Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night, I was dealing with some of the arguments adduced by the hon. the Prime Minister and other hon. members on that side of the House in connection with our Commonwealth membership. I don’t want to pursue that any further. I want to come now to another point altogether, and in dealing with that—the question of the referendum and its result, and what can be read into that result—I want to say at once, quite frankly, that the hon. the Prime Minister took occasion last year, before the referendum was held, in a speech at Sea Point before the Vroueklub, I think it was, and later on at Ladysmith in Natal, to indicate that if the Government lost the referendum, the fight would go on. They would not accept that decision if it went against them. I said at that time, and I believe I was entirely logical and justifiable in that, that, if that was the Prime Minister’s attitude, then we on the anti-republican side were entitled to adopt the same rule for our conduct. The hon. the Prime Minister as Head of the Government does not enjoy a privilege in regard to making rules of conduct for other people which do not bind himself. It has never been our habit either in regard to our sports or our public life or our social life, nor in regard to any of the activities in which we indulge from time to time, to believe in a system whereby you have one rule for your opponent and another rule for yourself, particularly if you are making the rules, Sir. In that regard may I say that the rules in any case are made by the Prime Minister. He as Head of the Government, with a great majority in Parliament behind him, is in a position to pass any law that he wishes, and he was in a position to pass any law he wished for the conduct of that refendum, and he did so. So I want to have it quite plain from the start, Sir, that before the referendum last year, we made it clear that the Prime Minister, in making that announcement on two separate occasions in public, was putting us in the position that we could make precisely the same conditions.

It is rather interesting for the moment to just go back to the speech of the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) who preceded me yesterday, and who, almost in his last remark, gave what he regarded as a fair presentation of the request for entrenched clauses, a request that has come from my province, from the Transvaal and from the Cape Province. Sir, the hon. member likened it to a fight between two men in which one was eventually knocked out. Sir, that is how he views the position. He does not believe in persuasion like the hon. the Prime Minister and previous Prime Ministers who said that they would not come with legislation until they had the broad will of the people behind them. I particularly now refer to the late Mr. Strijdom, when he was Prime Minister, who said—

That was the attitude then. There was no question of a fight to the death, such as visualized by the hon. member for Randfontein. And I want to say, Sir, that the hon. the Prime Minister, with all his care in choosing his words, cannot choose the thoughts of his back-benchers. Their thoughts will out. And to them this is really a moment of victory in a knockout fight against an adversary. This is not an attempt to bring unity to two groups of the South African people as far as the hon. member for Randfontein is concerned. This is the culminating point of victory in a knock-out fight against your adversary. That is the spirit in which the hon. member sees the difficulties with which we are contending to-day, the position which has arisen.

Sir, I do not propose to traverse that period when the Prime Minister made those statements. There might be quite a lot to say in that regard. In passing I merely want to say this that when one looks at the way the referendum was held, one thinks of the old pensioners who were frightened out of their life that their pension would be taken away. [Laughter.]

Nonsense!

It is most revealing that hon. members and Cabinet Ministers can laugh at that. I hope they will never be put in the position in their old age that the whole of their existence is dependent upon, as they honestly believe, the goodwill of the Government which happens to be the paymaster. You see, Mr. Speaker, it is so easy to laugh at other people’s troubles, and I say that this was a factor, a disgraceful factor. Then we also had the question of the postal votes on the Railways. The law was changed there to provide for that after we won our Supreme Court case in the previous election. We prevented them voting when not coming within the ambit of the law. The law was changed. The hon. Deputy Minister of the Interior knows all about that. Then there were our Coloured people in Natal. They are on the Common Roll. They have not been taken off the Common Roll by this Government, but left there, but they were prohibited from voting by administrative decree. A shocking thing to do! I am only dealing in passing with these matters, because there is much more I have to say.

Sir, there is not one problem solved to-day which was a problem in 1948 when the present Government came into power. Not one of the problems have been solved which were serious problems in 1948. Problems have become more pressing problems and of greater urgency. There is not one difficulty facing the country in 1948 that is not a greater difficulty and a more pressing difficulty now in 1961. To these difficulties the Government could have directed its attention and these problems could have been tackled on a basis of consultation and agreement. In that way we could have allowed time to run on and decide then whether the country was willing to accept a republic or not. But those problems and those difficulties were not solved. Of course the hon. the Prime Minister and the rest of his Cabinet can pass this legislation and establish a republic, but it will be a seditional republic belonging entirely and only to the Nationalist Party—not to the Afrikaner people; I dealt with that point yesterday—this republic will not belong to the Afrikaner people, but it will belong to the Nationalist Party, it will be their own personal private republic. That is the tragedy. Mr. Speaker, I want to go back into history for a moment. In 1955 the late Mr. Strijdom made a speech on 10 October. He was then Prime Minister and I want to quote his speech again. He said at the Kruger Day festivities in Pretoria—

Subsequently I saw the then hon. Prime Minister. I want to come to a later interview that I had with the present Prime Minister presently. I saw the late Mr. Strijdom in regard with that speech and asked him “What does this mean?” He said “It means what it says. We are never going to live in peace and harmony, Mitchell, until we are prepared to guarantee each other those things which are dear to each of us. It is not sufficient that we give assurances. We must be prepared to implement those assurances, strike out suspicion by giving concrete, cast-iron guarantees.” He said: “Mitchell, that is the position as far as I am concerned.” I then put the question: “What about a republican majority?” I do not want to refer now to a letter he wrote to the Cape Times when they suggested that the republic might be brought into being on an inadequate majority and how angry he was. But on that very same point he said: “Mitchell, I have told you that we have to persuade you English-speaking people that the road of the republic is the right road. We have to persuade you to come with us, and when we have got an adequate majority among English-speaking people, so that we have an overwhelming majority of the people of South Africa, then we can go ahead with our legislation.” Sir, the present Prime Minister, this Government, do not heed anything that has been said in the past. They regard it as the “dooie hand van die verlede ”.

I want to turn for a moment to the later interview. The hon. the Prime Minister talks of unity. Mr. Speaker, the referendum was held on 5 October, and on 13 October I went to Pretoria and saw the Prime Minister, and I am grateful to him for the interview he gave me. He made time when he was extremely busy. It was only a week after the referendum and he gave me quite a long interview. Mr. Speaker, I took a chance at that moment. Feelings were running very high, and I want to say in all fairness that if the hon. members opposite want to know the strength of the feeling in regard to these matters that we are discussing here to-day, then let me assure them that that would have been the end of my political career if the people of Natal had known that on that day I went to see the Prime Minister, because nothing on earth would have prevented them from believing that I wanted to feather my own nest and strike a bargain with the Prime Minister and to make a bargain with the Prime Minister under those circumstances was something for which they would never have forgiven me.

It would have been political suicide.

Yes, the feeling was very strong. The hon. the Prime Minister gave me that interview. I wanted to discuss with him: Where do we go from here? I had been able to speak to the late Dr. Malan, to the late Mr. Strijdom when he was Prime Minister, and I wanted to meet our Prime Minister and speak to him face to face and put these questions to him. Let me say at once that the hon. the Prime Minister gave me no promises, bar one. The promise was that if and when a resolution of our provincial council was passed and from Natal a deputation sought an interview with him, he would meet that deputation. But we had a long discussion. “Where do we go from here?” That is what I tried to find out in Pretoria. Was there a possibility of getting the Prime Minister to negotiate with the United Party through our Leader. Could ways and means be found of dealing in that way with the situation that was developing in South Africa, where in my belief an entirely inadequate majority as represented by the referendum was to be the basis now for the pursuance of Nationalist Party policy—not national policy but Nationalist Party policy. The dangers inherent in that I could see very clearly and I felt it was my duty to do what I did. The hon. Prime Minister agreed to meet a further deputation which in due course he did. The deputation went with the resolution from the Natal Provincial Council, which I do not want to deal with in detail. The hon. Prime Minister met us and gave us ample opportunity to put our case. He asked us a number of questions. The answer was “No” to all our pleas, “No” to the entrenchments which we were seeking. Mr. Speaker, we were following the constitutional line. I was entitled on 13 October to go and see our Prime Minister. We were entitled in the Provincial Council of Natal to pass that resolution and to take it to the Government. That was the constitutional line that we were following because we wanted to do everything fair and above board and in terms of constitutional procedure, so that no one could complain at the steps we were taking to put our request to the Government, not only the case of the people of Natal, not only the English-speaking people there, but the case of the anti-republicans, nearly 50 per cent of the voting population of this country who voted against the republican ideal. That was the background to it, and I want to ask what other course was left to us? When once the hon. the Prime Minister, through His Honour the Administrator of Natal had given a flat “No” to all our requests, what was left to us? So far as I could see, the only course left to us was here in this House to debate the matter. I made my appeal here the other day again to the hon. the Prime Minister, and again yesterday we got from him “No ”. But yesterday he bolstered his argument, to show how completely intransgent he is, completely unyielding. This Bill will go through as the hon. the Prime Minister wants it and in no other way at all. Not one of us will be able to get the slightest amendment approved of. No one on the Government side can get an amendment through. It is no good the hon. the Prime Minister talking about Select Committees. I am a realist to-day. I understand exactly how the thing works here in Parliament. I understand what the feeling of power means to the Prime Minister and the Government. I could quote many examples. Sir. I know exactly where the shoe pinches. So the question remains: “Where do we go from here?” Does the Government really believe that practically half the electorate will accept “No” without any qualification in regard to a matter of this kind? Does he expect that they are just going to lie down and that this is the last word on the subject: That if we do not like it we can lump it? Is that going to be the last word? Then they do not know what South Africans are, they do not know their own kith and kin if they believe that that is going to be the position.

