announced that he had appointed the following members to serve on the Select Committee on the Revision of the Rules, viz.: The Minister of Lands (Chairman), Dr. Coertze, Messrs. J. J. Fouché, Higgerty, Hopewell, Moore, Plewman, F. S. Steyn, S. J. M. Steyn and van den Heever.

At the last consideration of Clause 8, I, for one, had made the point that the sub-division of the Coloured people into the various sub-groups, as they have been called in this debate, first of all of Cape Coloureds as the main group, and then the Griquas, Malays and so on, was not a realistic and not even a fair way of approaching the question of representation for the group as a whole. On Thursday last there appeared a letter in the Cape Argus, and I was struck not only by the tenor of the letter but also by the appearance of the person whose photograph accompanied the letter, and he wrote among other things—

“That the Coloured community is strongly divided in smaller groups, such as the Cape Coloureds, the Malays and the Griquas …”

This, of course, is the essence of the clause that we are dealing with. Then the letter writer, who lives at Black River, goes on to say—

Order! The hon. member may not read comment on a current debate from a newspaper.

I am sorry, Sir. The letter writer says that anyone who walks through District Six will find that Mr. Botha’s statement is completely incorrect, and that he will in fact form an impression contrary to the hon. Minister’s statement. The point he makes is that there has been so much social, economic and cultural integration that it is difficult in fact impossible, to distinguish between the various groups, and that any cross-section of the numerous housing projects will prove this.

Sir, if this is correct, and this appears to be an opinion of a Coloured person who, if I may say so, writes a very intelligent letter about the whole Bill—and not all of his comments are critical of the Bill or of the Minister—if this person, taking just one part of the municipal area of Cape Town, District Six which is, as we know, a Coloured area, is correct when he says that it is virtually impossible to separate these groups because of the way they have become not only mixed up with each other, but virtually become integrated in all their customs, in their form of life and in their economy, then I believe that the Minister should give some heed to the representations that we have made on this clause and not persist, as he said he intended to do, with a representation based purely on a sub-division of the Coloured people into these various groups. I do not want to press this point unduly, but I rose merely in order to give the Minister the assurance that the opinions expressed by us in regard to this clause and in regard to the point at issue, are not superficial, not merely the opinions of certain members of this House, but apparently also represent a considerable body of opinion among the Coloured people themselves. For those reasons I sincerely hope that the hon. Minister will find the time and the opportunity to give us a specific reason, quite apart from what he says he has been asked to do by the present Council for Coloured Affairs, a specific reason why he thinks it is in the interests of the Coloured people of South Africa and in the interests of the various sub-groups which he claims make up the Coloured people, to provide them with representation in such a “split personality” way as to ensure that they are never considered, from the point of view of the Government, as a complete group with its own culture and its own needs.

Question put: That all the words after “the” where it occurs for the second time in line 35, up to and including “province” in line 55, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

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

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

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

On a point of order, we cannot hear a word the hon. member is saying.

Order! The hon. member for Maitland should talk a bit louder and other hon. members a bit softer.

Sir, I am saying that paragraph (b) does away with the provision of the Electoral Act which requires the electoral officer, at the end of each month, to provide certain bodies, as well as political parties, with the changes effected to the Voters’ Roll during the course of that month. I can see no reason for that because the hon. the Minister will agree that it is most important that political organizations be provided with that information every month and that requirement now falls away in respect of the Coloured Voters’ Rolls which means that they will have to manage without it. I think the only reason the Minister can advance is that he believes there will not be any political groups amongst the Coloureds. But I think the hon. the Minister will agree that with the passage of time there will be such groups and one envisages that in the not too distant future political parties will also come into existence amongst the Coloureds. When such parties do come into existence I think the Minister will agree that it will be of the utmost importance to them to be informed every month of any changes to the Voters’ Rolls, like all parties are normally provided with that information. It may perhaps be argued that when that time arrives the necessary amendments can be effected, and the Minister may say there are not any political parties amongst the Coloureds yet, but I say they will come and then it will be necessary for the Minister to come to this House and amend this clause. I, therefore, do not think the Minister should let this clause go through as it stands at the moment.

I cannot agree to the amendment of the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) just simply being accepted, an amendment which will amount to this that White political parties will in future receive copies of these Voters’ Rolls. I think the hon. member realizes that that will be wrong. But what I think is a reasonable request is that if Coloured political parties were to come into existence, their rightful representatives should be provided with the lists. I have already undertaken, together with the Department and after consultation with the legal advisers, to formulate an amendment which will make it possible for the rightful representatives of Coloured political parties to acquire such copies. We shall do that in consultation with the Department of the Interior and, if possible, introduce an amendment in the Other Place. But I cannot agree to the request of the hon. member being acceded to because it will amount to this that we shall be giving an undertaking to provide White political parties with copies of those Voters’ Rolls and I am not prepared to do that.

My attitude is that it is to the advantage of the Coloured to be kept out of the politics of the White man. I can imagine what will happen. No matter what the attitude of the Opposition or of the Government party towards the Coloureds may be, I envisage that, when this council has been established, there will be participation in politics, and that the Coloureds will be dragged into the politics of the White man to their own detriment as well as to the detriment of the Whites. Personally I think this provision in the existing Electoral Act that Voters’ Rolls should be made available to political parties monthly is a mistake and I think I am quite entitled to think so. My position is that because I do not belong to a recognized White political party I have to buy my Voters’ Roll whereas I understand all political parties get their lists free of charge.

Yes, but you receive a bigger allowance than we do.

My constituency is about five hundred times as large as that of the hon. member and for that reason I should receive about five hundred times as much as he does; I therefore leave the hon. member at that. I support the attitude that Voters’ Rolls and data in regard to the Coloured council should not be made available to White political parties because I envisage that in future we shall again have the position, while we are at a critical stage in our history, where political parties will cloud the issue, political parties who for selfish reasons will wish to gain control over that council; that they will interfere with the constitution of that council and with the election of its members. You will find that the Coloured organizations which are not political organizations at the moment will be dragged into the politics of the White man. One important thing will flow from that. Sir, and that is that a certain class of Coloured which is of the greatest importance to-day, the teachers, will be completely ousted; they will not be able to participate. I do not know whether the hon. member for Maitland knows that it is not only the United Party which is interested in this matter, but the Progressive Party as well.

And the Nationalist Party?

I do not know. So far they have not been interested in it.

What about Daantjie Scholtz?

Oh, I am getting tired of this Daantjie Scholtz story of the hon. member for Wynberg. She and her party are too afraid to say what Daantjie Scholtz said during the election and that was why I assisted him. [Interjections.] This continuous cackling gets us nowhere, Sir. We must confine ourselves to facts. Under the existing set-up I foresee that, with the next election for this Coloured council, the United Party will compete with the Progressive Party. They will throw in their money and their organizers which will result in the absolute frustration of the Coloureds and dissension amongst them and you will never know what the Coloureds really think. That is why I do not think political parties should be provided with these lists and for that reason I support the clause as it stands. I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Maitland because the object of his amendment is not merely to put the Coloureds on an equal footing, because had that been the object of the United Party it would have been reflected in their policy. The object of this amendment is not to put the Coloureds on an equal footing as far as elections are concerned but simply to give official recognition to participation by White political parties. I have information at my disposal to prove that there are members of the United Party and of the Progressive Party who are already organizing for the election of members to this Coloured council. [Interjections.] I respect the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) as an honest member who states her attitude in this House but she cannot deny that the Progressive Party has already appointed organizers amongst the Coloureds. [Interjections.] Sir, we have already heard this story before. If they do it in the Transkei why would they not do it amongst the Coloureds? I am not reproaching anybody; I am merely stating it as a fact and it applies to the other parties as well. I think we have reached a stage where we should obtain an objective view of the future of the Coloureds alongside our own, and we can only obtain that if we allow those people to set about things in such a way that they will be able to give an objective opinion, an opinion we shall be able to respect as such. The position is that there is a difference between these Voters’ Rolls. Political parties have so far always had access to the Voters’ Rolls for members of the House of Assembly. That is why I have to buy mine while the Nationalist Party and the United Party, both of which have a great deal of money, get theirs free of charge. If there is a political party who wishes to gain control over the Coloured Representatives in this House let them avail themselves of existing legislation but I appeal to all political parties to regard the position of the Coloureds objectively. Reference is continually made to consultation. You are not consulting the Coloureds when you throw in your weight as a political party in order to get people on that council, people who will state your point of view while they cannot even become members of your party. They cannot become members of either the Nationalist Party or the United Party. I think we are doing our fellow-citizens an injustice in this regard. A large section of the White population feels we have reached the crossroads; who feels we have reached the stage where we have to find out what goes on in the mind of the Coloured and what he wants. If we want to be honest we should leave it at that and we should leave those people alone so that they can serve on the proposed council and give us an objective opinion, an opinion we shall be able to respect as representing the Coloured attitude. We should not cloud the issue by throwing money around and by appointing organizers as in the past.

As far as the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) is concerned, it is naturally a pity that he does not support me. I am somewhat surprised because I have always believed him to be somebody who supported the Common Roll. But I am nevertheless pleased that the Minister is becoming more inclined to support my view in regard to the question of making Voters’ Rolls available to political parties. What worries me, however, is the hon. Minister’s reference to Coloured parties as such. It is possible that the Coloureds will also want to belong to the Nationalist Party in which case I will find it strange that the law does not make provision for the Nationalist Party also to obtain the necessary information. I think hon. members opposite will say they do not want Coloureds as Nationalist supporters.

They cannot become members of our party.

That is not relevant. That is a practical problem and when you study Section 20 of the Electoral Act, Sir, you will find it only deals with the machinery and we should really keep politics out of it. I cannot understand how the Minister can, on the one hand, think of a Coloured political party and of a White political party on the other hand. I think the time will come when the Nationalist Party will be pleased that there is a Coloured Nationalist Party, in which case the Head Office of the Nationalist Party will have the right to claim that information.

With reference to what the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) has said I want to adopt a very firm attitude. I want to say explicitly that in no circumstances am I prepared to make arrangements for the lists to be made available to White political parties. That was exactly what I meant when I replied to the hon. member. If there are Coloureds who are of the opinion that parallel development is in their interests and they wish to belong to an organization to put that principle into practice they are at liberty to establish such an organization. As far as the National Party is concerned we do not allow Coloureds to become members and that is generally known. But there is nothing wrong with it whatsoever if Coloureds who subscribe to that principle want to establish their own organization. In that case we shall arrange for the lists to be made available to them if they want to take part in elections for their own council and the same must also apply to the United Party. I find it very strange, seeing that so far we have only heard about this “travesty” and this “farce” and this “mockery” which we are establishing, an attempt is now made to make Voters’ Rolls available for the use of White political parties. Where is the logic? Hon. members opposite must not forget that they have adopted an attitude on principle that they want nothing to do with this whole thing. Then they must be logical and say they want these Voters’ Rolls in order to take part in this “mockery”. If the Coloureds wish to establish organizations to fight seats on their council on certain principles, let them do so, but I am definitely not going to accede to the hon. member’s request. I trust I have made myself very clear.

If anything is a farce, it is the sort of argument now advanced by the hon. the Minister. What is a White political party if one has to define it in legal language? [Interjections.] Sir, I shall be glad if you could tell the political Beatles on the other side of the House to keep quiet.

On a point of order, may the hon. member refer to this side as “political Beatles”?

I withdraw it, but I ask them not to behave like the Beatles here in this House. The Minister asked that the Bill should be treated on its merits, but when we deal with matters purely on their merits we get this sort of thing, and the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) ought to be ashamed of himself.

You are just a political hitch-hiker.

If that hon. member were to be paid in proportion to the work he does in this House, he would earn the lowest salary here.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, but it is not fair. One cannot state one’s case here.

On a point of order, I ask that the hon. member apologize to me.

It breaks my heart that a man who at one stage qualified for the Cabinet sits here and wastes our time, and the people in the galleries laugh at our conduct here. [Interjections.]

Order! I now warn hon. members.

I say that if there is a farce, it is this Minister’s argument. There are recognized political parties which allow non-Whites to be members. There was a time when the Coloureds could be members of the Nationalist Party as well as of the United Party. They are represented in this House, and because the Coloureds’ Representatives sit here the political parties must take notice of elections in which the Coloureds take part, and therefore we found that a man like Mr. Daantjie Scholtz stood as an independent but he had the machinery of the Nationalist Party available to him. No, let us be reasonable. The fact is that the Coloureds are represented here, and the existing political parties must take note of it. Hon. members here have said that we should keep the Coloureds out of White politics, but surely it is unrealistic to say that. What is “White politics”, and what is “Coloured politics”? Politics affects the life of every man. Three-quarters of what we discuss in this House consists of Native affairs and Coloured affairs. There is no such thing as “White politics”. Our lives are interwoven and what happens in the Coloured council will affect the life of the White man, just as what happens in this House affects the life of the Coloured. There is no such thing as White politics and Coloured politics. It is incomprehensible that there can be a Parliament in the year 1964 which is so unrealistic and quarrels about such inanities. But let us now view the matter from the point of view of the Coloured himself. Forget about the political parties, but let us view the matter from the point of view of the voter or the man who wants to stand as a candidate. Here the Government is now giving something to the Coloureds, but then one should at least have confidence in the Coloured voters. Then one should at least allow them to stand as candidates for the parties or organizations which they support. If a Coloured wants to stand as a candidate for a new political party, he must have the right to do so. If he would like to stand as a candidate of the United Party, then he can, as far as this party is concerned, be granted permission to do so and the voters can then elect him or reject him. But, Sir, you will see that every argument advanced by the Minister time and again amounts to a curtailment of the privileges of the voter. What else is this than a lack of confidence in the voters? Why cannot the Coloured voter have the right to decide in what capacity he wants to stand for election to this Coloured council? If he wants to stand as a candidate who has the co-operation of the United Party, why can he not do so? That is his right. My objection is that the Government time and again derogates from the rights of the voter and the rights of the candidate and the rights of the voters to elect their own candidate under their own flag, whatever that might be.

What is your objection?

