Mr. Speaker, may I now move the contingent Notice of Motion standing in my name as printed—

The reason for this is that the Joint Select Committee has decided to add something to the Constitution Bill. You, Mr. Speaker, have given the ruling you gave yesterday. By adopting this motion it does not mean that the National Anthem is already being accepted, but it becomes possible to insert this particular clause in the Constitution Bill, to be dealt with by the Committee of the Whole House. Hon. members will then be able conveniently to submit any opinions that they have in Committee. This is therefore simply an authorization to insert this clause in the Constitution Bill for consideration by the Committee. In view of the fact that the Joint Select Committee unanimously decided to insert it, I hope that there will be no objection to it.

I second.

Mr. Chairman, before proceeding with the consideration of the clauses, may I just inform you that, in consonance with previous practice, it is my intention to ask the hon. the Minister of the Interior to guide the Bill through the Committee Stage on my behalf. I would have asked the Chairman of the Joint Committee, Mr. Sauer, to do so if he had been available, but in view of the fact that he is not available I think it is desirable that someone who was in fact a member of the Joint Committee should pilot the Bill through the Committee Stage. In my opinion the hon. the Minister of the Interior, whose activities are naturally concerned with this matter and who was also a member of the Joint Committee, is the most suitable person. I just wanted to make this statement.

On Clause 1,

Mr. Chairman, this Clause 1 embraces the principle of the Bill, namely, that South Africa should be converted into a republic, a principle which this House accepted at the second reading of the Bill. Now we opposed that principle at the second reading, inter alia, on the ground that there was no assurance, no guarantee, that this republic would be a member of the Commonwealth. Secondly, we opposed it on the ground that there was no provision in this Bill providing for safeguards which would make possible, inter alia, something in the nature of a racial federation which we see as the future development for South Africa. In fact, Sir, the very fact that this Bill was introduced at a separate sitting of this House and not a joint sitting made it clear that there were no means by which guarantees, safeguards, entrenchments could be written into the Bill.

At the Joint Select Committee, on this very issue a motion was moved that Clause 114, and certain other matters, should be entrenched. That was a motion which naturally required an instruction. That instruction to the Whole House was voted down, leaving no doubt whatever that the Government was not prepared to consider any entrenchments in this Bill other than those that already existed under the old South Africa Act, and which are not affected either one way or the other in so far as this Bill is concerned. That means we have been left in no doubt at all as to what the Government’s approach is. But I do want to say this, that in other respects I believe that the Joint Select Committee did good work, and while we shall oppose this clause to register our opposition to this legislation at this time and in these circumstances, I do want to make it clear that whether South Africa becomes a republic or does not become a republic, I myself and we on this side of the House are staying in South Africa. We are living here and we are going to live under this law whether it is an effective constitution or not. We are going to work to change it. We are going to work to make it a really acceptable law for the country to live under. Therefore, so far as we can, we are not going to oppose unnecessarily the other clauses of this legislation, more especially those which have been agreed by the Joint Select Committee so far asi it is possible, because if we are to have a republic then let it be a good republic and let it be a good law under which everybody can live in South Africa. If new principles are introduced, unlike those agreed on by the Joint Select Committee, that is of course a different proposition, and the Minister in charge, as well as the Prime Minister, can expect there to be opposition of a very determined kind.

Now as to this clause, may I say that our opposition to it is strengthened by the fact that what amounted to doubts, what amounted to mere suspicions or fears at the time of the second reading have become realities because of the action of the hon. the Prime Minister in withdrawing the application of South Africa for continued membership of the Commonwealth. It has now been proved only too clearly that with the acceptance of this clause and of this Bill, one is voting not only for South Africa to become a republic but also for the final withdrawal of South Africa from the Commonwealth of 31 May. This side of the House has¡ made it very clear that we believe that membership is something worth preserving and maintaining if it was humanly possible. We have indicated our dissatisfaction with the activities of the hon. the Prime Minister in that regard. But what is happening now is that once this clause is approved then, except for the third reading, we have no further chance of voicing our opposition, and I can assure the Prime Minister that we shall use that occasion to oppose this Bill. At the third reading South Africa will be launched on uncharted seas and be left in a very friendless world indeed. We do not believe that this is a risk which should be taken at this time. We wonder whether hon. members opposite realize what the price is that they are paying for the step which they are asking us to approve to-day.

What price are you prepared to pay?

What a stupid interjection. The tragedy of those hon. members over there is that they have never taken the trouble to find out what that price is. They know so little about the price that they believe that the world will continue just as it was before.

Why do you not tell us?

If I had an hour I could tell you, but I have only ten minutes. I do not believe that the constitution before us is one which will last. I believe that certain fundamental changes will have to be made in it. They are not competent in Committee because they would all require instructions and the Government has already indicated what its approach is, in that regard. I say therefore with all the force at my command that this is a sad day that we have to be asked to approve a clause which means South Africa’s final withdrawal from the Commonwealth on 31 May, which means our isolation as never before and our friendlessness in the world as we have never experienced before. For that reason we on this side of the House will vote against this clause and divide the House.

Mr. Chairman, I immediately want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and to express my thanks and appreciation for the work done by the Select Committee. I would like to say—and that fits in with the first clause—that all members of the Select Committee co-operated very heartily and that a supreme effort was made on all sides to give South Africa the best possible constitution if it should become a republic. I hope that that spirit will continue, because that is the great task with which we are faced. The lack of realism on the part of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in opposing this first clause is significant. It is just as if there is no realization that South Africa inevitably had to become a republic. That tree of freedom sprang up in the national garden; it was not planted. Through the years attempts were made to stunt its growth and to let it wither and die through lack of water. Sometimes attempts were made, on the other hand, to keep the ideal of a republic alive in the four provinces of South Africa, to water it, to tend it and to let it grow, but the lack of realism on the part of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition amounts to this, that he does not realize that he has come up against a huge tree the roots of which are deeply embedded in the soil of South Africa, and that by blowing off steam and scaremongering and putting up bogies, he is now making a futile attempt to uproot this great tree. The republicanism which becomes a fait accompli in terms of Clause I did not just grow up on sand here. Three hundred and nine years ago to-day, on 6 April, when the first White man landed here, marked the beginning of White civilization in South Africa and at that moment a separate nation with separate ideals and its own destiny was born. That is what hon. members opposite are commemorating to-day, just as we are. The attempts made to remain in the Commonwealth, which failed as the result of events beyond our control, in spite of everything that was done to prevent it, which resulted in something which does not meet with the approval of the Leader of the Opposition, are now made use of in order to arouse fears as far as the republic is concerned. In view of the fact that South Africa is continuing along this road it is a pity that the world cannot be shown that we are unanimous, and even hon. members opposite, who want as little to do with a monarchy as hon. members on this side—hon. members opposite who call themselves the Commonwealth Party—want to deny to South Africa an ideal and a necessity. The right this country has to develop on its own along its traditional lines must now be denied it. Therefore we on this side want to say this. It is no use making an appeal, but we must go on, and the tree which was so downtrodden will continue to grow, and it stands with its roots deep in the soil and it will spread out its branches so as to give all the Whites and all the other groups in the country the necessary shelter and protection.

Like the hon. members on our right, we of this party will oppose this clause. We shall do so in conformity with the attitude we took up on the first and second readings of this Bill and the attitude we have taken up on this question ever since we came into existence as a party. Just in order that we may have the root causes for our opposition on record, I want to refer briefly to the policy declaration made by this party at its Foundation Congress in 1959, the relevant part of which reads as follows—

That is the attitude we adopted nearly two years ago and from which we have not departed. It is interesting that in the course of time these two points we then made, the need for the reform of the South African Constitution and institutions and the need for membership of the Commonwealth, should have become as closely intertwined as they have. It has become more obvious than we realized then that membership of the Commonwealth in fact depended also on the necessary reforms which had to be made in South Africa. During the referendum campaign of 1960 we, like the hon. members on my right, warned that there was a danger that South Africa might lose her Commonwealth membership, and we said that the reason for it would not be republicanism but the opportunity that becoming a republic would present for an attack on our internal policy. Therefore these two conditions which were laid down so long ago and to which we have adhered so strictly not having been met, we have every reason to oppose this legislation at every stage in this House, and we oppose this clause now.