Sir, dealing with the position in the context of the Commonwealth, the Prime Minister has put South Africa in jeopardy by bringing this up to the test against nations who dislike our internal policies and by giving them an opportunity, without their seeking, of getting us out of the Commonwealth. He is placing us in jeopardy, where we could have remained completely secure in the Commonwealth and nobody could have lifted a hand against us. But internally in our own country he has thrown our constitution into the melting pot, right at this moment when many things have made people uneasy. There is the Education Bill of last year. Now the hon. the Prime Minister says that it will be sent to a Select Committee, put into cold storage. Mr. Speaker, that is a very hot potato. The hon. the Minister of Finance laughs and repeats after me “put into cold storage ”. Perhaps he is going to bring it back and throw it into the arena as another apple of discord. Sir, there is the Government’s own policy, a policy in regard to which I and other members on this side have warned and warned individual members of the Government. Sir, does the hon. the Prime Minister think for one moment that we are going to see the trouble that is taking place in Pondoland transferred to Zululand, that we are prepared to sit down and see that happen? Is that what the answer of the republic is going to be? Not for a moment are we prepared to accept that. Under this Bill, when it comes into effect, you will have the fragmentation of Natal and dispersal of its White people. That is what is facing us. Approximately one-sixth of the area of my province to be left to be inhabited by White men.

I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will deny that.

Yes, and I challenge the hon. the Prime Minister to deny it. Will the hon. the Prime Minister deny that on the completion of his policy approximately one-sixth of the area of Natal will be left to the White man?

What has that to do with the republican issue?

A very great deal, because these things will come to the fore under his own Education Bill. And that at this moment when everybody is on edge. At this moment the Government brings in all these matters. Is it not sufficient that we have one trouble without the Government bringing all these other matters and piling them up one on top of the other in this manner?

You are now attacking the settlement under the 1936 Act

What has that got to do with it? Is this the time for the Government to bring these things? It is the Government’s choice to come with these matters. The Government is responsible, and nobody on the other side seems prepared to deny that my calculation is right and that we White people in Natal will be left with approximately one-sixth of the area of the province. We are not going to accept that. This question of fragmentation and dispersal of our White population cannot be accepted.

Sir, we cannot let the matter rest here, under no circumstances can we let the matter rest here. I believe our destiny in Natal is bound up with South Africa. If I could sign a document giving Natal complete independence from the Union, I would not sign it until at the same time I have signed a document arranging for the maintenance of those matters in respect of which we have common interest: Railways and Harbours. Defence, and so forth, many other things. Our destinies are inextricably bound together as White people. I would sign a document like that, but there is no possibility. Here sits the Government with all the authority and all the power. So I want to say with the greatest seriousness:

I speak for Natal. We have now got political unity in our province such as we have not enjoyed for the past 25 years. I am glad of that. So I speak for my province, and I speak for very many people who are not of my political persuasion and who are Afrikaans-speaking South Africans, Nationalists, who are entirely at one with me in what I propose to say here this afternoon. The time has come when I must say now clearly and without room for doubt.

We do not accept the republic in Natal, we reject it and will have no part in it. We reject this legislation. We are not willing to participate in bringing it into being as we do not propose to live permanently under it. From now on we consider ourselves ruled by force, without our consent. We live under a hostile Government. This is tyranny and rule by force. We may be forced and coerced to comply with this law which the Government makes, but we will seek the first opportunity to make our own laws. I want to make this quite clear: I believe that the day of reckoning for this Government is coming. I believe that the day of realization by the people of South Africa is coming, the day of fulfilment. Promises have been made. Goods have to be delivered. These promises have been made by a number of people. It is incredible, if you sit down quietly with time to spare and read the speeches made only by members of the Cabinet in the days leading up to the referendum; it is incredible to see the wide divergence of opinions and views expressed. But those statements were made at public meetings. Many of them partake of the nature of a promise—perhaps the kind of promise that was made to me by the late Mr. Strijdom, I do not know. But those promises have been made, and the day of fulfilment will come. If the opportunity presents itself we in Natal will grasp it in both hands. We will not be governed by a hostile government, against our will, any longer. We will take the first opportunity that presents itself to have a law to govern us, a law in which we ourselves are allowed to participate because it has been reached by agreement. And so I must make that point abundantly clear. The debate yesterday clearly shows that there will be no further consultation and no further opportunity of approach to the Government. We must now say that we do not accept the position. We will remedy it at the first opportunity.

Mr.

Speaker, I think this House has seldom listened to a more irresponsible statement by a leader of a part of South Africa than the last part of the hon. member’s speech. I want to emphasize that particularly: As a member of what goes for a democratic party, I am unable to see how the hon. member squares his statements with his democratic principles. What he now wants is that the rest of South Africa, which has just achieved a great victory, should knuckle down to what he and a small coterie on that side of the House, and in Natal, think is good for South Africa!

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask for your ruling on the use of the word “coterie ”? I was called upon to withdraw from the House for the use of that word.

Order. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Sir, I say that this is irresponsible. It is true that for the rest we were rather astounded to-day to hear the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) in such subdued terms. He was almost pianissimo to-day. There was no single word that even you, Mr. Speaker, could take exception to in the speech of the hon. member. But yesterday and again for the major part of his speech to-day, what did we have? We had nothing but a reminder of far-off days and battles long ago. He has come here, apparently, to refight the referendum fight. The arguments that we have heard here are of such a nature that our minds were taken back to the referendum campaign. That is the type of speech we have had from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and all the other hon. members on that side of the House. For whose benefit, is it really, to come here at this stage and to refight the referendum battle? What South Africa requires now, what our business people, our financiers and our industrialists require …

Is a good government.

… is peace and quiet after the turmoil and the ferment of the referendum battles. But all that the opposition is giving here is a rehash of all the old arguments we have heard ad nauseam.

Sir, it will not help the United Party to oppose the clearly expressed will of the electorate; a will expressed in the highest total of votes ever recorded in any election in South Africa. The hon. member for South Coast says to us “Well, those are all Nationalists, it is going to be a sectional republic ”. I am afraid he gives us too much credit. Does he want us to believe that there are actually 850,000 Nationalists in South Africa? If so it is not sectional, it is a majority; and they are all Nationalists if one is to believe the hon. member for South Coast! Let me tell the hon. member this: He and his party, he and Natal never gave even conditional support to a republic. They said they are against a republic in any shape or form. And now, after the event, after the approved referee has given his decision, they want to put their demands and make their conditions! That is not the way in which the affairs of State are conducted. I want to say this to the hon. member, we all know his difficult position and we are not without sympathy for him. He has let loose the hounds of war and he is being followed by them and he has to find some way of escape. I want to tell him this: Natal will march, but they will not march in frustration and despair with the hon. member for South Coast. They will march, prosperously, with South Africa. And in the words of Robert Browning I can say to him, on behalf of Natal, “We shall march prospering—not thro’ his presence; songs may inspirit us—not from his lyre.” They will march with South Africa!

As far as the Opposition is concerned, far be it from me to give any advice, but it seems to me that we have now reached the stage where such a clear cut verdict has been given by the electorate of South Africa that the United Party, at any rate, would be responsible and they would be wise if they were now to make friends with the inevitable. They can go further; they can try and make a virtue of necessity. They can help us so that we can build together, all of us, not only the 850,000 that voted “yes ”, but all of us can assist, constructively, to make this Constitution and the republic which will be built upon it, a joint heritage for all of us for all time.

However, I do prefer not to deal to-day with debating points. I wish, rather, to deal with fundamentals. I do not want to concern myself so much with the past as with the future; except to say this, that for many, like me, this is a great day; this is a great occasion. We stand on the threshold of fulfilment, legislatively, of what has been a dream and an ideal for many years. It is understandable that there should be a high degree of emotional satisfaction on our part. But for me personally, and I think for many on this side of the House, that is not sufficient. It must be more than mere emotional satisfaction. The day and the future would not be complete if it were only that, because emotional satisfaction is not, in the circumstances, something which is shared by all. And I want something that can be shared by all.

Mr. Speaker, I want something that, even for those who are emotionally satisfied, will carry with it something much richer for the future. Because this could be, for all of us, a day to look back upon with pride and thankfulness. And we, particularly we assembled here, could make it that if we really desired to do so. You know, Sir, what struck me most, what impressed me most in the referendum campaign was how receptive both groups were to the idea of national unity; how all of them felt that it was time that we had to break away from the constitutional squabbles which have divided us in the past. The prospect of being like other nations—where they have divisions and political parties, but not based on artificial grounds like home language or country of origin, but based on some economic or logical line of division—the prospect that we might get that was a magnet which attracted the common man on both sides during the referendum campaign. The referendum itself helped to break down some of the walls that have divided us in the past. It helped very much to make the result of the referendum not a victory for one group, but a victory for South Africa. Because in spite of what the hon. members have said, there were very large numbers of English-speaking South Africans who are not Nationalists but who voted for the republic. And now, after it is over, many of those who did not vote for it, have come of their own accord and told me, and told many of us, “We voted against the republic but now that the verdict has fallen we are going to accept it.” The referendum held out for those people the prospect of getting away from these futile, senseless squabbles which we have had for far too long in the past, and laying the foundation, if nothing more, on which national unity could be built in the future. For many of them felt that this might put an end to the political frustrations of the minority language group in South Africa.

This urge to unity, which was one of the predominant features of the referendum campaign, gained additional impetus because the form of the republic was the form most acceptable to all, involving the minimum change from the South Africa Act as it had evolved over the years. It gained additional impetus because the means of testing the opinion of the electorate was the fairest means devisable; not a general election with unequal constituencies as units, with many unopposed returns which could not reflect a true vote. It was a referendum in which every voter could vote, and in which 90 per cent did vote. Further impetus was given to this inherent urge by the fact that continued membership of the Commonwealth was expressly desired. So in this respect, too, there would be no change from the past as far as lies in our power. It was further felt that a positive result could remove the constitutional bone of contention around which there had grown up so much of the division of the past; that bone of contention which has bedevilled the relations between the two language groups to a very large extent. It was felt, also, that developments, particularly in Africa, had given a new urgency to the need for unity in the face of the common dangers, and loss of the traditional support which we had always expected in the past.

Now. Sir, many responded positively to this urge. Many others allowed this urge in themselves to be temporarily stifled by fears and suspicions. We know how assiduously on these fears and suspicions of the electorate, the propaganda was directed. It was done to frighten them away from this urge. And the fact that in spite of all that, in spite of being frightened that this would happen and that would happen, you still had 850,000 people who said “Yes we want unity and we want the republic ”,—that fact shows the strength of this urge for unity. I say it was temporarily stifled, in many, but it is still there. It is still alive; it is still active. It can still be inspanned for South Africa. And not to do so is dangerous. To try to stifle it permanently is nothing less than a crime against South Africa.