My objection is that there is the chimera of giving the Coloureds something, but they are not being trusted. Surely it will only be reasonable to make an amendment so that candidates who stand under the flag of a political party which registers itself in respect of the election, or which intimates that it wants to participate in the election, whether it is the Nationalist Party or the United Party or the Progressive Party or a new party, will have the right to get information in regard to registrations in the same way that the existing parties get it today.

Sir, when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) opens his mouth he says things which are intended to whip up racial feelings. [Laughter.] Hon. members may laugh but what did the hon. member say: He says we are giving something to the Coloureds but that we did not trust them.

They are agitators.

What does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout want? He wants these Voters’ Rolls to be made available to Coloured political parties and what the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) has in mind is that they should be made available to White political parties. He says Section (2) (b) should be deleted. If that section were deleted the Bill would read like the old Electoral Act, namely, that Voters’ Rolls can only be given to political parties, that is why the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) cannot get a list.

Does the hon. member agree that the political parties referred to in the Electoral Act are not exclusively White parties?

The fact of the matter is that up to this stage of our existence we have never yet had to do with a non-White political party …

What about the Progressive Party?

… and the other fact is that the hon. member for Outeniqua, who represents Coloured people in this House, is not entitled to a voters’ list but the United Party is; as a matter of fact, they get a number but the hon. member for Outeniqua cannot get one. We are now dealing with another fact; we are dealing with the fact that this Coloured council will consist of Coloureds. White people will not be able to stand as candidates for this council. The candidates will, therefore, not be Whites; they will be non-Whites. What on earth do the White political parties want to do with these voters’ lists? That was what the hon. member for Outeniqua meant when he referred to non-White politics and White politics. Here we are dealing exclusively with a body consisting of non-Whites with which the Whites have nothing to do whatsoever. A White person cannot with the best will in the world make himself available for election to this council. Sir, one asks oneself this question: What does the United Party want to do with those voters’ lists? They only want to stir up racial ill feeling; that is the only reason why they want these voters’ lists.

I must object to the statement made by the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) who, inter alia, said he thought I was in favour of the Common Roll, and now found differently.

Yes.

I shall leave the anglicized term “gemeenskaplike rol” at that and talk about the Common Voters’ Roll. I wish to remind the hon. member for Maitland that during the last three years I sat in this House as a member of the United Party, which does not support a truly Common Roll, I stood by the policy of the United Party, as it behoves a member of the United Party caucus. But since I have been freed from that he cannot give me one example where I have not expressed myself in favour of a Common Voters’ Roll, and I mean a Common Roll in the true sense of the word. As a matter of fact I clearly said in my second-reading speech on this Bill that I expected this to develop in a certain direction. The hon. the Prime Minister was present when I said I demanded from the Government that this should lead to full-fledged citizenship. The hon. member for Maitland is the last person to speak about this because he, as a member of the United Party, does not advocate the introduction of a Common Voters’ Roll in the true sense of the word.

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

I shall return to the clause, Sir, by saying that if the Voters’ Rolls for the Coloured council were made available to White political parties, the interests of the Coloureds will not be promoted in any way; it is a falsehood to say that; it is only a trick in order to be able to take part in the politics of the Coloureds. I shall in a moment deal with the distinction the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has drawn between the politics of the Coloureds and that of the Whites. If he draws that distinction I just want to ask him why his party also discriminates between the Coloureds in the various provinces, and between White and Coloureds. I want to say in all sincerity and honesty that I am of opinion that it would be fatal for those people whose interests I try to promote here and whom I represent here with all my heart and soul, to be dragged back into the politics of the White man at this stage. Why should the Coloured be concerned, as he has been concerned over all these years, with what happened on both sides during the Boer War and what had happened to the descendants of the Boers and what happened to the descendants of the English who took part in that war? Why should the Coloured continually be concerned with the rights of the Afrikaans-speaking section and the English-speaking section? I am firmly convinced that it was fatal for our Coloured fellow-citizens to have been concerned in that struggle because only their votes were used and they derived no benefit from it.

I find the attitude of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) interesting, because during the six years I have been sitting in this House I have heard him, in the same striking and eloquent way, stating the attitude of three different parties in connection with the Coloureds and when he talks he talks equally effectively, no matter on behalf of which party he talks. But I do not hold that against him.

You cannot prove it.

As a member of the Nationalist Party the hon. member voted for the separate Voters’ Roll. As a member of the Afrikaner Party the hon. member pleaded for direct representation by the Coloureds, and as a member of the United Party the return to the old pre-1955 order.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause and whether the Voters’ Roll should be made available to political parties or not.

May I react to the standpoint enunciated by a previous speaker, Sir?

The hon. member must confine himself to the clause. If I were to allow hon. members to react to everything stated by previous speakers we shall be getting away from the clause altogether.

I shall confine myself to the clause, Sir, but I take it that I shall be enunciating a standpoint to which any member who speaks after me shall not be able to react. Sir, I do not wish to reproach anybody. Theoretically I do not distinguish between the ultimate lot of the Coloureds and that of the Whites in South Africa. My attitude is well known in this House. I have experience of this matter and I say if ever there was corruption in the past, if ever an injustice was done to the Coloureds, you will get that on a larger scale than ever before in the Coloured council elections and in the election of candidates to represent the Coloureds in this House, if the White political parties were to interfere in these elections.

Mr. Chairman, I find myself in a very difficult position and I seek your ruling, with respect, Sir. You allow speakers to advance certain arguments …

Order! The hon. member’s difficulty is that he has already said what he wanted to say and he must confine himself to the clause.

No, with respect, I have not yet said what I wanted to say. I only want to know where I stand because you allow speakers to advance arguments in respect of my attitude and I do not know whether I may respond to those arguments or not.

Order! The hon. member must observe my ruling; he must confine himself to the clause.

I wish to conclude repeating what I have said before in this House, namely, that I am not in all respects satisfied with the Coloured council to be established here. I said that repeatedly when we discussed Clauses 1 and 2. I pleaded with the hon. the Minister that this should be a representative council, a council which could be regarded as the proper body for the Government to consult.

Order! The hon. member is completely away from the clause.

With respect, Sir, I am not away from the clause.

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

Sir, to show how democratic we are in our caucus I am going to disagree with my hon. friend here. I want to say at once that politically I will not accept anything less for the Coloureds than the White people get. This is a diminution of the rights of the Coloured man who is entitled to have exactly the same political rights as the White man. Sir, I am not going to concede it out and out but the hon. Minister may have a point when he says that he is not going to make these lists available to White political parties. The original Act, however, does talk about “groups”. The Act talks about “political parties or groups”. The Minister knows perfectly well that the majority or at least some of the present members of the council will make themselves available as candidates for this new council which is being established under this Bill. Are they not entitled to the voters’ list? What are they going to do if they want to canvass for votes and arrange their election campaign? Where are they going to get these lists?

They will have to buy them, just as we have to do.

Sir, the Act talks about political parties or groups. Will the hon. the Minister deny that there is a group called the Volksbond which supports this Government, a recognized group of people who take part in politics? Are they not entitled to these lists? [Interjections.] Apparently the hon. member has not yet heard of the Volksbond. The hon. member must be a Rip van Winkle. I have many friends amongst the Volksbond but the Volksbond is a recognized political group in the Cape, and they support the Government. Are they not entitled to the list?

That is the Left Wing of the Broederbond.

Sir, Coloured political parties may be formed but they will not be entitled to these lists apparently.

The Minister said that he would bring about an amendment in the Other Place.

At the moment there is an organization which is non-political, an organization made up of ex-soldiers. This is a well-known national organization with national headquarters. It has separate Coloured branches consisting of thousands of people who are ex-soldiers. At the moment, as I have said, it is a non-political organization but they may very well become a political organization. Are these people who fought for South Africa not entitled to these lists? We may perhaps concede to the Minister that White political parties should not be entitled to these lists, but he should at least allow groups of people to have access to these Voters’ Rolls, because Section 20 of the original Act talks about “political parties or groups”.

Sir, with your permission I just want to take the hon. the Minister to task about the way he treats members on this side of the House. The hon. the Minister said, “Why do you talk about this Act which you said was a ‘travesty and a mockery’?” The Minister complains because hon. members on this side move amendments, but let me draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that last year there was a Bill before this House and on that occasion we were attacked by the Minister for not moving any amendment. Well, he cannot have it both ways. If we do not move amendments he attacks us, and when we do move amendments he also attacks us. I leave it to the House to draw its own conclusions. Sir, I make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to make it possible for organizations to get hold of these Voters’ Rolls. Here I just want to correct my hon. friend. The hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) says that we as a group are not entitled to obtain the list of voters in our constituency. Sir, it is the first time this year that we have had difficulty in doing so. Up to now I have received my copy of the list.

From whom?

From the United Party!

From the electoral officer. [Interjections.] I am making a statement as a responsible member of this House that up to now I have had no difficulty in obtaining a copy of the list. I am not talking about this year. I think it is only fair to make it perfectly clear that the electoral officer did in fact, up to last year, send us the preliminary Voters’ Roll of our constituencies. I do not want to create the impression that these lists were not sent to us by the electoral officer in the past. I do not want previous electoral officers to be accused of not having sent these lists to us, because they did. Sir, I believe that in terms of the Act we are a recognized group in Parliament and that we are entitled to have our voters’ lists sent to us.

Sir, I just want to bring this thing into perspective. The amendment asks for the returns to be submitted to the political parties. What are these returns? They are the deletions and the additions. The actual question of a Voters’ Roll is quite a simple matter. Any person who wishes to stand for this particular council can buy himself a copy of the roll; there is no difficulty about it whatsoever, but in order to keep the machinery going somebody has to take an interest. So, I want to put it to the Minister this way: He is prepared to give the roll to a recognized Coloured political party. There are four words there—“recognized”, “Coloured”, “political” and “party”. How does a political party start? What stage does it reach before it is recognized and what can a Coloured man’s principles in his political party be that are not covered by the present political scene? A Coloured man to-day is either for the Common Roll or for separate development. The one is expounded by the Nationalist Party and the other by the United Party. The Progressive Party has another point of view, and then there is the Liberal Party which also has a point of view. There may be others. The Minister has said several times that it is the aim and ambition of the Nationalist Party to uplift the Coloured man. I am quite convinced that in his anxiety to uplift the Coloured people he is not going to throw them to the wolves to develop politically in any direction they please. He is going to do his best to influence them to accept separate development. He may not do it as a Minister of State, but I am quite sure that the organization to which the hon. the Minister belongs is interested in what is going to happen to this council. They have to make it work, and I think we should keep these things fairly and squarely in the forefront of our minds. Do not let us think for a moment that the Coloured man is just going to be cast adrift and allowed to go wherever he likes. We must guide him. That has been the whole theme of this debate; he is to be guided into the proper channels. The vast majority to-day are in the proper channels, supporting the United Party.

Are they members of the United Party?

Sir, whether they are members or not is a side-issue. We are dealing here with the availability or otherwise of the returns in connection with the roll. It is only a matter of time, of course, before we will find that the Nationalist Party will be advocating these things in the same way as we do. They will be advocating separate development and they will probably want to keep the rolls up to date. I put it to you, Sir. How can a population of 1,500,000 Coloureds in the whole of the Republic get themselves organized without some sort of guidance from somebody? I fought an election on the principles of the United Party and I intend to assist them because they made a correct decision, and that was in the hurly-burly of politics. Those principles were enunciated on public platforms in the course of an election campaign and they were accepted, so do not let us take refuge in the fact that these people do not know what their political affiliations are, because they do, and there are many Coloured people who are Nationalists. I think there is a picture extant showing Bruckner de Villiers of Stellenbosch being carried shoulder-high into this House on the shoulders of Coloured people. I mention this merely to show that there are or were Coloured Nationalists. I think there are very few now. The hon. the Minister as a onetime party organizer himself knows the difficulties. He is aware of the difficulty of keeping these rolls up to date. Let me put it to him this way: When there are deletions and people’s names have been removed from the roll, whose job will it be, to see that their names are restored to the roll? They may not know what to do. Somebody must tell them what to do. When they are disqualified because what they regard as a competent witness turns out to be an incompetent witness, what happens to them then? These are the points that we are putting forward this afternoon and these are the points which we suggest the Minister should concede, because as an ardent politician himself he knows the value of keeping the Voters’ Roll 100 per cent up to date. Do not let us become confused on the question as to whether or not I as a member get a Voters’ Roll. I buy mine and I always have done so. I think one pays little enough for a Voters’ Roll. The political parties are spread right throughout the country and there are jobs to be done. There are deletions to be attended to and there are additions to be made, and these must be done continuously. It is no use leaving things until election day and then finding that the candidate and his helpers are abused by people who were left off the roll. Sir, I make an appeal to the hon. the Minister, who is a very knowledgeable man on this subject to accept that other knowledgeable men see these difficulties and ask him to accept this amendment.

I just want to plead once again with the hon. the Minister. I foresee difficulty if the clause is amended in this way. Paragraph (b) deals exclusively with the effective working of any political machine, whether it be that of the Nationalist Party or of the United Party or any other party. The hon. the Minister has already said he has made a concession because he feels it is essential for Coloured parties as such to get the relevant Voters’ Roll information. I think it is an improvement but I think the hon. the Minister places himself in a difficult position when he starts talking about a White and a Coloured party for the simple reason that we already have parties in South Africa which are neither White nor Coloured; we already have mixed parties; some of them are represented in this House; we have the Liberal Party and the Progressive Party. It will be a brave man who says these parties are exclusively White parties or exclusively Coloured parties. But I fore see the day when the electoral officer will have to sit in judgment and that he may decide that those parties are Coloured parties in which case, for the sake of argument, you will have the position that the Progressive Party will have a Voters’ Roll and not the Nationalist Party. No, I think the hon. the Minister is creating a great deal of difficulty for himself when he tries to define when a party is a White party or a Coloured party because we already have two parties in South Africa which can be regarded in political society as mixed parties.

