I move the amendment as printed on the Order Papey in my name—

During the second reading we made it clear that it was our standpoint in principle that there should be growing co-operation between the Coloureds and the Whites in the existing legislative bodies of the country. That standpoint has been rejected by the Government, and instead a representative Coloured council is now being established. Clause 1 provides for the nature and the size of this representative Coloured council, and we believe that until such time as a different and better dispensation is created for the Coloureds, this House should be used as effectively as possible as a mouthpiece for them. But if this is to be a representative council we feel that it should really be representative of the feelings of the Coloureds and that it should be able to speak effectively on their behalf. And the best way of establishing such a council is to get a council which has proved that it is really representative. There can really be only one sound yardstick for determining that, and that is that it should have stood the test of an election where the voters could say: This is the man whom I want to speak on my behalf, and not that one. Clause 1 provides for a council consisting of 46 members, but only 30 members will be elected and 16 will be nominated by the Government. Our obiections to this arrangement are, inter alia, the following: We want all 46 members to be elected by the Coloureds themselves. If there are to be any nominated members at all, then 16 nominated members out of 46 is far too high a percentage—it is more than one-third. We feel that if more than a third of the members of this representative council are to be nominated by the Government it will weaken the whole character of that council. That is our first objection.

Our second objection is this. The hon. the member is always concerned with the concept of the balance of power. What do we have here? If ever there is to be a group in a council which holds the balance of power, it will be these 16 members, because in any case where there is a difference of opinion these 16 will have the deciding vote. We feel that this will lower the standard of the resolutions of this council. A third objection is that it will create two classes of members within this council. The one class, the elected members, will involuntarily regard itself as consisting of the first-class members, because they will feel that they are there to represent the people who sent them there. The others will be regarded as second-class members, members who are not really representative of the Coloureds and who will bear the stamp of being the Government’s “yes-men”. We know the kind of accusation made in bodies where there are nominated members. One finds it even in White bodies. Just when a nominated member gets up, the accusation comes from the other side: Whom do you represent? Here, where in addition we are also dealing with a body constituted on a racial basis, it is so much more dangerous to have a number of members who are put there by a different racial group. In such a body, more than in any other, one should not have nominated members. It will inevitably create an unpleasant atmosphere in the council. I go so far as to say that the nominated members will even be in an unfavourable position as against the others. Such a set-up will necessarily create unnecessary friction in the council.

Another important objection we have is this: It makes the constituencies unnecessarily large. We have 160 members in this House and we know how large many of our constituencies are and how difficult it is for many members, with all their privileges, to represent those large constituencies. The Coloureds are now given 46 members, but they will have only 30 constituencies for the whole of the Republic. Generally speaking, they are not rich people; they will not draw large salaries. It will be an impossible task for them to handle 30 constituencies covering the whole of the Republic. And if there is one section of the population which urgently needs the personal attention of their representatives, it is the Coloureds. So in addition to all the disadvantages of this arrangement, it will have the harmful defect that the constituencies will be unnecessarily large. It would be much better, viewed from the angle of the actual representation and the efficiency of the council, to have 46 constituencies and 46 elected members on this council.

Further, I do not think this depicts the Government in a good light. It shows a lack of confidence in the Coloureds. The Government says: Here I give you something “big”, but I do not have enough confidence in you to allow you to elect all your members. More than a third will be nominated by the Government. I know the Minister can advance reasons for doing so. I can also give examples of other bodies where there are nominated members. There is, e.g., the Senate. But it is no argument to say that because other bodies have nominated members, such members must also serve on this type of body. The Senate has been mentioned, but the Whites have 160 elected representatives in the House of Assembly; that is quite a different situation. In this case all the sound arguments are against it. Where we are now giving the Coloureds a representative body, let us make it as representative as possible so that the people can feel: Here speaks a body which is actually elected by the Coloureds and which is really representative of the will and the wishes of the Coloured community.

That is why we move this amendment to the effect that all 46 members will be elected members.

This clause purports to establish this new representative council. It would appear to me that this is the basic object of this Bill. My attitude towards this Bill was made perfectly clear in the second reading and I do not propose to reiterate anything I said there. I have already indicated my total opposition to this Bill. In view, however, of the fact that this clause has this basic object of establishing this representative council I feel one owes a duty to the Coloured people in the sense that it is necessary for us to try to bring about such improvements to this Bill as are possible and it is for that reason, and that reason only, that we intend participating in the debate in Committee. We feel it our duty to effect such improvements in the interests of the Coloured people who will be called upon to serve on this new council. It is in that spirit that I rise to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson).

What is the Government’s intention in regard to this representative council? Surely the Government intends to establish a council which will be truly representative of the Coloured people of this country and which will carry with it the confidence and respect of those people. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he might give very careful consideration, if those are the objects of the Government, to the suggestion that the nominated councillors should be as few as possible, that there should be a truly representative council representing the views by and large of the Coloured people. If that is the intention of the Government I suggest that the hon. the Minister should be prepared to give very favourable consideration to the proposal that all the members of this council should be elected by popular vote from among the Coloured people themselves.

The hon. the Minister and other speakers on the Government side have indicated during the course of the previous debate that the members of the existing council, the Union Council of Coloured Affairs, have been stigmatized as “stooges of the Government”. We want to try to avoid that. How did that come about, Mr. Chairman? In the present council there are 27 members of whom only 12 are elected by popular vote; 16 being nominated by the Government. It is for that reason that these unfortunate gentlemen have acquired this appellation of being stooges of the Government. If the hon. the Minister wishes to discontinue that stigma I suggest to him that he gives serious consideration to allowing the entire council to be elected by popular vote. There is no doubt about it, Sir, that the nominated councillor in any council will always retain the appellation of being a stooge of the Government by the Coloured people. We must try to avoid that. After all, we are trying to bring about what is likely to remain a permanent part of the legislation of this country; we are trying to establish a council which will enjoy the respect and esteem of the Coloured people as a whole. I suggest that nothing will achieve that object more than allowing the Coloured people, in the full exercise of their democratic rights, to elect whom they want on to this council. I urge the hon. the Minister to give very favourable consideration to this suggestion. If the hon. Minister is not disposed to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout I shall, in due course, move an amendment along the lines indicated on the Order Paper. But before I move it, Sir, I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister what his reaction is to the proposal that all the members of the council, in the interests of the Coloured people, should be elected by the free vote of the Coloured people. I shall therefore, at this stage, abstain from moving the amendment standing in my name.

In their attitude towards this legislation the United Party is once again showing how inconsistent they are. I just want to remind you, Mr. Chairman, that in the case of the Bantu legislation the United Party moved an amendment that the Bill should be read to-day six months. On that occasion they put up a fight to the bitter end. They did not move any amendments to those 101 clauses. In the case of the Bill we have had the same amendment but they are so inconsistent that they are moving various amendments.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) advanced the argument that because various members were nominated you would create a class distinction. We have an example of a body on which there are elected and nominated members in the Other Place. So far I have never heard it argued that there was a class distinction in the Other Place. On the contrary in a previous Senate under the United Party régime one of the nominated members, namely, the late F. S. Malan, was the President. To-day two of the nominated members in the Other Place are the President and the Chairman of Committees. It works very well in that body and in this regard the Other Place serves its purpose for the very reason that in that way we get excellent men, men who have been left out, on that body.

The fact of the matter is that the Coloureds on the existing Coloured council want it that way themselves. There are more nominated than elected members on the existing council and it is generally admitted that that council has functioned well. It has functioned well and served its purpose for the very reason that capable people serve on it because they have been nominated to it. As I have said, the Coloureds themselves want it this way. I can understand why they want it that way. I can understand why the existing council want it that way. The Coloureds have no experience of elections. [Laughter.] A very small percentage have in the past gained experience but the broad masses of the Coloured people have no experience of elections whatsoever. The Coloureds in the other provinces have no experience of elections. You can well imagine, Sir, what will happen to the council in such a case and the Coloureds realize that only too well. Whites and White political parties are not going to refrain from poking their noses into the elections of the Coloureds. There are people in this country who will see to it that that council is packed by agitators. The Coloureds are sufficiently wise to realize that and they do not want that to happen. That is why they are prepared at this stage to accept a number of nominated members because the Coloureds do not intend this step of the Government’s to fail. They want it to be a success. The Opposition are very anxious for it to fail. The Coloured people do not want that. They have become wise to the fact that they have derived many benefits from the steps taken by this Government and that is why they are prepared to accept this suggestion. As a matter of fact the suggestion comes from them.

We have now heard an argument which I never thought would be heard in a representative Parliament. We are told that because we said we rejected this Bill, we should not move amendments in the Committee Stage! That was the suggestion made by the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden). Surely we are not going to sink to such depths of absurdity by adopting a suggestion of that kind. We are very much in earnest about these amendments and they are very important. When we consider this new advisory body we must have in mind what we mean by “advisory”. They are there to represent the views of the Coloured people of South Africa. We want to hear their views and I am sure the hon. the Minister wants to hear their views. If the council is going to have a large number of nominated members they will give the kind of advice that was indicated by the hon. member for Cres (Mr. S. L. Muller) during the second reading. He said when you get advice you should get the kind of advice you like to have and, therefore, he said, the provision in the Bill that advice was to be given by invitation was a very sound one. That was his argument. The man who gives you the kind of advice you like to have is not an adviser; he is a sycophant. What will happen in this case is this: There will be two groups of people, the one group representing the people and the other group, at the worst, will be sycophants—“stooges” as they have been called. At the best they will be called “the Minister’s men” and the others will be “the people’s men”. That is a struggle that has taken place right through the constitutional development of the last 1,000 years—“the Minister’s men”, “the King’s men” as they were called, and the “people’s men”. This has led to civil war, as history teaches us. What we want in this case, and what I am sure the Minister wants, are representatives of the Coloured people.

An argument was used in the second reading that these Coloured people had not reached the stage of development where they could tender advice intelligently. Sir, they have reached such a high stage of development that the hon. the Minister of Labour has to have legislation to keep them out of competition; he has job reservation because the Coloured man may be a better man. That is obviously the reason. This argument that they should be Minister’s men is very much like the darkest page in the constitutional history of our country, the enlarged Senate. We are now to have an enlarged advisory body. If the hon. the Minister wishes to be advised by the Coloured people let him be advised by representatives of the Coloured people.

I do not want to reiterate the arguments already advanced but I want to ask the hon. the Minister a few more questions before he replies. I want to ask him to remember what happened in the case of the Transkei elections. The voice of the people was stilled and nullified by the voice of the Government because the nominated members made it impossible for the elected members to be the head of the Government. And I think that might happen in this case.

What about the South West African Coloureds? Or has the Minister not yet received his instructions from the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to the Odendaal Report? If the White people of South West Africa are represented …

Order! South West Africa is not under discussion. The hon. member must confine himself to this clause.

I am referring to the Coloured people’s representative council of the Republic of South Africa. I want the Minister to tell me so that I can tell the Coloured people of South West Africa who come to us …

You are not the representative of the Coloured people of South West Africa.

I think it is most important that the hon. the Minister make a statement as to what is going to happen to the Coloured people of South West Africa.

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

I shall wait for the reply, Sir.

The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) has stated that the Coloureds in the northern provinces are not sufficiently mature to vote. A Free State councillor, Mr. Saunders, was the one who said the franchise should not be extended to the Free State because the Coloureds there had never as yet exercised the vote and that they should first be trained in that direction. Here I have his words—

But apart from that, Mr. Chairman, this is the suggestion of the existing council. We cannot meddle with this Bill; it is their wish that the council should be constituted in this way. The hon. Minister or Parliament cannot now interfere with their wishes. Apart from that, which of the suggestions put forward must be accepted? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) wants 46 elected members; the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) wants 40 elected and 16 nominated members; the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) wants 30 elected and no nominated members. Each one produced a number of figures and which set of figures is the right one? There are three different suggestions and then we have the one in the Bill. That means we have four suggestions. Which is the right one? If everyone juggles with figures what will be the end of this Bill? In these circumstances the Minister and this House cannot meddle with this clause.

The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) said we had a precedent in the Other Place of where there were nominated members. I think the best example with which this council can be compared is the provincial council. This council is not a parliament; at the most it is merely a provincial council. Are there any nominated members on the provincial council? If we are really anxious to promote the interests of the Coloureds I cannot see how we can have nominated members on this council. The hon. member said many Coloureds did not have experience of elections. If that is his argument is he going to find Coloureds with experience of elections to nominate? Where will he find them? The hon. member for Malmesbury should know more about the Coloureds than that. In the past the Coloureds in the Cape Province have taken part in elections for the city council for example. They have representatives on school boards and in the provincial council. How can the hon. member say the Coloureds have no experience of elections?

If we really wish this council to be of any significance, if we wish to gain the confidence of the Coloureds, if we wish to make this council as representative as possible, I think there is only one way in which we can do so and that is to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

I first want to refer to what the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) has said, namely, that there are 12 elected and 18 nominated members on the existing council and that it is now suggested changing that ratio completely because the number of elected members is to be increased considerably and that that is a big improvement. The argument has been used that if the Government were to reserve the right to nominate a number of members people outside will say, as has been said in connection with the existing council, they are “stooges” of the Government. What is so wrong with it if a Coloured person supports the Government? Is there anything wrong with it if a Coloured person supports the Opposition? If there is a strong minority who is not represented why can the Government not see to it that they are represented? The strong minority in South Africa is represented in this House.

The principle of nominated members has been accepted in the Senate. Since Union the position in the Senate has been that a number of members are nominated and are they “stooges”? Was a person like the late Senator Conroy who was a Cabinet Minister, a “stooge” of the then Government?

You are now dragging a red herring across the floor.

No, it is not a red herring. He was a nominated member of the then Government. In the first place there is an improvement as far as the elected members are concerned. In the second place there is nothing wrong with a Government retaining the right to nominate people. In the third place, when the then Government composed the first advisory board in South Africa, it nominated all the members. All the members of the Lawrence Board were nominated. And, of course, they were not “stooges”. All the members of the board appointed by Mr. Lawrence were nominated.

He did not call it a parliament.

Exactly; that is why we are not nominating every one; that is why we allow the majority to be elected. I visualize a situation where these 30 members will be elected and where certain important groups of the Coloured people will not be represented. By nominating members the object is to ensure that that which has been overlooked at the election will be remedied. Hon. members can attack me personally and try to arouse suspicion, that does not matter. But the way in which the Government appointed the Education Advisory Board last year proved that we were not looking for “stooges” but that we were trying to appoint the most capable people from within the ranks of the Coloured people. [Interjections.] Be reasonable; do not sit and shout; be reasonable when I argue.

Who are the best people?

The hon. member can try to arouse as much suspicion as he likes but if he looks at the board we have already appointed, namely the Education Advisory Board, he will realize that we have selected the most capable men from amongst the Coloured people. In other words, when nominating people we have proved by our acts that we nominate those who will look after the interests of the Coloureds.

But do they not elect the best people?

Not always. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) rightly said this suggestion came from the Coloured council. Here I have the memorandum submitted by the council shortly after I had met them for the first time. This was submitted to the Cabinet and I just want to quote a short passage from this memorandum in connection with this matter. I met the council on 26 June 1962 and I put the following question to them—

Those were the questions I put to them. The committee which consists of the executive committee with two co-opted members appointed to frame the resolution replied as follows—

Your committee also has had regard to the fact that the existing council consists of 27 members, constitued as follows:

In other words, the existing council came to this conclusion after very proper consideration and with due regard to the population figures and how they were distributed over the country. In the first place they had regard to the fact that there was a definite ratio between the provinces and in the second place they had regard to the fact that the Coloured community was mainly concentrated in certain areas. Therefore the argument that because the Whites are represented in a certain way the Coloureds should likewise be represented does not hold water because the Coloureds are not distributed over the country in the same way the Whites are. To give an example: There are few White people in the Cape Province in comparison with the other provinces but there are many more Coloureds in the Cape Province than in the other provinces. Regard was therefore had to the distribution of the Coloured population over the provinces. Secondly, according to this memorandum, regard was had to the concentration in the urban areas. But regard was also had to minority groups. Hon. members on the other side now suggest that as far as the Griquas and the Malays are concerned their interests should be completely ignored.

No.

Of course, because they are minority groups. What hope have they, as minority groups, of getting four elected members?

Dr. Abdurahman was a member of the provincial council.

That has always been the spirit of our legislation. [Interjections.] If hon. members do not want to listen to my reply I shall not carry on.

The hon. Minister has propounded a new principle in the representation of minority groups. I cannot follow him. Does he mean to say that because there is a minority group that group shall be represented in any legislative assembly, and should they be represented as separate groups and not as a total of elected people? Would he go so far as to say that minority groups, no matter who they are, shall be represented in this House as well, by nomination? Would he go so far as to say that because there happens to be a liberal group of considerable size outside this House that he would be prepared to nominate members from that group to sit in this House? Is that what he means? Because that is what he said, and what we on this side of the House understood him to say. It is obvious to us who listened to the hon. Minister and to other hon. members on that side that no reason has as yet been given why there should be any nominated people on this representative council. The hon. Minister has got no confidence in his own party. He knows full well that he cannot get people elected to that council fairly and squarely. So he is going to nominate them. He is going to bring them in through the back door. What are these people going to do there? These people are going to be paid people. They are going to act almost as paid officials. His master’s voice will be heard in this representative council. The hon. Minister will pay the piper and he will call the tune. If he requires a watchdog in this council, if it is necessary for the voice of the Government to be heard in this council, is it not sufficient that he himself has taken the right to sit in this council and to discuss matters? Is it not sufficient that he can have a representative of his own choosing to sit in this council and take part in the discussions? Is that not sufficient for him? What more does he want? Has he not got confidence in himself to change the opinions of the elected people? Why must he have in addition to himself another 16 nominated people? There is no reason for this. And if he has got 16 nominated people of his own choosing, on what grounds is he going to choose them? What are the qualifications going to be of these nominated people? He is going to pick people who are going to express his own opinion, and if they do not express his own opinion, he will either not choose them, or he will get rid of them. That is the whole crux of the matter. He cannot have confidence in the Coloured people to elect their own people. He cannot have confidence in the Coloured people to run their own affairs. He has said over and over again that they are not qualified enough to guide themselves even in this lowly type of council. Even here he has not got confidence in those people. It is no good the hon. Minister with one voice saying that they are quite capable of looking after their own affairs, and in another voice to say that they need guidance and that they will continue to need guidance. This sort of thing is what the outside people see, and that makes a laughing stock of this Bill. It means very little. At most it means that in this council the hon. Minister will sit there, he will direct, he will try and change the opinions of those who have been elected, and he will be supported by those people whom he has nominated, and if they do not support him, out they will go.

The hon. member who has just sat down immediately accepts that the Minister will appoint nobody but Nationalists to that council. He said “He will pick the people who express his own opinion”, and that if they did not express his own opinion he would immediately get rid of them. I should very much like to know what gives the hon. member that idea. It has already been stated that some of the responsible Coloured leaders may lose an election, people whom you want on that council, and for that reason the Minister should have the power to appoint them. What I find striking is this: A year or two ago the composition of the executive committees of the provincial councils was changed and on that occasion speaker after speaker on the other side of the House argued that the executive committees of the provincial councils should continue to be appointed as they were because the rights of the minority groups should be protected.

The members of that council are elected at an election.

I am quite prepared to continue that argument with the hon. member. They are elected as members of the provincial council and the governing party in the provincial council is the party who has already obtained the majority of votes. But the argument of hon. members on that side was that the party who gained the majority of votes should not be the one to elect the executive committee. Their argument was that the minority group should be protected and that people from the minority group should be appointed so that the minority group would also be able to voice its opinion. If that argument were valid at the time why is the same argument not valid in this case? I do not want to predict at this stage to which political party the 30 elected members will belong or which party they will support. Time will have to show us that. But we know it is possible that responsible Coloured leaders, people who can perform valuable services on that council, will fall out at the election. Take the election in the Karoo. I do not think the best man was elected and it may perhaps be in the interests of those people if the minority vote could also be heard. The Minister will have the right in such a case of appointing such responsible Coloured leaders. For the rest the hon. member simply accepts that the whole council will have to do what the Minister wants them to do. How can he come to that conclusion in view of the fact that 30 members will be elected and only 16 nominated? If the 30 elected members decided otherwise there will still be a majority of 30 as opposed to the 16 and the Minister’s representation will still be hopelessly in the minority. No, the United Party must forgive me when I say I think they are not serious in their opposition to this clause. The Coloureds themselves have asked, vis-à-vis the existing advisory council, that there should still be nominated members in the first instance. It has already been stated that this is not a law of the Medes and the Persians which can never again be repealed or amended. But to start with this is essential and the Coloureds themselves want 16 members to be nominated. The position is already that the Coloureds will be able to elect many more to the council, in the ratio of two to one. Seeing that the Coloureds ask for that —and hon. members say we must create something which will satisfy the Coloureds—I cannot understand why they are opposing this clause.