Both hon. members who have spoken have referred to the need to get the best possible constitution for the Republic of South Africa. I think they should be congratulated for having said that. We said at an earlier stage from these benches that the Government did on 5 October get a mandate from the voters in favour of a republic, and we accepted that it was inevitable that the Government would proceed to establish a republic. We in this corner of the House see it as our duty to do everything we can to make it the best republic we can possibly have. For that reason we moved in the earlier stages of the Bill constitutional reforms which, had they been accepted, would have made it most unlikely that South Africa would have had to withdraw from the Commonwealth. At this stage, within the limits of what can be done in the Committee Stage, we shall do the same again. We shall raise our objections wherever it is necessary to do so because we believe that those clauses are in conflict with the reforms which are urgently needed if South Africans are to be able to face their own consciences and to face the civilized world. While these particular provisions which we find specially objectionable are not contained in this clause, this is the operative clause of the Bill which embraces them and which has had its second reading. We oppose this not out of devotion to a monarchial form of government, but because this is the operative clause which will bring into being the wrong republic and not the right one. These have been the grounds of our objection all along, and they are still the grounds of our objection.

Before I sit down I cannot resist reacting to an argument used by the hon. the Minister of the Interior. He accused the Leader of the Opposition of political unrealism because he said that the Leader of the Opposition was now pitting himself against a political force— he called it a “ reuse boom ”—which could not be checked. In the first instance, I would hesitate to argue that it is always unrealistic in politics to resist force majeure. I think the Minister’s argument leads one to the dangerous conclusion that might is necessarily right, but that is not the point I want to make. If the hon. the Minister believes in this sort of argument, and if he believes that political realism should compel one to bow before great force, then the Minister and his Government would do well to look to themselves and to look to the type of constitution they are drawing up for South Africa. They are not merely moving against the force of the whole civilized world and against the opinion of their colleagues in the Commonwealth, but far more important, they are moving against those standards of government and that way of life which we call Western civilization in which all of us in this House have been raised. They are doing it by the provisions which discriminate racially against citizens of the republic and in doing that, if there is any group of people in this country who are to-day setting themselves up against the force that cannot be resisted, it is the Minister and the gentlemen sitting with him. In opposing this clause and these features in the constitution which give it the character to which I have referred, I suggest it is this side of the House rather than that which in the long run has the irresistible force on its side.

I regret that the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) is out of the country at the moment and cannot therefore lead the debate on behalf of our group on this clause and on the Bill. We intend to vote against the Bill and the clause, because this Government has refused deliberately and with a certain amount of contempt to recognize the rightful aspirations and the legal rights of the Coloured people as first-class citizens of this country. There is nothing in this constitution, which is a very important document, perhaps the most important piece of legislation which this House has ever been asked to consider, dealing with them. There is a vacuum, and something has been left out in regard to full South African citizens, the Coloured people. This constitution is a hollow mockery of democratic principles …

Order! The hon. member must come back to Clause 1.

We are establishing a republic on a certain basis, and I say that the establishment of the republic is a hollow mockery of the democratic principles which the Government allege they practice. They are no more democratic than I am a Fascist, and the Coloured people in whose name I speak to-day repudiate the right of this Government to establish a republic on the basis that they have no say as first-class citizens of the country in the establishment of the republic. I do not deny the aspirations of the Government or of the Nationalist Party in reaching this final goal, the republic they so keenly desire. I do not deny them that right and I do not quarrel with them for having attained their goal, but they attained it in a manner which can bring no glory to the Afrikaner nation because they deliberately brought in legislation in the past to make it impossible for certain citizens of this country to take part in the establishment of something which they might have wanted. This republic will go down in history as a one-sided republic and it will never find a warm place in the hearts of the Coloured people because they had no say in it, and on their behalf I emphatically protest against this clause.

I have already on a previous occasion explained that the reason for our expulsion from the Commonwealth was not the fact that we had become a republic, but because of our racial policy. Consequently I have adopted the attitude, which I am again adopting to-day, that this is a purely domestic matter and I want to deal with it as such. Before the referendum in regard to a republic was held in October last year, those of us who belonged to other republican parties than the Nationalist Party or who were republicans outside the Nationalist Party, supported the republic on condition, inter alia, that the governing party would not use the occasion of our becoming a republic to effect material changes to the constitution in other respects. Not that I for one moment thought that the South Africa Act was perfect or without any serious defects, but there was a real and well-founded lack of confidence in the type of republic which the Government had propagated previously. In other words, we were in favour of becoming a republic but as democrats we had a real fear as regards the nature of the republic which had for years been the ideal envisaged by influential circles within the Nationalist Party and especially by the Prime Minister. I do not want to go too deeply into that and to rake up old stories. It is well known that there is an influential group within the Nationalist Party which harbours republican ideas which in essence are so undemocratic that opposition is even developing against them within the Nationalist Party. For these reasons those of us who were republicans but who were outside the Nationalist Party wanted the assurance at the time the referendum was held that the Government would not use the occasion of our becoming a republic to carry out other radical political changes. The Government gave that assurance, perhaps not so much because it wanted to, but because it realized that if it did not give those assurances it would not obtain a majority in favour of a republic. The results of the recent election in South West Africa have clearly shown that the governing party has fared considerably worse than only five months previously on the question of the republic. [Interjections.] It was clearly proved that there was a large number of people in the country who had voted in favour of a republic but who were not members of the Nationalist Party or supporters of their general policy, and that party knew it and I say that that was the reason why the Government gave that assurance, not because it wanted to do so but because it realized that if it did not it would not obtain a majority in favour of a republic. That is why we have a Bill before us to-day which in essence does not differ from the South Africa Act, except in so far as it provides for our becoming a republic. In the circumstances and because that condition has been fulfilled, I will vote for Clause 1 and support the other clauses, not so much because I think the other clauses are satisfactory. There are many changes that can be effected to the constitution. For example, I should have liked to see the Coloured people allowed to elect their own representatives to Parliament. However, I will not use this opportunity to ask for that, but accept the Bill as it stands.

This is the operative clause of the Bill and one on which I am not prepared to give a silent vote. If accepted, this clause will enable South Africa to be transformed from a monarchy to a republic, and I want to ask the Committee to bear in mind the circumstances in which we are asked to do that.