How can we satisfy this urge? How can we help to realize the hopes and prevent disappointment and disillusion? That is our problem. In the first place, I should say that what we demand must be realistic. It is unrealistic to demand or to expect immediate results. It is unrealistic to expect too much too soon. There is no magic wand that can be waved and, “Hey Presto!” national unity is there. It is the creation of an atmosphere, of a climate, something which has to be done patiently, laboriously. It will take time.

It is unrealistic too to think that the onus is on one or other group to work out national unity—and usually it is the “other” group. One is inclined to think that whichever side won, that is the side on which this particular duty falls. But no, Sir, it is a duty of both groups and of every single individual in this country. And that duty is not fulfilled by demanding gestures from the “other” group; not even by some kind of “package deal ”,— if the unity has to be enduring.

I say that the first duty of the individual is fulfilled by seeing to it that the climate tor national unity is not spoiled by suspicion and distrust. If we want to be realistic there is a third thing: We must not expect the “other” group—because it is always the other group to which we are looking—we must not expect the other group to sacrifice convictions or principles. Not even as the price of unity. That is unrealistic; and it is not even necessary. Because the object of national unity is not to obtain a one-party state. National unity is something which one desires above the natural divisions between parties. Not artificial divisions. Most countries have some subjects which stand above party considerations, subjects on which there can be unity even though there are very clear party divisions; subjects on which there can be unity without straining party loyalties or sacrificing principles. Seek out those subjects. Proclaim them to the world, and you have some basis for national unity. And I would put as one of the first things that we can put above all party considerations this: that everyone has the right to follow his convictions into party membership, whatever the party, without fear of victimization, socially or economically.

I want to put before this hon. House, to-day, a programme. I do not claim that it is exhaustive. I am trying to carry out what I have said: to seek out these subjects which should stand above party considerations and beyond party manoeuvres. This is merely a basis. There can be many more and, as I have said, this does not claim to be exhaustive. Others can work further on it.

The first point—because it is chronologically almost the first before us—is this: All arc agreed that it is desirable to retain membership of the Commonwealth. Well, Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister is going to put our standpoint at the Prime Ministers’ Conference on 8 March. We can show, not only by word but by deed, that we all support his standpoint. The very last thing we should do is to queer the Prime Minister’s pitch. Even if we think—and some of us probably do—that he will be batting on a sticky wicket, do not let us encourage the bowlers. He is batting for South Africa. Do not let us cast doubts on his ability to play speed or swerve or turn or even the “wronguns ”, or even the bumpers! Do not let us tell the bowlers “Go ahead and bowl bumpers ”. Do not let us do anything to help those who want to have us out of the Commonwealth. And you can do that very, very easily by playing into their hands, by giving them the impression that we are not united on this, that we have our doubts as to the position. That is encouraging the other side. That is the first thing which can stand above all party considerations. Let us give the hon. the Prime Minister every encouragement when he goes out to bat for South Africa.

There is a second point. We are all apparently determined to preserve South Africa’s economic security. We may differ among each other over details and methods; but for our sake and for the sake of South Africa we must not allow ourselves to be a party to any undermining of the confidence of the world in South Africa’s economy. If we feel it necessary to talk about unfavourable features of our economy, let us, at the same time, also stress the very many favourable features. Do not let us always say “This is so bad ”—and there are so many good things that we could point to. I fear that so often one sees that people are blind to the favourable features of our economy, and they are only too ready to proclaim to the world the unfavourable features. Let us be proud of our growing self-reliance and self-sufficiency, instead of stressing our dependence on others; instead of sometimes representing South Africa as if she were some indigent beggar dependent upon the crumbs that fall from other people’s tables. That is not our position, and let us make that quite clear. There is too much rocking of our financial boat by people who should rather be pulling their weight in that boat. And we have so much to be thankful for and to be proud of. Let us place South Africa’s economic security where it belongs—beyond the reach of party considerations and party manoeuvres.

There is a third point. We profess to abhor Communism. We shall all stand together in a “hot” war against Communism, no matter what party we belong to. No party considerations will keep us from that—but that is not enough. We must also be prepared to stand together against the subtle techniques whereby Communism is always seeking to win the “cold” war. In a “hot” war we will have many allies. Our strategic position on the sea route to the East, and our mineral wealth are sufficient guarantees that in a “hot” war we will have many allies. But in a typical communist indirect war, where internal unrest is fomented, where rebellion is encouraged—there we stand alone. And our friends have told us, bluntly, the White man in South Africa is expendable. The defence of South Africa, from wherever the threat, whether internal or external, should be above party considerations. And the measure in which we show to the world, and show clearly to all that we are determined to stand together in defence of South Africa—the measure, I say, in which we can show that to the world, is the measure in which we shall have success in keeping South Africa inviolate.

There is a fourth point I want to mention. Coupled with this defence of our peace against all threats, there is also necessary on our part a united stand against disloyalty towards South Africa in any shape or form. That is an item that should figure high in our list of things which are above party politics. To aid and condone disloyalty, even indirectly, may sometimes embarrass a Government, but it can often, also, destroy a state! To seek aid overseas, in whatever form, in order to overthrow policies approved by the electorate of South Africa may not always be technical high treason, but it is never patriotism! If military aid is sought the position is simple. But if other forms of aid are sought it shows, at best, a disregard of the will of our own electorate, and it shows also, a heart that does not beat for its land of birth or adoption. I say there should be a downright condemnation of those who seek outside aid in our domestic problems, in whatever shape or form. That is a matter which should stand clearly above all party consideration. It is a matter on which all South Africans can and should stand united. Internal peace and preparedness against the threat to that peace, that is our best defence against war.

Then there is a fifth point. What can we do to create the right climate for national unity? There are a few things that occur to one immediately. Is it not possible for us to give this new spirit a proper chance by accepting the position that has been created? Not merely a passive acceptance of it but, Sir, an acceptance of it in good grace and with active co-operation. Let us help and assist that urge which is there and which nobody can smother. It will remain in spite of what parties say and do. There should not be any recriminations or reproaches. We should not be too astute to give offence or to take offence. We should try to sow goodwill and trust between the language groups. We can do that without being disloyal to a party. If we act in this way, there is the possibility of having a new wave of South Africanism sweeping over our land. We may have a new concept of patriotism, namely, in matters essential to the existence and the future of South Africa, we stand united before the world!

Sir, this programme that I have given you for national unity, these few fundamentals for it, is not a plea for a one-party state, nor is it a plea for a coalition. It leaves a very wide field still open for party differences in policy, for the fights which we all love. We can still carry on those fights. It does not mean that we now have to live in eternal peace together and disagree on nothing. Neither is it academic or just idealistic. On the contrary, it is terrifyingly actual and fully realistic. I want to give only one example to show how great the need is for unity, how terrifying actual that need is. I have here the U.S. News and World Report of 16 January with the report of an American negro who was on a tour through Africa. He has written a book, “The Reluctant African ”. He has had interviews with the leaders of Black Africa all over, and these are his conclusions—

He says in nearby South Africa—he had a talk in Southern Rhodesia—violence was called the only visible solution. He had a talk with Tom Mboya. He heard him addressing a political meeting as follows—

This is the type of thing with which we are faced to-day. This is happening across our borders in East Africa. That is what makes the call for national unity so urgent. It is in the light of these facts—of which I have given only one example—and in the light of other developments in Africa, together with the warning we have received that the White man is expendable—I say that if one looks at it against this background, I cannot help feeling that this whole debate here has an air of unreality. To weigh up meticulously sacrifice against sacrifice; to try and match gesture with gesture; to talk about illusionary entrenchments without telling us how they are to be obtained, and guarantees which will fall away in any case should this anti-White racism win the day; to talk about possible changes in the Constitution, to make South Africa a multi-racial state—something for which there is no mandate from the electorate, something which has nothing to do with the form of government that we have. To say and do all these things now (things which could be done later if a mandate is forthcoming), is to me nothing less than trifling with time and opportunity. Sir, the need for national unity is now.

Hear, hear!

The mandate is there, and it will not be achieved by those people who say that there must be a change of heart in the “other” man. It depends on those people who are prepared to put their hands in their own bosoms and who want to be honest with themselves. The dangers are there and they are imminent. We cannot afford to fritter away the last few precious moments left to us. When I hear people talking about these things here that hon. members, and particularly the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell), have spoken about, I sometimes wonder whether it is not a repetition of Nero fiddling while Rome is burning. Let us stand together, and let us stand together now. We have had a powerful plea for national unity from the hon. the Prime Minister. Right through the referendum campaign we have made this appeal. You will know yourself, Sir, what the response was. But I am not here to make reproaches and recriminations. Let us forget what is past and look to the future, and let us enter that future fully prepared for whatever lies ahead of us. But we can only be fully prepared if we are prepared to stand united. Sir, let me tell my friends, the doubting Thomases, that South Africans of both groups will not allow this vision of national unity which they have seen to be dimmed by disparagement or by attack. We shall march forward on that road to national unity, boldly and confidently; and we shall build together with those who want to build with us; and even if the leaders opposite are not prepared to build with us, there are enough people in South Africa who are prepared to go on this march, and with them and with all who have confidence in our future and who have the interests of South Africa at heart, we shall build our future together, whilst saying:

Mr. Speaker, I want to move the following further amendment—

1. (1) a Bill of Rights guaranteeing certain fundamental rights and liberties;
2. (2) the participation of all suitably qualified citizens, irrespective of race, in the government of the country;
3. (3) adequate safeguards which will prevent domination by one racial group over others; and
4. (4) the decentralization of legislative and executive power on federal lines in the interest of a reasonable degree of provincial and local self-government.”

I think we must have clarity on one point. The last Opposition speaker said that he was speaking on behalf of everyone in Natal. I want to state frankly that as far as the Progressive Party is concerned, it co-operated with the United Party in submitting that petition to the Prime Minister in an attempt to have certain rights entrenched, not only for the people living in Natal but throughout South Africa. After that petition had been submitted to the hon. the Prime Minister, co-operation between the parties in Natal came to an end. It is also essential that we should be told this afternoon whether the views expressed by the hon. member for South Coast are the views of the United Party.

Hear, hear!