As far as I personally am concerned, there are two cardinal points in regard to this clause and this amendment. The first is an anomaly in terms of the Electoral Act as it reads now, namely that I as a member of the House of Assembly cannot obtain the necessary data from the electoral officer provided for in the Act. I cannot get that information. If I want it I must buy the Voters’ Roll, and the 35c or 45c it costs, and which the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) never spent in the three or four years he was the provincial councillor for the Northern Cape, is not the point; it is not the money but the principle which is concerned. As a Member of Parliament I cannot get those data. The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) will forgive me if I correct him. Where he got his Voters’ Roll from I do not know, but he must have got it via a political party.

That is not correct.

The electoral officer ruled that if I want it I must buy it. A political party which does not do a tickey’s worth in connection with the representation of my people, into which I put my heart and soul and which costs me hundreds and thousands of pounds a year, representation which I have done in such a manner that no objection can be raised against me, as the hon. member for Karoo knows, can get Voters’ Rolls and supplementary rolls, but I, as the sitting member, cannot. I feel that when we get to the stage where a Coloured council has to be elected, of which not a single member can be a member of the United Party or of the National Party, then those parties should not be entitled to the privilege of having Voters’ Rolls made available to them, because in my opinion that is quite wrong. Here we are now going to have a state of affairs where I am asked by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout: How can you talk about White politics and Coloured politics? He knows that his own party discriminates between White and Coloured, and even between Coloured and Coloured. The fact remains that my voters cannot be members either of the United Party or of the Government Party, and then they still say I dare not distinguish. They say I may not take a distinction from our history. When it comes to Coloured political parties I think it would be a tragedy for the Coloureds at this stage if Coloured political parties were to be established now, but if it has to happen, let us review the position so that they can exist in the light of the circumstances. But at the moment there are no Coloured political parties as such.

The hon. member for Karoo advanced certain arguments, but I do not know whether you, Sir, will allow me to reply to them. If you will allow me, I just want to say that reference was made to elections and to how clever the Coloured voters are, and to the hurly-burly of politics in which they were the decisive factor, but surely the hon. member is now misleading the House.

Order! The hon. member may not say that another hon. member is misleading the House.

I withdraw it, Sir. But I think he is making a mistake, and that mistake is not due to ignorance. The hon. member knows very well that if it were not for the fact that he and certain Coloureds whom he incited got the United Party so far as to put into the field ten organizers to look up every Coloured voter and to incite him, he would not have won the election. Therefore it is no argument at all.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) should keep quiet. He should not laugh. He even went so far that a Coloured of over 70 years of age had to jump out of his motor-car and run away from him because he wanted that Coloured to make a statement before an attorney, which would have been false—at any rate it would have been false if it had been made. That was at Beaufort West …

Order!

And that Coloured man ran away.

On a point of order …

But it makes no difference …

Order! The hon. member should pay heed to the Chair. He simply continues. I call for order. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories is rising on a point of order.

On a point of order, I understood the hon. member to say that the hon. member for Gardens asked a Coloured man to make a false statement—that he knew that it was false …

He was entitled to say it. He knew it was false.

I take strong exception to this statement that an hon. member of this House wanted to get a Coloured man to make a false statement.

Order! The hon. member for Outeniqua corrected himself and said that it was a statement which, had it been made, would have been false.

I understood him to say that the hon. member for Gardens wanted him to make a false statement, the insinuation being that the hon. member for Gardens knew that such a statement would be false.

The hon. member for Outeniqua may continue.

Sir, I do not want to be involved in this sort of thing. On the other hand, I was concerned with such matters as a member of this House. Why must I always be reproached without saying a word about it? One might have thought that I was dishonourably concerned in it. That is why I reacted.

The whole reason why I am speaking to this clause is because I feel that at this stage —and I repeat, at this stage—the clause as it stands now is more acceptable to me, on the basis of my experience. In the interest of the people who are concerned in this matter, I want to prevent, if possible, their becoming involved at this stage in the politics of White political parties of which they may not even become members.

Question put: That paragraph (b) of subsection (2) stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

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

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

Question affirmed and amendment negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

In view of the fact that the amendment to Clause 1 has lapsed, I do not intend moving the amendment printed in my name. I should like to move—

1. (1) No person shall be nominated or elected as a member of the council unless he is qualified as provided in sub-section (1) of Section 4 to be registered as a voter.

In view of the fact that this clause deals with the qualifications of members of the council, I think it is necessary to ask ourselves how the status of this council compares with that of a body like, e.g., the provincial council. He will see, Sir, that many of these qualifications are applicable to provincial councillors. In the first place, this is not a provincial council as regards status; the Minister has given this council the status of a parliament. Its field of operation is country-wide; it is not limited to specific provinces. In regard to the laws which this council can make, they will be applicable to the whole of the country. I therefore think that where one is dealing with a body which has a status approximating to parliamentary status there should not be any fundamental differences between a candidate who wants to stand for election to this council and one who wishes to stand for the Parliament of South Africa.

What qualifications must a candidate for this council comply with, Sir? In the first place, a White candidate must be qualified to be registered as a voter. How does that compare with a Coloured candidate? There are two types of candidates, the one who is nominated and the other who is elected. In the case of the one who is nominated, he must comply with two qualifications. Firstly, he should be qualified to register as a voter. In the case of the one who is elected, it is provided that he should not only qualify …

Order! Hon. members should please not talk so loudly. I cannot hear anything that the hon. member is saying, and even the Whips are participating in it!

… to register, but his name must actually appear on the Voters’ Roll. Apart from the fact that there is discrimination here between the elected and the nominated member, it is also true, on the other hand, that there is a real difference between the qualifications with which a White candidate for this House must comply and those with which a Coloured candidate for this council must comply. In so far as the discrimination is concerned, I honestly think that the hon. the Minister should reconsider this matter before going so far as to draw a real distinction between the qualifications necessary for a nominated member and those necessary for an elected member. In fact, I really think that the person who is only qualified to be registered is really the person whom the voters should elect. The Minister is here granting the Coloured voter the sovereign power to elect somebody himself and I do not believe that that sovereign power should be less than that of the White voter.

In the second instance, we have the question of the residential qualification. The Coloured candidate must have lived in the province for two years before he can be a candidate. That is of course applicable in so far as provincial councils are concerned. Here the council is therefore again on a provincial council basis, although its status is that of a parliament. But the Minister says no, whether he is nominated or elected, the member’s status is not really higher than that of a provincial councillor. I really think the hon. the Minister should reconsider the matter. He should clearly tell these people: Just as a White Member of Parliament will have the right to live anywhere, so you will have the same right. If the voters want a particular person, it should be their exclusive right to say that they want him. The Minister should not tell them which candidate they should elect. If the hon. the Minister wants to nominate somebody, he perhaps still has that right, but when it comes to an elected member, and where the Coloured people now for the first time have the right to exercise one man, one vote, even in the language of the Government, the Minister should not say to them: Look, I say you must appoint this or that candidate because of his residential qualifications. If, for the sake of argument, the Coloureds of the Free State want to elect a candidate who lives in the Transvaal, they should be at liberty to do so. Unless we do that, Sir, I think we are discriminating unnecessarily against the Coloured. I really do not think the hon. the Minister should have too strong feelings in regard to this matter. I therefore hope that he will accept my amendment.

Sir, I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

In terms of Clause 4 (1) which this Committee has already approved, we have already laid down the qualifications that must be complied with in order to become a voter on this new Voters’ Roll. Clause 4 (1) says—

In other words, every Coloured person who is a South African citizen and who is over the age of 21 years shall be entitled to register as a voter. All that we ask in my amendment is that it shall be competent for a voter to be nominated if he is qualified to become a voter under this list. In other words, once he is qualified as a voter there should be no bar to his being nominated as a member of this proposed council. Clause 10 (1) (b) places further restrictions on anyone who wishes to be elected as a member of this council. It reads—

1. (b) he has for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the date of his nomination resided in the province he is nominated to represent, and continues to reside there.

I do not think there is any reason for this additional restriction. The provisions which apply to persons who desire to become members of this House are dealt with in our own Constitution, Act 32 of 1961. Section 46 of that Act says—

1. (a) he is qualified to be registered as a voter to the election of the House of Assembly …

in any one of the provinces, Sir, and—

1. (b) he has resided for five years within the limits of the Republic …

Mark this, Mr. Chairman, this is not continuous residence; then he must be a White person and a South African citizen. All we are asking is that similar provisions should be incorporated in this Bill as far as the Coloureds are concerned. In other words, Sir, that a man or woman who qualifies in terms of Clause 4 (1) to be registered as a voter should be entitled to be nominated or elected as a member of this council. We think it imposes an unnecessary restriction on the Coloureds by allowing 10 (b) to remain in existence. The same provision does not apply in the case of the Whites and we see no reason why it should apply in the case of the Coloureds. We see no justification for imposing a further restriction upon the Coloured people.

We think the provision in regard to a continuous period of residence in a particular province may lead to a great deal of hardship. I want to point out that this same provision does not apply in the case of Whites and that has not been imposed for a very good reason. There have been many instances of people being elected to this House who have never at any time of their lives resided in the constituencies they represent. There have been cases where members have never resided in the same province in which their constituencies are situated. Take the case of the present Minister of Foreign Affairs. His is a very good example. The constituency of Beaufort West decided to elect a person who is normally resident in the Transvaal. They chose him, Sir, and why should they not have that right? There is another instance. When the hon. Minister of Finance resided in Cape Town permanently he represented a constituency in the Free State and they chose him voluntarily. Why should that position not obtain in the case of the Coloureds? If the Coloureds in the Transvaal know of an outstanding man who lives permanently in Cape Town why should they not have the right to elect him? The point I wish to make is this: As long as they are South African citizens and as long as they qualify in terms of Clause 4 (1) to become registered voters and as long as they are resident in the Republic of South Africa there can be no harm at all in giving them the same freedom of action as that enjoyed in electing members of this House. There is no politics involved in this, Sir; this is a reasonable request. I would urge the Minister to give consideration to what is proposed in this amendment.

In any case, I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to sub-section (2) as printed. It is absolutely meaningless as printed. The English version reads—

It is quite obvious that the hon. the Minister himself must move the deletion of “he” in line 58, otherwise this is meaningless. I do not know whether it is a bad translation or a printing error.

It is apparently a misprint.

It must in any case be omitted. I do urge upon the Minister to pay serious attention to this reasonable request we are making and that is to give the Coloured people the same facilities as those enjoyed by the Europeans in this country. There may be very good reasons why people in Cape Town may want to choose a leader living in the Orange Free State to represent a constituency in the Cape Province. Why should they not have the same right as the voters of Beaufort West had of electing the person of their choice to represent them in this House, notwithstanding the fact that that person does not live in that constituency or even in the same province? I would earnestly urge upon the Minister to give serious consideration to this reasonable request.

I hope the hon. the Minister will see some merit in both the amendments moved by the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) and the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). If the hon. the Minister were to look at this clause again, he will agree that he is making it unnecessarily easy for him to nominate a member to this council, and he is making it unnecessarily difficult for the Coloured people to elect a member to this council. I do not believe that was his intention. I especially wish to draw his attention to the marked difference in approach as between sub-section (1) (a) of Clause 10 and sub-section (2). Sub-section (1) (a) permits the Minister to nominate a member to this council even if that person is not on the Coloured Voters’ Roll, but is merely qualified to be on it. One would assume, Sir, that any man who regarded this council with sufficient respect—which means, of course, that he agrees with the Minister’s valuation of this proposed council—would certainly take the trouble, if he were qualified, to make sure he was on the roll. I would imagine that one of the criteria the Minister would apply before electing a nominee for this council would be the interest of that particular individual, not only in the general interests of the Coloured people, but in the Coloured Persons Representative Council itself as an instrument to make known the wishes of the Coloured people. The hon. the Minister must agree that there will surely be cases where he wants to nominate somebody, but finds that that person is not on the roll despite the fact that he is qualified to be on it. Will he, in that case, say, “despite the fact that the man has not even taken the trouble to register I am going to nominate him”? I think he will agree that that will create a very poor impression among the Coloured people, because the position will then arise where he will have disregarded the failure of an individual who is qualified to be enrolled as a voter to make sure that his name is on the roll, as being evidence of the fact that he is not even interested in exercising his vote! With that disability a person such as that surely would have, as the Americans say, “a strike against him” when the Minister comes to consider a list of nominees. Nevertheless, as the clause stands the Minister takes unto himself the right to nominate a person who is not on the roll. But when it comes to (2), Sir—and the point has been made in another way by the hon. member for Peninsula—then the Minister says that the person concerned, being the elected member, must have resided for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the date of his election in the province in which the constituency is situated which he represents. In support of the hon. member for Peninsula, I give the example of a constituency, say Coronation-ville in Johannesburg, in the Transvaal, wishing to elect a person as their representative who has always lived where the majority of the Cape Coloured people live, in the Western Province; as one sees it now, this is not going to be a full-time job, nor is there any indication that the remuneration of a member of this council will be on such a scale that he will be enabled to resign from all other employment, or surrender all other sources of income—that person will then be faced with the choice of either accepting nomination two years in advance of an election, moving to the province from where the nomination has been offered him, as it were, and thus qualify himself to be a representative of that constituency, or refusing to serve his people! I doubt whether the hon. Minister intended that—that is, if he was serious in saying, as he has said in this House, that the Coloured Persons Representative Council is the instrument of the Coloured people in which they will express their opinion, and which is the means whereby they will be able to uplift themselves. “Uplift themselves”—the do-it-yourself technique of uplift is the one that he prefers. If that is the case, you may well have the position where a Coloured man has lived, say in Cape Town, for many years and knows as a leader of his people that there is a dearth of leadership among the Coloured people, say, in the Transvaal, and is self-sacrificing enough to go and live there years before an election so that he may have the opportunity of representing, shall I say, Coronation-ville, as a constituency, because there they have not found anybody in whom they have sufficient confidence to ask that person to represent them. According to this clause, this genuine Coloured individual who wishes to help his own people—which is what the Minister says he wants that man to do—will be precluded from making that sacrifice, from taking up residence say six months before an election in the Transvaal, in Johannesburg, even in the constituency itself, Coronation-ville, because the hon. Minister says that he must have lived there for two years before he can be a candidate. For all those reasons I think the case has been made out to be completely unanswerable—except on the basis that the hon. Minister will accept the amendments proposed—and I sincerely hope that if he is not going to do so, the Minister will give us some reasons for the refusal of these arguments that have been directed to him.