Before I come to that. I would like to confirm what the hon. the Minister of the Interior said about the work of the Select Committee. I served on that Select Committee for a time and I found very happy co-operation under the chairmanship of the Minister of Lands and from every member of the committee. I think there was a realization amongst the members of the Committee that the republic was inevitable and there was an attempt, within the limits of parliamentary procedure, to produce a Bill which would be worthy of the Constitution. I say within the limits of parliamentary procedure because there is a great deal that one would have liked to incorporate, but because of the principles which had been accepted at the second reading nothing further could be done about it. Sir, I had to leave that Select Committee. I resigned from it, and I would like to have it on record in this House because there is no record of it in the report of the Select Committee. I resigned when the announcement came that the hon. the Prime Minister had withdrawn our application for continued membership of the Commonwealth. When that announcement came the whole situation changed almost overnight and we had the situation with which we are faced at present, and which was sketched by the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for Maitland (Dr. de Beer). What is the position? There is no doubt whatever that the vast bulk of the voters of South Africa, apart from those who are not voters, were led to believe that the republic which would come into being would be within the Commonwealth. We are now to be out, but as if that is not enough, what did we have from the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister is asking us to vote for this clause simultaneously with the announcement he made to the exultant crowds which met him on his arrival at the airport on his return from London when he said—

And in a revealing moment the hon. the Prime Minister told the people there that the only reason why he and certain of those in the inner councils of the Nationalist Party were prepared to ask for our continued membership of the Commonwealth was that that was to be a concession to the sentiments of the English-speaking people in South Africa. When the Prime Minister found, because of the inevitable result of the race policies of this Government, that he could no longer press his application for membership, what did he say? What does he say to Afrikaans-speaking South Africans who love this country and who fear for our future and who feel that our future is bound up inextricably with that great protective umbrella of the Commonwealth? What does he say to them? He says: “This is a happy day, a miracle; a Higher Hand has enabled us to get what we wanted all along.” Did the Prime Minister go over to London with his tongue in his cheek; is that the spirit in which he went over to keep us in the Commonwealth? He should tell us this afternoon. He is asking us now to vote for this clause to transform our Constitution from a monarchy to a republic on the basis that this is a triumph—a triumph for whom? A triumph for English-speaking South Africa; a triumph for Afrikaans-speaking South Africa; or a triumph for an inner clique of the Nationalist Party?

A triumph for the whole nation.

The hon. member says it is a triumph for the whole of South Africa— a triumph, Sir, that we are not only isolated from the Commonwealth but isolated from the rest of the civilized world, a triumph that our friends are now inevitably having to turn and vote against us at UN. Is this a triumph? Sir, this is not the triumph I am going to vote for. This to me is a disaster for South Africa, and that is why I shall vote against this clause.

I do not want this bit of propaganda to be made in the country without replying to it, because all it is is propaganda. When I arrived here from abroad, I did say that what had happened was a miracle, but it should be clearly understood what miracle I was referring to. It is this: Nobody would have believed it if anyone had said six months ago that South Africa would become a republic outside the Commonwealth and that in spite of it the friendship between South Africa and Britain would be preserved; that the British Government would itself agree that that was the wisest solution of the problems on both sides, and further, that in South Africa, from all sections of the population, Afrikaans- and English-speaking, there would be a great measure of unanimity in regard to the establishment of the republic outside the Commonwealth; in other words, that such a tremendous change could be brought about in a peaceful atmosphere was what I called a miracle.

On a point of order, is the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) entitled to say: “ He is an old twister ”?

Did the hon. member for Green Point say that?

I did not say “old”; I said “twister

The hon. member must withdraw it.

Shame!

I withdraw it.

That is what I called a miracle in the first place. Then, secondly, we have now been fighting for years that people in South Africa should understand that the fight we are putting up is a human fight, a fight for the continued existence of the rights of the Whites as well as those of the non-Whites. This idea that co-operation and confidence in our humanity is basic to our continued existence, whether we are a monarchy of a republic, has never before been as clear as it has become through the incidents at this Conference of Prime Ministers. It unified us as a nation to a greater extent. In other words, South Africa’s chances of escaping from the racial struggle between the language groups in our fatherland have never been better than they are at present, and it should happen in the hour when we are becoming a republic outside the Commonwealth! I said that was something to feel grateful for; all of that is a miracle—the unity of the nation, the possibility of having mutual friendship between our countries, as the very result of the greatest change that can take place in our Constitution. Humanly speaking, that could never have been expected. I, therefore, said that this was more than we could have thought humanly possible to bring about and, therefore, I also added that man proposes—we were seeking to achieve a certain object—but God disposes. Unity and friendship are being established in our country in a different way from what we had imagined and we are setting an example to the world of which it will certainly have to take note to an increasing extent.

Of course I find myself in an extraordinary position here, but I feel that the dangers threatening South Africa to-day are so important and so great that I certainly do not want to start a constitutional quarrel or participate therein in the light of what is facing South Africa. I believe that if ever there was a time when both the Opposition and the Government should get away from the spirit we had in the past and have here again to-day, it is now. Mr. Chairman, a nation which relinquishes in the face of adversity and opposition an ideal which it has cherished for many years and which has been its inspiration is not worthy to continue to exist. I personally, just like anyone else, would have welcomed it if this great ideal of the Afrikaner could have been realized under circumstances other than those obtaining to-day. I would have liked to see this ideal being realized, as we all expected it to be, within the Commonwealth, which I regarded as the one pillar on which we could build real national unity, but that could not be done and we are faced with the inexorable fact that we must accept that position, and it is no use quarrelling about it now, as has again happened here to-day. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition still wants to put obstacles in the way of the realization of this ideal of becoming a republic, and I deplore the fact that he still tries to do so at this stage. In my opinion, the people clearly expressed their desire that South Africa should become a republic …

Inside the Commonwealth.

… inside or outside the Commonwealth. All of us hoped that it would be inside the Commonwealth but I am prepared to be honest about the matter. The hon. the Prime Minister never gave an assurance that we would be able to remain in the Commonwealth. On the contrary, he clearly stated that nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of this ideal; that we would become a republic preferably within the Commonwealth, but if that could not be done, then outside it. I think the hon. the Prime Minister was very clear on that point, and it is no use the Leader of the Opposition and others harping on that theme. I again want to issue this challenge to the Leader of the Opposition, or to anyone else there: The reason why we are out of the Commonwealth, the reason why our English-speaking friends and also many of the Afrikaans-speaking people had to give up that ideal of remaining in the Commonwealth, is the fact that they were not prepared to get to the root of the matter. That cause is clear, but time and again they steer clear of it. I would only have respect for him if the Leader of the Opposition said that racial discrimination in South Africa was the reason why the ideals of the English-speaking section in South Africa have already foundered to this extent and in future will still founder even more. The time has arrived when the Leader of the Opposition as well as the Government itself should frankly say whether we stand by racial discrimination in South Africa, yes or no, and hitherto my hon. friends here, just like the Government in the past, have stood for racial discrimination. It does not help us to discuss matters which are not really relevant. Whether the monarchy continued, or whether we become a republic, as long as we in this country do not adopt a different policy in regard to race relations, we will lose not only our membership of the Commonwealth, but possibly also many other things in future.

I feel that I would be allowing a very great opportunity to pass, something in regard to which many people in the country would probably be disappointed, if on this occasion I did not express the appreciation of everyone who believes in the omnipotence and guidance of Almighty God for the fact that this clause has been retained in our constitution. Mr. Chairman, I think that if one day the history of the people of South Africa is written down fully and with a view to this avowal of faith, we ourselves will be surprised to see on how many occasions in the darkest hours of trial in the history of the people this was the only source of its deliverance—its faith that nothing happens by chance but that everything happens according to the will of an all-wise and almighty God. As we all know, the Republic of South Africa will be born in a world which is dark and unsympathetic and we do not always know what awaits us in the future, but the import of these words is that that assurance we had in the past, that although a nation is small and although the whole world is against it, if it continues in humility and in sincere faith and believes in the will of God, then it has in God an ally which is stronger than all its opponents, and then it can continue with that faith and the classic expression of faith in its heart which was so beautifully expressed in the words of Paul: If God is for us, who can be against us? We are glad that this clause is being retained, and if we build on that foundation, the future of our nation will be safe and assured.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I move—

That the following be a new clause to follow Clause 5:

6. The National Anthem of the republic shall be “ Die Stem van Suid-Afrika ”.

Agreed to.