If we were to accept the argument of the hon. member who has just sat down in regard to the representation of minority groups I hope he will suggest that legislation be introduced in terms whereof the United Party in the Free State will get a few nominated members in the provincial council. Surely that argument does not hold water.

I wish to confine myself in all seriousness to the clause. When this Bill was introduced the hon. the Minister voiced his objection during the second reading to the fact that the members of the existing Coloured council were to-day and in the past referred to as “stooges”. Why should we create a similar opportunity for the same argument to be used? The hon. member referred to the Coloured Advisory Board during the time of Minister Lawrence. I was about ten years old but I distinctly remember how strenuously the Coloureds opposed that nominated council and many of the extremely leftist Coloureds of to-day are people who woke up at that time and started to take the lead. The Minister gave the example of the Coloured Education Board. I wish to congratulate the Minister on the composition of that board because they are capable people, capable educationists. When the Minister considered the appointment of that board he concentrated on the ability of the people as educationists. What yardstick will the Minister use when appointing people to this council? Surely they will be appointed because of their ability or training in a certain profession or in a certain direction.

I shall tell you. That is a good question.

I shall be glad. The hon. the Minister also gave us the example of the Malays and the Griquas. I do not know who advised the Minister to select the Malays and the Griquas. These people are Coloured and they are known as Coloureds and they want to be Coloureds. The term “Malay” has become a complete misnomer. They are Coloureds who follow the Mohammedan religion. You cannot distinguish to-day whose forefathers were Malay slaves and whose forefathers were Coloureds. They are Coloureds who follow the Mohammedan religion. Griqualand East falls in my constituency and I know my constituency. I personally have already held meetings, non-political meetings, at Griqualand East, together with the nominated Griqua representatives in the existing Coloured council and I have had to protect that man and ask the meeting to give him a hearing. They said: You are a Griqua; we are not Griquas, we are Coloureds. That has happened at Kokstad, at Umzimkulu and at Rietvlei in Griqualand East. You are trying to create a completely artificial barrier by suggesting that the descendants of Adam Kok constitute a separate race in South Africa. Under the new set-up Griqualand East will of course form a constituency or constituencies, and I can assure the Minister that the people in those constituencies will not elect people because they are of 100 per cent Griqua descent or whatever it may be. Things have changed completely with the passage of time and the Minister should really abandon the idea of specifically selecting the Malays and the Griquas. I do indeed expect certain parts of my constituency to put up Moslem candidates because they are leading and capable figures. I know of two, for example, who, if they are willing to stand as candidates, will in all probability be elected. They follow the Moslem religion. In the case of one it is obvious that his background is Indian, but the other one is a Cape Coloured who has embraced the Moslem religion.

The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) gave the example of the Senate. I cannot see, however, how we can in the same breath compare this new council with both the provincial council and the Senate. The Senate forms part of Parliament, it is one of the three constituent elements of Parliament and in theory at least it is regarded as the House of revision. But in this case you have a Coloured Council and not a parliament consisting of three constituent elements. On the ground of my experience I want to plead in all seriousness that the whole council should be elected. This will create confidence amongst the Coloured people and it will quash the criticism there has been in the past. We have been told that the existing council wants this. Of course that will be the position where the majority of members are nominated members. They want to have nominated members because they would like to return. It is true that the executive committee of that council suggested that two-thirds should be elected members and one-third nominated but I know of two members on that executive committee who, after they had gone back and addressed meetings and conducted investigations, came back and said they had changed their minds and that the entire council should consist of elected members.

After you have dealt with them.

Well, in that case I must have a terrific influence over the Coloured council. Sir, I am surprised to learn that I have such terrific influence over the members of the council. The hon. member is getting fidgety because he knows some of the members came back and said they found the people wanted the entire council to consist of elected members. How can the hon. member accuse me of having instigated them to say that? Whenever I have had the opportunity I have attended meetings of the Coloured council. I have never yet used any information I have gleaned there in this House. I have observed the rule but my experience has time and again been that when a councillor adopts a certain attitude in that council another member jumps up and says: “You should not say that; you know nothing about it, you are a nominated member whereas I am an elected member.” I seriously think that if you want a council which will command the respect of the Coloured population and which will be beyond any criticism, it should be an elected council. The hon. the Minister need not be afraid that the best men will not come forward. The moment it is to be a freely elected council he will get the right people. The extremists whom the Minister does not want there will not get the support of the Coloured population. I had that experience in my constituency in 1958. Somebody opposed me on that occasion. I do not know whether he was a communist or not but he had already been detained under emergency regulations, etc., and there was general talk that he was a leftist. People who were prominent members of the erstwhile Communist Party assisted him and he got 93 votes. Surely that clearly proves that we can trust the Coloured population.

How many votes did Eden get against you?

Surely that clearly proves that the Coloured people are not inclined to the left and will consequently not elect leftists. The hon. member for Boland raised a matter in regard to which you had to rule him out of order, Sir, and I now wish to confine myself to a little foothold in South West Africa, namely, Walvis Bay which forms part of the Republic. [Time limit.]

Now I do not understand the United Party at all. How can they be opposed to nominated members? The system of having nominated members forms part of our entire political pattern.

Where?

In the highest forum in this country some of the members are nominated, namely, the Senate. That is one of the legislative bodies of our country and all these years there have been nominated members and hon. members opposite have never objected to that. But I particularly cannot understand the United Party objecting to nominated members. That party is a firm believer in the system of nominated members, the system of appointing members. In the old days when I was still a member of the United Party the ordinary United Party member could elect his candidate but the party departed from that principle and gave the Leader of the Opposition the right to appoint their candidates. I am now talking about the system of nominated members and I wish to indicate that they apparently have more confidence in the Coloured than in their own party members. They do not even allow their own party members to nominate their own candidates. Sir de Villiers Graaff, the Leader of the Opposition, appoints them. There you have the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). The United Party members of Bezuidenhout did not want him. He was appointed, he was nominated. There you have the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller). Houghton rejected him so they fitted him in at Florida and one of the chairmen of the United Party resigned because they did not want him. The members were not given the opportunity of electing him. The Leader of the Opposition said: “You have no say. You are much worse than the Coloureds who can elect their own people; I am telling you you are going to accept Hymie Mille.” But let us return to the Coloureds. Look what Sir de Villiers Graaff did to the Karoo! Look at the injustice he did the Coloureds of the Karoo constituency. Did he say to the United Party Coloureds. “Nominate your own candidate”? Not at all. To-day they say Coloureds can become members of their party. I would have thought that where an official candidate had to be appointed, as in the case of Karoo, they would have told the Coloured voters they could choose their own candidate but did they do that? No, they then appointed the miserable member who is sitting here to-day. They forced him on to the Coloureds and told the Coloureds they would not be allowed to choose but that a candidate would be nominated for them.

They elected him.

As far as the election of members to this House is concerned, the Leader of the Opposition has appointed every member on that side of the House.

Nonsense!

The voters of Pinelands did not select the hon. member for Pinelands. He was designated by the Leader of the United Party. No, the United Party have less confidence in their own members than in the Coloureds. They are afraid that if they were to leave it to their own members to Choose their own candidates they will choose an even more rotten bunch of members, if that were possible, than those who are sitting here.

Oder! The hon. member must not use that word.

I withdraw it, Sir. Then I shall say they will choose a bunch of less brilliant men than those sitting here today. I believe in the appointment of members, in the nomination of members.

Absolutely untrue.

It is not untrue. The hon. member knows that the Leader of the Opposition has been given a power of attorney to appoint candidates. The only reason why the hon. member is in Parliament is due to an error of judgment on the part of the Leader of the Opposition in appointing him for Bezuidenhout. What will happen, if the voters have to choose, if that is the best they can appoint? There you have the Younger Pitt. His constituents would have chosen somebody else. No, this opposition is nothing else than a sham and a mock fight.

If that is the best argument the Government can produce in favour of nominated members, then the Minister should immediately agree to accept the amendment moved by the Opposition, because every statement made by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) is completely untrue. He has referred to the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Florida, but it is completely untrue that they were nominated by my Leader. They were elected, and in the case of Mr. Miller, he had to fight a nomination contest. It just shows the absolute hollowness of the claim of the Government that it is essential to have this number of nominated members, that they have to produce arguments of this kind to support it.

May I ask a question?

Late It has been shown in this debate quite clearly that if the Minister wants this council to be a success, the thing he must not do is to nominate so large a number of members, if any at all. If he wishes to establish something which will be of some value to the Coloureds, and will be wholeheartedly accepted by them, he should accept the principle that this should be an elected body and not a nominated body. Now I will answer the hon. member.

Who in the United Party was allowed to vote for a candidate?

The hon. member knows our nomination procedure. It is persons who are elected in the constituency who do the nomination, so that there is nothing in that point at all. But I am dealing with the question of nominated members. I want to tell the Minister that I believe he is making a cardinal mistake in insisting on over a third of the members of this body being nominated. We know what the attitude was of the Coloured people to the council established by Mr. Harry Lawrence. It was raised by the Minister himself. Those were nominated members. If the Minister wants to establish something really worth while, what he should do, and what this House should do, is to take its courage in both hands and to say, to show our bona fides: We believe you people can progress and play a very important part, and we are putting the Whole of your future in your own hands and it is up to you to make a success of it. Sir, we can never make a success of this type of body by nominating so many members. Possibly a case could be made out for nominating a limited number of members. I do not concede it, but possibly it may be so, but nobody can even attempt to justify the nomination of over one-third of the members of this council.

The Opposition should remember that the Coloureds are one of the racial groups who are still under the guardianship of the White man and we should not evade our responsibility as the Christian guardians over this immature group. It is quite correct in principle that the guardian should still have a say in regard to the development, politically and constitutionally, which the Coloureds must still experience.

Where do you get that philosophy from?

It is a philosophy which is quite obvious. The hon. member surely knows that a responsible guardian will not simply allow his ward to play with political dynamite. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) said that he was going to tell the Coloureds to destroy this council because he had no confidence in it. We know of the communist and liberal influences in our country, and surely the White guardian cannot allow the Coloureds to be indoctrinated with communist and liberal ideas. We know that those hon. members are not interested in making a success of this council. They call it a “mockery”. Whence suddenly their interest in this council? Now they do not want to allow the Christian White guardian to ensure that in the high political and constitutional spheres of the national life of the Coloureds they should not only be represented by people of their own flesh and blood, but that the guardian should have a choice. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) said there were no leaders amongst the Coloureds whom we could select and nominate, but every group has a leader. It is obvious that in all spheres of national life in the course of time leaders come to the fore in the educational, spiritual, social and economic spheres, and they are the natural leaders. Here the White guardian now allows a thorough selection to take place in a responsible manner and not to nominate all the members of the council, but these people have to go through a gradual process of development. We want to have a sort of balance there, so that people who have already proved their worth in all the different spheres of life may be selected by the White guardian, and not the communist agitators. Not only do we want to know that these people will be governed by people of their own flesh and blood, but we want to know how they will be governed. I think one of the best methods to achieve effective government is for the Christian guardian to make selections from those people who have already come to the fore. I think that is one of the best arguments one can advance. [Interjection.] We cannot simply throw them to the wolves. The hon. member for Kensington said that he was going to tell the Coloureds to destroy this council, and what is the best way of doing it? It is to give the communist and liberal elements an opportunity to get the political power in that council into their own hands, and that is what those hon. members want. They do not want the White guardian to make a thorough selection from the natural leaders who come to the fore in every sphere, so that there may be a balance, and in that way to give them the necessary training. That is the main reason why I believe that at this stage we should nominate these people, and to the extent that they become politically mature—and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) in fact said they were immature …

I did not say that.

Then somebody else must have said it. Whom must one get to lead them to maturity? One must get the very people who have already proved that they can serve their own people in all spheres of their national life. If the guardian succeeds in getting such people on the council, it does its duty and does not shirk its responsibilities. And there has never before been as much goodwill towards the Coloureds as there is today, and I think that the White guardian should set to work very cautiously at this particular time. The Minister knows which people have come to the fore and who are the conservative elements in the national life of the Coloureds, and that he should make use of them to stimulate an interchange of ideas in that council, which will result in achieving balance and obtaining the best result in the interests of the Coloureds as a whole.

If the argument of the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) is correct, then all the members of this council should be nominated, because he does not trust the Coloureds. What he has just said is a condemnation of every one of the 30 members proposed in the Bill. He has no faith in them, but of course he comes from the Transvaal, and that is another example of the sort of thing that the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) had to say, and also the Minister.

While I am on that point I want to ask the Minister whether these are the answers that he proposes to give us to the questions we asked? Is the hon. the Minister going to continue to pout and sulk and stay in his corner because he heard a little noise somewhere in this corner?

You are talking nonsense.

If that is his attitude, and if he proposes to answer our arguments with an argument like that used by the hon. member for Vereeniging, the jester of the House, then let me assure the Minister that we can match that sort of thing. But the Minister is in charge of this Bill and if he does what he did just now, I want to tell him that he will be answered. When the Minister wound up the second-reading debate yesterday he was extremely rude to many members on this side of the House.

And arrogant.

Yes, but he did it because he knew we could not come back at him.

Did you get hurt? If you want to make a fight of it, let us have a fight.

Right, and we will see what happens.

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

I want to answer something the hon. the Minister said. He said to one of the United Party members: “You are an example of how bad even elected people can be.”

You are also an example.

Let me tell the Minister that he is the perfect example of how bad a system of nomination can be, because the hon. the Prime Minister nominated him as a Minister. Of course it is also a reflection on the Prime Minister.

Nobody will ever nominate you.

If the Minister wants to indulge in that sort of thing, this sort of kindergarten debating society with vitriolics, he can have it, but he must not ask you, Sir, to protect his dignity because he is a Minister of the State. If he wants to behave like an irresponsible backbencher, he must take his medicine.

Now, this hon. Minister spoke about the Other Place and dealt with persons there, and the hon. member for Malmesbury did the same. Sir, look at the people who are nominated as Senators, or rather, who are elected because of their knowledge of the wants and wishes of the Coloured people. I believe the Minister of Labour is one of them. Is there any chance whatever that the Minister of Labour will vote against this Government? Is there any chance that he will express an opinion contrary to Government policy? Is there any chance, with the experience we have of nominations made by this Government, that any one of these 16 people will do anything else but what the Government wants? Quite obviously not. Sir, when you look at the powers which this body has—and I use the word “powers” in inverted commas—particularly if one looks at Clause 20 …

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss that now.

I am only trying to illustrate what the functions of these members will be—“on request to advise the Government in regard to all matters affecting the economic, social, educational and political interests of the Coloured people”. Is any one of these members going to advise the Government that it is in the interest of the Coloured people to abolish job reservation, for example? If that man were to go to the polls and ask the Coloured people to elect him, and he were to say that he stands for the abolition of job reservation, and another man says that he stands for the maintenance of job reservation, who do you think would win the election, Sir? The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) gave the game away when he said that these were the Minister’s representatives on this council. Let me say that the hon. the Minister has the power in terms of this Bill to attend the meetings of this council and to talk at those meetings. What the Minister is doing now is allowing his supporters to take part in this debate because he started sulking. [Interjections.]

But he has the right to go to this council and persuade them that what he wants them to do is the correct thing. Is that not the very basis of this Bill, that this is what the Coloured people want, firstly, and secondly, that it is good for them and, thirdly, that it will do more for them than anyone else? And if the Minister is sincere about that, what is he afraid of? Is he afraid that when he puts his case to the Coloured people they will reject it? Of course he is, otherwise why does he have to load this body with more than one-third of nominated members? I hope the Minister will give us an answer. He has not indicated that he completely rejects the amendments which have been moved. I think this Committee is entitled to know what his attitude is.

Let me say something to the hon. member for Vereeniging, who is not here now. He spoke about choosing candidates and asked why we did not in the Karoo election go to the Coloured people and ask them to choose a candidate for themselves. But that is what we did. We put a candidate in the field, and the Coloureds voted for him, a United Party man who stood against the nominee of the Nationalist Party. Is that not what happened? [Interjections.] And for them to talk about Florida when they have the hon. the Minister of Labour and the hon. the Minister of Information, whom they took to the by-election in a concerted effort to break through to the English-speaking people there, is nonsensical. The people of Florida made a decision. If the Minister is going to insist on calling this a representative council, he must also allow the council to be representative. Sir, this is not a Senate. It is a “Volksraad”, is it not? Or is it not? Or is this just a body which the Minister is putting up as a facade, as an empty shell for him to practise “baas-skaps” apartheid in? Or is this not going to be a body with some chance to deliberate and to tell the Government what it wants? Does the Government really want advice from this body? That is what it really boils down to. Or is it going to go on pretending, as it does with South Africa, that we are not what we are, that we are really something which belongs in a new dream, and we put up all sorts of structures which look very pretty from the outside, but when you go inside there is practised the very policy that the Government is trying to bluff not only South Africa but the world with? Will the Minister not get up now and stop pouting?

Oh yes, I will get up.

Oh, that is very nice, and we assure the Minister that we will try our best not to make as much noise as last time, just in case he goes into a huff again.

I do not know whether the hen. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) tried to make an impression on other members or on me. I just want to tell him that he is the last person who will make me afraid of a fight. The hon. member is at liberty, within the rules of this House, to make any possible attempt to delay this Bill, and I am prepared to play the game with him. So he must not think that he is frightening me, or that he is making any impression on me with his conceited, arrogant attitude. If he wants to talk about “rudeness”, I want to tell him that not once was I called to order by the Chair yesterday. What I said was well within the rules of this House, but the fact is that the hon. members could not reply; they could not take it, and they still feel sore this morning, as we see from their actions here. What has now happened? While I was giving an account of the present council and the committee entrusted with the work, hon. members deliberately began talking so that the Chairman had to call them to order. They did so because they felt sore. The hon. member is the last person who should try to threaten me. I have seen United Party supporters of his kind come and go in political life.

And be destroyed also.

If he wants to put up a fight in regard to this matter, then let us do so clause by clause. As far as I am concerned, we can sit here until July.

And I shall put the Question.

The point I want to make is that the hon. member should not try to threaten me. If he cannot take a beating he should not make threats. What does he mean by saying that he will do this, that and the other? The hon. member should not be so conceited. I leave him there in his ignorance and his conceit.

The hon. member for Outeniqua put certain questions to me. Let me first say that I did not resume my seat a moment ago because I did not want to talk further; I concluded my arguments. Then I told hon. members that if they did not want to listen to me I would not try to reply to them. Now, the hon. member for Outeniqua asked me what I intended, to whom did I want to give representation by means of these nominations? I told him it was an intelligent question, and I want to reply to it. In the first place there is nothing odd about providing for nominations. One finds it right throughout history where representative government was granted, and whether this is now a “mockery” in the eyes of the Opposition or not, this is a form of representative council for the Coloureds where they are given certain powers, and on the principle followed everywhere in the world where representative government is granted, provision is made for nominated members. Why is it that if we do so it is wrong, but when other countries do it it is not wrong?

Where do they do it?

Britain does it in connection with all the councils it establishes. Does the hon. member not know that? It is a well-established practice. It is not something we have just evolved. The hon. member for Outeniqua asked what I had in mind; how do we want to do it? In the first place it may happen that certain members of the Coloured community … [Interjection.]

Order! Hon. members should not talk so loudly. The hon. the Minister finds it difficult to continue.

There may be certain Coloureds who do not wish to stand for election. There may be educationists or medical men or other people whose professions at this stage do not make it possible for them to embark on a political struggle. That is the first type of case. One may have the position that after the electorate has elected the elected members, one finds that certain facets of the life of the Coloured are not represented on that council. The hon. member knows it just as well as I do, and I do not wish to mention names, but he and I know many prominent Coloureds who will not stand for election but who will be prepared, if they are approached, to serve on this council because they want to make a positive contribution on behalf of their people. I do not want to mention names, but that is so. There are some of the most responsible Coloured leaders in the Peninsula and in the Western Province and in other parts of the country who will not be prepared to enter the ordinary political arena, but who will be prepared to say: In the sphere of medicine or culture or education or commerce I am prepared to make my contribution. Those are the people whom I have in mind in the first place.