I shall not say much. Sir, because I have already dealt with the matter during the second-reading debate. The problem we are dealing with here is totally different from the one in regard to the Whites. The persons who will be elected will be persons who will act as the leaders of that community. It will not assist that community in the least if a person living in Johannesburg, for example, makes himself available for election in Queenstown. Within perhaps ten years, or any time in the future, when upliftment work has been done, the position may possibly change. I foresee one practical difficulty, however, and that is in the case of a person who lives, say, in Aliwal North, represents that constituency, and just moves across the Orange River. In that case it may perhaps be possible for the Minister to effect an amendment to the effect that where a person moves across the river the Minister will have the right to approve of his representing that constituency. I foresee that practical difficulty. We have had the case of Jan Kempdorp where a person may perhaps go and live just across the border in which case he is disqualified. However, I think that is a problem which we can easily solve. Generally, however, I think it is quite right to retain the two-year qualification. It will not assist that community in the Queenstown constituency at all if their leader lives in Johannesburg. Of what value will he be to the Coloured community in Queenstown? That is the whole problem. As I said during the second-reading debate, the Coloureds themselves say the person should be living in the constituency and that nobody from outside must represent that constituency. That was how strongly they felt about this point because they felt that person must do upliftment work.

What about the White representatives.

The position of the Whites is completely different. The non-White persons remain the leaders who have to uplift that community. Hon. members must please remember that the Coloureds themselves realize that they have not reached that stage of development which the Whites have reached. They themselves argued in the Coloured council that they would much rather have the person who is their leader living in that constituency so that he can give the necessary lead in order to uplift that community. As far as the two-year residential qualification is concerned we must retain that in order to maintain the principle of leadership.

Before the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) spoke I could not conceive of any possible justification for the inclusion of this clause and now that I have heard the hon. member, I still cannot see any justification. I cannot imagine how one can say to a representative: You will be confined to this constituency as long as you represent these people and you must have been there for two years before you can be elected. The example I gave in the second reading, which has not been mentioned in Committee, was this: Supposing the hon. Minister decides that the seat of this parliament will be in Cape Town. I can quite conceive a Johannesburg representative or a Free State representative saying: Now that I have been elected I am going to live in the Cape, but I shall be coming back to the Transvaal or the Free State in the recess. As I do now; I go back to the Transvaal whenever I have the opportunity. But we are constrained to remain here in Cape Town while Parliament is sitting. These members from the Transvaal and the Free State, should the seat be here in Cape Town, would then perhaps find it convenient to live in the Cape. If the hon. Minister says that the seat is going to be in Pretoria, I can quite conceive that Cape Town members would wish to live in the Transvaal. Why we should say to these Coloured people, “You are the leaders of your community and therefore you must stay in your province”, I cannot understand. As the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) says, he cannot even move across the river, he cannot live across the river. I think it is the height of absurdity. I can think of nothing that will bring greater ridicule upon us more readily than the inclusion of a provision of this kind.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) wants a member to limit his constituency and he advanced certain arguments in favour of that. But the point here is that a person, if he wants to become a candidate, should have lived there for two years previously. Even though he may decide to live there after the election, he is still prohibited from standing as a candidate because he must have resided there for two years previously.

There are two objections we should like to raise to this clause. The one was dealt with by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel). To us it seems to be an anomaly that a man who is nominated need not be registered on the Voters’ Roll, but only the man who has to be elected. I cannot see the sense in that anomaly. Nor do I think that the other provision in regard to the period of two years can be justified in any way, and it is unfair towards the voters. The whole object of the election surely is that one wants to give the people the opportunity to elect somebody whom they like, whom they trust, who is able to say what he wants to say and who will look after their interests. The Minister may now say that we raise this point for other reasons, but purely on the merits I believe that one should trust the voters. One must give the voter the opportunity to decide whom he wants to have, and if he wants to have a man from another community, then let him. Why should we now tell him that he may not elect this or that man. I think it is an unfair limitation on the voters themselves. Let us mention one or two practical instances which come to mind. One may have the case of a Coloured youth who grew up in a particular district and went to study, e.g., in the Cape. There is only one Coloured university. Now he comes to the Cape for three years, and after having studied at the Western Cape University he decides to remain in the Cape a little while longer to study further. Now an election takes place. He grew up in a district in the Transvaal where an election is taking place. Now this youth who was born there but who was absent temporarily for some reason, and who knows the community well, cannot stand for election. During those two years he was not resident in that constituency continuously. Therefore they cannot elect their best candidate because he was absent from the constituency during the two years preceding the election, because he was being educated elsewhere, or for other purposes. One can also mention other instances to indicate that it will be the voters who will suffer. I think that this is an unnecessary and unfair limitation on the voters.

It also creates much uncertainty. We know that in terms of our own laws when it comes to taxation, etc., the term “residence” is one which creates problems. There are people who have interests in various provinces, and they often have trouble with the Receiver of Revenue in regard to where they actually reside. There are people who reside in more than one place. But now a second element comes into it. Now the Minister is still creating the element of continuous residence. That is another complication. It is very difficult to prove that a man has lived in a place continuously for two years. Take the case of a Coloured builder. He may have gone to work in another province temporarily. He settled there only for a few months, but that breaks his continuous residence for two years before an election. The question then immediately arises as to what his legal position is. Did he live at his old address for two years, or did he not live there continuously for two years? One has the same problem with relief staff. I think the whole thing is not only unnecessary, but it will create a large number of difficulties, the difficulty of proving the residential qualification plus the continuous element of it. In any case, the people who are elected are not going to represent provinces; they will represent people, and the Coloureds do not differ so much from province to province. I do not think there is any good reason for it, and we want to ask the Minister urgently to reconsider this matter and to amend it. I suspect that one argument may be that this is the position in connection with the provincial councils, that a man who wants to stand for the provincial council must live in the province and that he must be a registered voter. That applies to the provincial councils, but we should remember that there are four provincial councils, and in essence the provincial council is a body which represents the province, and therefore this limitation exists, and it is understandable. But here we are dealing with a Union body. The name of the present body is the Union Coloured Council. If there were four representative Coloured councils, one for each province, it would be logical. But one cannot compare this Coloured council with the four provincial councils in the various provinces. This is a Union body and the standpoint ought to be quite different. But there is a further complication, viz. that if a man changes his place of residence after his election, even though it is only temporary, he loses his seat. Then he disqualifies himself. Then the problem will crop up of the man who is, e.g., a builder. We will have difficulties continuously. His opponents will complain that he has lost his qualification. The Minister will find himself in one difficulty after another, and there will be one by-election after another. If his voters have elected him and they want him and he has to go to another province to work there, why should he then be disqualified? This clause creates a multitude of problems, and I really cannot see why the Minister wants to retain this clause.

We can only live up to the spirit of the parliamentary system if we take into account the diversity of the population of the country when it comes to the distribution of the representatives. Where we are living in such a big country like South Africa we are faced with various problems and various aspects of problems in the different far corners of the country. The parliamentary system can only function effectively, can only be democratic in essence, if you take that diversity of problems into account. That is why we have the position, when it comes to the delimitation of constituencies, that you try to get various people who live in the same circumstances, in the same constituency. I admit we do not always succeed but that is the object of our delimitation. Why is that so? Because we try to bring certain group interests together when delimitating constituencies. That is even the position more so when you are dealing with an area the size of South Africa where the problems of the Free State differ of necessity from those of the Cape Province, for example. You want the people of the Free State to deal with their own problems and you do not want to send people from the Cape Province to go and force things down their throats. The position is that we shall be undermining the entire democratic system if we were to say: “Look everybody is free to stand anywhere.” That particularly applies in the case of the Coloureds. We must take into account the fact that we are dealing with people who have not yet had a great deal of experience of the parliamentary system.

What means have we at our disposal, if our attitude is to protect certain people who, as a group, have the same interests? The only means, of course, is to ensure that a specific person from within that group, and from within those interests, is elected for that group. That is the only method because if you did not have that restriction it will mean that once somebody has been elected, you will have no means at your disposal to get rid of him or of getting him to resign. There you have the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). At one time he represented the people of Namib who asked him specifically to become a South West African. The hon. member knows there is a provision in the constitution of the National Party of South West Africa that nobody who is not resident in South West may, without permission of the head committee of the party, be elected in South West.

That is not a legal provision.

No, it is a provision in the constitution of the National Party and that shows what the desirable position is. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is aware of it. The National Party of South West, in particular, realizes the value of such a provision. But I want to go further. What other weapon can you use against a person who, having been elected, goes and lives somewhere else and you cannot get rid of him? The only remedy you have is the one provided for in this Bill, namely, that he must have resided in that particular constituency for a period not less than two years (or any other period). I am talking about a constituency but our provinces have such a variety of problems that what applies to a constituency applies all the more to a province. If this provision were deleted it would mean that a political party in the Cape Province, for instance, any Progressive Party or Liberal Party or Nationalist Party or United Party amongst the Coloured which had the money would be able to afford to force his candidate down the throats of people in the Free State or Natal or the Transvaal. Others may perhaps not have the money to organize on such a country-wide basis. What will be the result? Eventually you will have a Coloured council which will simply consist of people who incidentally had the money to organize effectively so that they were all appointed to that council. The interests of the voters in the Free State, for instance, will simply not be represented on that legislative body. That is why I say the only way of protecting the Coloureds themselves, is by means of this particular provision. We do not wish to protect the agitator type or the type who organizes on a country-wide basis. We want to protect the Coloureds as a nation because we are anxious for them to exercise their influence in this Legislative body and I think this is the only way in which it can be done.

I hope the hon. Minister will reconsider this question. The arguments which have just been put up by the hon. member for Middelland (Mr. van der Merwe) are not a justification for the clause before the House at all. He has referred to the clause, but in the whole of his discussion he has justified it only by the example of his party in South West Africa which requires not that a person must reside in a constituency but that he must reside in South West Africa. What the hon. member in effect put up was a plea that the person concerned should reside in the province in which the particular constituency is. That is not what this clause says. It says that the person must reside in the particular division for which he is standing.

No, the particular province.

Yes, I am sorry, but the effect of the introduction of limitations of this nature simply brings about that you get a council which will be less able than the council which could have been elected, and a council which is not necessarily in accord with the wishes of the people in the constituency concerned. It will have that effect. Limitations of this sort have not been found necessary so far as this country is concerned. The case which has been quoted of the provincial councils is not in point at all. This is a council for the whole country and I hope that the hon. Minister is prepared to reconsider this clause.

The brevity of the speech of the hon. member, who is a frontbencher, proves that he has not read the Bill, otherwise he would have spoken at greater length. He missed the whole point because we are dealing here with provincial boundaries and not with the boundaries of constituencies. The hon. member was honest enough to admit that he had made a mistake. But speaker after speaker of the Opposition tried to make the outside world believe that this Bill imposes the restriction that the so-called candidate must live in the specific constituency in which he stands as candidate. Of course, that is not the case. The clause provides that he must live within the province. The entire argument of the United Party therefore collapses because they are trying to compare the powers, the rights and the position of the Coloured council which is to be constitute, with those of this Parliament and because they want to give the same rights and powers and privileges to the council as those enjoyed by this Parliament, whereas the Coloured council as it is constituted here is not going to be the equal of our Parliament but the equal of a predecessor of this Parliament many years ago. That is why I want to compare the position of this council and the question as to where the candidates have to live with a corresponding body and a corresponding position in our constitutional development, that is to say, the Legislative Assembly of 1834 and its position in those days. That Assembly was more or less on a par with this Coloured council although the Coloured council will have wider powers than that body had.

That was a provincial body.

At the time, of course, there was still no Union. That Legislative Assembly had to deal specifically with the whole of the Cape Province at that stage. The Free State and the Transvaal were still Republics at that stage and they had nothing to do with this development. That Assembly of 1834 consisted of 12 members all of whom were nominated. Six of those nominated members were officials whose names could not appear on the Voters’ Roll because they were not allowed to participate in politics. Six of those members were officials who were appointed by the Governor at the time. The other six were colonists who were also appointed. All 12 were appointed. I do not say that the present council is more or less the same but they are more or less comparable. The next step in that development was Representative Self-Government in 1854. That body consisted of two houses, an upper house and a lower house, and once again had very strict limitations imposed upon it. Eight of those members had to be resident in and eligible for election in the Western Province and seven had to be resident in and eligible for election in the Eastern Province. There was that specific delimitation. The next step was the Legislative Assembly which consisted of 46 elected members but in this case there were not such strict limitations. This specific provision did apply, however, to the executive authority of this body. That is why one cannot compare this Coloured Council which is to be established with our own Parliament. We should compare this council with a body of equal standing in our process of development and then we will be able to make true comparisons as far as rights and privileges are concerned. I also want to make this next point. In their policy the United Party draw a distinction between the Coloureds in the Cape and Natal and between the Coloureds in the Free State and the Transvaal. According to their policy, the Coloureds in the Cape and Natal will be put back on the Common Voters’ Roll while the Coloureds in the Transvaal and the Free State will be placed on a separate roll. The reason which they specifically mention in their statement of policy is that the Coloureds in the Transvaal and the Free State have not yet had sufficiënt experience of constitutional matters, that they have not developed sufficiently and that they do not have the necessary background. That is what their own policy provides for. When this Bill provides that a candidate must reside in the province in which he stands for election, I say that that is being done deliberately so that the Coloureds in the provinces which have not yet had the necessary experience of constitutional development and in which they have not yet had the opportunity to develop, will be placed in a position where they can elect their own representatives who can gain experience in regard to this matter and will then be able to guide their own people. We do not want the Cape Coloureds to represent those people. In this way all the provinces will benefit and will be able to reach the stage of development which is their eventual aim. Once the work of upliftment has been done and the necessary experience has been gained by the Coloureds in the Transvaal and the Free State, this Union body can eventually grow and develop into a full-fledged parliament. We will then be able to make provision to enable them to choose a candidate from any part of the country. But in the meantime, it is necessary for this protection to be given. The Cape members object. They say that the inexperienced Transvaal Coloureds should not be allowed to stand as candidates in the Cape. I think the picture is very clear; I think that is the purpose behind the whole clause and that the Opposition are making a mistake in trying to compare this body with this Parliament. It is not the equivalent of this Parliament. They must not distort my argument by saying that I want to transport the Coloureds back to 1834. This process development will be able to take place far more quickly. The same Legislative Council of 1834 in the Cape was also set up in the Transvaal in 1903, and during the period of four years up to 1907 developed into a free parliament governing themselves That is why it is perfectly clear that the Coloured will not have to start so far back but he has to start somewhere and develop to the next stage and the length of time it takes him to do so will depend upon the Coloured population itself.