I wish to move an amendment to sub-section (2) which seeks to change the designation of Clerk of the House to Secretary. The amendment which I wish to move is that the word “ Clerk ” shall replace the word “ Secretary ” as proposed in the amending Bill. In other words, I wish to retain the title “ Clerk of the House ”. Sir, I make this plea for several reasons. In the first instance I think it is a pity that we have not full details before us as to why the Select Committee wished to recommend that the title be changed to “ Secretary ”. However, I gather that there was a feeling that the term “ Clerk ” in some way or another was slightly derogatory to the incumbent of this post. In other words, it may have been felt that “ Clerk ” could be equated in some way with bank clerk or a clerk in business. I wish to point out, however, that any such conception is entirely wrong. It is not simply the word “ Clerk ” that has to be taken into consideration in considering the term “ Clerk of the House ”, which is the term that has been used for this highly responsible post ever since Union. We in our country in this regard took over this title from the tradition which had been developed in the Mother of Parliaments at Westminster. The term “ Clerk of the House ” taken as a whole phrase is one that is honoured in parliamentary tradition. Its meaning is fully understood. There is no other term in the English language which fits this post better than the term “ Clerk of the House ”. I feel that to make a change now would be to put a false designation on this post.

Do you like the term “ Klerk van die Huis ”?

I am talking about the English text. I am not competent to speak about the emotional or the linguistic reactions in regard to the term as far as Afrikaans is concerned. With my limited knowledge of Afrikaans I would say that “ Klerk van die Huis ” is a perfectly honourable term which is well understood in this country, but I could not be dogmatic in that regard. I am pleading for the retention of the term “ Clerk of the House”! If it is felt that a slightly different term should be used in Afrikaans I still do not think it affects my argument. My plea is for the retention of this title in the English text. It does not follow that it is necessary to have an exact translation. There may be a better equivalent in Afrikaans, and if it is felt by my Afrikaans friends that some other equivalent for “ Clerk of the House ” is better than “ Klerk van die Huis ” I would not quarrel with that. My plea is a very strong plea to retain “ Clerk of the House ”.

Sir, what does the Clerk of the House of Assembly have to do and what does the term mean to most of us who are interested in and concerned about parliamentary procedure? This officer holds a unique position which is unparalleled in any other institution in our land. Not only is he a parliamentary authority of the highest standing, a man who has to be versed in the intricacies of parliamentary procedure, whose knowledge has to be second to none in regard to parliamentary procedure, who also has to have a profound knowledge of constitutional law, but who in addition to that has many other functions to fulfil. He is among other things a friend to the members of this House—almost I might say a father to Parliament, an unofficial friend to whom every member can go in a difficulty and always receive the most sympathetic reception. He has to be not only a friend to members and accessible as he always is, but he is also the executive head of the staff. He is a kind of administrator of this unique institution of Parliament. Sir, there is no other post that I can think of that is comparable. The term “ Secretary of Parliament ” does not convey the same meaning as the term “ Clerk of the House ”. In fact, if you say “ Secretary ” why not “ Secretary-General ” or “ Director of Parliament ” or “ Manager of Parliament ” or even “ Commissioner ” if you like? None of these terms conveys to the average English-speaking person just this meaning of “ Clerk of the House ”.

I think it would be a tragedy to change this term. I say that to anyone who is sensitive about Parliament, who has a knowledge of parliamentary procedure and the history of Parliament, “ Clerk of the House ” is a term which is highly honoured and has taken on a certain meaning. Finally, I feel that here we have a little piece of tradition which has come down from the Mother of Parliaments with the English-speaking community of our land and I beg this House to stick to this tradition. I believe that all of us in building the culture and traditions of South Africa wish that contributions should come from both sides, and here is a contribution to our parliamentary institution which I feel has come from the English side, and I make a very strong appeal, in the face of no valid argument to the contrary, that we should retain this honourable term, “ Clerk of the House ”, which I think has become endeared to all of us. I move—

In order to achieve what the hon. member is seeking, I shall put the amendment proposed by the Joint Committee and the hon. member can then vote against it.

Let me begin by saying that I am also one of those who think that traditions should be honoured. I do not think that I need take a back seat to the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) in my respect for tradition. It evidently suits him today to appeal to tradition, but if he would only examine his past a little he would discover that often in this House and in this Committee on other occasions he has not adhered so strongly to tradition. He must forgive me if I do not reproach him for it today, but only remind him of it. Let me add this also; if we could find a word which is the precise equivalent of the English term, we would like to do so, and that is also what we tried to do. The “ Klerk van die Raad ” or the “ Clerk of the House ” is the Secretary of the House. He is the Registrar, the Mr. Scribe; that is what he does, and we cannot use the word “ klerk ” for it because in Afrikaans the word “ klerk ” does not have the grandiloquent connotation which “ Clerk of the House ” has, even though one puts a “ de ” in front of it and talks about “ de Klerk These are simply the facts of the case and now we must try to reconcile these two extremes. It is a case of give and take.

But when we adhere so strictly to tradition, or if we want to make concessions on both sides, then I must remind the hon. member that there are also other examples of terminology in this constitution. I am thinking, e.g., of the word “ Speaker ”. There is a large number of people in our country to whom “ Speaker ” as a word does not connote the respect which perhaps “ Chairman ” or “ President ” does, and when drafting a constitution which will fit in best with our traditions it means that we take the good things from the one side and the good things from the other side and try to reconcile them with each other. That is what we did here. There is nothing wrong with the English word “ secretary ”. You have a secretary of state; and a secretary of a department; and everyone who can be a “ clerk ” can be a secretary also, and perhaps even more. He can be a friend, he can be a father, he may know all the complexities of constitutional law and also parliamentary procedure, and there is nothing wrong with the dignity of the word “ secretary ”, or anything against the word “ secretary ” such as there is against the word “ Clerk ”. Not that I despise clerks, but I think that when we have a dignified post such as that of “ Clerk of the House ”, we might as well give him an Afrikaans title which has more or less the right connotation. That is what the Select Committee has done. I do not know whether it is against the rules to say so, but there were members of the Select Committee who objected to the word “ secretary ”, and then the point arose as to whether we should have a dispute about it or not. The general opinion was that we should retain the word “ Speaker ”, but that we should get rid of the words “ Clerk of the House ”. That was the line of approach and I again want to plead for it to-day.

Amendment proposed by the Joint Committee in line 16, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

May I just refer to page 9, where the following provision is contained in (7)(b)

In other words, the presiding officer, in this case the Chief Justice or somebody appointed by him in terms of Clause 8, has the right to exercise such a casting vote. The Chief Justice is in my opinion not a member of the electoral college because he is not a Senator or a Member of Parliament. Is there not a better solution to this difficulty? Perhaps it will not happen, but still he is not a member of the electoral college.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause II, as amended by the Joint Committee,

I want to move the following amendment—

It will be seen, Sir, that the effect of what I am moving will make the Chief Justice of the Union of South Africa the first reserve for the position of State President if it should fall temporarily vacant, and the other gentleman mentioned in the clause, as it stands, to follow. I am aware that the Select Committee directed its mind to this clause and I have some idea of the reasons for which it was decided to eliminate the Chief Justice altogether. I imagine that it was felt that by not allowing the Chief Justice under any circumstances whatever to act for the President, you might protect him against ever becoming involved in some type of political crisis. I can understand this argument, but there is another argument which seems to me of greater importance and that is that where we are creating this office of State President and we have chosen a constitutional as opposed to an executive president, that is to say a president whose functions are those of head of state and not those of head of the executive, in other words who will have no political functions, it is extremely important that we should make it as clear as we can in every way that we are going to do all we can to keep the State President clear of politics. It is from that point of view clear that in the Chief Justice of the Union of South Africa we have an extremely high and highly respected official who is, and who has been for a very long time, by definition out of politics. The President of the Senate and the holder of the high office of Speaker of this Assembly, however, are out of politics by virtue of their offices but are far closer to politics than the Chief Justice of the Union of South Africa. Further, Sir, what I am proposing has, I believe, the sanction of precedent. On all the occasions when it has been necessary that somebody should act for the head of state in South Africa, I believe it was the Chief Justice of the Appeal Court who has so acted. No good reason seems to have been produced for changing this usage and I believe it would be in the interest of the office of State Presidency that when the office is temporarily vacant, it should be taken for that time by somebody who quite clearly is outside politics, by background as well as by office.