But in the second place I have in mind filling those gaps which are left after the election has taken place. My argument is that hon. members need not like me and they need not trust me; that makes no difference to me, but I ask only one thing: Look at the appointments I have already made. Look at the Education Advisory Council, and tell me if I made a single bad appointment there. Then I do not think hon. members have the right to carry on in this unreasonable way.

I admitted it.

Then hon. members should say that they have judged me by my past deeds, and on the basis of that they are prepared to trust me to do the right thing here also. I do not ask that on the basis of promises or assurances I am to give, but on the basis of what I have already done.

But you will not be there for ever.

No, but does it necessarily follow that my successor will be a rogue? Surely that is not an argument. Let us now in heaven’s name get away from the fight on the basis of principles, which was concluded yesterday. The principle was whether the council should be established or not, and this House decided that it was to be established. Do not try now to carry on this fight in this negative way. I have already said that it is difficult to handle this portfolio of Coloured Affairs. It would be difficult for any man, not only for someone on this side of the House; it would be difficult for any member on that side of the House also. Sir, hon. members opposite do not derogate from me personally by the way they carry on here and sow suspicion; they merely strengthen my position with my followers. But what they in fact do is to sow confusion in the ranks of the Coloured population.

That is their object; they do it deliberately.

Hon. members of the Opposition may differ from the policy we have been following hitherto in regard to the Coloureds; they have the right to do so, but one thing they cannot accuse me of, and that is that I show a lack of goodwill towards the Coloured population in the administration of the Department of Coloured Affairs. They will find no Coloureds to subscribe to that standpoint. Even Coloureds who differ from me politically will tell them that we treat them in the most reasonable manner, under my guidance. We should not destroy that spirit, and therefore I appeal to hon. members opposite not to spare me personally; as far as I personally am concerned I am prepared to enter any fight, but they should remember that every word spoken by them here is calculated, not to destroy me, but to harm the Coloureds and to destroy their good relations with us.

Sir, I can understand the reason for the discomfort exhibited by the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Chief Whip in this debate; because if we were to have an observer from Mars sitting in the Gallery and listening to what is taking place here …

Order! I do not want the hon. member to discuss personalities.

Sir, I do not propose at all to discuss personalities.

Will the hon. member then come back to the clause.

Such a person might think that things have become a little ridiculous because earlier on we had the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) and the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) seriously advancing the argument that the situation of the Coloured people in the northern provinces was different from that of the Coloured people in the Cape, and in the Western Cape in particular, because according to those hon. members the Coloured people in the northern provinces have not the political experience of their counterpart in the Cape. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) went further and quoted a member of the existing Coloured council as making the statement from which he took that point of view. Sir, as has been said by way of an interjection, these statements, not from backbenchers on the Government side but from a man who is constitutionally close to this Bill and from a senior organizer of the Nationalist Party, is complete and absolute support for the policy which this party adopts in regard to the Coloured people in those provinces and flies in the face of the considerable time which the hon. the Minister spent yesterday in trying to make our policy look ridiculous. I do not want to take that point any further, but where the position becomes quite absurd to an outside observer is that here we have a clause for the establishment of a Coloured Persons Representative Council —that is how the clause is labelled—and we have the hon. the Minister spending some two hours arguing against the proposals against this clause put up by the Coloured Representatives. How absurd can a situation be when you have a Minister trying to persuade an Assembly such as this that he is introducing a clause designed to establish a Coloured representative council for the benefit of the Coloured people and in order to do that he has to spend a great deal of time opposing the arguments of the duly elected Coloured Representatives in this House! Sir, if one is not imbued with the outlook of members on the Government side, if one tries to look at this dispassionately, what more ridiculous situation can you have than that a Bill is introduced designed to provide for the representation of the Coloured people—and this particular clause deals with that very point— against which the duly elected Coloured Representatives have to argue most strongly. Surely, Sir, that can only mean one thing. If the hon. the Minister wishes to be logical and if he wishes to make the thing look at all sensible, he must accept every amendment put forward by the Coloured Representatives. How else can the thing be made to look sensible unless that attitude is adopted.

You are a real babe in politics.

There is only one other point of view which will make the thing look sensible, and that, of course, is to do away with the Coloured Representatives in this House altogether.

The hon. member must confine himself to the composition of this council.

Sir, I was merely trying to discuss the points of view which have been raised in regard to the establishment of this council.

Now I come to the argument which has been raised in an attempt to compare the situation in this council with the Senate of South Africa. There is, of course, no comparison at all. We are here dealing with what purports to be an elected body whereas the Senate in South Africa is not an elected body. But in any event those who are nominated in the Other Place are nominated for one reason only, and it may give the reason for the necessity for nominating members in the Coloured council. Members of the Other Place are nominated because otherwise the points of view of the people whom they are put there to represent would not be heard. That is why they are nominated. The Coloured races in South Africa have no representation in the Senate. Consequently there are nominated members there to represent their point of view, and that is the only possible justification the Minister can have for nominated members in this council; that is to say, that the point of view of the Government would not otherwise be represented in that body and that that is why he wishes to have nominated members. There is no other justification for it. We have had references from the hon. the Minister to the British system of nominated members in the various legislative councils of the British colonies. There again there is no comparison with the situation of this council.

They all failed. The elected representatives have taken over.

But why was it used there? Firstly, because the point of view of the Imperial Government in colonial times was not represented in the electoral Assembly by the elected members, and secondly, because it was felt that in those cases where there was an executive function, the Minister concerned with Justice or Defence or Finance should be an elected official who had experience in that regard. There again there is no comparison with this body because there is no such executive function to be exercised by any of these people. So you come back, Sir, to the one reason which holds any water at all and that is that the hon. the Minister is so satisfied that the point of view of the Government will not be represented by a fully elected body representing the Coloured people that he must have nominated members in order to see that that point of view is represented there. Sir, he has said one other thing which carries no weight at all and that is that there are people such as teachers and doctors who would not allow themselves to be nominated in an election because they do not like taking part in politics due to the position they hold.

You did not understand what I said.

Sir, what sort of body is this? If they are not prepared to indulge in that sort of thing then they have no right to be members of such a body at all.

You misunderstood me completely.

There is only one argument then, and one comes back to the central theme of this clause; there is only one argument whereby the presence of nominated members in an assembly of this kind can be justified, and it is the one with which I began my speech, that is, to represent the Government’s point of view, and if the hon. the Minister were to stand up and say quite simply that he desires to have nominated members for that reason, then we can understand the reason behind this Bill and then this debate will become sensible

A responsible member of this House cannot really take much notice of what the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) says in this House. We have listened to many speeches of his …

Order! The hon. member must talk about the clause.

Do not follow the Minister’s example.

Order!

I shall say nothing, then, about the speech of the hon. member for Zululand; let it go down on record in Hansard. I want to come to the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) who is a frontbencher and a senior member of the United Party. I want to deal with what he said here about half an hour ago in the course of his speech. He suggested here that the United Party was opposed to the principle of appointed members, but I want to put a few very clear and simple questions to him and to the hon. members for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) and Karoo (Mr. Eden), and I want them to give this House a perfectly clear and honest reply to those questions. I want to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout how many members of the United Party in the Bezuidenhout constituency voted for him on the occasion of his nomination?

Order! That question has nothing to do with the clause.

Mr. Chairman, you allowed the hon. member for Germiston (District) to discuss this Whole matter.

I am not going to allow hon. members to discuss this matter further; it is not relevant.

I was nominated with a large majority.

They forced you on your constituents.

Order!

Sir, I cannot understand your ruling. You extended the privilege to the hon. member for Germiston (District) of going into this whole matter and I want to reply to the hon. member’s remarks.

Order! This discussion has covered too wide a field and hon. members must confine themselves to the clause now.

May I, then, ask the hon. member for Germiston (District) whether it is true or whether it is not true that there is no such thing in his party—we are talking now about elected members and nominated members—but that the final say lies with his party leader? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout must remember that when he was assistant organizer of the United National South West Party in South West Africa he did not regard the Whites as qualified to choose all the candidates for the Legislative Assembly; he stood for the principle that 12 should be elected and six nominated, and now he is going to vote with the hon. member for Germiston (District) against this Bill in spite of the fact that they advocated precisely the same thing in respect of the Whites in South West Africa. I challenge the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to stand up now and to say that what I am saying here is not the truth.

It is not true.

The hon. member was assistant organizer of the United National South West Party until he saw that their ship was going to sink and he then joined the National Party; he is a political hitch-hiker.

Order! I asked the hon. member to confine himself to the clause and if he does not do so I shall ask him to resume his seat.

Sir, I am referring to the objection which is being raised here to the principle of elected and nominated members under Clause 1, and I want to put it to the hon. member who opposes this principle that as far as the Whites are concerned he approved of the very same thing that we now want to do in respect of the Coloureds.

That is not so.

The hon. member cannot deny it. He was still their organizer until the United Party ship sank.

Order! The hon. member has already said that; it has nothing to do with this clause.

I do not want to reply to the hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke), because he is referring to the old composition of the Legislative Assembly of South West, where there were nominated members, but we in fact abolished that! The hon. member was quite wrong.

Sir, we have had remarkable arguments advanced here to-day in dealing with this clause and the amendment. The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) raised the question of the Senate; that has been discussed already, but just let me add this: The Senate is supplementary to an elected body. But that was not my argument; my argument was that in respect of the Senate we have Whites nominating Whites. One can still understand that, but here we will have a case where the Coloured council, which is supposed to be representative of the Coloureds, will consist of elected and nominated members, and the unfortunate element being introduced there is that a White Minister, representing a White body, will nominate those Coloureds. I think it is very important, when one is dealing here with a racial body; it puts the nominated members in an unfortunate position. Sir, I would tell the hon. the Minister this: If he refuses to accept this amendment, and if he then has prominent Coloureds whom he feels it is difficult to have elected, is he then prepared to allow them to be co-opted by the elected members of the Coloured council? Will he then accept such an amendment, namely that the elected members of the Coloured council may co-opt the other 16 members, so that Coloureds will do the nomination and not a White body? Will the Minister consider that? I think it is wrong in principle for a White authority to nominate more than one-third of the members of this Coloured body.

A second point raised by the hon. member for Malmesbury was that if there are only elected members, this council will be “packed with agitators”. In other words, what is he intimating here? That the Government is already afraid of its own creation. That is what the hon. member implied: I am afraid of my own creation and I do not dare to have a council consisting only of elected members.

I said the Coloureds were afraid of it.

If you give a right to the Coloureds you must give them the right to exercise it as they like. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) said that the Coloureds in the northern provinces had never yet voted and therefore there must be nominated members. But eight of the 16 members will be nominated from the Cape Province where there have been Coloureds in the provincial council, and where the Coloureds vote for members of the highest legislative body in South Africa, the House of Assembly. What sort of experience must a man then have to be able to decide whether he wants to vote for Mr. A to represent him, or for Mr. B? The Government did not require experience on the part of the tribal Natives to vote in the Transkei. The Coloureds have been voting for years for cultural bodies, Church bodies and political bodies. Sir, we have never before heard such ridiculous arguments as we have heard here to-day. Another argument advanced is that the Coloured council asked for it, but of course they would ask for it. A large proportion of the members are nominated members and it is obvious that for safety’s sake they will ask that in the new council there should also be a number of nominated members.

Did the elected members vote against it?

The elected members also want to ensure that if they perhaps lose the election they can get in as nominated members. That does not surprise me. I am quite convinced—it is a matter of opinion and the hon. the Minister can tell me that he differs from me if he likes—that if one asks the Coloured voters whether they want a wholly nominated body or a body of which half the members are nominated, or a wholly elected body, then the mass of Coloured voters will say that they prefer a fully elected body. The hon. the Minister asked during the course of his speech: What is wrong with Coloureds supporting the Government? Sir, there is nothing wrong with it; a Coloured has every right to support the policy of the Government, and he also has the fullest right to support a different policy. That is not our point, but what we say is this: Let those who support the Government nominate their candidates and get them elected. That is the point. If the Minister is correct, that the Government does so much for the Coloureds that there is now a better spirit towards the Government than ever before, then surely he need not be afraid; then his supporters will be elected. But if the Government nominates a large number of members, it surely is not really a representative body; then one cannot say, that it is an independent representative body. In any case, the hon. the Minister destroyed his own argument. I was in the Chamber when he told the hon. member for Karoo: “You do not represent the Coloureds; you sit in the caucus of the United Party; you are a member of the United Party.” In other words, because the hon. member is a member of the United Party the Minister tells him that he does not represent the Coloureds. That is precisely what the elected members in the Coloured council will say of the nominated members! They will tell them day after day, in the same spirit as that in which the hon. the Minister treats the Coloured Representatives in this House: “What are you doing here? You do not represent the Coloureds; you have not been elected.” That is precisely what we want to avoid. Hon. members opposite have pointed out that at the time Mr. Lawrence established the Coloured Advisory Council he also nominated people. That is correct, but that was an advisory council, whereas this one is a representative council. Then the hon. the Minister said: What hope will members of a minority group have of being elected? He mentioned the case of the Malays and said how would they be elected if one did not create an opportunity to have representatives of a minority group like the Malays? But here again the hon. the Minister is wrong. People are elected on their merits. In spite of the fact that the Malays are a minority group, there are Malays in the city council to-day and Dr. Abdurahman sat in the provincial council, in the same way that Malays also served on bodies like the divisional council and the Hospital Board of the Cape. These Malays were elected on their merits by other Coloureds, and I am convinced that the Malays will be strongly represented by the elected members. It is therefore no argument for the hon. the Minister to say that he has to protect the minority groups. These people will be elected on their merits. I think the Minister is rendering this council a disservice by saying, as he did to-day, that he considers it necessary that supporters of the Government should be appointed. By doing that he stigmatizes them, and it will therefore be his fault if they bear that stamp. He says that it is difficult for any man to be the Minister of Coloured Affairs, but he makes his own position difficult through the attitude he adopts. There are four Coloured Representatives in this House who were all elected. For the highest legislative body in the country the Coloureds are allowed to elect four representatives, but hon. members opposite say that the Coloureds are not developed enough to elect their representatives for a more subsidiary body; more than one-third must be nominated. Sir, not a single convincing argument has been advanced from that side of the House.

I am sorry I have to rise again. I shall not participate in the discussions again. I merely wish to furnish the House with information on two points. I really resent the manner in which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) has misrepresented this whole clause. What other object has the hon. member if not to stir up strife? Take his last utterance for instance. He says we do not trust the Coloureds to choose their own representatives. The fact of the matter is this, that whereas they have only 12 to-day, we are now giving them 30. Whereas at the present time they constitute a minority in the present council, we are giving them a majority of 14 over the nominated members, but the hon. member comes here and states without blushing that we do not trust the Coloureds sufficiently to let them choose their own representatives. Sir, have you ever seen a more blatant attempt to stir up strife, just to sow enmity? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout surely knows better; he is an intelligent person; he is a man who knows the National Party’s policy in its positive form also; at one time he even advocated it. Why does he make such a statement, when he knows for a fact that it is calculated to cause trouble? He does not tell the House that he admits that a minority of elected members now becomes a majority; he does not tell the House that their number is increased from 12 to 30. No, he says we do not trust the Coloureds to elect their members. Then he refers to the Malays to whom I have said I wish to give representation. Sir, anybody in South Africa who knows the Malay group knows that the Malay community is satisfied to be assimilated with the Coloured community, but the Malay community possess certain qualities they would like to preserve; they wish to be known as Malays. When the population register came into being, the Malay community came forward and said they wished to be classified as Malays and we had to do so on their insistence.

He knows nothing about that.

He does not know about that; he does not know these people; he is just talking. He is not living with these people; he does not deliberate with them all day long. All he does is to foment trouble among them. He does not try to further the interests of these people. The same applies to the Griquas; the Griquas came forward with the request that they wished to be classified as a sub-group. The hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) to my surprise came here and said that because the Griquas in Griqualand East are adopting a certain attitude, we should deviate from this point of view. But does the hon. member not know about the strong attempt being made among a large section of the Griqua population to have even their own territory? Does he know that, or does he not? Has he ever had dealings with the deputations from the Griquas with whom we have to deal from time to time? However, Sir, all this is part of the process of equalization forming part of the policy of those hon. members; they want to destroy everything of which people are proud. They first want to destroy the Malays and the Griquas and make the Coloureds equal, and then they want the whole lot to be absorbed in the White community and then eventually have the lot absorbed in a greater community. That is their whole attitude in principle. We disagree with that attitude, and because we differ, we are making provision for the preservation of the inherent pride and the inherent values of these people, and that is why we want them to be represented in this council. I wish to hear the voice of the Malays there specifically, and I wish to ensure that I shall hear the voice of the Malays there. I should like to hear the voice of the Griquas in this council specifically, and I should like to ensure that, and I am ensuring that in accordance with the wishes of the existing council, consisting of members originally labelled “stooges” but who, according to the admission of the United Party to-day, have thought independently in many respects. I admit that I do not always agree with what the council advocates. In respect of this matter there is no difference of opinion between me and the existing council; that is my reply to the hon. member. But in the third place, we wish to make a success of this council, and for that very reason we wish to constitute it in this way. I have given my reasons to the hon. member for Outeniqua, and I think if he wants to be honest he will admit that there are people who will not be prepared to participate in the ordinary political fight, and they are valuable people. If I had no sense of responsibility I should have liked to mention the names of those people here, but I am not going to mention their names. I am not going to bandy about in advance the names of those people here and so give the United Party an opportunity to drag them about and kick them about here. But there are Coloureds for whom I have the greatest regard, people who culturally are doing much for their own people, people who are doing much for their own people in respect of welfare; people who as medical doctors go out of their way to serve their own people; there are people here who are taking the lead in the business world of the Coloured people, and I desire the certainty that the voices of some of those people will be heard in this council, for I know they will not take their seats in this council merely to echo the opinions of voters; they will take their seats in this council really to serve the interests of their people on the merits of matters. Sir, I meet many of these people, and it is a strange thing to me that when we meet at the conference table, and discuss the merits of the difficulties and problems of the Coloured people, these people are prepared to make analyses which, if they were to do so on the political platform, would render it impossible for them to win an election. Nevertheless they remain the responsible people in their people’s lives. That is why, in spite of the fact that all the members of this House are elected members, we have various councils to which our most prominent people in our economic life and in other spheres are appointed, because we need their advice and because we need their guidance and because this House cannot always provide the necessary guidance in respect of all our problems. Hours are wasted here on the kind of debate we have had here this morning. That is why we ourselves sometimes make a mockery of ourselves, and that is why we have to fall back upon leaders outside in order to consider matters on their merits. That applies also in the life of the Coloureds. What I envisage in this council now, is that I shall ensure that those responsible people, who are unwilling to lend themselves to dancing about politically, but who nevertheless are prepared to give advice on the true interests of the Coloured people, will become members of this council. If it were true that I desire to control the council through stooges, surely I would have made provision for a majority of nominated members, but I am making provision for a minority, am I not?

You cannot do so.

Of course I can. If the Government Party wishes to ensure that only its followers become members of the council, it could appoint a majority of nominated members. I could nominate the lot if I wished to do so.

Why did you not do so?

Because we are sensible people. But that is not the point. Hon. members accuse me of wishing to control this council. How can I control it with a minority? You see, Mr. Chairman, the problem we have to cope with in this country whenever it concerns race relations, is the eternal prejudice and suspicion in respect of everything emanating from the National side in this country; everything is represented as coming from Hell itself.

Does it surprise you?

Yes, of course, because that hon. member owes her safety to the order for which this side of the House is responsible. The fact that she may say what she wants to in South Africa she owes to the order created for her by this party. If she had been living in Ghana, she would have been in gaol already. What I object to, and I am taking it amiss of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) … [Interjections.]

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to refer to the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) as a “quisling”.

Which hon. member said that?

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

You look like one.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) entitled to say “You look like one”.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

I am dealing with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Surely he ought to know that everything that comes from this side of the House is not aimed at destroying the rights and the human dignity of other people! Why is all this dust raised in order to poison the minds of the Coloured people? It is no use hon. members carrying on in that manner. On the one hand we are dealing with positive measures and it is gradually taking root. The only thing hon. members are achieving is to make the task of creating good relations more difficult.

You do not want criticism.

No, I shall accept the hon. member’s criticism. He knows I am prepared to listen to criticism but what I object to is the sowing of suspicion and the creating of the impression among the Coloured people that they are being destroyed while they are really being uplifted. I object to that.