There are two very important aspects I wish to deal with immediately. The first is that I want to repudiate with all the emphasis at my command the statement by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel), and which the Minister has also made from time to time in this debate, that the Coloured people have not yet reached the standard of political maturity. I repudiate that on behalf of the Coloureds. I say there are thousands of Coloured people whose intellectual standards and sagacity are much higher than those of many members of this House. I say it is an insult to the thousands of Coloured intellectuals to continue to base this type of legislation on that erroneous, insulting basis that these people have not reached that standard.

My next point is that the Minister wishes to place a restriction on the Coloureds politically which is not placed on the White people, and I will accept nothing less for the Coloureds than what the White man has. Therefore I demand for the Coloured man the same political rights as the White man has. Why does the Minister restrict the right of the elected member, but not of the nominated member? The Minister knows that there are one or two members of the present council whom he will renominate. They are free to move from province to province after they are nominated. [Interjections.]

The hon. member must confine himself to Clause 10.

In terms of Clause 10 the Minister can nominate two people to represent the Malays, who do not necessarily have to have this qualification.

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

I am trying to prove that the restrictions on the elected member in terms of Clause 10 do not apply to the nominated members. I do not want to mention names, but there is one man who will be renominated to represent the Malays. It does not say the Malays of a particular province. If that man moves from the Cape to the Transvaal six months before he gets the nomination, he can still be nominated. It does not matter where he lives. [Interjections.] Whereas there is a restriction with regard to the elected members, at least with regard to some nominated members there is no restriction as to where they should live. I therefore suggest to the Minister that he should reconsider this.

I also want to make this point. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) tells this Committee that he was influenced, together with the Minister, by the present council. They did not even want the man to be resident in the province, but in the constituency. The majority of the present council are nominated members who the Minister says he nominated because they follow his policy. I say there are sufficient people amongst the Coloureds in South Africa to-day who have the education and the experience and the political acumen who can stand for this council and be a credit to it, but the Minister is placing a restriction on people who can represent the Coloureds. [Time limit.]

I am sorry, but I cannot accept the amendments moved by hon. members. In the first place, reference has been made to the difference in approach as far as nominated members are concerned—the fact that they are only expected to qualify for registration as voters. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) referred to the principle laid down in sub-section (2) in regard to elected members, that is to say, that they must be registered voters. Yes, there is a difference in this regard and it is a practical difference. It is possible in nominating a member to determine in advance whether he complies with the qualifications. A certain amount of time has to elapse while an investigation takes place and by the time the Minister has made the nomination he will have satisfied himself that that man has the necessary qualifications. But in the case of the elected member he is nominated immediately and it may not be possible within the limited time available to ascertain whether he complies with the qualifications or not. That is why this proviso has been inserted.

I do not understand that reasoning.

Well, I understand it. That is my first reason. As far as the representations made to me to suspend the two-year provision are concerned, I just want to say that I think the hon. member for Middelland (Mr. van der Merwe) has given the House a very comprehensive reply in that regard; he has answered all the objections raised by hon. members and I do not have much to add to what he has said except to say this: The other day, when we were discussing another clause, I said that it was our intention—I said that there was a strong possibility that this would happen—to allow this council to develop in such a way that its members can be divided into subcommittees in order to look after the interests of specific provinces in regard to certain matters. That is why it is of primary importance to retain that principle. The same position obtains in our provincial councils. But there is a second reason and that is that we are dealing here with an electorate, 70 per cent to 80 per cent of whom have no knowledge of the vote and legislative bodies and it is necessary therefore for people who know what their interests are to represent them. Secondly, however, one is dealing here with people the majority of whom are poor. One therefore places the person who is a local resident in a disadvantageous position if he has to compete with a candidate who is imported from elsewhere by a financially strong group to fight the seat. That is one of the reasons for this provision; we want to combat the influence of unhealthy and financially powerful groups in a particular constituency. Hon. members may argue that they demand the same treatment for the Coloured as for the White. These are all “clichés” because we know that 70 per cent of these people do not have the political experience of the White man. For these reasons I do not see my way clear to comply with the requests of hon. members. I have listened very carefully to their arguments but I think the clause must go through as it has been drawn up.

I do not altogether agree with the arguments advanced by the hon. the Minister. I still think that these two amendments are very good, and I want to raise two aspects which worry me. The one is based on the question of where do these Cabinet Ministers reside? It is becoming obvious that the intention is that this council should function mainly through its executive. If that is the case, the executive which will do the work will consist of about four people who will be like Cabinet Ministers. If four people constitute the executive and they are going to look after education, local authorities, health, etc. throughout the Republic, they will obviously be four very busy men, and if the seat of the council is in Cape Town, they will not only come down here just when it is in session, they will be full-time and will have to be in their offices for 12 months of the year. The point is: Where do they reside under those circumstances? Will they in fact reside in their constituencies or where will they in fact reside? I foresee that difficulty and I want to put it to the Minister at this stage. On the wording of the clause I think that will constitute a difficulty. A man may be on the executive and he comes from the Northern Transvaal, but he will be constantly required to be present in Cape Town, and it will not take him long to make up his mind that he cannot travel backwards and forwards, and he will live as near to his job as possible.

What is your point?

My point is that he has to continue to reside there, whether he is nominated or elected.

Read the clause.

Well, let us read it. Let us take first of all the nominated members. He has for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the date of his nomination to have resided in the province for which he is nominated, “and continues to reside there”. What does that mean? What happens if he does not continue to reside there? The point has been made here, and it has not been denied, that if he does not continue to reside there he loses his nomination. Why have the double qualification? If he only needs two years’ residence to qualify for nomination, why add “and continues to reside there”? Why are those words added? Would it not be better to take out the words “and continues to reside there”? Then we come to the position that the Minister tries to put to us, but as long as it remains as it is it means that he must continue to reside there after he has been nominated, and the same applies to people who are elected. It is obvious that the Minister has the same impression of it. He must first qualify for nomination or election by residing there for two years continuously, and then having been nominated or elected he must continue to reside there, and if he does not continue to reside there he is no longer qualified. If I am wrong the Minister should tell me.

My next point is this. I cannot quite align the control envisaged by this clause to a request made by the hon. the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, in addressing the Coloured people, expressed the desire that they should come back to the Cape Province, although he made it quite clear that there was no compulsion on them to do so, at any rate at this stage. His ultimate objective is to bring the Coloured people from the other provinces back to the Cape as far as possible. If that is the desire and the policy of the Department, what happens to a Coloured man, e.g. from Natal, who would like to comply with that request and come back to the Cape? He may be a representative of the Coloureds in Natal, and he might bring a big group of people from Natal whom he has represented there. He comes to the Cape and he is automatically disqualified for two years from either being nominated or elected to represent those people with whom he comes, or to whom he returns, because he might be returning to a group of his own people. But he must live with them for two years before he can represent them. As the Minister has said, these will be working class constituencies where people have to work, and those people might well ask such a man to come and live amongst them and represent them, but for two years he cannot do so, so who will represent those people? The Minister may say it is improbable, but it can happen, because the Prime Minister has expressed the wish that the Coloureds may return to the Cape, and the Minister may find himself in the position where he might have to do some delimitation and has to re-allocate seats between the provinces. What happens to these people then? These people will be automatically disqualified under this clause from being nominated or elected for two years.

The hon. member has convinced me as far as the words “and continuously reside there” are concerned. I think those words should be deleted in both cases. But all I wish to say is that I think the hon. member is quite wrong when he speaks of the results of a delimitation, because a delimitation cannot affect the province as such.

A certain number of seats is allocated to each province, and you might have to change that if there is a population movement back to the Cape.

Yes, but in that case you must amend the Act. The moment you change the seats allocated between the provinces you must amend the Act; you cannot do it administratively. But I agree that it may create hardship if we leave the words “and continues to reside there”, and I am prepared to omit those words.

What about the words in (2)?

You mean the words “in which he is situated”? I am informed that it is a misprint and we will see that it is rectified. Then I move that—

We welcome this change, even though it does not go far enough. We now understand that if a member changes his place of residence after his election, it will not affect his seat. But I am still not satisfied with the Minister’s explanation in regard to the difference between nominated and elected members in so far as registration is concerned. Whatever the Minister may have said in regard to residential qualifications, this point in regard to registration is not satisfactory. The Minister’s argument was that it is possible, if a man is nominated, first to ascertain whether he complies with the qualifications, but that it is not so easy to do so if he is nominated as a candidate in an election. That is surely a very weak argument because every Member of Parliament, on the day he is nominated before the presiding officer, must afford proof that he qualifies to stand as a candidate, and if anything is wrong he is disqualified. Who will dare to do so, because surely anybody knows that sooner or later it will be discovered and then he will be disqualified? I really think that the Minister has not made out any case here at all. What causes one further concern is that he is now again going to give a special advantage to the nominated people. Now the elected person is again in an unfavourable position as against the nominated one, and that will continuously be hurled at him. I think the Minister is causing trouble for himself, and his argument is not well founded, and I ask that he should change the position so that the two types of members have to comply with the same qualifications.

I think the committee appreciates that the Minister has decided to omit the words “and continues to reside there” in sub-section (1) (b) and sub-section (2) of Clause 10. It is certainly a step in the right direction, but I want to ask him to give some consideration to eliminating the words “for a continuous period” of not less than two years. I want to put this to the Minister. It may well be that a prominent Coloured man has resided for many years, possibly all his life, in a particular area in a particular province, who for a period has to go elsewhere for, say, professional reasons. Take the example of a Coloured doctor who has lived in the City of Cape Town for many years. He then proceeds overseas to specialize; he comes back and finds that he is in the midst of an election. That man will not have resided for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the date of his nomination, in the province. He may only miss it by—who knows—a few months. Surely a man like that should not be debarred from being elected as a representative of the Coloured people if he has their confidence. I again want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to what the position is in terms of our own constitution. In terms of our own Constitution, Act 32 of 1961, which is the Act constituting the Republic of South Africa, we bore in mind this very aspect that I am dealing with when we dealt with the question of qualification of members of the House of Assembly. What we said there was that no person shall be qualified to be a member of the House of Assembly under this Act unless, amongst other things, he is qualified to be a registered voter, unless he is a White person and a South African citizen in terms of our Citizenship Act, and the other proviso was, “unless he has resided for five years within the limits of the Republic”. Sir, all I am asking the hon. the Minister to do is to change this clause effectively so that if a man has resided for two years within the limits of the province, he will be entitled to be elected. If you are going to impose this very onerous restriction that he must have resided here for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the date of his nomination, then you come up against these cases that I have already mentioned. I mentioned the case of an eminent doctor, for instance, who travelled overseas to specialize. He is away for a period and comes back in the midst of an election, although he has resided in the Cape Province all his life; such a person will be debarred from election because it so happens that for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the date of his nomination he has not resided within the province. Then again there are Coloured people, for example, in the Public Service. A man may have been resident in Cape Town for many, many years or practically all his life, but because of the exigencies of the service he is suddenly transferred out of this province, to another province; he comes back here in the midst of an election; he has the confidence of his fellow-Coloured men; he wants to stand as a candidate and they want to elect him as their representative but they are precluded from electing him merely because he has not resided in this province continuously for a period of not less than two years immediately preceding the date of nomination. If we want to be helpful to the Coloured people, if we want to give them the facility of electing people of their own choice in whom they have confidence, then I say the hon. the Minister must give consideration to what I suggest is a very reasonable approach to this matter. Once the obligation to continue to reside in the province is eliminated, what earthly reason can there be for precluding a man, who has come back to the province in which he formerly resided, from being elected merely because he does not happen to have been here continuously for two years preceding the date of nomination. I honestly feel that the hon. the Minister would eliminate a great deal of unnecessary hardship in the case of the Coloured community if he were to give consideration to the suggestion which I make to him seriously and that is to place the qualifications and the rights of Coloured candidates on the same footing as the qualifications of Europeans who stand as candidates for election as members of the House of Assembly. I think if the Minister leaves this clause as it now reads he will merely be inflicting a hardship on these Coloured people, and I ask him therefore to reconsider his attitude to the amendments which have been proposed here.

Question put: That all the words from the commencement of the clause up to and including “and” in line 50, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

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

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

Question affirmed and amendment proposed by Mr. Hickman dropped.

Question put: That all the words from “(b)” in line 51 up to and including “represent” in line 54, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: C. Barnett and A. Bloomberg.

Question affirmed and amendments proposed by Mr. Bloomberg dropped.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Coloured Affairs put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

On Clause 11,

Sir, I am not opposing the clause which deals with an oath by a member of the council, but this clause is so vague that I do not think anybody really follows it. I know that a Member of Parliament cannot take his seat unless he subscribes to an oath; that also applies to members of the provincial council. I agree with the principle of this clause, but what disturbs me is the wording, because it says “no member shall before assuming his duty …”. What does that mean? Does it mean before he takes his seat in the council or before he can do anything as a councillor? Can he go before a magistrate and sign a declaration? If it is the intention of the Minister that the oath must be taken before the councillor takes his seat in the council …

Before he assumes his duties.

What does that mean?