I just want to point out that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Maitland (Dr. de Beer) is an unnecessary one. If the Chief Justice is the first choice, it will never be necessary to mention any other person in this Bill, because there is always a Chief Justice. That position never becomes vacant. Therefore all the other words can fall away. The amendment of the hon. member is quite unnecessary because the clause was accepted in this way only after thorough consideration by the Joint Committee.

The Judiciary also prefer it this way.

Yes, and we have already accepted it like that.

I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for having pointed out that the post of Chief Justice never becomes vacant and that a large proportion of the words I suggested here are unnecessary. However, that does not in any way affect the principle contained in my amendment, viz. that the Chief Justice should be the first deputy. I also thank the hon. the Minister for the information that the Judiciary, as it is at present constituted, does not want this change, but with the greatest respect to the officials serving there at present I want to point out that we are dealing here with an arrangement which will probably remain in force for a long time, and I pointed out that in the past it was in fact the Chief Justice who on similar occasions acted on behalf of the Governor-General. Therefore whilst apologizing for having drafted my amendment wrongly, perhaps through ignorance, I still want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not consider the principle contained in the amendment.

I am prepared to debate the merits of the hon. member’s amendment with him. If we make the Chief Justice one-third a Member of Parliament, he is also concerned with the legislation and he himself will later be called upon to apply that particular Act, and that means that he must pass judgment in regard to the application of an Act which he himself helped to plan. From the point of view of constitutional law and political science that is undesirable. That happened in the past when Chief Justice Rose-Innes …

That is a weak argument.

No, it is not a weak argument, but a very sound one. Chief Justice Rose-Innes on one occasion acted as Governor-General, and on another occasion he was called upon to interpret an Act which he had assisted in passing. Then one of the parties objected to the Chief Justice sitting on the case and said that it was improper for the Chief Justice to sit in that particular case, and the Chief Justice was compelled to say: When in my capacity as Governor-General I grant approval to that Act, I need have no opinion at all about the Act. I think it is unreasonable to place the Chief Justice in such a position. I am not quite sure which case it was, but I think it was the case of Poutsma, when they had a quarrel with the then Minister of Justice, General Smuts. I did not think that this point would crop up, or else I would have had all the facts available. But it is highly undesirable to appoint the Chief Justice to that post. What is more, it would be a very singular position: It happens when the President is on holiday or on “ furlough ”, as they say in English, or when his post is vacant because he has resigned or because for some reason or other he is no longer there, whether through death or illness. Then there is provision in the constitution to appoint his successor almost immediately. It is therefore merely a very temporary matter, and I think the hon. member’s amendment has no merit.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as amended by the Joint Committee, put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

I think it is right that I should inform the House fully in regard to the implications of Clause 15. If it should happen—and it is possible— that the present Governor-General should be elected as the President of the Republic, then if the clause is accepted as it now stands, with reference to Clause 15 (3) it would mean that this person when he retires on pension as President would receive three pensions from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I am referring to the possibility that he will receive a pension as a Minister, another pension as Governor-General and a third pension as President. After having spoken to a few of the members of the Select Committee, I do not believe that that was the intention of the Select Committee. It can happen in only one case, viz. if the present Governor-General is elected as President. But now I want to say that in case that happens provision can be made in the Finance Act (the Omnibus Act), and I think that the following provision can then be inserted in the Finance Act if this person should perhaps be elected—

That will then give effect to the intention of the Select Committee that three pensions will not be paid. I just want to give the assurance that if anything like this should happen that will be done, because the intention of the Select Committee was that any person receiving a pension for a post, e.g. the General Manager of Railways, Mr. du Plessis, in the event of his becoming the first President, would retain his pension as General Manager of Railways, and if he retired as President he would also receive a pension in that capacity. But here we are dealing only with the one possibility, and that can be the only case where somebody will really be entitled to three pensions, whereas according to the intention of the Act he should have received only two.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 28, as amended by the Joint Committee, Dr. DE BEER: This clause of the Bill before us, provides in part (together with other clauses) for the Upper House of Parliament, the Senate. As hon. members know, the composition and functions of the Senate have in recent years been under discussion in this House from time to time. Last year in particular, we had before us a Bill to alter the composition of the Senate when the old enlarged Senate, which had existed for some years, was brought back to a Senate approximating more nearly to the Senate that was established under the Act of Union in 1910. At that time last year, a full debate took place upon the composition and the functions of the Senate. I think it would be out of place, and you, Sir, would rule me out of order, if I were to attempt to initiate a wide-ranging debate again at this time. And for that reason also I have made no attempt to prepare amendments to give effect to what this party would like the Senate to be. To do that would involve a great deal of draftsmanship and I believe such a discussion would be out of order. However we are here asked specifically and crisply to approve of Clause 28 which provides for a Senate which incorporates a number of principles with which we have never agreed and do not agree now. It provides for the inclusion in the composition of the Senate of the principle of the Separate Representation of Voters Act, to which we are totally opposed; it provides for the appointment of nominated Senators as opposed to elected Senators to which we also take exception. In general, this clause does not provide for a Senate which in our view would be thoroughly representative of the peoples of the Union and which would be able to carry out the function not only of a House of Review, but as a House of Check, and resistance necessary to this House. It could not carry out the vital rôle we see for it in terms of the constitution as it should be. For this reason and the limitation placed upon debates at the Committee Stage, rather than to move amendments, we propose to register our protest, as we have done in the past, against the composition of the Senate by voting against this clause.

A division was called.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Messrs. Barnett, Cope, Dr. de Beer, Messrs. Eglin, Lawrence, Dr. Steytler, Mrs. Suzman, Messrs, van Ryneveld and Williams) voted against the clause, as amended, the Chairman declared it agreed to.

On Clause 30,

We do not intend dividing the House on Clause 30. Under the present circumstances we do not oppose it as it stands here, but we still feel that it is necessary, even though only for purposes of the record, to say a word or two about the manner in which the Senate is elected. We have already stated in the past, and also this afternoon during the discussion of another clause, that we believe that it is necessary for the most efficient government of our multi-racial country to have a Second House of Parliament, a Higher House with real power, with the power under the right circumstances even to thwart the will of the Lower House. That being our desire and intention, we feel that it is not fitting that a House of that nature should be elected merely by an electoral college consisting of members of this House and of the Provincial Councils. It is therefore our policy eventually, when that can be done, to arrange matters in such a way that also the members of the Senate should be elected directly by the voters. I want to say that it would not have been fitting to move the necessary amendments here to give effect to this desire I am now expressing, and we therefore content ourselves by merely drawing attention to the fact that particularly in a multi-racial country with the problems which may arise it is necessary to have a Second House of Parliament which can act as a really effective brake on the Lower House, and that in turn, that being the case, it is in any case highly desirable that this House should be elected directly and not by an electoral college. In the present circumstances I realize that it would be impracticable to move it now, and therefore we will not oppose this clause.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 34, as amended by the Joint Committee, Mrs. SUZMAN: I would like to move the following amendment—

