party. They have always had membership, together with other members of the United Party, in certain branches. On the occasion of a congress of the United Party in Worcester it was decided, approximately towards the end of the 1930’s, that where Coloureds were still members of the United Party they should belong to separate branches.

Can they become members of the Nationalist Party?

That is not relevant now. The United Party then decided that they could remain members, but in separate branches. At the congress held in Port Elizabeth towards the end of 1939 a group of Coloureds who were delegated by the various Coloured branches also attended the congress, but the Executive of the United Party decided that they could not attend, and in order to satisfy those people the United Party told them that they could hold a separate congress, and that was the last that was ever heard of it. That separate congress for the Coloured members of the United Party was never held. I just want to point out how the relations towards the Coloureds really degenerated in that party.

I want to refer to something which the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) said. He said that the relations between Whites and Coloureds had never been better anywhere than in the Cape Province and Natal where the Coloureds were on the common voters’ roll. Sir, a common voters’ roll cannot improve or worsen a relationship. The hon. member also referred to the Transvaal and I asked him by way of interjection what he really knew about the Coloureds in the Transvaal. I can tell him that the co-operation between Whites and Coloureds in the Transvaal is harmonious, and I am really referring to Pretoria where for years I was the chairman of the non-White Affairs Committee of the City Council. The Coloureds are a law-abiding group who are very co-operative, particularly with the officials of the City Council.

We know that the United Party is in a tremendous dilemma in regard to this legislation. We know it is the policy of the United Party, if they come into power, again to put back on the Common Roll the Coloureds who are on the Voters’ Roll. We have often asked the question here as to who will be put back on the Common Roll. We know it is only the Coloured men who were formerly on that roll and who were subject to qualification. It appears that only the Coloured men of the Cape Province and Natal will be given that privilege. We have pointed out that this is discrimination because the Coloureds in the Transvaal and the Free State will not be on that roll, but acording to the United Party policy they will be allowed to vote for Senators. That portion of the policy of the United Party reads as follows—

That is on page 7 of the United Party pamphlet. Mention is made here of a separate voters’ roll. It is very interesting to us, and one would like to know what franchise qualifications the Coloureds must have to be placed on the separate voters’ roll. We have not been told that yet. I want to say that the Coloureds of the Transvaal and the Free State on an average are at a higher level of development and have a higher economic level than the Coloureds in the Cape Province, and I want to support that by saying that they mainly live in the urban areas and work there, whereas the Coloureds in the Cape, particularly those in the rural areas, are poor and are not on an average as highly developed as those in the Western Province. The Coloureds in the Transvaal will not be granted the right also to be on the Common Roll. It is peculiar to me that the Coloureds of the Transvaal and the Free State, with their qualifications, will have the right to vote for a Senator only but not for a member of Parliament. Does the United Party now discriminate between the status of a member of Parliament and that of a Senator?

If the Coloureds come into this House, the Opposition wants to integrate them politically, and I want to tell the Opposition that one cannot limit integration to politics alone. The Coloureds will be integrated politically and then they will further be integrated socially. The next step will be biological integration, and I want to ask how the United Party will prevent biological integration?

Does Willem van Heerden of Dagbreek then talk nonsense?

Separate development has brought economic salvation to the Coloureds. The implementation of the Group Areas Act was the first step in the direction of the socioeconomic upliftment of the Coloureds as a group. The National Party believes in group areas and their implementation, where people of the same sort live together. The United Party does not believe in it, nor does it believe in community development. It wants to keep the Coloured families isolated in the White areas, so that they can be exploited for political purposes. How can Coloured leaders with the right spirit serve their community if that community lives in widely scattered areas? The implementation of the Group Areas Act has a positive effect, because scattered groups of Coloureds are concentrated in the same residential area. That has resulted in co-ordination and mutual co-operation, in a better understanding of each other’s problems, and in the fact that the Coloureds have also shown confidence in each other; also in the fact that they do not want to help themselves only, but their fellowmen as well. That has led to self-sacrifice and service and altruism. The greatest mistake in the past was that the more developed and financially strong Coloureds who regarded themselves as Coloured leaders, whether in the words of the hon. member for Karoo they were “self-apipointed” or genuine leaders, became snobbish, and tried to seek their salvation amongst the Whites. They did everything in their power, for the sake of their own prestige, to break through the colour barrier. The expression “try for White”, was the ideal of many of them, and they neglected to care for the interests of their own people as leaders.

But can we condemn this tendency on the part of the Coloured leaders if it is continually stimulated by the United Party, the Progressives and the Liberal Party and the Press? Still recently, when the Cape Town City Council discussed the establishment of management committees for the Coloured areas under the jurisdiction of the City Council, and voted against it with a large majority, one of the White members of the City Council said this—

Who said that?

It was Mr. G. E. Ferry. I did not say that he was a member of the United Party. I said that the desire of the Coloured to break through to the Whites was being stimulated, and I do not know whether Mr. Ferry is a member of the United Party or of the Progressive Party, but that is what he said.