Before he does anything as a member.

What duties does a member of this council have the day after he is elected? Sir, nobody seems to understand what is meant by this term, “before he assumes his duties”. Such a man will have no duties except as a member of the council. What are his duties the day after his election? It is no good telling me, “'before he assumes his duty” because the words are meaningless. I could understand it if the clause had read, “before he takes his seat in the council” or “before he does anything officially as a member”. I think this wording here means nothing at all. I can understand that there may not be a session of this council for some time after the election. But in the meantime the man is an elected member of the council and I presume that his pay will start on the day he is elected. I think this wording should be clarified by the hon. the Minister. I shall be very happy if the Minister will explain to me what this term means. We are only trying to be helpful in this connection; we are trying to be constructive, and I think the Minister owes us some explanation.

The clause may have been framed rather widely but in practice it will amount to this that when a member takes his seat in the council, a magistrate will be asked to administer the oath to him.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister would not consider amending this to make it perfectly clear what is meant here. I agree with him that it was probably intended to mean that the member must take his oath before he takes his seat. I believe that rather than the member going to a magistrate’s court and signing an oath there before the magistrate, it would be much more dignified if the procedure followed was exactly the same as the procedure which is followed here, and that is that members go up to the Chair on the opening day and take the oath.

That is the intention.

Well, if that is the intention I hope the hon. the Minister will agree to amend the clause by omitting these words and substituting words identical to those which appear in our own Constitution.

I am sure that the hon. the Minister will agree that the words which appear in this clause are not the words which the Minister intended to use in this clause. Will the Minister give the Committee some undertaking that he will move such an amendment in the Other Place?

I will do so if it appears to be necessary after I have had discussions with the law advisers.

Necessary in the sense that it will convey the meaning which the hon. the Minister had now indicated?

Yes.

Will the hon. the Minister also consider the addition of the words “or additional magistrate”?

The word “magistrate” includes an additional magistrate.

In that case I have nothing further to add.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

I would like to deal with the clause before I move the amendment standing in my name.

I am accepting your amendment.

In that case I move the amendment standing in my name—

1. (b) if he fails for a whole ordinary session to attend without the special leave of the council unless his absence is due to his serving, while the Republic is at war, with the South African Defence Force or any other force or service established by or under the Defence Act, 1957 (Act No. 44 of 1957).

In that case my amendment would be superfluous. It is not necessary for me then to move my amendment, and in the circumstances I do not move it.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Miller put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper—

I accept your amendment.

I am very glad to hear it.

Sir, I wish to speak to the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood). With your permission, Sir, I move—

The object of this is to bring it into line with the procedure followed in other statutory bodies where the chairman for the time being, for good reasons, being an official of a Department he should have and in fact has no vote of any sort, including a casting vote. I want to give you the example of one statutory body, namely, the South African Pharmacy Board appointed by regulation arising out of legislation. In the case of that board whose activities are regulated by Government Gazette Notice No. 438 of 7 March 1930 and by several others up to 23 August 1957 under the heading “Rules Relating to the Conduct of the Business of the South African Pharmacy Board and other Matters” it is provided that at the election of president or chairman—of course, the matter of the election of a chairman is relevant here—and in the case of an equality of votes a further ballot shall be taken, and if that be indecisive, the elections shall be decided by drawing lots. The hon. the Minister may have a very good reason for not adopting this well-worn procedure which is apparently recognized in our Statutes and choosing, in this case, to give the Secretary for Coloured Affairs or his nominee, when acting as chairman, a casting vote. To me. Sir, the reason for that is obscure. I realize that where there is a deadlock, an equality of votes, it is necessary to find some means …

The Minister has already accepted the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peninsula, and that rectifies the position.

I have accepted the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peninsula.

As far as I am concerned, Sir, I cannot be confused by what the hon. the Minister has agreed in the case of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peninsula. I am going to speak to the amendment which I have moved, and to which, Sir, you have said I was entitled to speak. I do not see what the hon. the Minister is trying to do to me; I am already sufficiently mixed up, in his view; why does he want to mix me up further?

I want to say again that I am unable to ascertain why the hon. the Minister and those who have advised him have decided that in the case of an equality of voting over the election of a chairman, instead of the usual procedure being followed, the hon. the Minister should seek to give an official the right, not only to preside at such a meeting for the election of a chairman of this very important body, as the Minister seems to think, but also to vote. I do not see why the hon. the Minister should place that official in the rather invidious position, where there is an equality of voting, of having to determine who shall be the chairman of the council. I therefore say that since, in the first place, the clause does not follow the normal procedure and since, in the second place, it places the Secretary for Coloured Affairs in an unnecessarily invidious position in that for all time he will be the man responsible for having determined who shall be chairman of this Coloured parliament, the hon. the Minister should accept this amendment. And if he finds himself unable to do so he should be kind enough to state clearly to this Committee what his reasons are instead of seeking to draw a red herring across the trail being the other amendment.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) moved an amendment which will have the same effect as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). The hon. member for Hospital is not a lawyer. He jumped to his feet immediately the hon. member for Peninsula sat down otherwise the clause would have gone through. But we legal members on this side have had an opportunity of looking at this … [Interjections.] The hon. members over there who laugh must remember that we do not just do whatever somebody tells us to do. We think about what we are doing. We have given this matter some thought and in the result we believe that in effect the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hospital is unnecessary. As the matter is now to be decided by lot and there is to be no casting vote used by the Secretary or his nominee our amendment, in Tact, becomes unnecessary. The hon. the Minister has accepted the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peninsula but we did not know that he was going to accept it. We have now considered the matter and I hope the hon. member for Hospital will withdraw his amendment. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw attention to this. Clause 14 (3) provides—

If that is the provision and that provision is acted upon there can never be an equality of voting. We are all agreeable to accepting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). So the clause will read—

The person presiding at a meeting of the council shall in addition to his deliberative vote also have a casting vote: Provided that in the case of an equality of votes for the election of a chairman or acting chairman of the council the contesting candidates shall draw lots for such appointment and the winner of such drawer shall be so deemed.

Am I to understand that this is to provide only for the election of a temporary chairman? It seems to me that there is still some confusion. I do submit this should be looked at carefully, after the acceptance of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peninsula. Because the form still seems to be somewhat confusing. I hope the Minister will study the clause carefully after accepting the amendment in order to make sure it is in order.

Omission of the proviso to sub-section (3) put and agreed to and amendment proposed by Mr. Gorshel dropped.

Substitution of new proviso proposed by Mr. Bloomberg put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

Mr. Chairman, Cape Town constitutes the heart of the Coloured community to such an extent that I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether there is any reason why he cannot provide in this clause that Cape Town will be the seat of this Coloured council.

I should like to say just a word or two with reference to the implementation of this clause. It was emphasized during the second-reading debate that as far as the future pattern of development of the Coloured people was concerned, there was no question of freedom in a separate homeland. I just want to suggest that a great deal of imagination will be used in deciding upon the seat of this council. As the hon. member who has just sat down has said, there is no indication in the Bill as to where the seat of the council will be. I want to express the hope that the seat of this council will be in the new Bellville-South complex. I do not think we can consider any other area for this purpose. I just want to add that if the seat of the council is in the vicinity of Bellville-South, it must definitely form part of something which will be in the nature of a Coloured capital or metropolis which will be strongly symbolical of a separate and exclusive Coloured area. They do not have a separate homeland but I do think this area should serve as a nucleus. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to emphasize this one point.

I am afraid I cannot commit myself at this stage without discussing in advance the provisions contained in this clause. All I can say is that the seat of the council will be decided upon within a certain period of time and after consultation. Various factors will be considered; amongst others, the fact that a building complex will have to be erected— for example, administrative offices and a suitable chamber. It will have to be set up in an area where the housing will be of such a nature as to make it an economic proposition. Some of these matters are receiving attention at the moment. I think it would be wrong at this stage for me to commit myself or for my Department to commit itself in regard to the precise seat of the council. I hope therefore that hon. members will not insist on any further information in this regard.

I just want to say that it should not be tackled on too large a scale because, after all, it will only be of a temporary nature.

I grant the Minister what he has said in regard to the seat of this council. I am quite prepared to give him that discretion but I would like to make an appeal to him in that it should be in Cape Town.

Do you associate yourself with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson).

I did not hear what that hon. member said. I do not know whether the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made the point that in terms of this Bill there will be an executive committee. I presume that committee will be a full-time committee; we have not yet come to that. The principle has also been accepted in this Bill that through the mediation of the Minister they will be able to see other Ministers …

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

I am trying to suggest to the hon. the Minister that in the first place the seat of the council shall be in Cape Town but that he should also make it possible for the council to meet in Pretoria when Parliament is not in session. Because if they want to do their work properly they will have to be in close touch with Ministers. I make that appeal to the hon. the Minister.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper—

1. (4) The council shall meet in public.

The object of this amendment is to remove the proviso to sub-section (3) which gives Drivilege to the members of the council, privilege in the ordinary sense in which that word is understood in any deliberative elected body anywhere in the Western world. I must say this is the first time I have ever seen privilege bestowed on any elected body and then in effect taken away. As the hon. the Minister knows the matter of privilege goes back a long way. It goes into the roots of English constitutional history. It goes back to Haxey’s case in 1937 and it was formulated for very good reasons. Since this issue was resolved in the English Constitution every elected body anywhere in the Western world has adopted it, certainly for its highest elected body, for its body politic in which is gathered the representatives of the people.

We in South Africa adopted it in the old Cape Parliament, in the South African Parliament, and we then granted the same right to the provincial councils. Our provincial councils have granted the same unrestricted right which we have in this House to be local authorities themselves in the Transvaal. And then when new assemblies of the people were formed in accordance with new concepts in this country—a classic example being last year with the Transkeian Bill—the Transkeian Council was given exactly the same privileges without this proviso, this proviso which in effect takes away the privilege.

This is no longer a privilege, Sir, at all. It merely gives them protection in respect of libel and any defamatory thing they may say provided it is not defamatory of a certain group of specified people.

What did the hon. the Minister say? He advanced the extraordinary argument that in the case of the Transkei the position was quite different; that he was not creating a nationhood here but that he was creating a separate state there. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that unless and until he does in fact create an independent state exactly the same officials, in the sense that they are officials of the Public Service, are going to be dealing with those persons; exactly the same public utility corporations are going to be dealing with those people. I think, in making a comparison like this, the attitude of the Minister is an insult to the Coloured people. On the one hand he says the Coloured people are 70 to 80 years behind the White people and that they may abuse this privilege and on the other hand the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development granted this privilege to the Bantu of the Transkei. Who is behind the times, Sir? Who has been more assimilated into the White group the Coloureds or the Bantu? The Bantu of the Transkei are, of course, being delivered along a road completely different from us, yet they are given this very privilege. I hope the hon. the Minister will produce another argument and give us another reason as to why he is going to restrict that privilege. Is it plainly and simply because the Coloured people are going to criticize White officials? If that is the reason let him say so then we shall at least know where we stand. But if you are going to give freedom of speech to a body then why should they not criticize in this regard and say things which they would not say outside the Chamber because they might be defamatory? Why must only the public officials be protected?

I do not understand how this was drafted; why was “parliament” put in there? Because if this did not exist in the proviso at all Parlliament’s privileges would not in any way be affected, nor would a court of law be precluded, were this not here, from punishing the person responsible with contempt.

But this goes much further. The medium by which the views of the councillors and the decisions of the council are going to be conveyed to the Coloured people and to everyone else in South Africa is going to be the Press. One would have thought that the hon. the Minister would have had some appreciation of the difficulties that are going to arise out of this. In the good old days of yore there was a man called Stockdale. On the order of the House of Commons, certain things which were defamatory of Mr. Stockdale were published.

He sued the person responsible, Mr. Hansard and from that day the principle was established that anything that is published is also likewise privileged.

We now have the position that if any member of this Coloured council criticizes Mr. Jones the Press has to find out not only whether he is a public servant but also whether he is a member of the Banana Board, or the Mealie Board or the Dried Fruit Board or any of the 101 boards which might fall under the definition of a “statutory body”. The Press must go to all that trouble before they dare publish anything which looks slightly defamatory, apart from finding out whether it is in fact defamatory. I hope the Minister has given some thought to this because I would hate to be the person responsible for disseminating this. I would like to know how the Press is going to cope with the position. It is bad enough that there are banned people that you are not allowed to quote but in their case you can have an index of them. But this provides no such rule of thumb. In this case you have to be a legal expert and you have to know exactly what everyone in South Africa is and whether he or she is a member of any statutory board. I want to say this to the hon. the Minister. The Minister says they should not say anything which is libellous. If that were an argument at all the privilege in relation to this House would be quite unnecessary because you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Speaker when the House is sitting, would not allow a defamatory statement in connection with another member to be made, for example.

There are certain things one says which are defamatory but it is a defence, if you are sued in court, to show that it was fair comment on a matter of public interest. What about the member who wants to make fair comment on a matter which is not of public interest but is a matter of interest to one of his constituents? Is it not his duty to raise that matter in the way it was brought to him and to suggest what was suggested to him to the best of his ability? Is that not what he should suggest? [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just spoken was so carried away by his liberal ideas that he lost sight completely of the practical aspect of this matter. The hon. member has got the idea into his head that because there is absolute freedom of speech in certain elected bodies in Britain, that must necessarily also be the case here. I just want to refer him to Clause 20 in which the powers given to this council are set out. He will see there that there is a very good reason why it is provided that—

there shall be freedom of speech. What are the various powers given to this council? I shall read them out in English for the edification of the hon. member—

1. (a) on request to advise the Government in regard to all matters affecting the economic, social, educational and political interests of the Coloured population of the Republic.