The reason for moving this amendment is that we feel that in its present form this clause perpetuates one of the great shortcomings in the original Act of Union. In 1909, when the Act of Union was framed, it introduced racial discrimination in so far as participation in the government in South Africa was concerned, and in this case the inclusion of sub-section (d) would mean a perpetuation of that form of racial discrimination. We feel that that act of omission in the 1909 Act has not stood the test of time. It did not stand the test of time in the early days of this country, and it certainly cannot stand the test of time in 1961 when we are busy forming a new Constitution for this country which we hope will serve for many years to come. The whole world has moved away from the concept of race discrimination on the basis of race or colour, and we do not think it fitting at this time when we are trying to form a Constitution for the republic, which we hope will be acceptable in the eyes of the world, that we should perpetuate this particular clause. It does mean of course that by removing sub-section (d), the only persons who would be capable to serve in the Senate as far as the non-Europeans are concerned would at this stage be the Cape Coloureds, or rather the Coloured persons in the Cape, since this Section 34 is also governed by sub-section (d), which states that in if order to be a Senator under this Act, a person must be qualified to be registered as a voter for the election of members of the House of Assembly in one of the provinces, and of course at the present stage the only non-Europeans so registered are the Coloured voters in the Cape Province. We would like to go much further. We wish to remove all discrimination in this regard. We wish to make it possible for Coloureds in the rest of the Union, for Africans and also for Asiatics, indeed for all persons in South Africa to serve their country in the Senate, but unfortunately it is not competent for us to move such an amendment at this stage, because clearly what is required would be an amendment of the Electoral Act and we cannot introduce that here. But that is the principle we would like to introduce, and we go as far as we can in terms of the rules of this House in moving the amendment which I now propose.

The House at the second reading has accepted the principle that a Senator shall be a person of European descent and any amendment which seeks to bring about a change in that qualification would in my opinion, if accepted, be destructive of that principle, namely European representation in the Senate. For that reason therefore I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member.

Very well, Sir, I must accept your ruling in that regard, but we shall of course vote against this clause for the reasons I have advanced an attempting to move the amendment which you have ruled out of order. We will, therefore, have to vote against this clause because we disagree entirely with the perpetuation of the principle of pure racial discrimination in setting down the qualifications of who shall be entitled to serve in the Senate in South Africa. It also relates to the person who is entitled to stand as State President, because we realize that these two clauses are tied together, and Clause 34 impinges on 8 (4) (a), where the qualifications of persons entitled to stand as State President are involved. We shall vote against this clause for that reason.

Clause, as amended by the Joint Committee, put and a division was called.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Mr. Cope, Dr. de Beer, Messrs. Eglin, Lawrence, Dr. Steytler, Mrs. Suzman, Messrs, van Ryneveld and Williams) voted against the clause, as amended, the Chairman declared it agreed to.

On Clause 40,

This clause deals with the composition of this House and the objection we have to it is of course very similar to the one we expressed a moment ago when dealing with the composition of the Other Place. Here one can state it in even more specific terms. Clause 40 of the Bill before us provides that the House of Assembly will consist of 150 members elected in a particular manner; six members elected in terms of the provisions of the South West Africa Affairs Amendment Act; and then four members elected in terms of the provisions of the Separate Representation of Voters Act of 1951. Mr. Chairman, I think that no hon. member of this House is ignorant of the attitude adopted by this party in regard to the separate representation of Coloured voters. At the time when that Act was introduced in this House, we opposed it to the utmost. Since then we also consistently adopted the attitude that Coloured voters should be represented on the common roll and not on the separate roll as is the case at present. That being our standpoint, we must approach this clause in that light, and one is of course tempted simply to move that (c) be deleted. But if one does than and (a) and (b) remain standing, one is faced with the difficulty that the effect of this may simply be that the Coloureds may lose everything they now have in the form of representation in this House. Therefore we again find ourselves in this difficulty in so far as the procedure is concerned, that either we must move a very complicated amendment which the Chairman will probably rule out of order, or else we can simply register our protest against this by voting against the clause because it contains the principle of separate representation of Coloured voters, in regard to which our standpoint is well known and has consistently been maintained. We are opposed to it and therefore we will vote against this clause.

Here again the House is to be divided and we are being asked to vote one way or the other in respect of a clause in which, apparently, no amendment which can be proposed is competent. Now may I say that as far as this side of the House is concerned we should be happy to see a different House of Assembly from what we have at the present time. But should we have a different House of Assembly we should also want safeguards in the Constitution, which it is not competent for us to introduce at the Committee Stage in discussing this Bill, and which, it is apparent, it will be impossible to introduce otherwise than at a Joint Sitting. We are therefore in this position, Mr. Chairman, that while we are not happy about the present Constitution of the House of Assembly, we cannot support the sort of House of Assembly which the hon. members on our left would like to see constituted. Therefore it is not right that we should take part in a battle in which we cannot achieve what we desire because of the fact that these are separate sittings and not a joint sitting. We suggested a joint sitting by means of an instruction from the Joint Select Committee, and that was voted down. And we also suggested, in the course of the second reading, that that should be introduced into this Bill. Therefore it seems that there is only one course for us and that is to abstain from voting on this clause.

I should like to say that I fully understand and appreciate the attitude taken up by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. My own view is that we are sitting here as a National Convention by reason of the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government have not allowed a true National Convention of the representatives of all sections of the people to consider this Constitution. What we are asked to do at the present time is to mould and shape and colour a new Constitution. We are the constitution-makers. Therefore I believe that it is the duty of everyone, according to the light as he sees it, to put forward his views at this time, because if we do not put forward our views at this time we may be stopped in the future from expressing our views.

Why are we going to vote against this clause? We are going to vote against it, in the first instance, because as has been pointed out by the two previous speakers, it is not competent to move amendments of such a nature as will enable us to frame a Constitution which would be susceptible of having the provisions we would like. It is like baking a cake and then trying to put a concrete bridge in the middle; or like building a boat with a diesel engine and suddenly trying to adjust it to carry an atomic-powered engine. We are faced with a Constitution which has been put before us willy-nilly, and therefore it would be quite senseless and unrealistic to attempt to tamper with it in a way to meet our own desires. But we have an opportunity from time to time in our approach to the various provisions of this Constitution of showing this House, and of showing this country—and not only showing this country but also showing the outside world—what our attitude is towards certain of the fundamental issues in this country. Now what does this clause provide? This clause provides that there should be representation for Coloured persons in the Cape Province, but that they should have representation in this House only on a separate roll. That, Sir, is something which all of us on this side of the House have fought from its inception. We have fought against the Separate Representation of Voters Bill from its inception, and we have said that we will restore the Coloured people to the common roll, not within a rigid Constitution but straight away, without any qualifications. Every representative on this side of the House has said that he stands for the restoration of the common roll in the Cape, whether or not there is to be a rigid Constitution.

The United Party as well?

Yes, the United Party has said so. Every member of this combined Opposition has said so.

This clause seeks to perpetuate the separate representation of Coloured voters of the Cape on a separate roll. I am against that, whether it is a rigid Constitution or not a rigid Constitution. For that reason I propose to vote against the clause.

Clause put, and a division called.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Mr. Cope, Dr. de Beer, Messrs. Eglin, Lawrence, Dr. Steytler, Mrs. Suzman, Messrs, van Ryneveld and Williams) voted against the clause, the Chairman declared it agreed to.