Now at this stage the hon. the Minister is starting to complicate this issue more than ever. The Minister stands up and says he could have appointed a majority of nominated people to this council. Of course he could have, Sir. I am not questioning that. But why did he not? Because this council is being established in this Bill in this form because of undertakings given to the Coloured people by the hon. the Prime Minister. This Bill is primarily designed to implement that undertaking. Had the Minister nominated the majority he would, of course, not have implemented that promise. He would have made it so obvious that the idea was not to fulfil the Prime Minister’s undertaking that the thing could not possibly have succeeded. What has he done? He has designed the ratio of elected to nominated members in such a way that it will give to this council exactly what the hon. the Minister wants to give to it. That is why we have this ratio of 30 to 16. That is the answer, Sir, you can read it right through the Bill. The hon. the Minister has seen the amendments we have on the Order Paper, amendments which, had they been adopted in the drafting of this Bill, would have made nomination unnecessary.

The hon. the Minister says that after the members have been elected he may find that various aspects of Coloured interests are not represented. He knows how to overcome that. Had he widened the election basis of these elected members to a republican basis instead of confining it entirely to a provincial basis, he could have had all the interests of the Coloured people represented. Then he says there is the question of the Malays who because of their approach, etc., and religion do not like participating in politics. If they do not like participating in politics what assurance has the Minister that they will accept nomination on a political body? If that argument of the Minister’s is correct that they will accept nomination, as he is assuming they will, then surely they will also be prepared to fight an election for the purpose of representing their people on this council. I do not think that is an argument at all. But why does the Government adopt this attitude towards those people’s feelings and religious reactions to politics? On the basis of the Minister’s argument, in formulating the policy for electing members to this hon. House, one would have had to take into account the various religious groups in our country, but this Parliament rightly does not. The country is divided into constituencies which represent the interests of all the people in those constituencies irrespective of their religious feelings or anything else. You have the position where people are called up to serve their time in the Army.

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

I am just dealing with the argument of the Minister, Sir, that he is suddenly prepared to take the religious feelings of those people into account. That argument does not hold water at all. Because, when it comes to the Indian group, for example, because of certain aspects of their religion, this Government introduced legislation to bring those into line with the practices of the rest of the community of South Africa. Yet, at this late stage of the debate on this clause, the Minister brings in all these various aspects.

Sir, there is a solution to all these problems. If this hon. Minister sincerely wants to give these people what he purports to be giving them, if he wants to give them a truly representative council, he knows as well as we do that that council can only be elected. He knows that he must remove from that council all suspicion of interference by the Minister, by his party or any other party. Those people must of their own accord choose their own people.

You will always be suspicious; you thrive on suspicion.

How right you are. I accept that I am always suspicious. When you bring legislation like this before a House, after having made certain promises to the Coloured people, does the hon. Minister blame me for being suspicious? Does he blame me and the Coloured people for being suspicious? When he advances arguments to justify the manner in which he is constituting this council and the fact that he is putting in a sufficient number of nominated people to constitute more than one-third of the members, then I am sorry, but I believe my suspicions are very well-founded indeed.

I hope hon. members opposite will not resent it if I say that they are not honest in their intentions as far as the amendment which they have moved is concerned. As far as they are concerned, this is not a matter of principle. Two hon. members in succession have proved this fact. We have had proof of this fact in their own words. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) made an appeal to the hon. the Minister and said that if the hon. the Minister did not want to accept his amendment he should allow the council to co-opt members; in other words, as far as he is concerned this is not a matter of principle. He is trying to get away from that amendment. The hon. member who has just sat down asked the hon. the Minister emphatically why he did not want to nominate all the members because by doing so, he would be making good the promises made to the Coloured. In other words, that amendment is a fraud. Their intentions in this regard are not honest. The hon. member who has just spoken wants the hon. the Minister to nominate all the members.

He did not say that.

Good heavens, Mr. Chairman! Has the hon. member been fast asleep? When the hon. the Minister said that if he wanted to have control over the council he could nominate all its members, various hon. members opposite asked: “Why do you not do so?”

He was not asked to do so.

This proves to me that their intentions in regard to the amendment are not honest and that this is not a matter of principle as far as they are concerned. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout accused the hon. the Minister of being afraid of his own creation and said that for that reason he did not want to nominate its members. If the hon. member has a young baby and he takes that baby by the hand every time it tries to walk, does that mean that he is afraid of that child? Or does he want to assist the child to become a mature adult and not come to any harm in the process? That is precisely what we are doing here.

But they are not children.

To a large extent the Coloureds are still children in politics and they still have to be led in this regard by the Whites. That is what we are doing. It is not only South Africa that is doing this; we have examples of this throughout history.

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

Mr. Chairman, when business was suspended I was explaining that the United Party have indicated to us through the medium of their own members that they are not in earnest with the amendment that they have moved. They accuse this side of the House, and particularly the hon. the Minister, of not trusting the Coloureds because of the provisions of Clause 1. The hon. the Minister has clearly stated that the present council itself asked that the members should be nominated. They asked for this provision themselves and now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the previous speaker do not want the Coloureds themselves to have any choice in connection with the composition of this council. They want to make the choice for the Coloureds. How is it that they know the requirement of the Coloureds better than the Coloureds do themselves? Here we have proof that the Coloureds themselves asked that the members on the council should be nominated because they know what will happen if all of those members are elected members. They want to have a conservative element there. There are responsible Coloured people who know precisely what is going to happen. It appears as though the Coloureds on the present council know the history in this regard far better than hon. members opposite do. On the one hand they do not want the Coloureds to ask for nominated members but on the other hand the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wants the proposed council to nominate Coloureds. On the one hand they do not trust the Coloureds but on the other hand they do trust them. In asking that the council should be able to nominate people …

I did not ask for that.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout told the hon. the Minister emphatically that if he did not want to accept the amendment he should permit the council to co-opt members.

On his argument.

If this was a matter of principle as far as they were concerned he would stand or fall by his amendment which is that those members should be elected members.

I stand by my amendment.

Why then does he ask whether the hon. the Minister will permit the council to co-opt members? The Minister may not nominate them but the council may nominate them! One minute they trust the Coloureds and the next minute they do not trust them at all. I say that they are not sincere in regard to the amendment which they have moved.

It is not only here in South Africa that the principle of the nomination of members is applied in the process of evolution. All the Western countries which had colonies, particularly Britain, made nominations during the process of evolution. They did not nominate natives of those countries but officials.

And it was a failure.

It was a failure in the countries in which they gave independence to undeveloped people too soon. We know that. They realize that themselves; they say that they gave these people their independence too soon. Chaos has resulted in countries in which independence has been granted too soon—for example, in the Congo. We also have the example of Kenya. As long as the nominated officials were there, they were able to lead the people in the right direction. History has proved that in the nomination of members—and not only members but also officials—those people who have been nominated have been able to lead the country in the right direction. The hon. the Minister is not nominating officials; he is not nominating Whites; he is nominating Coloureds of a high standard. What is wrong with that? There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Those people are held in very high esteem by their own people. The Coloureds prefer these members to be nominated. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that you will agree that we must carry out the wishes and the desires of the Coloureds. In this case the Coloureds have asked the hon. the Minister to nominate members and not to allow all the members to be elected members, but the United Party say that this is wrong. How is one to reconcile their arguments? It is absolutely impossible to do so. On the one hand they say that the wishes of the Coloured people must be given effect to and on the other hand they do not want to give effect to the wishes and desires of the Coloureds.

In conclusion, I feel that I must reply to a very reprehensible and contemptible insinuation that was made here to-day against certain hon. Ministers. I refer to the statement of the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). I am sorry that he is not here now. He insinuated that because the hon. the Minister of Labour—and in his arrogance he also included the hon. the Minister of Information—was nominated and because the hon. the Minister of Information was appointed only in order to impress the English-speaking people, they dare not give their opinion of the provisions of this clause. I say that that is a shameful and mean accusation.

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

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman. We know these two hon.

Ministers and we knew them when they were still members of the United Party. We regard them as honourable people and we and you, Mr. Chairman, know that if they differed from us in regard to this clause they would have the courage of their convictions to stand up and say so. I say I deprecate it most strenuously.

I want to ask the hon. member for Vryheid to tell this House whether he has consulted the Coloureds who are registered voters on the Voters’ Roll in his constituency in regard to their opinion on this clause? He has them, not on a separate roll, but as voters in his constituency on the Common Roll. He is their Member of Parliament, elected for that constituency, and they are his electors. I challenge him to tell this House that he has consulted those Coloureds in any shape or form, directly or indirectly. That is the hon. member who comes from Natal whose Coloured voters have been disenfranchised for ever in this House, who have been prevented, except those already on the Voters’ Roll, from coming onto either roll, and some of those remnants are still on the Voters’ Roll in the hon. member’s constituency.

How many are there?

There are seven remaining on that Voters’ Roll. [Laughter.] Hon. members laugh. They laugh because they have got a guilty conscience about what they have done to the Coloureds in Natal, and this hon. member now wishes to come and dictate to South Africa on this clause as to how this new council should be constituted. He has not consulted his own voters and he has lifted not one little finger to do anything for the Coloureds of Natal in regard to their political representation. In fact he has gone against the interests of the Coloureds in Natal, but he has the temerity to claim that they are now doing something in the interest of the Coloureds, when he is jointly responsible for the evil that has been already done to them.

I want to return to the hon. the Minister. The hon. Minister has found himself on the horns of a dilemma. He is faced in this clause with reconciling the promise which was made to the Coloureds by the Prime Minister, and in creating the impression that he is keeping that promise in full, he is now creating a body on which he himself has the right to select nearly one-third of the members. That dilemma led the hon. Minister to make an incredible statement here this morning which cannot pass unchallenged. That statement was that he wanted nominated members because they would not be responsible to an electorate, and therefore would not consider matters, as he put it, “hulle sal nie kyk na die stemme as hulle sake behandel nie”. He stated by implication that those members who are elected to this council will not be capable of dealing fairly and in an unbiased manner with the issues before them on their merits. He says that those nominated will not be responsible to voters and therefore can deal with matters on their merits. If that is so, then the Minister clearly implies that a person who is elected does not deal with matters on their merits. As he has no confidence in the Coloureds who are to be elected, and as he implies that they are not going to deal with matters on their merits, why then have them elected at all? Does he imply that this House, everyone of whose members is responsible to an electorate, is not capable of dealing with matters on their merits? Because that is the implication of his statement, that if you are responsible to voters you are then going to look at everything purely in the light of the effect it will have on your voters. He is telling his own supporters, and this side of the House, that they are not capable of dealing with any matter on its merits. We take the strongest exception to that. It is obviously true of many of his own members. They are not interested in the merits of the case, but they are interested in the effect of their actions on the electorate, not on the effect it will have on South Africa. That is why the hon. Minister takes up this attitude. He is so used to his own supporters being blind to the welfare of the country, and alive only to the electorate that he believes the Coloureds will be the same. We have more confidence in the Coloureds and their ability to give a clear and unbiased judgment on issues placed before them. We have that confidence which the Minister lacks because of the experience he has had on his own side.

There is one other matter which he raised that cannot pass unchallenged. The Minister said here deliberately that the policy of the United Party was to destroy groups, firstly amongst the Coloureds, so that they could be absorbed into the White community, “in een mengelmoes”, and then that “mengelmoes” community absorbed into a greater Black “mengelmoes”. That is untrue and false and the Minister ought to know that that is false if he is a student of politics. I say here on behalf of this party that that was a false statement, untrue in every respect. That is not the policy of this side of the House. This side of the House stands clearly for social and residential separation in accordance with the traditions of South Africa. We have always done so, and we maintained that tradition without the trappings of law which that side found necessary in order to maintain it. We as a Government maintained those traditions without legislation.

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

Coming back to the dilemma of the hon. the Minister, which has led him to the situation where he has expressed lack of confidence in the Coloureds who are to be elected to this council, I want to ask him to tell this House what he thinks the value of those elected councillors is going to be. The Minister is indicating now exactly what we alleged and what the hon. Minister originally denied. He is indicating that this is not going to be a legislative body. It is going to be purely an advisory body. Obviously. Because if the hon. Minister cannot trust elected members, and elected members are to form the majority then obviously he cannot entrust them with legislation or with powers. In other words they are to be the trappings, the trimmings, they are going to be the icing which is going to be put over the real people to whom he is going to listen, namely the nominated people. The hon. Minister gave examples of those nominated people. He spoke of educationists. His own Department has made it impossible for an educationist to be elected to this body. No teacher under the control of his Department may participate in politics.

Read the Bill.

I say that the Minister by his own actions has made it impossible …

Don’t you know that there are retired teachers?

Yes, but he has made it impossible for practising teachers to participate in the public life of their people, and they are people who have been leaders of that community. Now he comes and says “I may want to nominate an educationist”. He says “I may want to go to those very people against whom I have slammed the door to participation in the public life of their community, but I may have to go back to them to get their advice.”

You are on very thin ice now.

No, this is what happens when you get into a corner. The hon. Minister is in a corner. In trying to defend his Bill, he has been forced to make statements which more and more, as they get wilder and wilder, give away the weaknesses which are in this measure and the weakness which is in this clause particularly. The Minister mentioned educationists as persons who could not be elected and whom he might want to consult. Now he tries to wriggle out of it and he talks about retired teachers. Retired because they took part in politics? The hon. Minister has tried to prevent many of the natural leaders of the Coloured community from expressing views on behalf of their people, and now he is using the elected members to give a facade of legitimacy to the council which is going to be constituted. [Time limit.]

The blood pressure of the hon. member who has just sat down rose quite a few points in his efforts to put certain words into the hon. the Minister’s mouth and I just want to discuss a few of the incorrect statements he made. In the first place, he asked the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter) whether the hon. member had consulted his Coloured voters in Vryheid. But the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) also has Coloured voters in his constituency and I want to tell him that he did not consult his Coloured voters. I also want to put a question to him: Is it his policy to consult his voters first in regard to every aspect of proposed legislation, to consult every group of his voters in regard to all legislation that is introduced into this House? Or do his voters have sufficient confidence in him to leave matters to his discretion? I do not think that the statement made by the hon. member holds water. But when the hon. member became so heated about this matter and said that the hon. the Minister had made a statement here which was wrong, and, what was more, that the hon. the Minister knew that it was wrong, he was putting words into the mouth of the hon. the Minister which he had not used. In his argument the hon. the Minister told us that in certain cases the nominated members would be able to adopt a more independent attitude or express more independent ideas in regard to certain subjects because they would not be responsible for any electorate. Does the hon. member doubt that? Will he say that there are no such cases? I know of many occasions on which that hon. member has voted with the United Party but on which I could have sworn that he did not hold the same view as they did. He is aware of that fact. No, the hon. the Minister did not say what the hon. member tried to make us believe he had said, and I do not think that it behoves the hon. member to put words into the hon. the Minister’s mouth this way. He made another statement that I want to deal with. He said that the Coloured Persons Education Act forbids Coloured teachers to participate in politics and he asked how the hon. the Minister was going to be able to nominate educationists to the council when teachers were not permitted to participate in politics. I want to ask the hon. member how many ex-teachers there are in this House and how many there are in the provincial councils. I want the hon. member to mention to me one provincial councillor or one Member of Parliament or one Senator who is still teaching to-day. The hon. member should not be so childish and petty in his arguments. We know that he must oppose this legislation and that he must spend as much time on Clause 1 as possible but then he should at least advance better arguments. The hon. member has told us once again that the powers of this Coloured council will be advisory powers only. Has he not read this Bill? Has he not read the provisions of this Bill which set out the powers of the council? The hon. member for Durban (Point) has been trying to lay a smoke-screen here but I am afraid that he has not been successful. We on this side believe that it is necessary, initially at least, to nominate certain of the members of that council, particularly as it is to be a new Coloured council. The elected members are going to be called upon to fight an election. They are going to have to stand for election even though they have had no previous experience in this regard. It will be the task of the hon. the Minister to try to obtain the services of people who have already shown that their services on the council are necessary in the interests of the Coloureds themselves. Therefore, the hon. the Minister must have the power to be able to nominate one-third of those members.

Before calling upon the next hon. member, I want to point out that this clause has been exhaustively discussed and hon. members must now advance new arguments.

It is to be regretted that from the Government’s point of view two arguments were advanced why there should be nominated members on this council. The first reason was expressed by the Minister himself, namely, that he wants people on this council who will represent the viewpoint of the Government.

When?

That was a most unfortunate statement to make. Is that a reason why there should be nominated members?

Order! That argument has been used.

Well, the second reason given was that the Coloured people had not yet reached that political maturity that is necessary. But I want to show that in this clause the Minister does not give representation to these people on that basis. The Minister does not admit that they are not mature politically. Because here he gives one nominated member to Natal, one for the Free State, and the balance in the Free State will be elected. Now if these people are not mature, why must there be one nominated member from the Free State? For what purpose? One will be nominated in respect of Natal, the rest will be elected. What is the purpose of this one man? Why is it necessary to have this one man in the Free State and one in Natal? In the Free State there are some25,000 Coloureds and in the Transvaal 100,000, Will the Minister tell me that those 100,000 people in the Transvaal are not capable of electing their own people? The Minister says: I will nominate two people. Why two?

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that he is now dealing with Clause 2.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, Clause 1 says that 16 members will be nominated, and I am trying to indicate that it is not necessary to nominate anybody. The only possible loophole that the Minister may have is that by mischance—I do not agree with him—the Griquas may not be able to have a representative on this council if there is an open election, or there may not be a representative of the Malay community. I do not agree with the hon. Minister, but he may have a case when he says that he wants to see that those groups are represented in this council. But according to the Minister there can only be two Malays and two Griquas for sure. But why then have nominated people for the rest when the whole area will be divided up in constituencies and they will have an opportunity to elect people to the council in accordance with their numbers? What is the purpose of this one man going to be in relation to the elected members? Mr. Chairman, you have ruled me out of order, but I want to show that the process of nomination was first mooted in the Act of 1951, 13 years ago, and one can understand the reason for nomination in that case. In accordance with Section 14 of the Act of 1951, there were to be nominated non-European members. I can understand that as the Coloured people of the Transvaal, the Free State and Natal could not have any elected members, their interests should be represented and the only way was by way of nomination. That I can understand. That is reasonable and is logical. But that reason does not exist anymore to-day. Whereas in 1951 the only way to get them on the council was by way of nomination, that does no longer apply to-day because they are now going to have the right to vote on a Roll and to elect people. Therefore the interests of the Coloured people will be advanced by the elected members, and the original reason for nomination has fallen away. Then in 1956, the original Act was amended and the number of members was increased, and four members were to represent the Province of the Transvaal. To-day, there will only be two nominated members in respect of the Transvaal. In other words, the hon. Minister now admits that it is not necessary to nominate so many for the Transvaal because the elected members are going to be there. [Time limit.]

This House of Assembly, of which we are members, is the end product of a development process which had a very simple beginning. The question is, what was the start of this constitutional development which resulted in this House of Assembly? If we go into this matter, we find that it started in 1825.

Order! The argument in regard to constitutional development has already been used over and over again.

May I then say that the system of representation by elected and nominated members …

That argument has also been used.

If that argument is out of order then I want to point out that the argument of the Opposition that the Coloureds already have a very long history of constitutional development behind them and that as a result of this fact they have reached a stage where they now want full rights, is not quite correct. I want to say that the qualified vote of the Coloureds does have a long history and background behind it. But they will now be given an unqualified vote for the first time and that unqualified Coloured vote does not have a long history of development behind it. It is a completely new thing. Because the unqualified Coloured vote is now to be made general for the first time, I say that the Coloured people must go through the same procedure which we had to go through right from the start up to the present stage. They must go through those various stages as well. It need not take so very long and that is why this provision is not at all in conflict with the undertaking of the hon. the Prime Minister. As I have already said, the Coloureds with their unqualified vote will have to go through the period of development which we had to go through from 1825 to 1872, but it need not take so much time. In any case, it can be dealt with as it was dealt with in the Transvaal. Where a start was made in a small way in the Cape with a legislative council in 1834, precisely the same thing was applied to the Transvaal in 1902 when they had 12 nominated members. There were 6 officials and 6 members on the council, all nominated members, and in 1902 that council had control over the Transvaal and the Free State although it was a brand new body. From 1902 they went through a number of stages until 1907 when they were given responsible self-government and were able to join the Union in 1910. This need not be a protracted process. This qualified Coloured vote system will start now, in 1964. We have here the first constitutional development in this regard. They are starting where the Whites started in 1834. I say that things can develop at a very swift pace and, as things are at present, this Coloured council will be able to make fairly swift progress in its efforts to attain its eventual status. But, and this is the argument that I want to add, in any council, in the initial stages of any constitutional development we always have nominated members and elected members. That is a principle which one finds throughout.