We want to know whether his remarks reflect the state of mind of the entire United Party? The party of which I am a member has never concealed its objects. It is well known that there are deep differences between us and the Government. I shall briefly set out once again the basis on which this party fought the referendum, but there is no doubt that this party did everything in its power to persuade the voters of South Africa not to give the Government such a mandate. No one worked harder in that direction than I myself, because it was my deep felt conviction that this would be a wrong step for South Africa to take. The White voters gave their decision on 5 October, and one of this party’s criticisms of the Government was that not one single non-White person was granted the right to participate in the referendum. After the referendum I stated in a Press statement that although we did not regard the referendum as being representative since only Whites had the right to vote, although we did not regard the majority as sufficient against the background of what we had always accepted as representing a reflection of the will of the people, although we differed on cardinal points of principle from the constitutional form which the republic would take, I repeated that this party regarded the decision of 5 October as a mandate for the establishment of a republic. In saying that I am speaking on behalf of all members of the Progressive Party. This party will continue to advocate changes in the Constitution which we are convinced represent the only possible basis on which we can build a peaceful and prosperous South Africa. If the Prime Minister refuses in this House to accept the amendments which I have moved, it will not be the last time that hon. members will hear about the constitutional changes the Progressive Party envisages. But, Mr. Speaker, if we refuse to accept this mandate, we must inevitably reopen the dispute over the principle of whether or not we should have a republic, the dispute which has clouded South Africa’s public life for 50 years. It would then mean that instead of being able to persuade the voters and the country to give their attention to the problems which threaten the future of South Africa, we shall once again quarrel for years to come over whether we should have a monarchial or republican form of government and as my hon. friend has said, where will that lead the nation? We have seen evidence this afternoon in this House of the deep felt sentimental and emotional feelings which individuals have for the monarchial form of government. On the other hand, no one appreciates better than I myself how deeply rooted the republican feeling is amongst the Afrikaners and, approached on that basis alone, there are many republicans in the ranks of the Progressive Party, of which I am one. But our approach has always been: Do not ask the people to approach this issue on an emotional and sentimental basis. There is only one question which should be answered, namely whether it will be in the interests of South Africa to establish a republic. Once again I do not have the slightest doubt in my own mind and I am convinced that the fulfilment of this greatest ideal of the Afrikaners may be regarded in the future as the Afrikaners’ greatest mistake. The Minister of Finance has made a fine plea for national unity. He has said that this was the motive underlying the republican struggle and the reason why the National Party submitted the republican issue to the voters. I do not believe that there is anyone in this House or in the country who does not wish that that was the position. Do not think for one moment that the party leaders are arousing this spontaneous reaction amongst the people. Just as deeply as the one group feel about the republic, so deeply do the English-speaking people feel about that part of their history which is rooted in their very being.

As regards these pleas by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, I do not doubt their good intention, but I ask them with all due respect to be realistic. What have we now done? All we have done is to turn the tables. Sir, I have said before in this House, and I am glad that this thought has been expressed this afternoon, and yesterday by the Prime Minister as well, that I and my family, Afrikaans-speaking people, have for many years had to suffer rejection by our own people because we did not share in the Afrikaners’ feeling of unity; because we differed on basic cardinal principles, we were execrated and rejected by our own people. For that reason I am glad to hear that the Afrikaner will also be a free man in his own country, and will not only enjoy the freedom which is granted him within the limits of his own Afrikaner unity and nationalism. Because we broke through— and there are many of my friends who will support me—we were regarded as traitors and outcasts from the Afrikaner people. Do not let us place the English-speaking people in the same position. For that reason, seeing that the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are both pleading for national unity, I say that it will not be achieved unless their fear and the anxiety regarding the future of what is their own, are removed. It is pointless saying: We are going to have the same Constitution as in the past and we shall have the same language entrenchment as we had in the past. What do those entrenchments mean? They are not worth the paper they are written on because it is clear to everyone, after the behaviour of the Nationalist Party in violating and destroying the entrenchments in the South Africa Act, that such entrenchments will only be words in a flexible Constitution and will not have any force and effect whatsoever. The basis of the feeling of uncertainty prevailing amongst the English-speaking people and the non-Whites of South Africa is that they think that those things which are their own, their language, culture, religion and way of life, are in danger. I do not want to discuss whether I think that feeling is justified or not—that is not relevant, but that feeling is there, and if we want to achieve national unity, we must first remove that feeling of uncertainty. This we can only do if we can protect those rights by legal entrenchments in an inflexible Constitution which cannot arbitrarily be changed by political parties. I do not say for a moment that it is the intention of the Government or the Prime Minister not to keep their word in connection with the assurances he has given. I do not cast any doubt on those assurances, but such assurances have also been given in the past, in the near past, by the whole White population, but when it suited a certain political party every one of those assurances was violated. That is the basis of the feeling of uncertainty and disquiet, and all this pretty talk is of no avail. There is no one who does not support the ideal of national unity. I know the members of the Progressive Party, and now I am speaking for the Afrikaner, the Englishman and our Jewish friends. Not one of them would not support the great ideal of national unity, but how is it to be achieved? Can it be achieved merely on the basis of the word of one man, the word of political parties which change from day to day in the light of circumstances, or can it be achieved by giving guarantees in a rigid Constitution? That is our plea, but we go further and say that the lack of these assurances stimulates nationalisms. It stimulates the Afrikaner to organize his people as has been done in the past, and as it was necessary to do until 1926, in order to safeguard those things which are his own, his culture, his language, his religion and his way of life: and of course this same feeling stimulates the development of a similar nationalism amongst the other sections of the community. It should be clear that unless we give the various groups in South Africa these guarantees so that they need not take refuge in national groups, because that is the only way in which they can safeguard what is their own, namely by dominating the other man and preventing him from achieving what is his own, we shall not succeed. We speak of national unity, and when we do so, we think of the Afrikaans-and English-speaking people, Whites in South Africa.

Once again the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance have discussed the uniting factors in South Africa, the factors which must unite all of us so that we can meet the difficulties which face South Africa. But all these words are meaningless unless we can live together with the non-White, those patriotic non-Whites who wish to maintain the same values as you, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to maintain. The battle is already lost before it is joined if we cannot achieve that. In my opinion it is short-sighted and dangerous to tell us in this House that because of what is happening higher up in Africa, the White man in South Africa should not yield an inch to the non-Whites, because, look at what is happening higher up in Africa. And then the hon. the Minister of Finance appeals to us all to stand together in order to meet the threat of Communism. Mr. Speaker, even if the whole White population of South Africa should stand together, if we cannot break the power of the non-White extremists amongst their own people, the position will become more difficult for everyone in this country in the future. My hon. friends in the Nationalist Party are mostly Afrikaners. They know what it is to be oppressed by others and to be despised because one speaks a different language. I also know what it is; it forms part of my history. I know what it means and what human reactions it engenders when one is always regarded as an outcast. And it is inevitable that the non-White who is just as much a human being as you and I will develop this same feeling. If we cannot break the stranglehold which the extreme nationalist has on the non-Whites in South Africa, there are only two alternatives open to the White man in South Africa. The one is to defend his cause to the last ditch, the cause which he knows he cannot justify. The second alternative is to forget what has been built up here over the past 300 years and to leave his country. Mr. Speaker, in this constitutional change in which we are now engaged we have a golden opportunity to put these matters right. The hon. the Prime Minister will reply: “But you know after all that the non-Whites themselves reject your policy ”.

That is so.

My hon. friend says: “That is so ”. Allow me to tell my hon. friend this: Do not make that your yardstick; let your yardstick rather be: Is our treatment of the non-Whites fair; can we justify it on the basis of Western civilization or can we not? There is not one hon. member opposite who thinks for one moment that all morality and all logic is to be found on that side of the House. There is not one single hon. member opposite who can rise and justify what is being done in the name of racial discrimination in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister tells us that it is that policy which will safeguard the position of the White man and his civilization in this country. I am convinced that nothing is more calculated to force the White man out of South Africa and to destroy his civilization than the refusal to grant rights to those persons who deserve them, the refusal to grant a man the right to earn what he can on the basis of his qualifications and his potentialities. The Progressive Party has set itself this object and it will strive to achieve that object whether under a monarchy or a republic.

I second the further amendment. The hon. the Minister of Finance when he spoke this afternoon, complained about the lack of reality which he had found in this debate. I think with the exception of the speech made by my hon. Leader a little while ago, I can agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. the Minister of Finance said. Sir, this debate began on a fairly solid note yesterday afternoon. The House was reminded that it was an important milestone in the history of South Africa, that this was not an ordinary Bill which we were discussing but a Bill which sought to introduce a new form of Constitution for South Africa, we were treated yesterday afternoon by a speech by the Prime Minister, and let me say here that no one can gainsay the apparent sincerity with which the Prime Minister introduced the Constitution Bill. The Prime Minister sketched the struggle which had taken place through the years on the part of the Afrikaners in South Africa towards their republican ideal, and he conceded too the equal struggle which had been waged by anti-republicans during that period to retain the monarchical form of government in South Africa. I believe that it is only realistic of course, for us to accept those two points of view. It is only realistic for us to realize that there had been in South Africa for a long time people who by history and by tradition have had genuine sentimental attachments for the republican form of government, and it is also true that there have been people in South Africa who for very strong sentimental and historical reasons have had equally strong sentimental attachment for a monarchy as a form of government. If therefore one wants to approach this issue purely on the basis of sentiment, one would find that this was a conflict which on that basis certainly was irreconcilable. It is true that much of the struggle in South Africa in regard to the republican ideal has been characterized by a clash of sentiments. If we in South Africa are going to be ruled on the basis of sentiment, then I believe that we can never see a united nation in this country. We must realize that despite this deep and very often bitter clash of sentiments, there is a common factor between the two groups, and that common factor must be a common loyalty and devotion to South Africa, and therefore if it is possible for us in South Africa to try to make it feasible for every South African to realize and to practise his loyalty and his devotion to this country, then I believe that we can subjugate the conflict of sectional sentiments which have arisen out of our historical background. Sir, this is a matter which is charged with emotions. The monarchist in South Africa is entitled to his view, and I believe that the monarchist in South Africa is no less a South African than the republican. Surely an individual in South Africa is a South African first and then he may express a preference for monarchical or republican sentiments. What we have to attempt to do in South Africa at this time in our history therefore is to devise ways and means by which the patriotism of each section in this country can best be harnessed in the true interests of our common fatherland. The Nationalist Party who are the government of South Africa at the present time, have a responsibility to do just that —to try to reconcile the two points of view upon the basis of the common factor, which is a common loyalty and devotion to South Africa. The Nationalist Party who are the government at this time have a responsibility to try to harness those things to serve the best interests of South African. But, Mr. Speaker, I must say that the Nationalist Party have not indicated yet, either before Parliament assembled or in this debate itself, that they are going to be equal to that responsibility. They sit here with an impressive parliamentary majority. They come here having obtained a majority at the referendum held on this issue on 5 October, and they are now poised to establish their republic but so far, from the speeches which have been made in this debate, it would appear that they have still been motivated only by sentiment, because this Bill itself in its present form means simply a concession to republican sentiment in the existing Constitution of South Africa. Surely while we are busy now taking what has been described by various speakers as a historical step, this is the time for us in South Africa to pause and reflect upon our constitutional basis instead of rushing head-long into a superficial change of a Constitution which has not worked in multi-racial South Africa.