On Clause 43,

There are a few things I should like to say about this clause before moving an amendment to it. I think it is necessary for us to examine, briefly, the main purport of this clause. This clause deals with the division of the country into electoral divisions. The basis of dividing the country into these electoral divisions is that it sets a quota for each province. The operative words are in line 20, that each division shall—

Clearly the intention of the clause is that each constituency should contain, as nearly as may be possible, the same number of voters. Now sub-paragraph (3) does give a lead as to what criteria the Delimitation Commission should apply when deciding what should be the boundaries of these nearly equal constituencies. It states five of these criteria, (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) as set out in 43 (3). Then, finally, the clause allows the Delimitation Commission discretion, not only in drawing the boundaries but in departing from the equality of the size of the electoral divisions measured in terms of the voting strengths, in that it allows it either to load a constituency by up to 15 per cent or to unload any other constituency by a like amount of 15 per cent.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is necessary that we should examine the effect of these three provisions operating in conjunction one with the other. First of all, it does appear that the Act having stated that the electoral divisions should be as nearly equal to each other as possible, and in allowing latitude to the Commission to vary that by as much as 30 per cent from equality, permits the Commission to go very far in departing from this principle. First of all I want to suggest, Sir, that that is an unnecessary latitude to allow the Delimitation Commission. Secondly, for practical purposes, when you had small constituencies of 3,000 and 4,000 and 5,000 voters, there may have been a case for the 15 per cent loading. Fifteen per cent on 5,000 will merely be 750 voters, but now that we have electoral divisions of 12,000 voters it means that we are allowing a loading of 1,800 persons either up or down from the quota. Clearly, for practical purposes, there can be no need for the Commission to have permission to add 1,800 voters or to subtract 1,800 voters from the norm of equality.

What about the traditions of the Mother of Parliament?

I am sure that if I started on that, Mr. Chairman, you would rule me out of order. I am not dealing with the position overseas, I am dealing with the position in South Africa. I think there is a case to be made here and the Act is quite correct in allowing, first of all, certain discretionary powers and latitude to the Commission. But it is our contention that these discretionary powers are excessive and that the latitude which has been allowed the Commission in the past has been excessive. I therefore want to move as an amendment—

That would mean that the Commission still has discretionary powers in as far as loading and unloading is concerned, but that those discretionary powers would be limited to 5 per cent. On an average constituency in South Africa that would still give the Delimitation Commission the power to upgrade some seats by some 600 voters and to downgrade other seats by a further 600 voters which, from the point of view of practicality in applying the Electoral Act is, we think, quite adequate. It is, in fact, bordering on the excessive.

I think it is necessary to look at the way in which these provisions have been applied in the past. I want to make it clear that no criticism is applied in regard to the way in which the Delimitation Commissions of the past have approached this matter, nevertheless a traditional approach has been evolved by the Delimitation Commissions in determining their interpretation of the Act. As I see the Act, the basic objective is that one should strive for equality and only in exceptional circumstances —in these five prescribed circumstances— should you vary from that. It has become quite obvious when one studies the reports of the previous Delimitation Commissions that there has been an acceptance, not that you should strive for equality in the number of voters making up the electoral division, but that the cardinal principle motivating the Commission should be the one dealing with sparseness or density of population. So it has become accepted by commissions, by virtue of the practise over 50 years, that sparsely populated constituencies should be unloaded and densely populated constituencies should be loaded. One has the effect that the vast bulk of the constituencies are either unloaded or loaded not on criteria (a) to (d), but on the basis of criterion (e) which deals with sparseness or density of population.

What has been the result of the application of this interpretation read against the existing South Africa Act? First of all there are a series of anomalies, because, in every province you have a balance between the rural seats and the urban seats. You cannot unload more than you can load within any one province. Where you have the number of urban seats approximating the number of rural seats you can do that fairly evenly, and that has been done in provinces such as the Cape Province. But in the Free State where you have only two or perhaps three urban seats, you find that they have to carry all the loading while the unloading is spread over 13 other seats. You find the rural constituencies of the Free State are only unloaded by 2 or 3 per cent whereas the three urban constituencies are loaded by the maximum of 15 per cent. Likewise, in the Transvaal where you have some 42 urban divisions and only 26 rural divisions, the tendency is for the rural seats to be heavily unloaded whereas the urban seats are not loaded to the same extent. So the first thing is that you get an anomaly in the loading between town and country as applied to the four provinces of South Africa.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, whatever the argument might have been in the past connected with sparseness or density of population, it is clear that with modern communications and the ease of modern transport, the argument that fewer voters in the sparsely populated areas should be required to form one constituency than are required to form one in densely populated areas, is quite unrealistic and unreasonable at this stage.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I think it is necessary to point out that the application of this 15 per cent loading either way has led to an unbalance in the representation of the people of South Africa in this hon. House. I think that if one looks at the figures of the successive Delimitation Commissioners, and one takes into account that in the intervening five to ten years between Commissions, there is in any case a shift of population from the country to the towns, by the time the next Delimitation Commission sits very often one has a loading in urban constituencies of something like 20 per cent. So in practice there is a 20 per cent departure away from the norm. The effect of that is that the vote in an urban seat is worth 331 per cent less than the vote in many rural seats, and the vote in the rural seat is worth 50 per cent more than the vote in an urban seat. I believe that while one might have had understandable grounds, before South Africa was a highly industrialized country, before urbanization had taken place, for that system, in the new circumstances that exist in South Africa to-day it should not be the intention of this House that people who, merely because they live in sparsely populated areas should have a vote which is worth 50 per cent more than the vote of the people in densely populated areas. I therefore wish to move my amendment.

I want to reply to the objections raised here by the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin) and which he did not state correctly. I think the hon. member’s trouble is that he does not have the necessary experience and works the matter out on paper theoretically. The hon. member lives in the Cape, but if he represented Gordonia or Waterberg or Soutpansberg he would have sung quite a different tune in regard to the area to be covered by one constituency. I think the only hon. member of the Progressive Party who can say that it is essential to retain this provision is the hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler), the leader of that party. He is the only one who has any knowledge of the rural areas, except that other hon. members may perhaps have held meetings there. But if they had to look after the interests of their voters in such large constituencies as we have in the rural areas, the hon. member for Pinelands, who delivered such a heart-stirring plea, would sing a different tune and he would not have advocated a smaller percentage of loading and unloading. That is the first point. The second point is that the hon. member also makes a mistake in taking the maximum figures of loading and unloading. I have had much to do with delimitation in the Transvaal.

Don’t we know it!

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) should be thankful for having obtained a constituency, otherwise she would not have been here. But for me she would not have been here. The loading and unloading never reached the maximum. Only in very exceptional cases will the Delimitation Commission reach the maximum. That is quite exceptional and not the rule. Its average percentage for loading and unloading remains in the vicinity of 10 per cent to 11 per cent. For example, in Pretoria, the average loading is about 7 per cent. It is therefore not true, and it gives a distorted picture, to say that at the time when a constituency had 5,000 voters it was not such a large number of voters who were affected, but now that it is 12,000 a large number of voters are involved. The application of this principle is done realistically. The Delimitation Commission which has to hear the representations gets a certain number of voters in every province who have to be divided up between a certain number of constituencies. It takes into consideration all five of those points, well-established points. The hon. member now wants to omit one of them. viz. the density of the population. But that is the most important one. The most important of the five is the density or sparseness of the population, because the more sparse the population the more difficult is the transport; the more sparse the population the more inaccessible the people are, and the longer the distances between the polling stations. All these problems result in there having to be larger polling districts in such a constituency. Therefore I really cannot see what the hon. member stands to gain at the moment by suggesting a decrease in the percentage, thereby omitting the most important criterion which is really the justification for the principle of differentiating in regard to the number of voters in rural and urban constituencies. The hon. member admits that there should be differentiation. He says it should be 5 per cent and not 15 per cent. The hon. member admits that there must be differentiation, but on what basis must it be made if not on the sparseness or density of the population? What is the value of the other four grounds if one takes away the fifth one? Then there would be no reason for having any difference in the percentage.