Order! That argument has already been used.

I would like to reply to the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). I am sorry he is not here. He is one of the members of this House who rather prides himself upon making slick debating points in this Chamber, but I thought he made a very poor one this morning with specific reference to this clause. The hon. member for Vereeniging made the comment that nominated members form part of our whole political system in South Africa, and he went on to say that of course they have nominated members in the United Kingdom as well. I take it he was referring to the House of Lords when he said that. Because of course the absurdity of his comment is just this, that the purpose of this council, in terms of the Minister’s own second-reading speech, is to form the basis of the Coloured parliament which was promised to the Coloured people by the Prime Minister in 1961, and if the hon. member for Vereeniging or anyone else can tell me that there is any Parliament, any House of Assembly in the United Kingdom or anywhere else in the world which has nomiated members I shall be surprised.

But there were in South Africa.

There is no unanimity on the Government side about this matter. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) said the other day that the Coloured people in the Transvaal were far more qualified to manage their own affairs than any other group of Coloureds in the country, so it is no good the hon. members telling us we must have nominated members because the Coloured people in the different provinces are not competent, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) said earlier. The hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter) spoke about the danger of letting agitators into this council, and that was one of his arguments in favour of having a percentage of the members nominated, but of course all that is is a confession of fear and failure.

Order! That argument has been used already.

I should like to remind hon. members that where this question of the capability of the Coloureds is concerned, 90 per cent of the Coloureds live in the Cape Province, and for many years there have been more Coloured children than White children at school in the Cape. Therefore there is a large percentage of extremely able and civilized Coloured people in this province and many others who are quite competent to run this council.

I want to deal with only one other issue. The Minister, in his reply just before lunch, made the specific statement that our only object in opposing this Bill was that we deliberately wished to sow suspicion amongst the Coloured people. We refute that statement. In the first place, the Minister should know that in this day and age, when things are developing in the political field as they are, to suggest that for us in the Opposition to advocate a better deal for the non-Whites is in fact an attempt to stir up trouble is nonsense. It seems to me that his argument demonstrates the poverty of his case because I should like to know why the Minister saw fit this morning to adopt the attitude he did. Why can he not argue this matter on its merits? Why was it necessary for the Minister to say something very significant to me? He said that we view with suspicion everything that the Nationalist Party has done in the field of race relations, and I asked whether he was surprised.

Order! The hon. member must confine herself to this clause.

The Minister told me that my safety in this country was due to the Nationalist Party.

Order! That was by way of interjection.

Then I will conclude my remarks by saying that I regret that I am not in a position in this House to reply to a definite statement …

Order!

Will the hon. member repeat what she said?

I repeat that I regret that I am not in a position to reply to the Minister’s statement.

Order!

I just want to conclude my remarks. Earlier I dealt with the reasons given in the original Act of 1951, some 13 years ago. I merely want to impress upon the Minister that the principle of nomination is to have representatives in a body where people are prevented from being elected, and for that reason there are no nominated members in Parliament.

Order! That argument has been used repeatedly.

I should like to make a few observations in connection with this clause but I feel that it is also necessary to say, and I base my feeling on my personal experience, that we must be careful in what we say in discussing measures of this nature and in saying that we speak for people who cannot be here personally. My experience is that if we act in such a way that we cast suspicion on measures that have to be taken, we arouse suspicion in the minds of the Coloureds not against the Government but against the White man. It has been my personal experience on more than one occasion that a Coloured has said to me: “But can I trust you? After all you are a White man”.

Order! The hon. member must discuss the clause.

The hon. the Minister has said that it is nothing unusual for provision to be made for nominated members. I agree. We also know that until 1948 South-West Africa also had nominated members. But my attitude in regard to this clause is that I am fully aware of the fact that if the hon. the Minister accepts the amendment whereby all the members of the council will be elected, he will inspire a degree of confidence which has never existed before in the history in this country and which we have never before had an opportunity of inspiring. The suspicion that there was against the Coloured council in the past and the suspicion that exists to-day against the proposed council exists because of the fact that the members will be nominated. Unfortunately, I have to point out to the hon. the Minister, with great respect, that in my opinion he made a great mistake in mentioning the case this morning of the minority who may support the Government and to whom he wants to give representation on the Council through the medium of nominated members.

When did I say that?

I understood the hon. the Minister to say that there is a minority who may not be able to elect their own representatives but who are supporters of the Government.

You misunderstood him.

I cannot remember the hon. the Minister’s exact words but that was the impression that I gained. Indeed, the argument was repeated and the hon. the Minister did not deny it. That is what upset me, but I do not consider my personal feelings; I think of what the effect of such a statement may be on the people who must have confidence in this council. [Interjections.] I was under the impression that the hon. the Minister mentioned a minority group which would not have representation. [Interjections.] Hon. members on both sides of the House have spoken about consultation with the Coloureds. During my second-reading speech I said that there was no satisfactory method of consultation. I regard this council, an elected council, as a body which can be consulted. This is our opportunity. As long as its members are nominated, this council does not have the character that I should like to see. I accept the arguments of the hon. the Minister. I know the circumstances of the people whom I represent and I respect his argument because I know that it is true that there will be people who will be an asset to this council but who, as a result of circumstances, do not want to fight an election. I would like to see such people on the council, but if we want to be consistent, then the same thing applies to this House. I think of a person like Dr. Tienie Louw who would be an asset to this House, but if he were to become a member, our economic development in which he has played a role would suffer. As I say, I accept what the hon. the Minister has said and that he is honest in saying that he wants these people on that council, but on the other hand, I am faced with this problem: I want the Coloured people to have the necessary respect for and confidence in this council. They have already been lied to and tricked … [Interjections.] By whom does not concern me. It is a case of the pot calling the kettle black but both are equally black. Here we have a golden opportunity not only to inspire confidence in and to promote respect for the council and to do away with the belittling remarks of the past, but to prove that this is a truly democratic body on which people can give expression to their political feelings, air their grievances or lend their support, as the case may be, and at the same time set up a body for the first time in the history of South Africa which one can consult. But it will not retain that characteristic as long as its members are nominated.

I want to repeat another point to which the hon. the Minister replied when he spoke about the sub-groups, the Malays and the Griquas. The hon. the Minister asked whether I knew about the Griouas who wanted their own residential area. That is, of course, impossible. But there is another sub-group, the Basters of Upington who, under their leader Piet Darries, want the whole of the Gordonia area because they say they inherited it from their forefathers. We know that it is impossible to give it to them. Are we also going to establish a Baster sub-group and give them representation on the council? It is all very well to say that the Malays asked for a Malay qualification. The Basters also think the same way. But I want to point out to the hon. the Minister, and I hope he will give his attention to it, that my colleagues and I find ourselves in a difficult position because we also represent the Indians. The Malays are Moslems. After all, we do not have a classification for the Jewish religion. But we have this position as a result of this sub-classification; I had people in my office this morning, people from Bonteheuwel, who complained about the Indians who are classified as Coloureds and who own the businesses at Bonteheuwel. With all these trivial things we only create an opening for more problems and grievances. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister not to sub-divide the Coloured group further by making provision for a Malay representative and a Griqua representative. These people are Coloureds and their religion has nothing to do with the matter.

I rise to correct a misunderstanding that has arisen. The hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) is under the impression that the hon. the Minister said this morning that it was necessary to have a number of nominated members because there may be a minority group of Coloureds who support the Government and who have no representation. [Interjection.] The hon. the Minister said very clearly that because there are various groups of Coloureds, there may be a minority group who do not have sufficient numbers to enable them to elect one of their people to serve on this council. He said that since he would like those minority groups to be represented on the council, he wanted, by means of this clause, to enable those minority groups to be represented on the council through the medium of a nominated member. That was the argument of the hon. the Minister. There was no mention of a minority group which support the Government.

I would like clarity in regard to this matter. I am trying to clear up this point. I listened attentively to the words of the hon. the Minister and his use of the words “Government supporters” and that is why, when I rose to speak, I used exactly the same words. An hon. member opposite carried the argument even further and I then said: “If the argument of the hon. member who has just sat down in regard to the representation of minority groups is to be accepted, then I hope he will suggest that legislation be introduced to give the United Party in the Free State a few nominated members on the provincial council.”

But there you were wrong already.

I was under the impression that the hon. the Minister had said that there were minority groups which supported the Government and which could be given representation in this way. Immediately I felt that that was the most fatal argument that he could use. We will see what the hon. the Minister had to say from the Hansard report of his speech. Because I was under that impression, I adopted the attitude that it was wrong on the part of the hon. the Minister to use those words and that by doing so he was aggravating the position. I want to see the clause amended in such a way that a council about which there can be no suspicion can be constituted. In any case, I do not accept that council as a permanent body. I am prepared to go along with it as a first step but then it must be a council in which the Coloured people have confidence. It will be of great assistance if a time limit can be fixed and if the hon. the Minister will even go so far as to say that provisionally, for the first five years, the council will consist of a certain number of nominated members but that when the next council is elected, it will be a council consisting of elected members only. If the hon. the Minister is prepared to make provision for this, then I shall support the clause. But as things stand now, I must accept that this is a permanent body and in my view it will not be a representative body worthy of any attention. [Interjections.] The United Party want to consult with the Coloureds, but so far that consultation has been a farce. Can I tell the United Party to consult with the Coloured council while 16 members of the council are nominated members? I cannot do so.

Why not?

The 16 nominated members do not represent the Coloureds; they represent the persons who appointed them.

Would you say that Fortein, who is serving on the council at the moment, represents the Coloureds?

Yes, in his own capacity …

And was he not nominated?

I shall reply to the hon. the Minister. Fortein consulted his people in Griqualand East before he accepted the nomination and he is absolutely convinced that he represents the Coloured people. As far as outsiders are concerned, however, he does not represent the Coloureds; he represents the Minister who appointed him. Is the hon. the Minister aware of the fact that a member of the Coloured council stood up when this Bill was under discussion there and moved that the whole council should consist of nominated members? I refer to a certain M r. Langenhoven who is an elected member, but he probably made this suggestion because he was afraid that he would not be reelected. So there is also a counter-argument to the argument of the hon. the Minister. I am being sincere and honest when I say that a body must be established as soon as possible—and here we have the opportunity— which cannot be said to have any ulterior motives. It must be representative of the Coloureds. If we have such a free elected body both the Opposition and the Government will be in a position to say: “We have a body here which represents Coloured opinion and we can therefore consult it.” That is what I am striving for. I also want to correct the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) who said that a Coloured teacher could not become a member of this council. He can. The only point is that he may not be a member of a political party. I repeat that all I am concerned about in this matter is the establishment of a fully representative council, where it will not be possible to accuse some of the members of being nominated members. It must be a body which both the Government and the Opposition can consult.

I move—

I am not prepared to accept the motion for the closure at this stage.

In support of the plea made by the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland), not to divide the Coloured community, may I refer to a very moving letter published in last night’s Argus written by a very prominent Coloured man in regard to this very issue?

I can quote a number of letters that prove the opposite.

But they have not seen the light of day, and this one has. It says—

As an old Capetonian, I can support this. If the Minister goes through any of the municipal housing schemes he will see that it is almost impossible to differentiate between these groups, and I ask the Minister to bear that in mind.

Now I want to go on to another aspect of Clause 1, which is germane to the discussion. In support of the plea made by this side of the House to have an elected representative council, I want to quote a statement made by the Prime Minister in this regard, and I refer again to the statement made by the Prime Minister when he addressed the present council in December 1961. He spoke, firstly, of the work the council had done, that they had been established as an advisory body, and then he said this—

These were the words of the Prime Minister when he adumbrated this idea of a new Coloured parliament. We are now asking the Minister to give effect to the promise the Prime Minister made to the Coloureds, to have a representative parliament which would represent the entire community. [Interjections.] The Prime Minister said that it must be developed into a more representative union control board. …

A more representative body.

That is all we ask for, and it can only be more representative by having the people elected. Who has ever heard of a parliament nominated by the Government? The Government has introduced this Bill. They find themselves in this unfortunate position that they are introducing this sectional system of legislature. No one has asked them for it. They have decided to inflict upon this country a sectional form of legislature, and the Prime Minister said it would be a Coloured parliament; no argument that the Minister has advanced up to now has convinced us that this body should not be fully representative and a truly elected body.

Now I want to go on to another aspect of the matter. It is quite obvious from the attitude of the Minister that he is not prepared to accede to the pleas to have a truly elected body. In that case I propose to try and see whether I can make the ratio between the nominated members and the elected members more realistic. By means of the amendment I will move presently, I want to try to see to it that we have a much larger number of elected members as compared with the 16 nominated members. Sir, I have on the Order Paper an amendment to the effect that the 30 elected members should be increased to 40. I understand there is a possibility of that amendment being considered out of order by reason of the fact that an acceptance of the amendment may involve an increase of expenditure not envisaged in this Bill. May I, with your permission, just briefly address you on that aspect of the matter? I understand that the objection to this amendment is possibly based on the fact that in terms of Clause 22 of this Bill the moneys required for the exercise of the powers and the performance of the functions and duties of the council shall be made available annually out of moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purpose, and it might be contended that an increase in the number of elected members from 30 to 40 would increase that amount. In support of my argument that the amendment is not in conflict with the provisions of this Bill and that it will not involve additional expenditure, I would like to draw your attention, Sir, to the provisions of Clause 19 (1) which merely says that the members of the council shall receive such allowances as the State President may determine. All that would happen, as I see it, is that the State President, in other words the Minister, would say: “We are prepared to set aside R10,000 for the allowance of members elected or nominated to this council,” and all that would happen is that that R10,000 would be divided either between 46 members, the number provided for in this Bill, or 56 members if this amendment is accepted. I submit to you, Sir, that this amendment is in no way in conflict with the rule that no amendment can be introduced which has the effect of increasing the capital expenditure under any Bill. I do urge upon you, Sir, that there is substance in the point I make. As I have said, no amount is specified in Clause 19; it merely says that members of the council shall receive such amounts as the State President may determine. Then again no amount is specified in Clause 22, so whatever globular amount is set aside by way of salaries will be divided between 56 members instead of 46 if this amendment is accepted. I therefore move the amendment standing in my name—

The effect of this will be to bring about a more realistic ratio between the elected and the nominated members. Up to the present moment the hon. the Minister has not advanced any good and sufficient reason as to why we should have 16 nominated members and only 30 elected members. Sir, I plead with the hon. the Minister to give at least some semblence of truth to the assertion made by the hon. the Prime Minister himself when he envisaged a Coloured parliament which would control the interests of the Coloured people in this country, and held out the prospect that it would be a more representative body than the present Union Council for Coloured Affairs. I think it would be a much more representative council if the hon. the Minister would agree to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, but if he is not prepared to do that, let him at least show the Coloured people that he is prepared to give them a bigger say in their own affairs by allowing the number of elected members to be increased from 30 to 40. This is not asking too much, Sir. It is not too much to ask that a body controlling the affairs of 1,500,000 citizens of this country should consist of 56 members, and I would plead with the hon. the Minister at least to agree to this small improvement.

I have had occasion to consider the proposed amendment and I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment as it would involve increased expenditure for which the State President’s recommendation is required.

The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) has just alleged that this Bill is not in conformity with the promise which the hon. the Prime Minister made in connection with this matter. Let me quote the hon. the Prime Minister’s precise words to him. Referring to the Advisory Council he used these words (translation)—

He did not use the word “converted”. He stated very clearly that it should be “developed”. Does the hon. member know what “develop” means? Development is something which has more than one phase. Why is the hon. member so concerned about the fact that we are not immediately converting the existing council into a parliament, as he sees it? A development process is being put into operation here and the hon. the Minister is giving full effect to the promise of the hon. the Prime Minister. If we had set up a council of this kind in its final form, the hon. member would immediately have objected and would have told us: “Here you are establishing something new whereas you told us that you were going to ‘develop’ something.” Sir, that is how we know those hon. members; if we do one thing, they want another thing. I hope I am correctly interpreting what has been said here to-day when I say that those hon. members object to the nominated members on the grounds that they will not be full-fledged members of the council and that the council will therefore not be truly representative of the Coloureds. I want now to put a specific question to the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) and to all the Coloured Representatives here to-day. When we look at all the present representative councils, we find that the chairmen of those councils are all nominated members. Indeed, they are all public servants. I challenge those hon. members to say that those people have not represented the interests of the Coloureds in the past. I can mention certain names here. I challenge the hon. member for Karoo to say that Mr. Cloete, the chairman of Steinkopf, does not represent his people. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that if he makes such a statement across the floor of this House not one of the Coloureds at Steinkopf will ever vote for him again. Mr. Cloete has the confidence of those Coloureds because the hon. the Minister appointed the best man he had in his Department there. Mr. Cloete is the best man for that post; the Coloureds are aware of that fact and yet he is a nominated member; he is an official. I want to mention another example. Would the hon. member say, for example, that Mr. Coetzee of Concordia does not represent his people capably and that he is not dealing with a representative person when he deals with Mr. Coetzee? I want to assure the hon. member that his Coloured voters refuse to do anything without the guidance of those officials. Those elected members would never dream of taking a decision without consulting those officials. No, I think hon. members have advanced a stupid argument here and if they continue with this argument then they must tell us clearly that they feel that a person who is nominated cannot represent his own people properly. We must remember that we are dealing here with Coloureds who have not yet had the opportunity of moving around and becoming well known amongst their own people in this large country of ours. There may be two or three extremely competent leaders in a specific area but only one man can be elected. I do not think the voters would elect the worst candidate; we do not want to suggest that for one moment. But there may be two or three extremely competent men in an area, as is the case in the area represented by the hon. member for Karoo. They are first-class men but only one of them can be elected. The hon. the Minister may want one of the two remaining men to become a member of the council too because he feels that it will be in the best interests of those Coloureds. But the United Party are now seeking to tie the hon. the Minister’s hands because that man is not yet known; he cannot stand in another constituency as we Whites can because we move around the country and we become known to the people. That man is not known to the voters in another constituency. This Bill now gives the hon. the Minister the opportunity; apart from making use of the services of the other elected and capable man to make use of the services of such a capable man to look after the interests of his own people. If hon. members of the Opposition regard those people as “stooges” when they are nominated, I should like them to stand up and say it. Those people who have served as nominated members on the council up to the present time will be very grateful to them; I shall also tell the voters in their own constituencies that that is their attitude.

In answer to the question put by the bon. member who has just sat down, I went to great pains to say that there were no men so far as I was concerned in the Union Council for Coloured Affairs who could be called stooges. I expressly used that expression; I said that these men were criticized by their own people because their own people do not know what goes on in these places. Nobody mentioned the qualifications of Mr. Coetzee or Mr. Cloete. Sir, this is the sort of left-handed argument that we get from hon. members opposite. They postulate a certain question and then ask us to deny it.

While I am on my feet the hon. the Minister made a great point of the fact that there are nominated persons on other councils and on the Union Council for Coloured Affairs. He said that he had consulted with these people. May I just say to him that the fact of the matter is that the Coloured community as a whole—I made this qualification as well— with few exceptions rejects the sort of council which is being proposed here, and the reason for that is this: The Minister in setting up the Union Council for Coloured Affairs gave a preponderance of nominated members as against elected members. The hon. the Minister knows full well from his experience that the Coloured community have never had any confidence in the activities of the council; they have had great difficulty in finding out what goes on in the council, and they have organizations amongst themselves which have been very critical of the nominated members in the council. Even the elected people have been subjected to criticism for the reason that the Coloured people feel as a group of South Africans that their interests have not been served to the best advantage along these particular lines. The hon. the Minister has now decided to change the composition of the council. I would like to put this question to the hon. the Minister: If the Union Council for Coloured Affairs as an advisory body was satisfactory and if advisory bodies are going to work, why does he change the existing advisory body when a few minor amendments to the original Act would have done the trick? The answer to that is surely this …

Order! The hon. member is covering too wide a field. He must confine himself to the clause.

Sir, the nominated members, even in the council set up by the hon. the Minister, have been criticized. It has been suggested here that because we oppose nominated members we have some charge to lay at the door of these people in their personal capacity. That is not true at all. The position is that nominated people are never satisfactory. A nominated person, to whom reference has been made by the hon. the Minister in connection with other boards, is either appointed to a committee or a board to carry out a particular policy or because of special knowledge, or to make recommendations of a particular kind on a particular subject, and in that direction nominees are quite acceptable, but in a body of this kind it is a very different story. The hon. the Minister spoke about Griquas and Malays; I shall deal with that later and explain to him why we on this side of the House think that it is wrong in perpetuating this representation by way of nominees from those particular groups. Sir, many hon. members have spoken here about the effectiveness of nominated men. It is absolutely true that until such time as we make up our minds to make these bodies fully elected bodies we will never gain the confidence of the Coloured community.