We on these benches have tremendous respect, as I believe all true South Africans have, for the fathers of the Union of South Africa. We have respect for that remarkable achievement of trying to produce unity in a country which only a few years before has been torn by bitter conflict. We have respect for that and for those things, but I believe it is time for us to stop paying lip service to what happened 50 years ago, because I believe that the situation which obtained then was completely different from the situation which obtains in South Africa to-day. We had at that time the National Convention which gave rise initially to the first Constitution in South Africa. We had a spirit which was admirable, which was motivated by goodwill but, Sir, we have to ask ourselves whether 50 years after that time there is still that same spirit and that same goodwill in South Africa. We on these benches believe that if we are going to be realistic and objective in our approach to this Bill we have to confess that the Act of Union has not worked in South Africa. It is with a realization of that fact that we should review what we are doing here to-day during the discussion on this Bill. We have had, as I have said, 50 years of trial of the Act of Union, and during that period of 50 years we have seen a perpetuation of the cleavage between White and White in South Africa, and we have seen increasing hostility in South Africa between White and non-White. The reason for this is obviously that no security is felt by any section of the community in South Africa. The rights and privileges of people in South Africa are perpetually at the mercy of political parties, and that is why we on this side plead and will continue to plead for a rigid Constitution in South Africa, because we believe that as the country is functioning at the present time, it is filled with fears and suspicions. There is always the striving of one group to gain ascendency over another group or groups and so we go on, the Whites mistrusting each other, the Whites and the non-Whites mistrusting each other. On that basis there can be no security in South Africa, and on that basis no Constitution can be acceptable if it is in the form of the Bill before this House. In regard to the experience of the past 50 years in South Africa we have heard frequently from members on the other side of the House how the extreme Afrikaner Nationalists have had to strive and fight, according to hon. members opposite, every inch of the way for their cultural rights, for their language rights and for so many other rights. They evidently found no security or no guarantee for those things in the Constitution, and we have this situation, for example, that when the Nationalist Party came into power in 1948, the late Prime Minister used words to this effect “We have now got our country back ”. That was evidence of the feeling of frustration which they must have experienced before that time, but those things should not be in the country which is democratic in character. Surely we have to realize that these fears and suspicions and this uncertainty can be removed if there is constitutional reform in this country. Since 1948, since the Nationalist Party has been in power, those same fears have been experienced by the other section of the population in South Africa, the English-speaking section. They have been fearful of their rights; they have been worried about the education of their children; they have been worried about the protection of their language rights, about their culture, about their position in the public service of South Africa, about the position of English-speaking regiments in the Union Defence Force. All these things, year after year have worried the other section in South Africa. I say I believe it is time we were realistic in our approach to the question of constitutional reform in this country. There is no security. No one section of the population of South Africa feels secure because it knows that its rights are always at the mercy of the political party in power at the time.

That is so in every country.

I will come to that later. Mr. Speaker, I have dealt so far with the feeling of insecurity which has existed amongst the various sections of the White population during the past 50 years. But the same applies, of course, to the non-White people in South Africa. What security have they gained out of the Act of Union, which we are now going to perpetuate in this legislation? As far as the non-Whites are concerned, you had the Africans who were on the Common Roll in the Cape Province and who lost their rights. You had the Coloured voters who were on the Common Roll and whose rights were taken away from them by an artifically manufactured majority of the two Houses of Parliament; you had the removal of the Natives’ Representatives from Parliament, and these things go on indicating that the Natives certainly have felt no security under the Constitution of South Africa. It is clear on the basis of our experience in the last 50 years, and also on the basis of the precedent which has been established in country after country outside South Africa, that where you have a multi-racial country, where you have a conflict of interests, where you have various racial groups, if you are going to have a peaceful future in that country, it is no use having a flexible constitution. The hon. the Prime Minister yesterday dealt with the question of flexibility in a constitution and he said that South Africa had adopted the constitution, a form of government which had worked so successfully in the United Kingdom. Sir, that of course, is an entirely different proposition. I think one of the mistakes which was made 50 years ago was that South Africa did try to take over a constitution which had worked in a homogeneous country but which has proved not to be able to work in a multi-racial country.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that it is absolutely essential if there is to be any sort of unity in South Africa amongst all the racial groups in South Africa, for these real safeguards to be provided. We believe, as we say in our amendment, that it is necessary to entrench in this Constitution a Bill of Rights which will guarantee the rights and the freedoms of individuals in South Africa, because there is no single citizen in this country who can say that any fundamental right is sacrosanct. At any time the government of the day may deprive him of that right, and we have seen examples of that happening. Surely one can follow the example of the United States of America in that regard where there is a Bill of Rights which is entrenched in a rigid constitution. So often in the past when the republican issue has been discussed, and suggestions have been made that this would lead to an undemocratic form of government, the Nationalist Party have said: “What about America?” They have held out the republic of America as an example. I wonder why it is that they cannot follow the example of the American republic first of all in regard to the rigidity of the Constitution and secondly in regard to the question of an entrenched Bill of Rights. Then, Sir, there is the question of providing for participation in the government of this country for all people on the basis of their merit as civilized human beings. That too, we believe, is something which should be entrenched in the constitution. And then there is the question of decentralization of legislative and executive power on federal lines in order to provide the provinces with a reasonable degree of autonomy. One knows that at the time of Union the question of whether it was going to be a unitary or a federal constitution was a burning issue. In fact, what was decided at that time was a compromise between the two, because we have to realize that there are very definite elements of federalism in the existing constitution of South Africa. We believe that it is necessary in view of the differences which exist between the various population groups in South Africa, in view of the different circumstances which obtain in the various provinces, that the autonomy of those provinces should be extended upon a reasonable basis and certainly should be guaranteed in the constitution of this country, because again there is no protection whatever of the rights of the provincial councils of South Africa under the present constitution, and at any stage, as we have seen in the past, the Government may introduce legislation which may deprive those provinces of any of their powers. Mr. Speaker, all these things, we believe, are necessary if we are going to produce the sort of South Africa which can provide security to all its people and all the racial groups living within its borders. The Prime Minister yesterday spent some time dealing with the question of whether a rigid constitution was good or bad. He said that as far as he was concerned, he was in favour of a flexible constitution because he believes that a rigid constitution may lead to revolutionary circumstances. I would like to ask in what circumstances is a revolution more likely —in circumstances where you have a constitution such as this which provides no safeguard whatsoever, either to an individual or to a group in South Africa and which deprives countless people of the right to participate in any way in the government of South Africa, or under circumstances where you have a rigid constitution which does safeguard fundamental human rights and which does give people the right to participate in the government of the country. Surely it is in these latter circumstances that you are least likely to have revolutionary circumstances developing. Sir, we believe that these things are necessary for the sake of providing security for the people of South Africa, and we believe that that goes further. A great deal of discussion has taken place and rightly so, about the question of South Africa’s continued membership of the Commonwealth. There is insecurity in South Africa because of the doubt cast upon our continued membership of the Commonwealth.

But, of course, Sir, the two things are interlinked. If you are going to have security in your own country you can hope to find security amongst other nations of the world. But the greatest thing which mitigates against South Africa in its contact with the outside world is the fact that there is insecurity in South Africa, that there are injustices being perpetrated in South Africa, that the policies being pursued in South Africa cannot be justified on any basis of decency and morality, and therefore for the sake of our own interests in South Africa, and also for the sake of our association with countries outside of South Africa, it is absolutely essential that we should provide the secure internal situation in South Africa which is necessary in a multi-racial country.

Sir, I have spoken about injustices; I have spoken about the deprivation of the rights of various sections of the people of South Africa. These injustices do exist and the Prime Minister should realize and the Nationalist Party should realize that simply to change the constitution of S.A. in order to streamline it into a republican constitution while the constitution remains basically the same, will not make for a stable government in this country. There can be no stability on the basis of a constitution such as this which deprives four-fifths of the population of S.A. of rights, which gives no guarantees to other people in South Africa that their rights, traditions, customs and language can be adequately preserved. There can be no stability in that sort of constitution and Sir, if the so-called injustices which were committed in the past have bred so militant and morbid a Nationalist as we see sitting opposite us in the House at the present time, if that has been the product of the wrongs committed in the past, then I want to ask the House what we hope to achieve through the injustices which we are perpetrating against other racial groups in this country at the present time. We have to realize that there can be no security or stability on this basis, and therefore the appeal on this side of the House is that while we are considering constitutional changes, for Heaven’s sake, let us make those changes in such a way that the maximum security can be guaranteed to all sections of the people of South Africa, and that they can know that South Africa has a charter which takes into account the desires and the wants and the needs of all sections of the population.

The hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler) said that he and his party regarded the result of the referendum of 5th October as a mandate for the establishment of a Republic. The hon. member for Queenstown is a man who adopts a reasonable attitude in regard to this matter, but his politics and his policy are so bad that the Republic of South Africa would, within the near future become a non-White republic. should his policy be implemented. But I want to point out that if the hon. member and his party now really believe that the election results of 5th October give the Government a mandate to establish a Republic, then he and the members of his party are compelled now to vote for the Republic. Remember that the public went to that election with various guarantees, particularly one, viz. that the Constitution of the Republic would be the Constitution we have had in S.A. hitherto, and in a democratic country the hon. member for Queenstown and the members of his party will always, as he himself said, have the right to agitate and to exert themselves and to fight for the principles in which they believe and for the changes they favour. But at this moment the hon. member and his party believe that the people of S.A. gave this Government a mandate to establish a Republic, after an election in which the public had the guarantee given to it that the Constitution of the Republic would be the same as our old Constitution, except for certain necessary and obvious changes.