This is straightforward enough but then we come to the following—

Let us imagine that that planning relates to certain plots which have to be purchased or which have to form part of an urban area and so forth, and that this Coloured council cannot go into committee but has to hold all its meetings in public. It will mean that a matter of this nature cannot be dealt with in committee but will become common knowledge. This may give rise to an enormous amount of speculation as far as this particular matter is concerned. I want the hon. member to look at another sub-section, subsection (5) which states—

Let us imagine that there is a discussion in regard to persons who have to be appointed. The council will then not be able to go into committee if the provision does not read as it reads at present. This provision enables the council to go into committee; in other words, to assemble behind closed doors when discussing a matter of this nature. The hon. member must remember that this council is not only a legislative body. It cannot only discuss laws, like Parliament; it is also a consultative body. It also has to advise the Minister. Before the council can decide what advice it is going to give the Minister, it must have the right to assemble behind closed doors in order to consider a particular matter.

What about Clause 21 ?

We will come to Clause 21 just now; at the moment we are dealing with Clause 20. Clause 21 deals with the legislative powers of the council but Clause 20 deals more specifically with its advisory powers and its function of advising the Minister. For this purpose it is necessary that the council be permitted to assemble behind closed doors when it wants to advise the Minister. That is why this provision is also subject to laws and regulations. It has not been inserted in order to prevent freedom of speech when legislation is being discussed but it has been inserted in order to make a certain amount of secrecy possible between the Coloured council and the Minister for advisory purposes. A certain amount of mutual trust is promoted if a meeting is held behind closed doors when advice has to he given to the Minister. If this has to be done at a public meeting, that advice will no longer be advice; it will then be common knowledge and everyone will know what the advice is which the council has given to the Minister. Because of this fact, the purpose of the council will be frustrated and the functions which are allocated to it will be hampered, as far as Clause 20 is concerned. I am not discussing Clause 20 now because it deals with legislative powers. If legislation is discussed it will probably be discussed in public. The regulations will be able to provide that when legislation is discussed, the meeting will be open to the public, but that when the council has to advise the Minister, it must be able to deliberate behind closed doors.

If one listens to the views of the hon. member who has just sat down, then it seems that the purpose of this particular council which we debated in the second reading is, as we said, purely consultative—it will be purely a consultative body with no powers at all. It will have discussions only with regard to rules and regulations or with regard to certain appointments and other matters in regard to which they will be asked to give advice. If you look at Clause 16, then it appears that the viewpoint of that hon. member is not entirely borne out with regard to the manner in which this council is to be conducted. It says here—

Subject to the provisions of this Act and any regulations made there under, and of any standing rules and orders, there shall be freedom of speech and debate in the council.

The third sub-section deals with the protection against legal proceedings by virtue of petitions, draft law, resolutions, motions or otherwise, or by virtue of anything a member may have said before the council. All that seems to clearly indicate that the council will meet and that certain discussions will take place, and the clause itself has the reference in the rubric to “freedom of speech in council”. If the hon. Minister is sincere in presenting a council which he hopes will over a period of time develop into something that is going to be representative of a group of people in this country and that it will gradually grow to a stage where it will be able to administer its own affairs and legislate, then why this restriction? It is not only a question of what Britain or the British people have laid down as part of their democratic constitution and that the British Parliament has provided a certain freedom of speech, but our Parliament and all our traditions have been founded on the traditions of the mother of parliaments, a tradition which has spread over the world. This silly parochial reference that the hon. member has made is indicative of his attitude in these things.

He does not understand English, that is the trouble.

To him it seems that if you follow any established tradition, if it has been established in any other country then it is inimical to our traditions or the manner in which this country should regulate its affairs. Sir, we are founded on that tradition, this whole House is founded on this tradition, and strangely enough our republican constitution jealously guards many of the traditions that we have lived by over the very many years that Parliament has been conducted in this country. But the position is that “freedom of speech” has a connotation of its own. It means absolute privilege to the individual. To bear out what the hon. member for Durban (North) has said, you can pick up any book on constitutional law, and here is one written by a man called Hoof Phillips which makes this statement in support of what the hon. member has said—

In other words, it is an accepted tradition that although you have absolute freedom of speech and you are protected by absolute privilege, there is a duty on the Speaker, or the Chairman of Parliament or a similar institution to avoid any unbridled licence in respect of the abuse of privilege. That is an accepted position. Now, Sir, what are you doing in this provision? You are virtually subjecting these members to possible continuous litigation should they become a little more fervent in their approach to their own problems, because you are then throwing them on the free market of qualified privilege where they may have to defend their attitude in regard to malice, and where all sorts of proceedings can take place.

Sir, we have the same privilege of criticizing officials. We criticize state authorities. But is that abusing a place like this House of Assembly? And why should it be abused unnecessarily? Is it not better to avoid the members in these councils being constantly hampered by the inhibition that they may perhaps say something which an official does not like and so will take certain steps to deal with them? Our appeal to the hon. Minister is that if he wants to try and do something which has any semblance of realities and any semblance of practical application, why does he not make the use that he apparently is looking for of this opportunity to let them say what they feel, say what they want and putting their ideas before the council and debating them so that the Minister and the Cabinet will have some idea of what is required by the majority? If on the other hand it is purely going to be a puppet body which is going to be controlled only by the nominated members, who are more than one-third, if it is going to be a puppet body where things cannot be discussed that should be said, if it is going to be a puppet body where people have to hide what they feel, and where they do not have the opportunity of saying what they feel and of expressing the sentiments of their own people by whom they have been elected, what then is the value oi the entire organization, with all the goodwill that the hon. Minister thinks he is engendering in creating an institution of this nature? I think this is a test of the sincerity of the hon. Minister and of his purpose. If his purpose is to do something worthwhile, then the opportunity must be given for people to speak. Sir, you can look at any authorities—the law of libel is contained in many, many volumes (the law of defamation as we call it in this country)—and you will find that there are times when a man is permitted to make defamatory statements anywhere, provided there is a common interest and it is either in the interest of the community or of common interest to himself and the person of whom he says it. There are all sorts of circumstances both in our law and in English law where a qualified privilege is provided. But it has been the subject of litigation over a considerable number of years and case after case can be quoted of this difficulty with regard to qualified privilege. I think advantage should be taken of the purpose to enable these elected people to at least have an opportunity, as elected people, to talk on behalf of those who have elected them. The hon. Minister himself has said that his objective is to take 60 per cent or 70 per cent of a community, who are backward, he says, far behind the standard which the White man has reached, and to gradually train them up to a certain standard, so much so that he is even making provision in the Bill that they can eventually have legislative power. How is he going to achieve this if he is going to provide every obstacle and hindrance which will give them even a semblance of an institution that will grow to what he says it will grow in terms of this Bill? For that reason the plea is made that this proviso be dropped. In my view this proviso virtually negates the whole purpose of this particular council and the whole purpose of what the Minister has in mind. Why do we even, as I mentioned, show in the rubric the appellation “freedom of speech in council”? No person who understands the normal interpretation of “freedom of speech” will be prepared to believe, unless he read it in print, that this type of proviso can be included in a clause which purports to institute this freedom of speech. [Time limit.]

I have an amendment on the Order Paper to omit the proviso to sub-section (3), but as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) has the same effect there would be no point in my moving the amendment. I therefore want to identify myself with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (North) and I want to support the arguments which have been put forward so vigorously by speakers on this side of the House. I would like to say immediately that I cannot understand the logic of the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). His view, as I understand it, is briefly that by reason of the fact that in terms of this Bill this council will have powers “to advise the Government in regard to all matters affecting the economic, social, educational and political interests of the Coloured population of the Republic, and to make recommendations to the Government in regard to any planning calculated to promote the best interests of the population”, we should not give them this entire freedom of speech which other statutory bodies in this country enjoy. I cannot understand the logic of that. I want to say that the very inclusion of Clause 16 in this Bill negatives the suggestion made by the hon. member. The very fact that the Minister has seen fit to incorporate in this Bill Clause 16, which deals with the question of freedom of speech, negatives the suggestion made by the hon. member for Heilbron that they should be denied this freedom of speech because they have got these powers.

I never said anything of the kind.

The hon. member said that one has to be careful about giving freedom of speech to people, complete freedom of speech, in view of what they have got to do, because they have got to advise the Government. …

I was speaking on the amendment in regard to “behind closed doors”.

I will deal with that in a moment. Let me first finish my argument in regard to freedom of speech. The clause, as pointed out by previous speakers, has the headline “freedom of speech in council”. What does this mean? I suggest it means that freedom of speech in the council has the ordinary meaning that is applied to any statutory provision which confers upon anybody freedom of speech. In relation to our own Constitution, I want to point out that they use the same appellation, for instance “freedom of speech in the Provincial Council”. We have provided in our law that there shall be freedom of speech in the provincial councils and that no Administrator or any member of the executive committee of a province or any member of a provincial council shall be liable to any civil or criminal proceedings, arrest, imprisonment or damages by reason of any matter or thing which they may bring by petition, draft ordinance, resolution, motion or otherwise, or have said before the Provincial Council or by reason of their vote in the council. In the first part of the clause, the hon. the Minister purports giving them the same freedom of speech as that granted to provincial councils and other statutory bodies. But then he adds this provision, this important proviso which, I suggest, completely negatives the idea of freedom of speech—

Mr. Chairman, what will these members be talking about other than about the laws which have been passed by the central Parliament affecting the Coloured people? Either by way of criticisms of those laws, or by proposals for amending those laws, they will of necessity have to criticize something which has been said in this Parliament, and of necessity, therefore, the action of some members of this House —either ourselves on this side or hon. members opposite. Why should they not have that right? This is supposed to be, in the words of the Prime Minister himself, a Coloured Parliament! Why, then, should they not have the right to criticize where criticism is justified? If in the course of such criticism they say something libellous, then, surely, they should have protection?

But the prohibition to criticize does not stop with the central Parliament. It also applies to any statutory body or a member thereof. What freedom of speech is this if they are precluded from saying what they feel in their hearts about a certain member of one or other statutory body? Let me illustrate this. There are the personnel of the Coloured Affairs Department. At present these are men who are held in the highest esteem by the Coloured people generally. There is the former Secretary, Dr. du Plessis, to whom we paid tribute and there is his successor, Mr. Bosman, and his staff to whom we also pay tribute. But the time may come when there is an official in that Department who may not deal as decently and fairly with the Coloured people as the gentlemen I referred to. As a matter of fact, you may have an official who is completely unsympathetic to the cause of the Coloured people. Why, then, should this council not have the right to criticize his actions? And if in the course of such criticisms council members feel they may say something which may be libellous, why should they not be protected? That is the point which I want to make, because the imaginary gentleman I am referring to will be an officer of the Public Service and in terms of this provision, anything said about him by the members of council will not be protected under the rule of privilege. We know unfortunately—and I say this with great regret—that there have been instances in this country where the police have had to be criticized. Thus it might be necessary for this council, which after all is to be a Coloured Parliament, to criticize a policeman or a particular officer of the Police Force. …

Nobody is stopping it from criticizing.

But in the course of criticizing they might say something libellous.

Why?

Why should a member of the council be afraid to say what he feels in his heart about such an officer? Why should he be afraid because he might be faced with an action for libel? Surely, Sir, once you impose these provisos, freedom of speech in the proposed council will be entirely negatived. The danger, as I see it, is not so much this, i.e. that it will negative freedom of speech. The proposed proviso is so wide in scope that it embraces not only anything which might be said about the Senate, the House of Assembly, or a provincial council, but also anything which might be said in connection with any member of a statutory body or any officer of the Public Service. Surely, Sir, that is going too far? In my opinion it goes far beyond the realms of necessity.

In the circumstances, I think the Minister might very well pay heed to the appeals which are being made from this side of the House, i.e. that if he is going to allow the members of the proposed council freedom of speech, then let it be the freedom of speech we have allowed to other statutory bodies. The Minister ought to know that in whatever comes before this body, the members thereof will be guided to a large extent by what the Minister and his officials feel about such matters. To that extent he has the upper hand. He ought to know that. In conclusion, I want to say that if this clause is allowed to go through in its present form, we might as well drop the clause in its entirety.

I really cannot believe that hon. members opposite are in earnest in objecting to this proviso. I gain the impression that they know that their objection will not be accepted because if they had thought that it would be accepted, they would not, because of their sense of responsibility, have argued in this way. At the same time I feel that hon. members opposite are creating the wrong impression about this matter. If they object to the sidenote, which is “Freedom of speech in council”, then I think the matter can be easily rectified. I do not believe that there will be any objection if the sidenote is altered to read “Freedom of speech in council with provisos”. These provisos form part of the clause. But hon. members opposite make use of the wording of the sidenote to argue that there should be no provisos in the clause at all. A few hon. members opposite in fact used this argument. They said that because the sidenote made no mention of provisos, the clause itself should contain no provisos. That is why I say that there will be no objection if the wording of the sidenote is altered in this regard.

Would you vote for it then?

Oh, yes! I shall vote for it because certain provisos are included in the clause. The wording of the sidenote will then simply reflect the contents of the clause. But when one considers the provisions of any clause, one does not simply consider the wording of the sidenote to the clause; one must surely consider the contents of the clause itself. As I see the matter this clause makes provisions for freedom of speech. But now the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) says that this freedom of speech is being completely removed. That is not so. It is not true that the freedom of speech for which provision is made in sub-section (3) of this clause is again being taken away completely by the proviso. I know, of course, that that freedom of speech is subject to certain conditions; in other words, that freedom of speech is limited. But that freedom of speech definitely does exist. That is obvious. The result is that the hon. member’s allegation that the freedom of speech which is being allowed is again being taken away by the proviso is certainly not correct.

Why was the proviso contained in this clause not included in the Transkei Constitution Act?

I shall deal with that point later. I shall not forget to do so. To tell the truth, I shall deal with that matter shortly. At this stage all I have to say is that the composition of this Coloured Representative Council is vastly different from the provisions made in the Transkei Constitution Act.

Why?