Order! That argument has been used over and over again.

I just wanted to emphasize it because it should be repeated very often. The hon. the Minister says that the Union Council itself recommended the appointment of nominated persons on the new council. It is common knowledge, and the Coloureds say that these people would naturally recommend nominees because they hope to be among the nominated members.

Order! That argument has also been advanced. The hon. member must advance new arguments.

Well, the arguments are varied and plentiful. The hon. the Minister covered a very wide field, a field which was not dealt with by previous speakers, and I look to your discerning judgment, Sir, to guide me in this matter, because we are dealing here with 1,500,000 people and we want to provide them with something which is acceptable to them. The Coloured community as such do not accept nominated people. I say that as a representative of the Coloured community. The four Coloured Representatives here have advanced every argument that can possibly be advanced to persuade the Minister that the majority party is wrong in assuming that nominated members are acceptable to the Coloured community because they are not, and I do hope that even now the Minister will realize that there will have to be a complete change. Sir, as you so rightly said time is running out. I want to deal with just one aspect of this legislation as it affects the Griquas. I want to confirm that the idea of trying to isolate the Griquas is fallacious. The hon. member for Outiniqua (Mr. Holland) spoke about East Griqualand. I will speak about Griqualand West. I just want to say to the hon. the Minister that when the Group Areas Act was in the course of being implemented an inquiry was made at Kimberley to ascertain the numbers of Griquas in that area. The individual who came to do the inquiry and the investigation had great difficulty in finding Griquas. Since then they have resorted to race classifications. As you know, Sir, in earlier days the Griquas had a privilege which the Bantu did not have; in other words, the Griquas were allowed to purchase liquor, but they live in the Bantu villages in many, many instances and in other instances they lived in Coloured villages, where they could. I want to say to the Minister that it is a mistake to try to identify the Griquas as a group.

Order! I think the hon. member should advance those arguments under Clause 2.

But the hon. the Minister advanced them under Clause 1.

They properly fall under Clause 2.

Sir, the point is this: The hon. the Minister referred particularly to Malays, a group of people who are adherents of the Moslem faith. He said that he had been approached with the request that they should have nominated members, a matter which he dealt with under Clause 1.

I replied to questions put to me.

Order! The hon. member should advance those arguments under Clause 2.

With due deference, Sir, Clause 1 provides for 16 members to be nominated by the State President …

Yes, and the basis of allocation is set out in Clause 2.

Sir, I have always been a man for law and order and for obeying rules. I shall therefore sit down and deal with this matter in greater detail under Clause 2.

I should like to say a word about the argument which has been advanced at this late stage in the discussion of this clause by hon. members on the other side with regard to the development process that has been taking place in our constituional build-up in South Africa.

Order! I ruled that argument out of order as tedious repetition.

Sir, what I wish to refer to is the development in South Africa of representation on councils.

Order! I ruled that argument out of order as tedious repetition.

What I wish to do is to point out that in this development that has taken place we have got beyond the stage of two elected to one nominated. We commenced with three to one 30 years ago.

That argument has been advanced over and over again.

No, Sir, it has never been touched on.

Order!

I am referring to the Natives’ Representative Council which was established under Act 12 of 1936 where the ratio was 12 to four.

Order! The hon. member must observe my ruling.

May one not refer to the relationship in representation?

Order! The constitutional development and the development of representation on boards have been dealt with over and over again.

But not the actual numbers.

Order! The hon. member must please resume his seat.

I move—

Upon which the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Question put: That paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and the amendments dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 2,

Sir, I intend to move the deletion of this clause.

Order! The hon. member cannot move the deletion; he can speak against it.

Now that it has been established that there shall be nominated members I want to deal with the question of the geographical, the racial and religious allocation of persons who shall be eligible to be nominated. I want to say to the Minister that the Coloured community does not wish to be, and should not be, broken up into minor groups. The hon. Minister has referred to one group, the Griquas, but I do not believe they are as many as we were led to believe. The Griquas, as a group, got special rights many years ago and as the years have gone by those rights have fallen into line and become part and parcel of the Coloured community. I would like to confirm what the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) said in regard to the Griquas, that they are really not a group apart, but that there are people “known as Griquas” and that there was no special way of identifying them as such except by the cards they carry. In an investigation made at Kimberley, which is a part of the country where the Griqua originated, great difficulty was experienced in the urban area in searching for Griquas; they could not find enough of them to form a group. The reason for that investigation was the allocation of a township to the Griquas. So I can assure the hon. the Minister that the question of Griquas is not acceptable to the Coloured community as such.

When replying to a question under the previous clause the Minister said that the Malay community had requested to be regarded as a separate group. For years the Malay community expressed opinions and wished to be considered, and eventually were successful in being included in the Coloured group. To all intents and purposes and for all practical purposes they are Coloured people. The fact that they are Moslems has nothing whatsoever to do with election to this particular type of council or with nomination to this particular council. I cannot see what the Minister will have to consult the Malays about that he could not consult the elected body about on any of the subjects which may come up before it except on this question of religion. I do not think religion makes an acceptable difference or that there is any advice the Minister might need on Mohammedanism. Be that as it may, there are people in the Upington area who call themselves “Basters”. They prefer to be referred to “as die bruin mense”. They will say to you: “Ons is nie Kleurlinge nie, meneer, ons is bruin mense.” I put it to the Minister that there are other groups as well which could also be regarded as constituting separate groups. There is a group in Namaqualand who call themselves “Die Kleurlingvolks-vereniging”. They regard themselves as a special group as well although they are Coloured people and regard themselves as such.

Let us examine this break-down of eight in the Cape, two in the Transvaal and one each in the Free State and Natal. The hon. the Minister has said that there are people who could be used. Many persons who are presently serving on the Union Council for Coloured Affairs expect to be the nominated ones when the elections are over which will take place as a result of this Bill. I am extremely doubtful whether the persons who are going to be brought in for purposes of giving advice will be the type to whom the Minister referred, namely, the professional people who do not want to be involved in elections. I can see no reason whatsoever why the number of nominated members should be limited to one in the case of the Free State. How do we know that there are not more than one person there who is competent to give advice and who will be willing to serve on such a board. The Minister says there are many competent ones, but apparently there is only one in the Free State. The same applies to Natal whereas in the Transvaal there will be two. Four will be eliminated in the Cape because two will be Griauas and two Malays, so there will be four in the Cape. It is generally conceded that the number of civilized, advanced people in the Cape Province is high. It seems to me that the Minister is making a mistake in restricting his choice to four and to giving two other groups representation, on the basis of a group in the case of the Griquas, and on the basis of religion in the case of the Malays.

I would say the correct procedure to be followed is to widen the field. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that his choice of members who have been nominated recently has created a considerable amount of dissatisfaction. The people are not worried about the qualifications of the persons who have been nominated but they are critical of the methods of nomination. They want to know who nominated those people. I can speak of experience. When I saw the Commissioner of Coloured Affairs in a certain city I asked him: In appointing this particular group of people for nomination to this board whom did you consult? He was unwilling to tell me. I do not wish to pursue the matter in detail but that is the difficulty with all these nominees. Who nominates these people for election by the Minister? What happens is this: Wherever nominees are called for by Ministers or by Administrators from authorities who are requested to make such nominations they are invariably asked to submit two or three names. These are usually well-known people and it is left to the Minister to make a choice. In this clause we just have a bald statement that there will be so many from each province. In view of the statements made by Government speakers yesterday that the idea is to get the best Coloured people, I submit there should not be any geographical boundaries or any restrictions on the choice of persons. I take it that the Minister will lay down by regulation how these nominees are to be selected, such as who is to recommend them before the final choice is made and as to whom these people shall be and in what capacity they shall serve. [Time limit.]

In connection with the problems raised by the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden), I should like to say to him, in the first place, that at the present time the Coloured Council, whether or not it is effective, is the one mouthpiece consisting of Coloureds, and I consulted them. They came along with this proposal. I did not at any time dictate to the Council that it should be done in this manner. This proposal emanated from the council itself. I am now doing what is the result of consultation with this council, and the hon. member says it is wrong. The second reply I wish to give him is that the Malays and the Griquas made strong representations to the Government in the past already to be identified as Malays and Griquas.

What about the Bastards? (Basters.)

I may tell the hon. member there have also been strong representations from the Bastards in this connection. In other words, these people wish to be recognized as such. The Malays and the Griquas possess certain traditional characteristics that are peculiar to them, apart from the fact that they are prepared to form a part of the Coloured group. We feel that by recognizing this, we are stimulating their pride to some extent. The Malays have certain customs; they have a certain way of life which differs in many respects from that of their fellow Coloured people. It is a good thing they have that. We even went so far as to proclaim their own group area for the Malays, namely Schotsche Kloof. Schotsche Kloof has a long tradition behind it; there are certain buildings we wish to preserve; there is a certain culture there we wish to preserve because we believe that the development of that will benefit the whole country. So there are things which are peculiar to the Malays. There are things which are peculiar to the Griquas. These people want it like that. In the present council there is a Malay representative and a Griqua representative who, according to them, is a descendant of their Chief. Knowing these two members are there, the present council had regard to that fact, and saw to it that they received protection. I am told all day long I should have regard to the sentiments of the people, but when we do so, when we act on their request, where we have regard to even small communities, hon. members come along and say: Wipe this out, and wipe that out with one stroke of the pen; your Malays must be Coloureds. Is that what a Coloured representative should be urging here now?

He did not say that.

Of course he did. What did he say then? Can the hon. member for Karoo see now what happens when we merely make political statements? These people have their idiosyncrasies and let us take that into account. I believe we shall give satisfaction by doing so. I hope that the things that are fine in the life of the Malays and that the things that are fine in the life of the Griquas will, through the voices of their representatives in this Council, continually be brought to the notice of the authorities and will continually be advocated in this council, for it is only when you enable these people to plead for these things in their Council, and to ask for the protection thereof, that you will not only give satisfaction to those groups, but will afford them an opportunity to contribute to the diversity of riches in South Africa. I am not prepared summarily to wipe out these people. If it appears in the future that the Malays have changed their minds— they are a decreasing group; we know they are being assimilated—there will always be time to change the position. But at this stage I most certainly am not prepared to accede to these pleas and I shall stand by the clause as printed.

Clause 1 has now been agreed to and in terms of that clause the hon. the Minister now has the power to nominate a certain number of the members of the council. As the hon. the Minister now has the power to appoint members of the council, will he also consider giving representation to the Basters by way of nomination?

I shall consider all those matters.

It is in this regard that I object to this Malay-Griqua classification. The hon. the Minister has the power to appoint members; he has said that he will consider these matters and I am pleased to hear it. As far as I am concerned—I do not know the views of the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) in this regard because they are his voters—the Basters are a group living more in the past than in the present or in the future; they say that the whole area of Gordonia must become Baster territory and so forth, which I know is impossible, but they have certain aims and they adopt a certain attitude in this regard. We are now going to have a Coloured council and the hon. the Minister is going to give them representation on that council. But it would be silly to expect the hon. the Minister to give representation to every group. We admit that there are many sub-groups amongst the Coloureds. The outlook of the Coloureds in Namaqualand is completely different to that, for example, of the Coloureds in the northern parts of my constituency. It would be silly to expect the hon. the Minister to have to give representation to every sub-group of the Coloureds on this council.

We will give representation to the most important groups.

I cannot agree in principle that the Coloured groups should be sub-divided. That sub-division is absolutely unnecessary at this stage. I can tell the hon. the Minister that even as long as 62 years ago that sub-division was unnecessary. The greatest leader whom the Coloureds have ever had in this country, the only leader who was ever able to weld the Coloured group together and under whose leadership the Coloureds reached a peak, was a Moslem, Dr. Abdurahman. The Coloureds had no objection to him as their leader. Indeed, they had such a high regard for him that in the Cape, where the vast majority of his voters were Coloured voters and not Moslems, they elected him to the Provincial Council. All that I am asking for is that we must stop making a race classification in respect of every small group of Coloureds which raises its voice and then making provision in a law whereby that specific group will be given representation on the council.

Are you in favour of the abolition of the present arrangement giving Malays and Griquas separate identities

Yes, but take note of the characteristics or the points of view of the various population groups. The hon. the Minister admitted that he was doing so, and I am grateful in this regard.

Must we not comply with their request to be known as Malays and Griquas?

Let me draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that if the Coloured group had known what the implications would be—I do not know how representative the few Malays were who made those requests; I do not believe that they were representative of the Moslem religious group as such—they would never have opened their mouths. They are now coming to our offices and complaining that the Indians, because they are Moslems, are classified as Malays, are issued with a card having an M on it and are taking away all the business from the Coloureds.

That is not the reason. They want protection against the Indians as a group.

Precisely.

In other words, they want to be a separate group.

They want to be Coloureds, and they want to enjoy the privileges of Coloured group areas. But because of the religious composition of Indian Moslems and Coloured Moslems, the Coloureds did not know how easy it would be to change the cards, and now they are complaining about it.

You are putting it quite wrongly. That is not the reason.

I told the hon. the Minister just now that that is what is happening.

The reason that you give is completely wrong.

I do not know what the hon. the Minister means, but there is another problem. Griqualand East falls into my constituency. The leading figure there is a Coloured by the name of Mr. Fortein, who is a member of the Coloured council. Mr. Fortein is the school principal of Kokstad, and he is chairman of every Coloured organization in the Transkei and Griqualand East. He cannot take more upon himself; he is always elected to these posts. That part of South Africa is the home of the Griquas. I attended meetings at Kokstad with a nominated Griqua representative of the Coloured council—they were not political meetings; matters of general interest Were discussed—and I had to protect that person because he was always talking about the Griquas. The people said: “We are not Griquas; we are Coloureds.” I admit that there is a small group at Kokstad who call themselves the “Pioneer Council”, and who are proud of the fact that they are Griquas, but they are very much in the minority. My question is this: Why does the law make provision for special representation to be given to the Malays and the Griquas but not to the Basters? The hon. the Minister says that he will give them that representation, but why is it not specified in the law? Why is provision made in this legislation for the sub-classification of the Coloured group? Why specify in legislation that the Coloureds are going to be sub-classified in this way?

May I ask the hon. member why the Griquas as such are going to celebrate their centenary at Kokstad this year?

I am very pleased about that question. I had a great deal to do with that movement to celebrate the trek of Adam Kok from the Phillipolis area through Basutoland and over the Drakensberg Mountains to Mount Currie, to Griqualand East.

Order! That is not relevant. That centenary festival has nothing to do with this clause.

The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. H. J. Botha) asked me a question which is important in connection with the classification of the Griquas.

The hon. member asked a question which is not relevant to this clause, and the hon. member cannot discuss it.

With the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, I have a very strong argument which I want to use in this connection because I went into the whole question of the history of the Griquas in connection with the celebration of the trek of Adam Kok. When we held a meeting in the City Hall at Kokstad, under the chairmanship of the Mayor of Kokstad, to discuss this matter, a Griqua, a nominated member of the Coloured council who was with us on the stage, was nearly prevented from speaking. We had to ask the people to give him a hearing because, when he started speaking, he started speaking as a Griqua to Griquas, and they told him: “We are not Griquas, we are Coloureds.” [Time limit.]

I rise to give further information just once more in connection with this matter. When we look at the numerical strength we find, according to a conservative estimate of the Department of Census, that there are approximately 96,000 Malays in the Republic, of whom approximately 57,000 are in the Cape Peninsula alone. These people have their own organizations. They have their own Malay choirs, for example; they hold their annual gatherings and they fight and struggle to retain their identity as a separate community. But hon. members who are supposed to represent them here now come along and say, “No, wipe them out; do not recognize them; do not give them an opportunity to build up their own culture and to retain their historic possessions.”

That is not true.

Of course it is true. Hon. members opposite begrudge the Malays a separate identity. That is my accusation against them.

That is not true.

Sir, I hope the Malays will take notice of this.

I have not said a word about it yet.

On the Witwatersrand there are 5,000, in Port Elizabeth nearly 3,000; in the Western Cape it is estimated that there are 70,000 and in the whole of the Republic there are 96,000. But the hon. member tells us that we must not give those 70,000 Malays a mouthpiece to promote those fine things which belong to the Malay community.

Not by legislation.

Why should those things not be given legislative recognition? Sir, the hon. member does not want me to recognize the Malays and I hope that the Malays will take notice of the fact that their so-called representatives in this House begrudge them these rights. Let us take the Griquas. There are approximately 20,000 Griquas. They form a small little group, but everybody who knows these people, whether he agrees with their ideas or not, knows that they attach great value to their past. They live in Elsiesrivier, for example, in the Erica Estate here in the Cape; in the Caledon district there is a group of Griquas at Hawston; there are Griquas living at Vredendal, in Plettenberg Bay and in Franschhoek. And let me tell the hon. member that if he really wants to represent his constituents, he will have to take notice of the wishes and the frame of mind of the Griquas living in Franschhoek. There are also Griquas in Koffiefontein, Jagersfontein, Blouleliespos in the Humansdorp district as well as in Port Elizabeth. The hon. member wants us to believe that all the Griquas live in the immediate vicinity of Mr. Fortein in East Griqualand. Sir, I say that a very good case has been made out in support of the desire of the Coloured council that recognition should be given to these two groups. They are recognized to-day in the existing council. One of the most valuable members of this council is a Malay, a respected man, a man with a fine background. a man who is respected wherever he goes. He is a member of the existing council, and I challenge any hon. member to deny what I have said here.

That is not relevant.

It is very much to the point. I am not prepared, Sir, to heed the pleas made here by hon. members opposite, and let me make it clear once and for all that this request will not be complied with.

Despite what the hon. Minister has just said—that regardless of what we might say, he is not going to change this clause—I want to tell him with great respect that the very second clause of this Bill has immediately had the effect of reductio ad absurdum on the whole Bill; moreover, by the time we get to Clause 2, and there are another 29 to come, the hon. Minister is already in a dispute with the hon. member for Outeniqua on the one side and the hon. member for Karoo on the other side, and they both represent Coloured people, and the hon. member for Hospital on the third side—he represents White people. I want to show how this clause works. The hon. member for Outeniqua feels apparently, as does the Minister, that the characteristics of a group within a group, be it for example the Malay or the Griqua group within the Coloured group, should be retained and maintained. Did I understand him correctly? Yes. Sir, on the other hand the hon. Minister himself feels that the Griquas are different from the Malays and the Malays are different from my hon. friend’s basters (I don’t mean that in any unfortunate connotation), and yet despite the fact that the hon. Minister and the hon. member for Outeniqua agree that there are these differences between the one sub-group, as it were, and the other sub-group, within the Coloured group as a whole, they cannot agree about the representation of the group. This is the very dilemma in which South Africa as well as the Coloured people find themselves when this Bill is analysed. This particular clause shows conclusively that if the hon. Minister were convinced that the Malays are worthy people—and he says they are very worthy people—and the hon. member for Outeniqua will agree with him, then he could nominate all these 16 members, for example, subject to the reservations contained in 2 (2), as Malays, because 2 (2) reads—

In other words, the Minister is not bound to nominate people because they are Malays, and he is not prohibited in terms of this clause from nominating them because they are Malays. He can please himself. So although it is suggested in this clause that he is going to appoint two for the Malay group, he is by no means bound to do so. If that is the position, then one wonders how the hon. Minister will finally solve this problem which has been posed, I think, from different angles, but very pertinently by both the hon. member for Karoo and the hon. member for Outeniqua. Amid the conflicting and warring interests that seem to be bound up in this matter of the subgroups within the common group, how is the hon. Minister genuinely, honestly and objectively going to nominate and satisfy all the people concerned that he has nominated fairly? I want to ask the hon. Minister another question.

“Die ou smous praat weer onsin!”

On a point of order, I object to the hon. member for Cradock referring to the hon. member as a “smous”. It does not conform with the dignity of the House.

Did the hon. member say that the hon. member for Hospital is an “ou smous”?

I cannot understand what is wrong with the word “smous”. I cannot see what is so terrible in that expression.

The hon. member may proceed.