Now the hon. member and his followers in their amendment ask that this side of the House should ignore the mandate we received, as the result of a guarantee given to the people, by now coming along with a brand new Constitution, the basic principles of which differ radically from the Constitution which we promised the voters would be the Constitution of the Republic. If we were to accede to the plea made by that side of the House, then our side of the House would be doing an injustice to and breaking faith with the voters of South Africa who went to the polling booths on 5 October.

The hon. member further argued that both sides have their sentiments. Those who were not satisfied with the policy of Afrikaner unity, he says, were in the past regarded as outcasts, and therefore he regards the plea made by the Minister of Finance to-day as a completely new approach. May I just say that we have always said in South Africa that we grant both sides their rights; we grant both population groups their sentiments. But even to-day— and I do not think that I could be described as a race-hater—I still believe in Afrikaner unity.

Not South African unity?

I believe in it in the sense that I believe in unity amongst the Afrikaans-speaking people. I shall tell you why. Right throughout the world we hear to-day that the White man in South Africa is expendable. We are, as someone else expressed it, “exchangeable ”. Why are we exchangeable in the minds of so many people? It is because we are regarded by the Black man in Africa, and by many other people outside Africa, as being here merely as colonists, that we are not a nation of Africa; as somebody put it, we are squatters here. And surely it is only the Afrikaans-speaking section which developed into a homogeneous nation in this country. Just read the book by Gelpin, in which he puts the matter very clearly. We have developed here into a nation of our own. I do not say that we are the only patriots here. There are as good South Africans opposite, in the other group, but we as an Afrikaans-speaking people are the only group which developed into our own nation, a small nation, but one of which we are proud, a nation which is proud of what it has achieved. And because that is so, we have proved that here, at the southern-most point of Africa, there is a White African nation in its own right. And we dare not relinquish it. While we are now building a new nation, we dare not relinquish our own unity. That unity must particularly be preserved as the factor by which a new nation can be built here. I think it was the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) who recently said that the things which are mentioned as being what the Afrikaners are prepared to sacrifice for national union are not sacrifices which are made in favour of the English-speaking people. Now I want to ask the hon. member this: Seeing that the Afrikaans-speaking people developed into a nation of their own—and I think friend and foe alike will admit it; historians admit it, philologists admit it, and everybody admits it—the Afrikaans people now say: We are prepared to make this sacrifice for the sake of national unity—to build a new nation in which the Afrikaans people will not eventually be a nation of their own, but only a national group of their own. Now I ask the hon. member for South Coast and any other hon. member in this House: Can more be expected from anyone by God or man; can more be expected from any nation? I want to ask the hon. member: Is this not really a magnanimous sacrifice for the sake of having national unity?

You are quite wrong.

I fear that the hon. member for South Coast’s conception of national sacrifices is not the same as mine.

The hon. member for Queenstown further said that the English-speaking people believe that their language and religion are endangered by the present Constitution. Sir, a person who fears that cannot know our history or understand our mentality. How can the English language be in danger? The English language is no longer the language of the 40 per cent of English-speaking people alone. It is one of our official languages in South Africa, and the English language belongs to me just as much as it does to the hon. member for South Coast, or to any other hon. member in this House. If, for example, the people of Natal were to go on the march and they marched out of the country and all the other English-speaking people left with them, English would still remain one of our official languages, not just for the benefit of those people but for ours. We realize that in English we have an official language belonging to our own nation and in which we can communicate intelligibly with the world because it is a world language. It is not only the language of the member for South Coast, but also mine.

Furthermore, I want to tell the hon. member for Queenstown that those people who still fear that this side of the House or this Government will tamper with the English language, or with their language rights, should realize that English is our language just as much as it is theirs.

In the second place, the hon. member says there are people who fear that their religion will be interfered with. Do hon. members over there not know that freedom of religion was the foundation on which our Afrikaner nation was formed? That was the true basis for our existence. Can hon. members believe that this Government—because it is this Government in regard to which they hold these fears—will interfere with freedom of religion? Is there an hon. member in this House who believes that this Government would be prepared to turn South Africa into a hell by not allowing freedom of religion? Of course everybody knows that it is obvious that a government which interferes with freedom of religion will turn this country into a hell. Can there be anyone who believes that we would go to those lengths?

The hon. member further said that constitutional guarantees were being asked for to still the fears of minorities on his side. He said that the Constitution we now have before us affords no guarantees for the minorities he represents. Does the hon. member also forget that the group represented on this side of the House formed a minority group for many years? Did we then ask for other guarantees than those afforded by this Constitution? The guarantees in the present Constitution were adequate for us, and in terms of those guarantees we maintained our position. For what reason on earth can a minority group find today that this Constitution, with the assurance it gives them, is not enough for them?

Then the hon. member for Queenstown said: If we do not break the extremists amongst the non-Whites there is no future for the White man in South Africa. How does the hon. member propose to break the extremists amongst the non-Whites? He evidently wants to do so by making concessions. Now I want to pose this question: Where do the hon. members of the Progressive Party and the United Party get the idea that making concessions will guarantee the future for the minority of Whites in Southern Africa? What was the position in all the countries of Africa, where not only concessions were made but where the Black man possessed extensive rights? Are the Whites in those countries any better off than in our country? The hon. member said that full opportunities should be given to every group in this country. With that I agree wholeheartedly. I want to tell hon. members opposite that they are not the only people who have a conscience or a sense of justice. But I want to say this, that I cannot see any justice in perpetual White leadership in the whole area of the Union of South Africa as we see it now in terms of the policy of the United Party. With the best will in the world I can see no justification for the policy advocated by the Progressive Party, that the franchise should be given only to certain selected non-Whites in this country, for whatever reasons they might be selected. There was a time when certain poor White people in our country did not have the franchise, but we on this side regarded it as being unjust and unfair towards the less privileged White people, and we fought until they got the vote in 1924 or 1925. Now I ask this question: What is the justification for and the fairness of selecting only certain non-Whites in this country and giving them the vote? No, if we want to be fair and just towards all the population groups in our country, we must ensure that all groups receive full opportunities and that is why I believe in apartheid. I say that if we in this country have to give guarantees as far as full opportunities are concerned, and give security to all sections of the population, then I include also the White man. Then he should also be given security. I believe that I am justified in my principle of self-preservation, and that is why my party believes in the policy of apartheid. I mention it here because the hon. member pleaded that the Constitution should be changed in order to do justice to all population groups.

Mr. Speaker, the big fight by the official Opposition against the legislation introduced now can be divided into two parts. Firstly, they oppose it because the Government can give no guarantee that after becoming a republic we will remain a member of the Commonwealth. Let us discuss that. We know very well what the agreed method is, according to which the Commonwealth Conference will act, viz. that a country which changes its form of government, after such a decision has been taken by the government concerned, has to intimate its willingness to remain a member of the Commonwealth, and not before that time, but this side of the House was convinced that we would in fact be able to remain a member of the Commonwealth. In fact, there are obvious reasons why we have no doubt that we shall remain a member of the Commonwealth. I do not want to repeat the sound reasons already mentioned in this debate, but I want to give a few supplementary reasons. Firstly we will remain a member of the Commonwealth because South Africa is so valuable to the Western nations in the military sphere that it is obvious that with the assistance of the Western political thinkers we shall remain a member.

You said at Durban that you saw no value in Commonwealth defence.

I said that in the Commonwealth connection, as it exists at present, no military agreement as such existed as the result of Commonwealth relations. But what I am saying now is that in the military sphere South Africa has great value for the Commonwealth. I have here in my hand a copy of Optima of September 1960, and I want to quote a few paragraphs from an article written by Lord Harding, who served both in the First and the Second World Wars and who was Chief of the Imperial General Staff from 1952 to 1955, and who from 1955 to 1957 was the Governor and Commander-in-Chief in Cyprus. He says this—

Then he continues to discuss the importance of Africa and eventually says this—

Then he says one can divide Africa into (a) the north and north-east, (b) the west, and (c) the south. And of the south he says the following—

Then he goes on—

Then he continues, concluding with this final thought—

It is clear that this prominent military figure attaches the greatest value to the southern part of Africa. He says that it is impossible to think of what would have happened to the Western powers in the last World War if they could not have enjoyed the hospitality of our ports.

Why did you not participate in the war?

That is not relevant. You see, Sir, that is the attitude of hon. members opposite in these days in which we live and in which the Whites in South Africa are being threatened—they are prepared to die along the road as a result of the hatred of the past. As far as I am concerned, there are some of them, and the hon. member who has just made that remark is one of them, who may fall along the road, but the rest of them I want to take along with me. I want to go further and say that I also have in front of me the publication “Commonwealth Defence Co-operation” of last week, in which the following is said—

Then he describes the position of the Federation, which is somewhat different, and then he continues—

At this stage, after the result of the referendum was published, now that the world and the Commonwealth know that we are taking steps to have a republican form of government, all this co-operation with South Africa to which reference is made here is taking place in the most cordial and intimate manner. Recently we had the Capex manœuvres, in which we enjoyed the most hearty co-operation. Now, again, an English aircraft-carrier is coming to visit our ports for exercises. These exercises continue and it is clear that it is not only Field-Marshall Lord Harding who realizes the military value of South Africa to the Commonwealth, but the members of the Commonwealth as such also realize it. Is there then any one of us who believes that in these dangerous days the Commonwealth will deprive a country, which is of such value to it in the military sphere, of membership of the Commonwealth? The trouble with hon. members opposite is that they suffer from such a inferiority complex as far as the value of their own inherent strength is concerned. They suffer from an inferiority complex in connection with these things which are their own, with the result that evidently they cannot recognize these things. Unfortunately in connection with these things they have hitherto always believed that they cannot walk through the Red Sea; they will drown in the morass. They are not prepared to take action. Just like their political predecessors, they have always been hidebound by circumstances, slaves to circumstances. Those people have never yet had the confidence to stand on their own feet. They have never been able to tackle anything on their own. They did in fact participate strenuously in the war, but they were only able to do it because they were led by Great Britain. They have never yet been able to tackle anything great on their own. They have always been the slaves of circumstances. But I want to go further. England has always been one of the leading Western powers, a recognized sea power, but to-day England’s military strength does not lie as much in the strategic situation of her colonies as in the combined strength of the Commonwealth and the strategic value of the widespread Commonwealth countries. South Africa is a country which holds a key position in that widespread strength of the Commonwealth countries. It is South Africa’s strategic value as a member of the Commonwealth which makes her a military factor within the Commonwealth. It is not only our own inherent military strength, but our strategic situation which makes us such a big military factor in the Commonwealth. And in these days in which we live no country in the world would care to lose that. So much for our military situation within the Commonwealth.