But there is no comparison between the two! Hon. members can work it out for themselves. The Coloureds do not have their own separate geographic area in South Africa. Nor is it envisaged that the Coloureds will eventually obtain complete political independence as is envisaged as far as the Bantu in the Transkei are concerned. [Interjections.] Hon. members are trying to distract me from my argument. I am quite prepared to debate the question put to me by the hon. member if I have the time to do so. But I want to come back now to the statement of the hon. member for Durban (North) to the effect that the freedom of speech granted in sub-section (3) is being completely removed by the proviso. That is not so. In actual fact, they are at liberty to criticize anyone or anything, except as far as the few cases mentioned in the proviso are concerned. [Interjections.] But that is so! Hon. members cannot deny it. Take as an example the thousands of companies that we have in South Africa. Any one of those companies and the business that it is doing can be freely criticized by the Coloured council, and not only criticized—by the way, I want to discuss this word “criticize”; the council will also be indemnified as far as that criticism is concerned. In other words, even though they may say something which is libellous, they will still be protected. [Interjections.] Do hon. members opposite deny that this Coloured council will have the right, and be given the necessary indemnification in this regard, to make libellous accusations about any company in South Africa?

That is true.

Then the members of the council will also have the right to express themselves in regard to any individual, excluding members of the Senate, the House of Assembly, the Provincial Councils and public servants. I do not now want to discuss the merits of the exception made, for example, in the case of the House of Assembly; I shall deal with this matter in due course. I have mentioned these exceptions merely to show that what has been said by the hon. member for Durban (North) is not quite correct. He has created the impression that freedom of speech is being given in the first instance, but that that freedom of speech is being removed by means of the proviso. I say that his statement is not correct. In actual fact, the council still enjoys a large measure of freedom of speech. But there are certain conditions in this regard, and I want to deal with them now.

Hon. members, including the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg), have said that during the course of the discussion in regard to some matter or other these people may perhaps want to criticize some or other person. The hon. member for Peninsula referred here to a Secretary for Coloured Affairs whom the members of the council might want to criticize because of the fact that he is not such an amenable person. There is nothing to prevent their criticizing him. I am sure hon. members know that there is complete freedom of speech outside this House, and in our case as well, as long as we do not say libellous things about people whom we want to criticize. If I hold a public meeting, I can criticize I people right and left as long as I do not say libellous things about them. For example, I can criticize any individual or criticize the House of Assembly or the Senate as long as I do not make libellous statements about them. Nor will I be permitted to say libellous things about our Supreme Court or about any individual, because then steps can be taken against me.

Tell us why the Transkeian Parliament was given full freedom of speech.

I shall discuss the Transkei when it suits me to do so. Hon. members opposite create the impression that the Coloured Council may not even discuss the Senate, the House of Assembly, the Provincial Council or other statutory bodies. This is not so, because the council can discuss these matters. Hon. members opposite are also trying to give the impression that if councillors criticize these bodies, they will be doing the wrong thing. But that is not so. Although we in this House have freedom of speech, it happens very seldom, if ever, that hon. members say libellous things about people outside this House. At the same time it cannot be said that, because we do not make libellous statements, we are not doing our duty properly. Surely one can do one’s duty without having to say libellous things about people outside this House.

I come now to this Coloured Representative Council itself. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to assist the Minister in this, because I raised the question of this clause during the second reading, and the hon. the Minister, I think, misunderstood me altogether. It was a misapprehension. He did not do it wilfully. These were the words he used—

Now, that is not what I tried to convey. I will just give one sentence of what I actually did say. I said—

That is the point, if it is to be a Parliament. And who is it who told us that it would be a Parliament? Nobody other than the hon. the Prime Minister. This is what the Prime Minister said when he told us that this body would be established—

You see, Sir, what I have in mind is this: It is not whether a man says things which are libellous or not. That is not the point. A man may make a speech innocently, which is not libellous, and find himself involved in a court action. The rich man who attacks the member can do so, because he has the money. The poor man has to defend himself, and he can be ruined financially. Therefore, we have, under the English Rules of Parliament, the fact that they developed their own system, as Erskine May has described it for us. We in this Parliament have it recorded in the work of Mr. Ralph Kilpin. The point I wish to make particularly is this: It was also misunderstood by the hon. member for Smithfield. I do not say you cannot criticize. The point is that you are vulnerable; you can be attacked if you have not freedom of speech, and freedom of speech must be absolute; it is indivisible. You cannot say, when you speak of freedom of speech, that you are allowed to go to a certain point provided you do not become involved in a case outside. That is not the meaning of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is stated in perfectly good legal language in the Transkeian constitution. We all know what it says there. It says it is the same as for this Parliament. Freedom must be absolutely free. We have only one answer here, to delete the whole proviso. These men meeting together as Coloured representatives will have to discuss things and say things as we do in this House. I quite agree with the hon. member for Ceres. We very rarely say things that are libellous, but we hardly give it a thought because we know we cannot be prosecuted. We know our authority here is Mr. Speaker. He must lay down the rules for us, and we control our own affairs. What I should like to see for this Coloured Council is this: I am now referring to the right of the Transkeian Parliament to make rules. It says: “The Legislative Assembly may from time to time adopt standing rules and orders not inconsistent with this Act for the regulation and conduct of its proceedings and the dispatch of business, for the passing, entitling and numbering of laws, and subject to confirmation by the State President for the presentation of such laws to the State President in terms of Section 40”. But they should have their own rules. Their rules may be subject. e.g., to the consent of this Parliament. That is possible; I concede that. Seeing that we are putting through this law, we may go so far as to say that if they have their own standing rules and orders these must be subject to the approval of this Parliament. But to say to these people that they can have a measure of freedom of speech is impossible. [Interjection.] It is subject to this clause which we want eliminated. Hon. members may agree that they may make their own standing rules and orders subject to the approval of this House. That, I concede, is reasonable, but to say that their freedom of speech can be restricted is impossible.

In my reply to the second-reading debate I went into great detail in replying to the arguments advanced by hon. members. I do not have very much to add to what I said in this regard except to say that we must have clarity in regard to one matter for the sake of the truth. The truth is that Clause 16 deprives no member of the Coloured council of the right to criticize any person or body.

Not any person.

I repeat that Clause 16 does not deprive any member of the Coloured council of the right to criticize any person or body. In other words, any member of that council can criticize any body or institution or person in South Africa. There must be no doubt on this point at all.

But in the second place, the members of the Coloured council also have the right to criticize officials. I want to make this very clear because the opposite is actually the impression hon. members opposite are trying to create. These councillors can also criticize members of the Public Service. In other words, these councillors may differ from the Secretary for Coloured Affairs or his deputy or an under-secretary or any official in the service of the Department. They will have the right to say: “We differ from him; we think that he has acted unfairly and wrongly and we do not think that he should act in that way again.”

A councillor can do that without your permission; any citizen has that right.

Precisely, and he is not being deprived of that right. Any right that is taken away from him, is taken in order to protect him. This is a council which is at the start of its career; irresponsible elements can be persuaded to create pandemonium in that council. In other words, this clause is not intended to deprive anybody of his rights; this clause is intended to protect people from irresponsible statements.

A councillor can criticize the Prime Minister but not, for example, a member of the Provincial Council.

He can criticize the hon. the Prime Minister and he can even criticise the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). He can also criticize the Minister of Coloured Affairs but he may not make libellous statements in regard to certain institutions and bodies which are specifically mentioned here. In other words, hon. members opposite maintain that irresponsible members of this council should be given the right to libel other people in responsible positions. That is what hon. members of the Opposition are fighting for this afternoon. Let us have clarity in regard to this matter. Hon. members opposite are not fighting for anybody’s freedom of speech or anybody’s right to criticize because that is already protected; they are not fighting for people to be given the right to criticize institutions; they are not fighting for people to be given the right to differ from public servants. No. They are fighting for the right to be given to irresponsible members of this council to commit libel against other people in responsible positions. That is to my way of thinking an inexplicable approach to this matter. Just listen to what the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) has to say. The hon. member has told us: “I want to convey to the Minister what I actually meant; I want to tell him that I meant that they cannot discuss things.”

They will be afraid to speak.

Every one of us, except when we speak in this House, continually runs the risk of being summonsed for libel and that is why all of us are careful when we express ourselves outside this House. That stops us from creating pandemonium in this country. I am sure that hon. members will agree with me in this regard. But what is the position in this House? This House which is the highest sovereign body in the country, has passed a law which provides that no member may question the honour of another member. There is no other body over us which can lay down a rule of this nature for us; we have laid down that rule for ourselves. We have imposed that restriction upon ourselves. We have also subjected ourselves to a second restriction—that a member of this House may not slight the honour of a member of the Other Place, and vice versa. But we are the highest body in the country; we are a sovereign body. There was no other body over us which could impose that restriction upon us and so we had to impose it upon ourselves. That is my reply to hon. members. But what is more, if an hon. member were to stand up in this House to-morrow and make a personal attack upon the Secretary of a Department you, Mr. Chairman, would immediately call him to order. That is something which is just not done and hon. members know it. There are laws in terms of which action can be taken against public servants if they overstep the mark. In other words, my reply to hon. members of the Opposition is contained in the composition of this body itself. That is my reply to them. Under these circumstances I do not see my way clear to exposing this council at its inception to irresponsible actions and possible self-destruction.

We have listened with patience to the hon. the Minister …

You are a good attorney; do not talk nonsense.

Yes, I am a good attorney and I will tell the hon. member why he was wrong. The Minister was at great pains to tell us that the whole purpose of this clause was to protect the members of the council; that they have not had much experience in legislating or in conducting council affairs of this nature and therefore he wishes to protect them. He wishes to protect them from making defamatory statements against Parliament, the Senate or Government officials. Sir, what we cannot understand is this: Why is the Minister so careful to protect the public servants of this country and not members of the public themselves? Why must officials be protected and not the general public? You see, if the Minister had said, “I am not going to have the members of this council who are inexperienced getting into trouble by slandering people outside the council,” then we could understand it, but he said with great emphasis that the reason for this clause was to protect the Councillors themselves. What is he protecting them from? He is only protecting Parliament, the Senate, statutory bodies and Government officials, and he has not told us why it is not necessary to protect the general public from irresponsible utterances by Councillors. Had he told us that in its enthusiasm and inexperience this council might say things about the public which it should not have said and that this was merely a step to warn them we might have appreciated it. But neither the hon. the Minister nor the hon. member for Ceres has told us why a difference is made between the general public and the public officials.

Move that the members of the public be included and I shall accept your amendment.

Good gracious, Sir, I have never heard such an argument from a Minister. I attack this restraint and he says: You include the public and I shall accept your amendment.

I am trying to meet your complaints.

Our point is this. Why has the Minister introduced this clause at all? I cannot understand that. If he left this clause out the ordinary rules of libel would apply and the ordinary protections would apply; the ordinary rules of privilege would apply. But the hon. the Minister has gone out of his way to insert it under the pretext of freedom of speech. He has of course done so because he has tried to follow the Transkeian Constitution to a certain extent. What we cannot understand is this: Why should the Coloured people, who certainly have much more experience in matters of this kind, be protected and not the Bantu. Why must the Bantu be given absolute privilege and not the Coloureds? This, of course, is in line with the Minister’s statement earlier in this debate, that 70 per cent of the Coloured people were not sufficiently civilized or educated to take part in self-governing bodies of this nature. If the Minister is genuine when he says he wants to give them some standing I say he must give them the same privileges as are given to the Parliament of the Transkei. Unless the Minister can tell us why he differentiates between the general public …

I have already told you during the Second Reading.

… and public officials, why we differentiate between public companies and statutory bodies we shall persist in our opposition to this. Why should statutory bodies be protected? How is the ordinary councillor to know which is a statutory body and which is not? He won’t know, Sir, and he won’t know whether a certain person is a member of a statutory body or not. I submit the privilege granted here is meaningless and I ask the Minister to reconsider this and accept our amendment.

In order to give the hon. the Minister some time to think about the excellent points raised on this side of the House I want to deal with something else, i.e. this phrase: “The council may from time to time adopt standing rules and orders.” I don’t know what the Minister means by “adopt” because it is contrary to what is stated in Clause 26 which says—

Whereas Clause 16 says—

These two seem to be contradictory, to me, unless the Minister tells us what he means by “adopt”. Does it mean that they can adopt the regulations made by the Minister in terms of Clause 26?

What does “adopt” mean? It means that they can make regulations.

That they can make regulations. Read Clause 26. To me the two are inconsistent.

No, they are not.

Then the Minister must explain to me why they are not inconsistent. When we come to Clause 26 in due course the Minister will ask us to pass a clause in terms of which he makes the regulations in regard to the way the council must behave. At the same time he gives this power to the council in terms of Clause 16. In the case of the one the word “adopt” is used and in the case of the other the “Minister shall make” is used: I say the two clauses are inconsistent. As time is running out I shall not press it now but I shall continue with my argument on this clause in connection with that particular point.

I just want to continue the argument in connection with the proviso. I want the Minister to realize that this is very wide. I agree with those hon. members who have spoken about a statutory body and members thereof or officers of the public service. What is meant by the “public service”? Does it mean any Government servant any Post Office official or police officer or does it only mean the Public Service Commission? I want to tell the hon. the Minister right now that I have had representations made to me by at least one member of this Coloured Council. He feels that they should have complete freedom of criticism, and that if they do say something by accident they should be protected. The Minister has not made out any good case why they should not be protected.

I want to say this in conclusion—the point has already been made—that they will feel insulted if they are not accorded the same protection in their Coloured Council as that accorded to the Bantu in their Parliament in the Transkei. I cannot see any reason for this differentiation.

Order! That point has already been made.

I know, Sir; I do not want to labour it. I think the Minister should reconsider this. It is most unfair. As I have said earlier in this debate it is a further indication that the Minister does not seem to trust the very people he will nominate, number one, and the very people the Coloured people will elect to that council to manage their affairs.

Let us take the case of the Group Areas Board. That board is a statutory body and I can assure you, Sir, that there are many complaints about that board. Are these Coloured councillors not entitled to get up and say that things have happened in the Group Areas Board …

They are entitled to criticize but not to say anything libellous.

I know the Minister is now guilty of tedious repetition. He has given us that assurance about 20 times.

But you still don’t seem to understand it.

I accept it. But the question is this: They may say something libellous without intending to do so, or in the heat of debate or by accident. How often are hon. members in this House called to order, Sir, for having said something which is defamatory.

Business interrupted to report progress.