Sir, now that you have disposed of the “ou smous” from Cradock, I hope I may continue with my speech. I put this to you, Mr. Chairman, in all fairness: If the hon. Minister already has this difficulty to-day, when we are only talking about this Bill in theory and only talking about this council as a theoretical, hypothetical body, what is he going to do when he is confronted with the real difficulties? I also want to ask him what is he going to do in regard to the actual numbers that he will choose to nominate, as he has the power to do, in respect of each of these groups and in respect of the various provinces? He is going to nominate 16 members, and then in Clause 2 he says “one member in the case of the provinces of Natal and the Orange Free State”. Now I ask the hon. Minister with great respect: Why only one member from the Free State? What is the hon. Minister’s yard-stick? I know that he will say that numbers are relevant. I have a report which appeared in one of the newspapers only yesterday to this effect: “Coloured influx serious”. The word “serious” is quoted—

Before I carry on with this report, I want to tell the hon. Minister that if this report is correct, and if the action which is called for is in fact taken, he is going to have to impose influx control in respect of Coloured people entering the Free State! Listen—

I quoted the correct figures yesterday.

I just want to conclude this paragraph—

The Synod speaks of a “problem” in regard to the influx of Coloured people into the Orange Free State, and they asked whether it should be allowed to continue. Now this is the question I put to the hon. Minister: Did he determine that he would nominate one from the Orange Free State on the basis …

I gave the correct figures yesterday.

Did I not quote the same figures?

I am not quoting from newspapers.

But did I not quote the same figures? But leaving that aside, I asked the hon. Minister whether in drafting this Bill and determining that Coloureds in the Orange Free State should be represented by one nominated member, did he take into account, or did he use as the yardstick (a) the figures as they were in 1951, (b) the figures as they were in 1960 or (c) the figures as they are in 1964? This is very relevant, because the moment you say in effect that one is adequate representation, even by nomination—I am not dealing with the principle of nomination as opposed to the principle of election—if one is adequate for the community of 14,750. is it adequate for 25,929 (the number in 1960); and since it is alleged that it is growing by 75 per cent every ten years, is it adequate for the estimated present population of 35,000? The hon. Minister must have a basis of calculation, and the hon. the Minister, having worked out very carefully the basis of the representation …

Do you say that the number in the Cape Province is decreasing?

No.

Then you are talking nonsense.

This may be “onsin” if you want to dismiss it as such, but I will debate this with the hon. Minister anywhere. I am asking him on what basis did he decide to nominate one member for the Orange Free State. On what population statistics?

Are eight adequate for the Cape Province?

I am not concerned with what is adequate for the Cape Province. Surely this is merely trying to turn the argument aside. I am now concerned with whether the Orange Free State will be adequately represented. I am asking on which basis has the Minister determined that representation.

On the basis laid down by the council itself and on the population figures.

For which year? [Time limit.]

Nobody blames the hon. the Minister for adopting a standpoint, but then he should at least set out from the right standpoint, and I must object to the Minister’s standpoint. His whole standpoint was that this side of the House wants to eliminate diversity. But who pleaded for that on this side of the House? That is what he based his whole argument on, that we want to eliminate diversity. Who on this side asked that any diversity between the various population groups should be eliminated? Even if one wishes to do so one cannot, because the diversity which exists between, e.g., the Malays and the Griquas is as old as history itself, and it does not exist as the result of laws. These are of course differences which do not come into conflict with one another; They form part of the colourfulness of the South African scene. Nobody asks for them to be eliminated.

But I will tell you why this is a very bad argument the Minister uses. The Whites are not in a different position. Where can one find more differences than amongst the Whites? We have the Afrikaans- and the English-speaking peoples, a strong group of German-speaking people in South Africa, large group of Greeks, etc. There are great differences amongst the Whites, differences in language, culture, history and religion. But that is not put into an Act. We do not provide that every group should have its own political representation. Must I now take it from the Minister that because these differences are not recognized in our Constitution therefore he wants to eliminate the differences between e.g. the Afrikaans- and the English-speaking people? He says the Malays have their own choirs and various other things. Of course, the Afrikaans-speaking people too.

Will you admit that the only entrenched section in the Constitution is the one dealing with the rights of Afrikaans- and English-speaking people?

Of course, we have two official languages, and that is what is entrenched. The hon. the Minister has two languages. English is just as much his language as Afrikaans, and the same applies to me; and the language of the English-speaking people should be Afrikaans too. His comparison cuts no ice. Nobody on this side wants to eliminate differences. We merely say: Do not put it in the law; do not continuously cut up and divide, because you are just creating differences, and if you continue creating differences which have the force of law, then you create animosities and ill-will. That is what we want to eliminate.

But the one point which I think the Minister misses above everything else is this: He says there must be different representatives so that they can represent the interests of the various groups. He referred to the Malays. If there are 95,000 of them, they will in any case have elected representatives. But I go much further. They have so many talents that in any case they will be elected by the Coloureds generally as leaders, as is the position at present in the existing bodies. But what does a man do who is elected? Surely he looks after the interests of his voters. If Mr. X is elected by, e.g. Malays and Griquas, and he is dependent on those voters, surely he will fight for the protection of the interests of both the Griquas and the Malays. I do not think there is anybody who wants to destroy the rights of anybody else. The man who is elected as a member of the Coloured Council will look after the interests of his voters and the interests of everybody, whatever diversity there might be. The interests of the Malays and the Griquas will be quite safe in the hands of the man who represents them. It is, therefore, not our standpoint to eliminate the diversity. We recognize it. But we do not want it to be laid down in legislation that we are continually creating a clash of interests in South Africa.

One argument which the hon. the Minister also continuously advanced is that the Council asked for it, and he asks whether he should not take notice of that. In general, one gains the impression that in most cases the Minister takes no notice of their recommendations. But supposing I am wrong, I still think the Minister should at least study the motives with which a man submits a request to him.

I read that out this morning.

I am sorry, but I think the motive behind their wanting Special representation for the Griquas and special representation for the Malays in this case is that there are people who do not speak on behalf of their own population group, but speak on their own behalf; they speak there as individuals who would like to see the Minister appointing them again, and because that is the motive the Minister should not allow himself to be misled.

I think that is an unworthy remark. The man who to-day represents the Malays is respected by everybody. I think it is an unworthy remark.

I am sorry, but that is my opinion. I am absolutely convinced that the Coloureds in general do not want this legal difference. That is the general attitude, and therefore we adopt the standpoint we do, and that is why I say I think the motive is that they are considering their own individual positions, and that the Coloureds as a group do not want it.

Sir. when I raised this question of the Griquas and the Malays being mentioned specifically in this clause, I gave my reasons for doing so. and I did this in all honesty and on the basis of the knowledge I have acquired about the feeling amongst the Coloureds, including the Griquas and the Malays. I do not know what the motive of the hon. the Minister or his intention or his aim is in this regard. In putting my point of view to the House, as I have just done, I am not going to allow myself to be frightened by what the hon. the Minister is going to tell the Malays. The Coloureds in my constituency who are Moslems by religion know me. I have served them for the past six years. The hon. the Minister can tell them what he likes. I maintain that this is unnecessary. I agree with the hon. the Minister that there are certain groups amongst the Coloured people, like the Malays and the Griquas. who may in certain respects be different or have different characteristics. But my whole point is that the hon. the Minister can make the necessary provision if he feels that a group is strong enough or is important enough to be represented on the council. My whole attitude is that we should not carve up the Coloured population into groups by legislation.

Order! The hon. member has mentioned that point on a number of occasions.

Mr. Chairman. I accept your ruling. I just want to say that I feel very strongly about this matter and I shall raise it as long as I have the right to do so. I want to mention a further example to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister referred here to the present nominated representative of the so-called Malay group on the Coloured council. He said that that person was a respected man. a man with a good background. I agree with him. That man has the unique achievement of being the only Coloured chemist in South Africa. But whether or not that man will be elected if he stands in a constituency in which only Malays can vote, is another question.

Do you acknowledge his value on a council?

I admit that everything the hon. the Minister says is true but the test is whether or not the Malays asked that he should be their representative.

Do you acknowledge his value on a council?

On many occasions at sittings of the Coloured council I have heard him say things which I appreciated as emanating from a man with experience of the Cape City Council and the Cape Divisional Council. but, as in the case of every council, I have also heard him talk some of the most arrant nonsense that I have ever heard!

Take yourself. Think how much nonsense you have uttered from time to time.

And what about the hon. Minister himself? I have heard him talk a great deal of nonsense in connection with this clause.

Is that any reason why we should not be here?

No, it is no reason why we should not be here. We leave that to our voters to decide. But the person whom the hon. the Minister has mentioned is not elected; he is nominated. This brings me to another aspect of this matter. Hon. members opposite keep on telling us that the Coloured council has asked for the sub-classification of the Coloured people; that this should be laid down by legislation and that it should continue. Who are the two representatives on the present Coloured council who represent the Malays and the Griquas? Were they elected by the Malays and the Griquas or were they both nominated by the Minister? The test is: If it is the wish of the Coloured people and of the Malays and the Griquas that this sub-division of the Coloured people should continue and be laid down by legislation, then let us see what will happen to one of those gentlemen if they stand for election in a constituency. Let us see what will happen if this is one of the points at issue. It is impossible to apply the test because although the hon. the Minister has mentioned certain figures here they are not true figures and it is impossible to arrive at the correct figure. It is impossible to arrive at a correct figure in respect of the Malays. If a person is a Moslem, he describes himself as a “Malay” on his census form. There is not such a great difference as we are led to believe. But I accept what the hon. the Minister says—I have never denied it—that if there are such population groups then we must consider those groups as far as the nomination of members is concerned. But is it unnecessary to sub-divide the Coloured people into groups by legislation? If the hon. the Minister wants to tell the Malays how weak their representative in this House is, how he ignores them, then for my part I shall apply that test to see whether everything that the hon. the Minister has said here in connection with the Coloureds, the Malays and the Griquas, is precisely what those people want. It is impossible, as I am sure the hon. the Minister himself will admit. We have the Odendaal Report which is under discussion at the moment. It looks as though South West Africa will undergo a change of status. What is going to happen to the Coloured there? Is the hon. the Minister going to make provision for a third group, the Rehoboth Basters, to have representation on the council? And is he also going to make provision in the Bill for them?

Order. The hon. member cannot discuss that matter.

Then I shall leave the question of South West Africa. There are Basters outside South West Africa as well. The hon. the Minister has already said that he will make provision for them.

No. I said that I would consider it.

I accept that. I say that this clause provides for the Coloured people to be carved up by legislation into groups and that they themselves do not want this sub-division.

I agree with the Minister that the Malays have always been regarded as a separate section, and for that reason we have Schotsche Kloof, but the question is whether it is desirable to perpetuate the differences among these people whom we all call the Coloured people. I want to say to the Minister with regard to the representative of the Malay section on the present council that he appeared with others before the inquiry which was held by the Group Areas Board as to whether District Six should be a White or a Coloured area, and this gentleman pleaded not that it should be a Malay section or a Griqua section, but that it should be a Coloured section.

It was not advertised as a Malay area.

Yes, but my point is that a man whom the Minister wants to classify as a Malay came to the board and said it must be a Coloured area. As the hon. member for Outeniqua said, whilst we realize that there are different groups, different religious groups, we do not want them to be perpetuated as different groups.

Order! That argument has been advanced already.

How are these people going to represent the different sections? How are the Malays going to represent the Malays specifically? Is the Minister trying to suggest that any legislation passed by this council will be on a different basis? Will it not be only for the Coloured people? All the laws passed by this council will be for the Coloured people, including the Malays, the Griquas, etc. There cannot be any legislation other than in the interests of the Coloured people. I think it is wrong for us to perpetuate the differences between these people. I think there is a very excellent feeling to-day between the Malays and the Coloureds and there is a considerable amount of intermarriage. If we do what the Minister suggests they will not promote the interests of the Coloureds as a whole in this council, but the interests of a particular section. May I ask the Minister to explain what apparently seems to be a repetition in the clause? The clause says that two members of the council shall be Malays and two shall be Griquas. I take it that is the minimum amount, but I am not sure, because it goes on to say in sub-clause (2) that members nominated in terms of (a), (b) and (c) may include people belonging to the Malay or Griqua groups. In other words, the Minister may have five or six Malays and five or six Griquas. Is that the intention of the clause? If the Minister wants to limit it, why does it say in the first part that there shall be two of each, but then it goes on in sub-section (2) to say that he may nominate more? I should like to know exactly what it means, whether it will be a minimum of two. [Interjection.] If the Minister wants to, he can nominate eight people for the Cape and they may all be Malays. He can nominate two for the Transvaal and they can be Malays, and also in Natal. I think the Minister should explain why sub-section (2) is there, when sub-section (1) apparently limits the number.

I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to what the hon. member for Boland has just said, and which I tried to point out a little earlier. Apart from the four persons nominated by him in terms of sub-section (1) to represent the Griquas and the Malays, he can pack this council, as to the other 12 nominated members, with Griquas, Malays or Basters. I say that the Minister will be able to nominate as many as he likes—up to 12—from one race group. I am sorry I could not get an answer from him in my first attempt, and therefore I want to know how he proposes to deal with this question of representation? The Minister says this is a representative council, and regardless of our difference of opinion as to the basis on which it is constituted, it should surely, to the greatest possible extent, represent the various groups. Having divided the country into the four provinces, and having said that he would give provincial representation, I think this representation must bear some relation to population figures—because he has no other yardstick. In the case of the Free State with its 14,000 Coloureds, he is now going to appoint one, and when I tell him that in terms of his own publication, published on behalf of the Coloured Affairs Department, the population of one municipal area in the Transvaal alone, Johannesburg, is now over 60,000, he still says there will be one for the Transvaal? So there is one for the Transvaal with 60,000 in Johannesburg alone and one for the Free State with 14,000! What kind of representation is this, where the statistic have no bearing on it?

There are two members for the Transvaal.

There are 7,000 Coloureds in Pretoria alone, and there are 60,000 in Johannesburg only. I say to the Minister that if it is fair to nominate a person to represent all the Coloured people of the Free State—and I am not dealing with the sub-groups …

What about the elected members?

If these people were all elected, I would not be speaking as I am, but I am dealing with the question of nomination— and I ask the Minister to give us some indication as to how the mathematical aspect of this was considered; and how does he arrive at one for the Free State and two for the Transvaal, when there are 70,000 Coloureds already in Johannesburg and Pretoria?

A further point is this. Is the Minister aware that in this insistence on his part—which has become apparent here this afternoon—to divide the Coloured people not only provincial-wise but in terms of sub-groups, he is going contrary to the policy of the Prime Minister as stated by him on 12 December 1961? What does the Prime Minister say about the Coloured people?—

He refers to the Coloured community as a whole, and not the Malays or the Griquas or any other section.

Order! That point has been raised already.

Further, the Department goes on in this publication to say, “The culture of the Coloured people is largely Western”. It refers to the Coloured people as a group, and not sub-divided into particular groups, and then there is a whole paragraph which says that the language mainly spoken by the Malays and the other Coloured people is Afrikaans, etc. This entire publication of his Department creates the impression that the Coloured community is a community as a whole in the mind of the Minister.

Order! That point has been made before.

At least, I am glad to find that my point is fully confirmed out of the mouth of the Prime Minister and of the Department itself, and I think the Minister owes the Committee an explanation as to his change of attitude and policy.

Mr. Chairman, there are two points arising out of the Minister’s remarks. He mentioned that the Malays are an identifiable group and that Schotsche Kloof has been set aside for them. I want to put it to the Minister that nobody is for a moment suggesting that the Malays are not civilized people, etc. What we are saying is that if a Malay wishes to stand for election, good luck to him. What we object to is that he is elected just because he is a Malay and not because he is a good man or a qualified person. That is the point we are trying to establish. The Minister himself has said that they are being absorbed to a degree, and the hon. member for Boland confirmed it, and I also agree. The number of Malays in the Western Province is 75,000. I put it to the Minister that it is not unreasonable to suggest that in dealing with nominees they should be dealt with on the ground of their qualifications as individuals and their achievements in the community, and not because they belong to a particular religious group. The second point is that the Griquas are scattered over the Cape Province like a charge of buckshot, and 20,000 people throughout the Cape will have two nominees. Who is to do the nominating? Who is to select them? The Minister says a member of the family of the captain is on the Council. This is not a question of personalities. We simply maintain that it is bad in principle to start dividing the Coloured community up, because the Bill says that every Coloured person over the age of 21 years can vote, and Coloured persons are defined as those who are not classified as Whites or Bantu. They are grouped together for purposes of making the Bill work, but as soon as we get to the nominated members we find ourselves hiving off into all sorts of religious and other groups. I do not wish to labour the point, but I say again that the Coloured community does not wish to be cut up, and the Malays are regarded as Coloured in terms of the law.

I go further and say that there are many Malays who work amongst the Coloured community and are leaders among them. They are the chairmen of various clubs and committees, and they are recognized as belonging to the Coloured community, and that has nothing to do with their religious beliefs. I want to go even further, and say there are many Moslems who are not Malays. Although there are many Malays in the Western Province, there are people in other parts of the country who are Arabs or Persians, and they are all Moslems and are qualified for this particular purpose as Malays, but they are completely different people. Finally, I want to say that each of the Malay communities revolves around its own mosque and its own Imam or Sheik, and they are not an organized body at all. There are differences in the groups in each of the towns in which they reside. There are different mosques. They have an association because of their religion, but they are different communities, and I want to know who will make the selection from all the mosques and communities which exist throughout the Republic.

Mr. Chairman, what has given rise to a great deal of fear in the minds of certain hon. members is the presence in this clause of sub-section (2) which was referred to by the hon. member for Boland. I think it is necessary to look at the matter in the light of what we have already passed in Clause 1. That says that no person other than a Coloured person shall be nominated or elected as a member of this Council. A Coloured person is defined in the Bill as any person who is classified under the Population Registration Act as a member of the Cape Coloured, Malay or Griqua group or the other Coloured groups. So it means that no one can be elected to this Council, or nominated, who is not a member of the Coloured group as defined. In Clause 2 provision is made whereby two members of the Council shall be members of the group or class known as Malays, two shall be members of the race or class known as Griquas, and then the clause goes on to say that the rest of the members, i.e. the remaining twelve of the nominated members, shall be nominated to represent the provinces, eight for the Cape, two for the Transvaal, one for Natal and one for the Free State. Then for some extraordinary reason sub-sec. (2) is inserted, and I think this requires an explanation by the Minister, because it says that the members nominated in terms of paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) to represent the provinces may include persons belonging to the race or class known as Malays and persons of the race or class known as Griquas. But what about the Cape Coloureds or the other Coloured groups? I think I know what the Minister means, but he has not stated it. It is the inclusion of this sub-section which has created all this doubt in our minds. Up to now no one has told us what it means. I think I have made myself clear. I think what the Minister means to say, but has not said, is that what he intends doing is that he shall have the right to include at least two Malays and at least two Griquas, and in addition, in respect of the provincial nominees, he shall be entitled to elect any other members including Malays or Griquas. The Minister nods his head to indicate that is his intention, but it is far from clear in terms of this clause. It is very badly drafted and I would suggest to the Minister that he might give consideration to eliminating sub-section (2), which I think is unnecessary, but if he wants it to remain then he should add “and may include persons belonging to the race or class known as Cape Coloureds or persons belonging to the other Coloured groups.”

You draft that amendment and I will accept it.

I will do it with pleasure. But there is no point in our passing the clause in this state, which will leave a doubt not only in the minds of members here but in the minds of the Coloured people, who may think that the Minister may pack the Council with Malays or Griquas.

You can move the deletion of sub-section (2) also.