But, Mr. Speaker, as I see it the Republic of South Africa will also be a very strong political power in the Commonwealth and for the Commonwealth. The South African republic will, in my opinion, stand in quite a different relationship towards the Commonwealth from that of any other republic which to-day is a member of the Commonwealth. When we think of certain republics in Africa, it is clear to us that it is much more natural for them to associate themselves with other states than with the White Western states of the Commonwealth. When we have regard to the republics in the Far East, it is clear that they also will find it much more natural to associate themselves with other powers than with the Western Powers of the Commonwealth. But the Republic of South Africa from the very nature of the case, will always find its natural association—as long as the character of the Commonwealth remains as it is—with the Western Powers which to-day are members of the Commonwealth. For that reason we will find, after having become a republic, and once it is known that the republic is a member of the Commonwealth, that for the first time there is a republic in the Commonwealth which will benefit by remaining in the Commonwealth, as long as it does not change its present character.

But also in the economic sphere South Africa is of great value to the Commonwealth. We know that we are Britain’s fifth biggest customer. We annually purchase goods to the value of not less than £160,000,000 from Britain, which provides a living for 500,000 people in Britain. Now, will South Africa be forced out of the Commonwealth against its will and desire? If that were to happen, anything might happen in regard to the South African market for British export goods. It is quite clear that the goods England sells to us are mostly consumer goods which we can buy anywhere else in the world. For that reason the business men in Britain and the British Government will surely be astute enough to realize that they should not kick out the goose that lays the golden eggs. According to the Reserve Bank, no less than £935,000,000 of capital from the sterling area is invested in the Union. Of this, £865,000,000 comes from Britain alone. These are very large sums of money. Now can you imagine how anxious—for whatever reason —those investors will feel if South Africa should be forced out of the Commonwealth? The investors of all those millions of pounds will feel much happier about their investments if South Africa is a member of the Commonwealth. Now, if we say that we want to remain a member of the Commonwealth, if we give that assurance, do you think that the people who have invested so many millions in this country will allow some little country to dictate to them that South Africa should be kicked out? No, Sir, I have no doubt that we will remain a member of the Commonwealth. Furthermore, as a country which produces more than 50 per cent of the free world’s gold, the republic of South Africa will in future be in a unique position. The whole of the sterling area, including Britain, in the past and even to-day, benefits enormously from our gold production, and Britain will surely not easily be forced into the position where she is deprived of it. But we also have other examples. We know, e.g., what the attitude of other countries is, according to their Press. We know that Mr. Robert Menzies, the Prime Minister of Australia, stated with reference to South Africa’s colour policy in the beginning of last year that—

On his arrival in London for the Commonwealth Conference, according to a Sapa-Reuter report, he again said the following—

What did the Prime Minister of Canada say? When the Canadian Labour Party Congress insisted that South Africa should be kicked out of the Commonwealth, the Prime Minister, Mr. John Diefenbaker, replied that his Government found that request “most unacceptable”. I want to read part of the report—

A further report, which appeared in the Vaderland, read as follows—

But, Sir, we go further and see what the Prime Minister of Great Britain himself said. The British Prime Minister, according to a Sapa report, said the following in London—

These words and this assurance were sufficient guarantee to this side of the House and to the republicans that we would be allowed to remain a member of the Commonwealth, but of course, Mr. Speaker, no guarantee on earth can satisfy an outspoken anti-republican in that regard. I am grateful that there were so many people in South Africa who were prepared to accept these guarantees, with the result that we have a very good chance of remaining a member of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Defence, who has just sat down, has made a very excellent case for South Africa remaining a member of the Commonwealth. I can tell him that he has the support of this side of the House in making that case. Why then, I ask him, jeopardize South Africa’s position in the Commonwealth by insisting on this legislation being passed? Let him use his influence in that direction.

I am afraid you are asking me to break down and not to build up.

I realize I am asking the hon. the Minister too much. I accept that the hon. gentleman is sincere about his wish that there should be unity, but again I ask him, why not persuade his side of the House to delay the passing of this Bill, to ensure that that unity can be maintained? Why this haste? You see, Sir, both this hon. gentleman and the hon. the Minister of Finance find it quite convenient to overlook that 775,000 good South Africans, by their vote, have indicated that they do not want any change in our constitutional status. And the vote of those 775,000 voters is a mandate to this side of the House to resist, with all the powers at its command, the passing of this legislation. But when we do our duty in that regard, we receive only scorn from the Government side of the House; 775,000 good South Africans also want unity in this country. The only thing is that they want unity under our existing constitutional status.

We could not get that in the last 50 years so we must try something else.

They want to continue with unity under our existing constitutional status.

I wish to emphasize, having regard to what I have just said, that it is not the form but the nature of the government of a country that is all important to the outside observer. I would remind this hon. House that a Mussolini, for example, was able to create a Fascist régime within the constitutional structure of the Kingdom of Italy. That example has a rather familiar ring here. For who can deny that the nature of the Government of this country has changed fundamentally over the past decade, whilst the form of our constitution has remained outwardly unchanged?

Order! The hon. member had better come back to the Bill.

I will respect your ruling, Sir, and I am just about to indicate that having made that change this Government is now set upon changing the form of the Constitution as well. Judged by any standards I say it is wrong to try and settle legislation of this important nature in a single session of Parliament. Having regard to what has been said on this side of the House, this to me will truly be a case of legislating in haste and repenting at leisure.

The framing of the Act of Union is a very good example of the time and care that is needed to produce a well considered constitutional measure. I will briefly outline what happened. The National Convention sat almost continuously from the middle of October 1908 to early in February 1909, to produce a first draft of the Constitution. That draft then went to the four Colonial Governments and Colonial Parliaments for consideration. After it had been returned with suggestions, it was again considered by a National Convention which produced a final draft in May 1909. Only thereafter did that draft go to the British Government, and did it ultimately emerge as an Act of the British Parliament on 20 September 1909. Now, I say, why this haste? I ask the hon. the Prime Minister, why this haste? Comparing what happened then with what is happening now, what do we find? We find care and consideration in the one case, and haste and the weight of a party caucus in the other. It is claimed —and I say with some justification—that this Bill is no more than a re-enactment of the South Africa Act with only one major change, namely, the abolition of the Crown and the substitution of a President for the Governor-General. But that, of course, is not all that is happening. Far more than that is taking place. Let no one be deluded into thinking that this Bill merely puts an end to the Act of Union by abolishing the Crown and all that it has stood for over half a century in our association, and also in our associations with associated nations outside this country. The unhappy fact is that this Bill also symbolizes the failure of the Pact of Union; a solemn pact entered into only some 50 years ago in a spirit of goodwill, compromise and good faith.

I pause here, therefore, to say, quite sincerely, that that failure, the failure of that compact is a sorry beginning for a new constitutional status visualized for this country in this Bill.

Three sections of the old South Africa Act are to remain unrepealed. The first is Section 115 which relates to the rights of advocates and attorneys to practise in our Courts. That will only remain there for a short time. The hon. the Prime Minister has indicated that legislation is soon to be enacted which will also remove it from the Statute Book. The other two are Section 150, which visualized the incorporation into the Union of Southern Rhodesia and Section 151, which provided the Blue Print for the transfer to the Union of the three High Commission Territories, Basutoland, Bechuanaland, and Swaziland. Those two sections are now to stand alone and in splendid isolation in our Statute Book. Divorced as they will be from their context, they will be quite meaningless to future generations, and completely ineffective for the purpose for which they were originally intended. Those two sections are all that remain of the high hopes of the founders of Union that the Union of South Africa would prosper and grow into a Union of Southern Africa. I repeat, therefore, that what we are witnessing here at present is the failure of Union. And those two unrepealed sections of the South Africa Act are the epitaph of that failure. They are also going to be the skeleton in the republican statutory cupboard.

Make a new beginning then.

With a skeleton! I say that this Bill also symbolizes failure in a different direction. The Bill, consisting as it does of a formal set of legal rules, is, admittedly, a constitution in its narrow sense. But in its broad sense, a constitution is the aggregate of the laws and the rules are practised under which the affairs of state are conducted. In other words, a constitution in its broad sense is a combination of those statutes, judicial decisions and precedence that guarantee the liberty of the subject and the freedom of the citizen, politically, economically and in matters relating to religion. Lord Bryce, who the hon. the Prime Minister also quoted, puts it this way. He says—

Hear, hear!

I am glad the hon. member says “hear, hear!” I hope he will agree with this as well. When this Bill is viewed against the mass of ideological legislation passed since 1948, at the instance of this Government, to enforce its apartheid policy—all of which legislation is to stand part of the law of this country—then it is obvious that we are dealing here only with the shadow and not with the substance of a constitution. We are dealing with the shadow and not with the substance of a constitution for the coming republic which, quite aptly has been called a republic of granite.