There are people in the United Party who are continually stimulating this desire on the part of the Coloureds, and I should like to ask them on what basis they want to integrate these people? Do they want to integrate them on the basis of their development or financial status? Many of the Coloureds have social status as the result of their financial stability. Do they want to integrate them on the basis of colour, or on what other basis?

The question is: How can the Coloureds as a group progress if they are deserted by their leaders and are pushed into the social and economic desert? What positive result and advantage did the so-called equal rights give to the Coloureds for more than 100 years while they were on the Common Roll? The result is that more than 80 per cent of them are still poor to-day and have been deserted by privileged leaders who look after heir own interests only, because those leaders shirk their responsibilities. We have heard here of opportunities which should be created for them, and that is what the National Party wants to do. It wants to create opportunities for these people.

Hon. members have asked what the National Party has done? I am going to mention one aspect only, in conclusion. I have referred to socio-economic upliftment. The best proof of it is what the Government has done in respect of housing. When the National Party came into power it tackled a tremendous task in trying to provide housing to relieve the shortage of houses, and it succeeded. From 1920 to 1948 only about 20,000 houses were built for the Coloureds. I may just say that a sociological investigation was made of the housing shortage for Coloureds in 1950 and it was then found that there was a shortage of 12,000 houses for Coloureds just in the Peninsula alone. Since the National Party came into power and up to 31 March 1963 it built almost 40,000 houses for Coloureds by means of the various housing schemes. This is a practical example of what this Government has done, a Government which does not want to exploit the Coloured politically but wants to uplift him. This side of the House not only supports the legislation before us but welcomes it, because its object is to uplift the Coloureds and gradually to emancipate them.

We have heard many pious expressions such as those with which the hon. member who has just sat down concluded his speech, but it is perfectly obvious from the debate which has just taken place that very few hon. members opposite were prepared to debate the merits of this Bill. Right throughout they have sought to draw red herrings across the trail because I am sure many of them feel extremely unhappy about the provisions of this Bill which are not in accordance with the assurances given to the Coloureds by the hon. the Prime Minister. In the light of that, the hon. members have sought to turn this into a debate on the policy of the United Party, which is not in issue in this debate, and consequently I do not propose to deal with it.

The issue before this House is this Bill which is part of a pattern which this Government is following. I want to deal with just one point which was raised earlier this evening, a completely incorrect statement by the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter) in respect of the 1946 legislation, and I do so for record purposes so that we will not have the misstatement made by that hon. member repeated again at the hustings. The claim that he made was that the 1946 Act in respect of Indian representation ignored the existence of the entrenched clauses; that it was passed while those clauses applied fully, and that the Bill had not been passed by a two-thirds majority. Sir, he is of course entirely wrong. The 1946 Act provided in Section 43 that every male Indian who had the qualifications set out in the section shall upon application in the form and manner prescribed by regulation be entitled to be registered as a voter in terms of the provisions of that Act. I stress the fact that he became entitled to registration in terms of this provision only upon application, and the application, as we know, is one that must be made by the person concerned in writing. Clause 64 of the Bill, to which the hon. member referred, provided that the Minister must prepare a list of persons who are entitled to vote under this chapter. It is quite clear from what I have said that they could only be registered and be entitled to vote if they had made application, and consequently it was a voluntary act of the persons concerned whether they remained registered as they were before, or whether they transferred their registration in terms of this provision. I believe there were two Indians affected. Clause 3 says that as from a certain date the names of all persons who are entitled to have their names included in any such list shall be removed from every other list of persons qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Assembly. But I have already said that before they were entitled to register as voters, or as this clause puts it, entitled to have their names included in the list, they themselves in terms of Section 43 had to make a written application, and accordingly it was left in the hands of the person concerned whether he made application or not. If he did, he would have gone on to the Indian roll, and if he did not he would have retained the rights reserved for him as the result of the old legislation applicable in Natal, which was restricted up to that time and was also restricted in terms of this Bill. That is the clear legal position and hon. members cannot get away from it, but I do not propose to deal with it further.

I wish to come to a question, the note on which the last speaker ended his speech. He referred to the fact that we would, through proper steps, have the Coloured people with us in this country. Sir, it is the earnest wish of this side of the House that we shall have them with us, and I would like to refer to the Assembly debates of 27 June 1963, Col. 9031, where the hon. the Minister of Finance said this—

Then my hon. Leader interjected—

And the Minister of Finance said—

It is very interesting that the Minister qualified this by saying provided there were 5,000,000 hearts beating as one. But I say that when we have an example such as this, where after having made wide promises the Government comes with a Bill of this nature, it is true with provisions which may be brought in later, and by continuing this policy which hon. members opposite know is anathema to the Coloured people, this Government is alienating the support which the Whites in South Africa have been privileged to have from the Coloureds throughout. We, so far from sinking to doing some of the things which hon. members opposite have charged us with, have taken the attitude we have adopted on the Bill because we believe that it is essential in the interests of South Africa and of the future of the White man here that we should realize that here is a group of people who, arising from one of the accidents of history, share the White man’s traditions and language, and there is nothing that they want more than for that fact to be recognized and that they should play their part in the way General Hertzog put it, as an appendage of the Whites, with the White man in the defence of this country.