Very well, then I move—

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to. On Clause 3,

This clause in many ways follows the Electoral Act’s procedure governing the registration of European voters and the registration of Coloured voters on the separate roll for the election of Coloured representa-tives in Parliament. In this Bill the hon. the Minister does not, in the first instance, make registration compulsory. This clause provides for optional registration, and I do think that that will defeat the whole object of this Coloured Parliament. I think if you want to have a representative number of people voting for the Coloured People’s Parliament, the registration should be on the same basis as the registration of European voters and the registration of Coloured voters who vote for the Coloured representatives in Parliament. Clause 3 (2) (b) provides—

Sir, I think that is wrong. I think that to start with the Minister should make this a general registration and that he should give people who are not registered within a certain period the right to apply, and if he does not want to allow them to register the second time, that is for him to decide and he can then come with an amending Bill. I say again that under this system of application to be registered as a voter you will get the minimum number of people applying to be registered. It is extremely difficult to have these people registered. The hon. the Minister knows that in the last registration drive that he had for the separate roll, he only found 2,000 people in my area to vote, whereas in 1958 there were 8,000. It is very difficult indeed to get people to register because they are away at work and so on. How are you going to make this Parliament a real Parliament or a real Council, if the Minister does not like the word “Parliament” unless you have the people registered? Sir, you are going to make a farce of this. I want to tell the Minister in advance that under this Clause he will find that a minimum number of people will apply for registration, and he will never be able to boast that the people elected to this council represent the majority of the Coloured people. I would like therefore to move that this clause stand over for the Minister to consider how he can amend it to bring it into line with the present system of registration. I would like the Minister to tell us why registration has to be voluntary. Perhaps I can answer this question myself because I think the hon. the Minister did give some indication. If I am wrong I withdraw this, but it has been said that the clause has been framed in this way because if you make the registration compulsory you will get people on the roll who will really destroy the purpose of this council; that you will get boycotters and Leftists. It has been suggested that under this system you will cut out the boycotters and Leftists and that you will only get on the roll those people who really want to vote. I say that under this system of voluntary application for registration you will never get a sufficient number of Coloured people on the roll for the Minister and the Government to say that the Council has been elected by the Coloured people of South Africa. I think the Minister should hold this clause over until we can find some way of remedying the situation. This is not the type of law that I would like to see on the Statute Book.

I am sorry that I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) that the clause should stand over. This clause has been very carefully considered in co-operation with the Department of the Interior and it has been decided for various reasons to accept this voluntary basis. I mentioned one reason for this during my second reading speech. The second reason is that there are many Coloureds who are really not at all interested in whether they have the vote or not who would then be compelled to register, perhaps under difficult circumstances. There are some people who cannot sign their names and one does not want to force those people to register. I think it is high time for us to teach the Coloured people to have some sense of responsibility. They must also learn that they have a certain amount of sacrifice in order to become voters. We also had voluntary registration in the case of White voters for many years. I cannot discuss the matter now but if the hon. member will look at Clause 6 he will see that it is very easy for the Coloureds to be registered. We decided to frame the clause in this form for various reasons and, what is more, it was framed in consultation with the Department of the Interior. If we compel these people to register, we must also provide penalties for people who do not comply with this requirement. I think that the hon. member will agree that if I were to make it compulsory, a great fuss would be made about it and I would be told that I was going to prosecute people and compel them to vote for this “mockery”!

I said, just to start with.

No, I cannot compel anyone to vote for this “travesty” and for this “mockery”!

Clause put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting),

On Clause 4,

I do not want to debate this clause but I would like to suggest to the Minister that he should have sub-clause (2) re-drafted. I think the wording here is very misleading. It says—

I think the intention is that they should elect a person to represent them on this council. The wording here implies—and it is the same in the Afrikaans too—that they can only elect a member of the council to represent them. I think it is just a matter of re-wording.

The answer is of course that these clauses were framed by the law advisers who have had many years experience in formulating Bills of this nature. I will take up the matter with them if it is a point at issue but I do not think that any mistake has been made in the formulation.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

Sir, there are certain amendments which will be moved by hon. members on this side of the House in relation to this clause. This is the clause which provides for the manner of dividing provinces into electoral divisions. As the Minister will have seen from the Order Paper the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) has an amendment which proposes a completely different system. As he has now arrived I’m sure he will be able to deal with this matter.

In dealing with Clause 8, the same provisions appear to apply as in the case of nominated members in the clause that we disposed of earlier. It has now been agreed that there are going to be 30 elected members. I want to move the amendment as printed in my name in a slightly amended form; in other words, I propose to substitute “thirty” for “forty-six” in the amendment as printed—

My reason for that is that in dealing with elected persons I think it is only fair and reasonable that the numbers per constituency should be equal as nearly as possible.

As was said by the hon. member for Boland, if these registrations are going to be voluntarily the voters’ roll itself can quite conceivably contain a large number of voters in one province and a lesser number in another which, divided by the number of seats proposed by the hon. the Minister, will give a state of unbalance to the seats in the various provinces. I therefore think that in view of the fact that the intention is to ascertain the wishes of the Coloured community every constituency should contain as near as possible the same number of voters as any other constituency. A section of this clause provides for a load or unload of 15 per cent which is common practice and takes care of community interests and the other qualifications which are necessary in deciding the delimitation. I think that will be sufficient to deal with the particular aspect of the compilation of the roll and the division of the Republic into electoral divisions.

The Minister when dealing with the question of the nominated members refrained from giving me a reply to my question as to the basis on which he has arrived at the number of nominated members per province. He took refuge in the fact that it was a recommendation of the Union Council of Coloured Affairs. We feel that the correct procedure here is to deal with the matter on a basis whereby every member who is elected to this Council shall represent a similar number of people. It can quite conceivably happen that one seat in, say, the Western Province or in the Johannesburg complex could have a large number of voters whereas a seat in Natal, for instance, will only have a few and even fewer in the case of the Free State. In order to make it a workable Council and to give as fair a delimitation as possible without having the sort of thing we have in Parliament itself where the loading and unloading has reached the stage where certain seats are enormously over-loaded due to the shifting population, the correct procedure would be to have more or less the same number of voters in each constituency. It may be that as the country grows the numbers suggested by the Minister may become quite unrealistic in the light of development which will take place in the fast developing mining areas of this country. We have the Orange River scheme and a large portion of that falls within the Cape Province. A large number of Coloured persons are already engaged on that scheme and their numbers will increase more and more as the scheme develops. I would therefore ask the Minister to accept what I am offering this afternoon that in deciding on the electoral division he should break away from the provincial attitude. I think it is out of date; it is an anachronism. We have examples where provinces have had varying allocations but this is a growing country and where we are launching a Coloured Representative Council I feel that it should be as representative as possible and I therefore move accordingly.

I am sorry but I cannot accept the amendment. I agree with the council that the provincial basis should remain. I think that the council considered this point very carefully when they laid down these proportions as far as the representation of the various provinces is concerned. I think that we must first see how the council operates before we interfere with its composition. There is a further reason why I do not want to eliminate the provincial basis and that is because I foresee, under given circumstances, that the members of this council will be able to form committees which will function in respect of the interests of the various provinces. This is one of the possible developments which the council may yet experience in the future and so I do not want to disturb that basis. We must make it possible for committees of this council to function in respect of various provinces or in regard to particular interests which may have to be looked after in a particular province. I hope therefore that we are not going to interfere with this basis. We can do sums if we want to. When I first saw this basis, I also asked myself whether these proportions could not be worked out on a better basis. I think that each of us could work out a sum to show that we had found a better basis than this one, but once we start doing sums, each one of us will come forward with his own sum. That is why I say that this agreed basis must remain. We must first put it into operation and retain the provincial basis so as to enable us to make use of it in regard to specific committees.

I am sorry that in spite of what the hon. the Minister has said I would like to make a “sommetjie” and that “sommetjie” has also been made for me by officials of his own Department and by the Bureau of Census and Statistics. Here I have what one might call the “Handbook” of the Coloured people of South Africa, published by the Department of Coloured Affairs. On page 9 it deals with the distribution of the Coloured population. There is a very graphic illustration of that distribution. The total population is given and also the break-down in respect of the four provinces and South West Africa. Each symbol represents 10,000 people according to the Department. The “sommetjie” I am compelled to make, based on the Department’s figures, is that in 1960, for example, there were1,285,000 Coloured persons in the Cape of Good Hope, 110,000 in the Transvaal, 45,000 in Natal and 15,000 in the Orange Free State. I am obviously not concerned with South West Africa. The Minister now proposes to provide the Transvaal with six electoral divisions and the Orange Free State with three.

What did you say? How many in the Orange Free State?

Electoral divisions or population?

Population.

Fifteen thousand. Here it is. That was in 1960—one symbol and a half.

I can refer the hon. member to the figures we have for 1963.

I want the Minister to accept that I am not disputing any up-to-date figures he may have at his disposal—but I merely say here is one yardstick, the last one available to me, and those are the 1960 statistics.

Why don’t you accept the figures I quoted which are the latest?

Obviously I accept them. As far as I know the ratio as been constant as between the population of the Cape of Good Hope, the Transvaal and the Free State. I submit to the Minister that there has been a pro rata increase in the Coloured population of the Transvaal as there has been in the Orange Free State. I come back to the figures of the 1960 census and to the symbols given by the Department. I say therefore that the ratio has not changed. If that is correct, as I believe it is, I once again say to the hon. the Minister that despite that ratio of population—which is obviously the criterion he elected to use for the distribution of the representation and of the seats—the position remains that he proposes to give six seats to the Transvaal and three to the Orange Free State.

There are two possibilities as far as I can make out the position. If the representation for the Orange Free State is adequate, whether on the 1960 figures or on the pro rata increased figures in 1963 or even in 1964, in the form of three representatives, then proportionately the province of the Transvaal must have 22.5 representatives. I am prepared to make the Minister a present of the .5! Then the Transvaal should have 22 representatives. Conversely, Sir, if the representation of the Transvaal is the criterion, namely that six representatives are adequate for the Transvaal’s Coloured population of 110,000, then the Orange Free State is entitled to .85 of a representative—and I give the Minister the difference of .15, and they can have one representative! The Minister says “ek kan ’n sommetjie maak en hy kan ’n sommetjie maak” but one thing is clear, and that is that these considerations are based on facts and figures. One is compelled, as the Minister has already done, to make a “sommetjie”. The Minister must surely be prepared to explain why he has agreed to this distribution, as he says, at the request of the Coloured Council? I can give him one explanation, and that is that because the Coloured Council is based on the Province of the Cape of Good Hope, the bulk of its members live in the Cape Province, and they have persuaded the hon. the Minister to give a minimum of representation to their own fellow-citizens in other provinces. I fail to see the equity in that. If anything, the people who have moved away from their “heartland,” as it were, from the Western Province, should be entitled to a stronger pro rata representation than the people who are in the heartland and who, in a sense, control not only the numbers but also whatever their economic strength may be—and therefore their political strength. If anything, he should load the number of seats allocated to the Transvaal and the Free State, certainly in the case of the Free State. I do not want to deal with Natal, because I am sure other hon. members will do so. But the Minister should load their representation favourably and give them more than they are entitled to in terms of his “sommetjie” or mine. I don’t want to pursue this, Sir, but I say that the hon. Minister has some other reason, that is, other than the fact that this is what the Coloured Council asked for.

I want to deal with the question of objectivity and impartiality as it exists in the Coloured Council as constituted to-day, and as it will obviously exist in the new Coloured “Parliament” of the Coloured people.

The other day, in regard to this question, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) who appears to have been the architect of this constitution—in fact, when he rose to speak I expected cries, as there are on the first night of a play of “Author, Author” —told us in the second reading debate that three out of the four Coloured Representatives in this House could not be objective because they belonged to the United Party. Yet he expects me to believe that this council which recommended this distribution of seats in the Coloured Representative Council, is being objective when it recommends that the Minister should give three seats on that council to the Free State with a Coloured population of 15,000 and only six seats to a population of 110,000 in the Transvaal! These population figures are for 1960. Now. I have already said that if three seats stand in proper relation to the Coloured population of the Free State, then Transvaal on that same basis should have 22.5 seats. Conversely, if the province of Transvaal is properly represented by six seats for its Coloured population, then an objective council should have recommended that the Free State on that basis should get .85 of a representative. Some people in this House I believe, constitute less than .85 of a representative. This, however, is not a point which I want to debate now. Let us, for the sake of argument, say that the Free State under those circumstances should on that basis be entitled to one representative. Now I submit that if the hon. the Minister was persuaded by the recommendation of the present council to bring in this clause and the distribution of seats set out therein, it cannot be said that the council, in making this recommendation, was really objective. And if this provision goes through and becomes law, then the Coloured “Parliament” itself will also not be objective in so far as the Free State and the Transvaal were treated unfairly in regard to the representation given to their respective Coloured populations.

I have many other things to say about this clause, but before I do that I should like to give the hon. the Minister an opportunity of replying to the points made thus far.

In the first place I want to point out that the figure of 15,000 mentioned by the hon member as being the Coloured population of the Free State, is wrong. Perhaps the graph in the document that he has there has been printed wrongly by mistake in this respect. The correct figure is 25,000. being 14,000 for the urban areas and 11,000 for the platteland. Those were the 1962 figures. Accordingly I think that the figures which the hon. member has there have either not been checked or else the graph has been printed wrongly by mistake.

Let me say in connection with the proposed representation that I myself, when I had to consider the Bill in its final form, doubted whether this was the correct approach. That was why I also sat down and made sums. But I came to the conclusion that it would be possible for each one of us to do sums and to reach a proportion which in our eyes was better than that of somebody else. In doing my sums, however, I took into account another aspect of the approach to this matter of the committee which made the recommendations. This approach was formulated as follows by the aforementioned committee—

I have already quoted this. The committee went on to say—

Your committee has, therefore, decided to increase the elected members by six and to retain the number of the existing nominated members.

In other words, they considered these two aspects and made provision for an increased number of elected members.

Transvaal:

Natal and the Orange Free State:

And so the committee took various considerations into account before deciding upon this proportion. I think therefore that we must allow ourselves to be guided by the committee’s recommendation. As I have already said, it will be possible for me, as it will be for any hon. member, to sit down and work out another proportion, but the fact is that disproportions are present at every delimitation. Indeed, our Constitution also contains disproportions. In a country like England, delimitation results in some constituencies having as many as 90,000 voters while the number of voters in other constituencies is far fewer. We must not think that by doing sums we can make the provisions of this clause absolutely perfect. The committee considered every factor before it arrived at its decision as regards how the representation should be apportioned. In doing so, they made provision for more elected members and for the special circumstances prevailing in every province. That is why, in my opinion, we must accept the position as it is.

At this point I should like to indicate that I do not intend moving the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is a consequential amendment relating to an amendment on a previous clause. As that amendment was negatived, there is no point in my moving this amendment now. I should, however, like to avail myself of this opportunity of discussing with the Minister the proposal which has now been made, i.e. that we should divide the Republic in so far as the Coloureds are concerned into 30 electoral divisions. In this connection I wish to ask the Minister to bear with me and make no decision as yet. This is a matter which is worthy of the most careful consideration. I know the Minister has already pointed out to this Committee that he has based the calculations envisaged in Clause 8 on recommendations made to him by the present council. Despite that, however, I think he as well as the members of the council will appreciate that several minds put together are better than one and that, consequently, complete justification exists for reviewing the particular provisions of this clause.

I can appreciate the Minister’s desire to see to it that the various provinces are represented in this proposed Coloured council. But we have already safeguarded that because in Clause 2, with which we have already dealt, we made provision for allowing the Government to nominate eight members for the Cape Province, two for the Transvaal, and one each for Natal and the Orange Free State. So here already there is direct representation on a provincial basis. There is, moreover, also provincials in this Bill for due regard to be taken by the commission when defining these electoral divisions of various aspects which might militate against any particular section of the Coloured people living in any of the provinces. Provision is, inter alia, made for the commission to take due regard of community or diversity of interests, of means of communication, physical features and existing or future sparsity or density of population. The commission will have the right to depart from the quota under certain circumstances. In addition, there is the 15 per cent loading on either side. If, in the circumstances, one approached this matter from the general point of view of the electoral divisions for the whole of the Republic, there need not be any hardship if we do not at this stage determine what each province shall receive.

Apparently there is a conflict between the figures quoted by the Minister and those quoted by the hon. member for Hospital. I have here figures which have been handed to me a few minutes ago. They come from the Department and are as follows: In the Cape there is a Coloured population of 1,314,392; in the Transvaal, 105,217; in Natal, 43,093; and in the Orange Free State, 25,565. From these figures it is obvious that the Cape Province has approximately 13 times the population of the Transvaal. Yet, what has been suggested by the Coloured council? This, that the Cape should only get three times the number of representatives given to the Transvaal. As related to Natal, the Cape has a population of 30 times more and yet the proposal made by the Council for Coloured Affairs to the Minister is that the Cape be given six times the number of representatives as that of Natal. In the case of the Free State, the Cape has 52 times the population of that province. These figures speak for themselves and it is obvious that the number of representatives proposed for the Cape is unfair towards this province in view of the fact that here is the largest concentration of Coloureds, i.e. 1,314,392. Surely the Cape, on this basis, is entitled to a much larger representation. Surely, the fairest way of dealing with this matter is to say that there are more or less 1,500,000 Coloureds throughout the country; let the commission which is going to be appointed consequently divide the entire country into 30 electoral divisions on the basis of population taking into account all the factors I have already enumerated, i.e. community or diversity of interests, means of communication, etc.; let this commission on this basis then work out where the electoral divisions are going to be. The Free State and Natal will still get their representation bearing in mind the loading aspect in addition to the representation they will get amongst the nominated members. The Transvaal also will get representation on that basis although less than the figure stipulated here.

I speak particularly for the Cape because it is here where the vast majority of Coloureds are living. I plead therefore, on behalf of the Cape, that the Minister should give some consideration to amending this clause on the lines suggested. If the Minister is not prepared to go the whole hog, as suggested by the hon. member for Karoo, i.e. to divide the country into 30 electoral divisions, then he should at least give an indication that he is prepared to revise these proposals and give more than 18 electoral divisions to the Cape. Perhaps we can at this stage adjourn so that the Minister can consider the matter. It merits favourable consideration.

I want to say to the Minister that it is dangerous to allocate a certain number to each province because of the shift of population which is going on right now. We read in the newspapers of a day or two ago that the Free State is alarmed at the influx of Coloured people into that province. As a matter of fact, it was reported that the Coloureds were coming into the Free State at such a rate that the provincial authorities were going to make representations about the matter.

Where do these Coloureds come from?

They, apparently, come from the Cape. By the time this Bill has become law and the commission has to delimitate the electoral divisions, it might be found that the number of Coloureds in the Free State has doubled in the meantime and that the number in the Cape has correspondingly diminished. In other words, it is dangerous to say that the Free State is sparsely populated by Coloureds, whereas that might not be the case in a year or two. I want to emphasize this so as to indicate that one ought not to legislate on the basis of numbers. It will have to be according to the number of people within the province and in terms of the amendment of the hon. member for Karoo that remains possible. You might find that in the Free State within three years, if this influx continues to to which the Church has raised objection, those three or four people will represent many more people than in the Transvaal. In order to obviate any further amendments of this Act in future as to the representation—the Minister shakes his head and takes up a granite attitude —the Minister himself admitted that it was possible that the figures may give a different number of representatives for the provinces. The Coloured people have written in the papers and have called this a “Parliament”. If the Minister gives this Council the same status as a Parliament by spreading the constituencies over the Republic, and not having them on the basis of provinces, I think that would be the best. It will obviate the work of following up the number of Coloureds in the various provinces as they increase, and it will obviate a lot of trouble. I think the Minister would be well advised by having it on the basis of constituencies rather than on the basis of numbers.

I think I should make it clear that I have not in any way dealt with the representation in the Cape Province. I said I recognized that the weight of population and of economic power and therefore the weight of political power is in this province, but if I may summarize that aspect of the matter I say that this cake apparently has been cut in a certain way on the recommendation of the Council for Coloured Affairs with the co-operation of the Minister, and it was cut in such a way that the Cape gets three-fifths of the cake and the rest of South Africa gets two-fifths. Now let us assume that that is a fair distribution. Then my complaint and my submission is that that two-fifths has not been fairly sub-divided, because whether you take the figures which I cited from the Department of Information, and which the Minister now tells me are wrong—which means that three times this week, since Tuesday, the Minister of Information has been wrong!—or whether we take the figures the Minister gave in his reply a few minutes ago, or whether we take the latest figures given by the hon. member for Peninsula, the allocation or the cutting-up of that two-fifths of the cake in respect of the Free State, the Transvaal and Natal is completely wrong and unfair, and the reason why this has been done is obvious. At the present time, in the Union Council for Coloured Affairs, the representatives of the Cape Province have the majority. [Interjection.] So I submit that whichever way the Minister looks at it he should reconsider the matter, and perhaps he may well come to the conclusion before Monday that regardless of the information given to him by the Council, he has been wrongly advised in regard to the allocation of the seats and the representation of those three provinces. I sincerely hope he will realize that far from this being an objective recommendation by the Council, it is inspired by the ordinary political motives of retaining political strength in the hands of the majority in the present Council, and perpetuating it for the Cape Province in the new Coloured “Parliament”. This is not the way a completely new concept of representation should be approached, particularly in the light of the legislation which should come before this Parliament very soon in regard to the electoral affairs of the White community in South Africa, where we are taking great pains in order to ensure that we will in fact provide representation on a fair and proper basis, having due regard to such important factors as population distribution and the changes therein.