There is no deed for me to give examples of the encroachments that have been made since 1948 on the liberties and the freedoms of the citizens. Questions already on the Order Paper for this current Session will be indicative to what extent despotic power is being used against citizens of this country; powers which are being used not only in times of emergency but more or less continuously. The hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), in a recent speech, gave testimony about that—and he should know. Therefore, I say, it is this wider foundation of legislation, and not merely the formal legal set of rules which we have before us in this Bill, that will constitute the Constitution of this new republic. In those circumstances let no one make any mistake about it; the coming republic, based as it is on so slender a majority of the Whites alone, may well be likened to a house built on sand. The foundation of racial justice, so essential for stability in a modern multi-racial country, is to have no part in this new Constitution for South Africa. Quite intentionally, and for purely ideological reasons, the Government scorns that essential foundation, and is determined to build a republic regardless. I do not stand alone in saying this. One of South Africa’s greatest sons, Professor B. B. Keet, in discussing a cognate matter in Vertraagde Aksie says the following—

Let me repeat, therefore, a constitution in its broad sense is more than a formal set of legal rules such as we have before us to-day. It is the aggregate of the laws and of the decrees of executive government under which the affairs of the State and its peoples are conducted, and under which the lives of its peoples are being governed. No wonder, therefore, that year by year the need for the introduction of some constitutional safeguards to protect the individual and the community, and to curb the powers of the legislative and of the executive, has been growing. Constitutional safeguards which were quite unknown and quite unnecessary in the political climate of 1910 have now become of the essence if sane government and benevolent rule is to be restored in South Africa.

I now come to the contents of the Bill itself. I wish to concentrate on one basic constitutional principle which is enshrined in the South Africa Act but which is noticeable for its absence in this Bill. Mr. Speaker, although I will refer to specific matters in the existing laws and to matters either in or not in this Bill, my argument will relate to principles and not to details. I wish to discuss the position to which our Courts are being relegated in this Bill.

The hon. the Prime Minister did draw attention to Part VIII of the Bill and mentioned that reference to the Courts would be found in that part. He used the word “verwysing ”. I think he said “waar daar verwysing is na die Howe where there is reference to the Courts. I intend to examine the effect of that reference and to see what it really means. As I have already said, in contrast to this Bill, the South Africa Act quite clearly and specifically gives recognition to what is conventionally known as the three-fold division of the functions of government. The preamble to that Act deliberately declares one of the objects of the Act of Union to be this—

Those words are meaningful words, as I will endeavour to show, and they have often been quoted both inside and outside this House. I am well aware that neither here, nor for that matter, in Great Britain, is the division of functions rigidly defined. But the doctrine of the separation of powers has always been basic in the theory and the practise of constitutional government, both here and in Great Britain. The chief value of that doctrine has always been this: It emphasizes the essential need of having such a division of functions to preserve a balance of power in order, firstly, to protect the subject and, secondly, to prevent any abuse of authority in the hands of government in a democratic state. Secondly, it stresses the need for the preservation of an independent Judiciary, not merely as a separate branch of government but as an essential organ of the Constitution. That doctrine is respected in Great Britain, especially in respect of the Judiciary. The doctrine has also been respected in our Constitution thus far; and in my view it should be equally respected and enshrined in the Constitution with which we are now dealing. What the doctrine of the separation of powers really means is that if one wishes to preserve a balance of power in a state, one effective means of doing so is not to concentrate the exercise of powers in any one organ of the Constitution, but to ensure that the exercise of powers is divided amongst those three great institutions which are our heritage; the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary.

I say, therefore, with all the emphasis I can command, that the foundation of the coming republic will be the weaker, and the administration of justice will be the poorer, unless the safeguards inherent in the principle of the separation of powers is given definite recognition and is enshrined in this Bill. And secondly, that the principle is strictly observed under the republican regime which this Bill intends to establish. Sir, I say, with equal emphasis, that the omission of clear recognition of that principle in this Bill is a retrograde constitutional step. I also say that it is a breach of the undertaking given by the hon. the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government, that constitutional and legal principles in the South Africa Act would be preserved and re-enacted. The hon. the Prime Minister confirmed that statement yesterday when he said “Die Wetsontwerp is gebaseer op die Z.A. Wet soos beloof was”. I say that if that undertaking is to be honoured it is essential that the preamble to this Bill should make suitable provision for the recognition of the principle of a three-fold division of functions.

I come then to the provisions of Part VIII of the Bill, and looking at the provisions of that part, I say they lend force to my argument. Sir the title or heading of that part is now “the Administration of Justice” instead of as it was in the South Africa Act, “The Supreme Court of South Africa That change, I think, is not only inappropriate, but I think the need for such a change is also questionable.

Is that not a matter for the Select Committee?

I hope the Select Committee will deal with it, most assuredly, but an important principle is involved and this is the place to make the point. Clause 107 reads as follows: “The administration of justice throughout the Republic shall be under the control of the Minister of Justice”. Now I am well aware that the choice of words comes from Section 139 of the South Africa Act, as amended in 1926. But a number of words have been omitted and in my view an entirely new principle appears to be contained in this new Clause 107. For purposes of the record I will read Section 139—

The words which have been omitted are “in whom shall be vested all powers, authorities and functions which shall at the establishment of Union be vested in the Attorneys-General of the colonies ”. That was a definite limitation of the word “control” and has always been understood for 50 years as vesting the power of prosecution in a Minister of the Crown. As the clause now reads, it goes far beyond the principle of vesting in a Minister of State the power and the right to institute or to decline to institute prosecutions. The question is how far does that principle go beyond what I have just stated? It certainly appears to place the principle of the independence of the judiciary in jeopardy because the clause, if it means what it says, clearly gives the Executive, through the Minister of Justice, control over the administration of justice in the Courts. In other words, the Courts will be at the mercy of the Executive. I pose the question: How far will that control be taken in practice? The short Oxford dictionary defines “control” as meaning “power of directing, commanding or restraining ”. I ask the hon. gentleman, therefore, whether that power will be used to direct what the judgement of the Court shall be? Or will it go so far as to restrain a Judge from giving judgement he thinks fit?

Naturally that is not the intention.

I am glad to have the assurance from the Prime Minister, but it is not sufficient for the Prime Minister to say so.

I have gone into this point very carefully.

It is necessary that the Court should also be able to say so. I am reminded that there was a contemptuous reference at one time from the Benches opposite to six old men in the Appellate Division, but I accept the assurance of the Prime Minister that he will go into the matter and therefore I will take this aspect of the matter no further. I hope however that what I have said will make quite clear what the dangers are that lie ahead of us.

I pass on to Clause 108, where the same trend is noticeable. If the clause is passed in its present form, then the Supreme Court will cease to be an organ of the Constitution and will be reduced to a statutory body. It will be a creature of statute, no different from the inferior courts of the country and from certain specialized courts set up under Acts of Parliament. I hope no one will argue that the Republican Parliament and the Republican Executive, which are to be created under this Bill, will also be statutory bodies. I will be interested to hear that argument used, because it would of course be an admission that the Bill before us is just another piece of legislation; one that is not to be clothed with the sanctity of a written constitution, but one that can be repealed and replaced at any time by another pious bit of printing at the will of the party caucus. But I am assuming that the Bill, when passed, will not be just another law, and that it will be one which, to quote from Steyn’s “Die Uitleg van die Wette ”, may be described as “’n publieke wet met ’n meer plegtige strekking, soos ons Grondwet ”. If that is so. then Parliament and the Executive will clearly be organs of the Constitution, as they must be. Sir this is not the place to go into legal argument, because Parliament is acting in its legislative capacity at present, but I say with emphasis that a heavy duty rests on Parliament in that capacity to word this clause so that it will contain those elements of fundamental law which are essential to constitutional government. I hope, therefore, that the hon. the Prime Minister will bear that in mind, because one of the essential elements is the independence of the judiciary in a three-fold division of the functions of government. I say that Clauses 107 and 108, as they now read, will reduce the Courts to statutory bodies as opposed to constitutional organs of government, and they will leave the Courts at the mercy of the Executive. The point I make is not only academic; it is a very practical matter, because the truly operative words in Clause 108 as it stands now are that the Courts provided in the Supreme Court Act of 1959 “shall have jurisdiction as specified in the said Act ”. That is a very distinct limitation of jurisdiction, and the danger is that the Supreme Court will not be able to discharge its customary powers and jurisdiction as a constitutional court, which is something quite different from a statutory court. I ask then whether the Courts will be able to exercise their inherent jurisdictions in future.

I personally doubt that, if the wording of the clause is to stand as it is now. I ask whether these Courts, e.g., would be able to entertain habeas corpus application, which is not mentioned in the Statute. You see, Sir, it is trite law that a statutory body can do only what the Statute entitles it to do, and it can do nothing that the Statute prohibits or is silent about. I also ask, therefore, whether many other of the powers under the inherent jurisdiction will still be able to be exercised by this Court. These matters are not purely academic. Moreover the legislation as it stands to-day does place in jeopardy the independence of the judiciary in this new Constitution. I conclude therefore by saying that if the hon. the Prime Minister is serious I hope he will support my plea to place the independence of the judiciary beyond question in this Constitution, and to ensure that the Supreme Court will be empowered to administer justice in the same manner as has been customary up to this stage.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down, has raised a very important matter. I cannot argue with him on the legal aspects which he has mentioned, but if his argument has substance, it is a matter which should be investigated. After a cursory reading of the provision, I think that he is misinterpreting it. I am sure that that is not the intention of the legislation nor do I believe that such an inference can be drawn, but if that is the position, it is a matter which requires consideration and which should be investigated, but it is a matter which should not be discussed here across the floor of the House, but first by experts.

He has however touched upon one or two political matters to which I wish to refer. The first is that the will of the minority should be decisive. This is one of the strangest political arguments I have ever heard in a democratic country. The hon. member rose and said that, after the crushing defeat they had suffered, they should still have the final say. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) also spoke along those lines, and they have referred contemptuously to the majority of 75,000. This is not a small majority when we take into account the total number of voters. On the contrary, it is a majority which hon. members opposite thought could not possibly be achieved, and many on our side doubted whether such a large majority would be achieved. But on an electorate of approximately I,500,000, a majority of 75,000 is certainly not small. If we express that majority in terms of the number of voters in America, and if we examine what that majority would be expressed proportionately, and compare it with the figures relating to the latest presidential election, we can make our own deductions.

Then the hon. member said something else to which I want to reply. It is that for 50 years they were contented under this Constitution, and now all of a sudden the Constitution has to be changed. Can he give me any other reason for this change in attitude, except that they can no longer force their will on the people? Is there any other reason why the Constitution should now be changed? The Constitution has given us good service. In essence it is being retained to-day as it has stood since 1910 and there is no reason why we need make changes in the Constitution which has rendered us such good service.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to; debate adjourned until I February.