This is a matter which is very dear to the heart of the hon. the Minister and a matter about which he probably knows a great deal. Long ago the Congress of the United Party passed a resolution to the effect that in future delimitation should be done in such a way that constituencies would be more representative of the will of the people because in the past the experience has been that generally those constituencies which were most heavily loaded grew the fastest, with the result that there was not the slightest doubt that in some respects there was under-representation as far as those heavily loaded constituencies were concerned. It is not unusual to find that when the Delimitation Commission is asked to do its work by-election have already taken place in those constituencies which are no longer loaded to an extent of 15 per cent but which are loaded to the extent of 20 per cent and 25 per cent and 30 per cent as a result of the growth in the population. Consequently, although we do not wish to bind ourselves to 5 per cent, we feel that this is a step in the right direction and that it seems as though the time has arrived for us to consider changing the law, because there is no longer any doubt that there is a feeling of unrest and dissatisfaction amongst many of the voters in the urban constituencies. The days when these conditions were first laid down, i.e. in 1909, when there was not such a thing as a postal vote, when the motor-car was practically unknown, when the aeroplane was completely unknown, and when the trains travelled very slowly, are totally different from conditions to-day and will probably also differ from the future. For that reason I feel that we are completely justified in supporting the proposal of the Progressive Party in this respect.

Now that the hon. member for Rondebosch (Sir de Villiers Graaff) represents an urban constituency, he comes forward with this proposal. It is quite clear that they are doing so because there are only two or three hon. members on that side of the House representing constituencies other than urban constituencies. I too represent an urban constituency but my voters fully realize —and their voters should also realize it—that it is impracticable in the case of a platteland constituency which covers a huge area of hundreds of square miles to expect that person to have as many constituents as the representative of an urban area, because in that case an area of another 50 or 100 square miles will have to be added to his constituency, which is already very big as it is. Hon. members should just go and look at constituencies like Soutpansberg, Waterberg, Pietersburg, Kuruman and Namaqualand. These urban members can travel from one end of their constituency to the other end in one day, and many of them can walk from one end to the other, but they now expect other members who require six weeks to travel through their constituencies in order to hold meetings, to have the same number of voters as they have in their constituencies. The hon. member for Rondebosch said that the thing that struck him most was the fact that those constituencies which were most heavily loaded were also the constituencies which grew most rapidly. Surely in that case the solution is obvious. Then they should not say that provision (e) should fall away but they should propose a further provision (f) and say that the commission should also take into account the possible population growth in a constituency. If they proposed that, we might consider it. I want to say this, however, that I think this is a most unfortunate opportunity which the hon. member has chosen to raise this matter. We are now dealing with the Constitution which we are more or less retaining in its present form.

Exactly.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) served on the Select Committee. Why did he not propose this amendment there? Now he sits here and says “ exactly ”.

Exactly.

Why did members of the United Party not propose this before the Committee? This is nothing else than a piece of cheap propaganda on their part. I say that if we change the electoral laws of the country—and these laws are changed from time to time—we can go thoroughly into this question, but I think the present is a most inopportune time to try to do so.

I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin) and I wish to refute some of the statements made by the hon. the Minister of the Interior. He said that the tendency was not to use the maximum loading, but if one examines the reports of the Delimitation Commissions it is quite obvious that the tendency has been to increase the loading to the maximum. If one studies the figures of the fourth delimitation, 54 per cent of the seats were loaded and unloaded by not more than 5 per cent, and only 4 per cent were loaded or unloaded by between 10 per cent and 15 per cent. But when one comes to the eighth delimitation, only 9 per cent of the seats were loaded or unloaded by not more than 5 per cent, while as much as 59 per cent of the seats were loaded or unloaded by between 10 per cent and 15 per cent. Therefore the tendency has been for successive Delimitation Commissions to use the maximum load, and to load or unload up to the maximum to an increasing extent. It is quite clear that the original South Africa Act laid emphasis, as the hon. member for Pinelands has pointed out, on the point that attempts should be made to make the approximation as near as possible to the actual quota and that the Commission shall take into consideration the five points laid down under the delimitation clause, and it may use the maximum load up to 15 per cent. But in actual fact the emphasis was laid on the equality of votes and that the rule should be that there should be almost an equal number of voters in the electoral divisions, and that disproportion should be the exception, and that prima facie every vote should be of equal value. The point is that we have been getting more and more way from that original concept. I agree with the hon. member that 5 per cent loading or unloading is an adequate amount for the Commission to use in solving its difficulties. I agree that the original difficulties in regard to transport and communications have been lessened over the years since Union. Obviously roads and transport have been improved. The only thing that should be the most important factor for the Commission to consider is the question of community of interests. That is really the predominating factor and we feel that 5 per cent is quite adequate.

The other point I want to raise is the question of rural and urban populations. The Minister knows that there has been a great shift of population from the rural areas to the urban areas since 1909.

That only strengthens my argument.

I do not agree with the Minister, for the simple reason that one of the reasons for allowing this maximum up to 30 per cent was simply because there was a fear at the time of Union that the town population consisted to a large extent of persons called “ uitlanders ” and that they would outweigh the influence of the rural population. [Interjections.] Anyone who reads history will know this. It is not something I have concocted. This played a part in the considerations. There was the fear that the influence of the rural area would be outweighed by that of the urban area, but to-day the indigenous rural population has moved into the urban area and 75 per cent of the White electorate live in what are known as urban areas, not all of course in the huge concentrations like Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban, but certainly in towns. So that consideration has fallen away to a large extent. I support wholeheartedly the amendment moved that subsection (e) be deleted, because we do not represent areas here, and however grateful I have to feel to the Minister for the size of the constituency I represent, I am not here to represent an area but to represent people, and that is the important thing, that the vote should be as nearly as possible of equivalent value.

In principle and in our approach to it, this is a very similar clause to Clause 34, which deals with the election of Senators. It was our intention to move an amendment to delete in sub-sec. (c) the reference to a White person, but in terms of your ruling, Sir, which you gave to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) on Clause 34, we cannot do so. But the intention was to indicate that we did not favour the indefinite exclusion from membership of this House of people who were non-White, and the purpose of the amendment which we intended to move would merely have extended the possibility of the inclusion in the membership of this House of Coloured persons from the Cape. That amendment cannot be moved, but we intend to vote against the clause because, as the hon. member for Houghton indicated in the earlier clause, we are dealing with a law which goes, as far as one can see at the moment, indefinitely into the future, and in the year 1961 we can see that a law in our society which excludes for as far as can be seen indefinitely in terms of this clause everyone but White persons from membership of this House is against the best interests of the future of South Africa and is against the construction of the best possible constitution that South Africa could have. We therefore propose to vote against this clause, to indicate not what we would wish to put into this clause but the limitation that we would like to remove from it.

This is another proposal which has been ruled out of order and we are now being asked to vote against a clause which, if it were accepted, would place us in the position that Members of Parliament would not be subject to any qualifications. In these circumstances I feel that we should abstain from voting.

There is no doubt whatever that not only members on this side of the House and those whom we represent in the country, those represented by the combined Opposition, but also a vast number of those supporting the present Government are vitally and deeply disturbed about the consequences of the Prime Ministers’ Conference in London. What has been the appeal made to the hon. the Prime Minister? It was that he should make some small concession or gesture which would put us right with the other members of the Commonwealth and the outside world. Now there is a way in which the Prime Minister can make a gesture in respect of this clause. We cannot take the necessary action to pave the way for this gesture. There is only one man in this House who can do it, and that is the Prime Minister. If we were permitted to move the deletion of the words in Clause 46, “ is a White person and ”, the clause would then read that no person shall be qualified to be a member of the House of Assembly unless he is qualified to be registered as a voter for the election of members of the House of Assembly in one of the provinces, and has resided for five years within the limits of the republic, and is a South African citizen. If it were read in that way it would not exclude certain persons who are registered as voters for the election of members of the House of Assembly in the Cape, viz. Coloured voters. It would not exclude Coloured voters from being members of the House of Assembly if those words were omitted from the clause. Now the Prime Minister knows that a controversy has been raging in the columns of the Burger for some time past, where views have been expressed by supporters of the Nationalist Party and by the churches and others that a beginning should be made by allowing Coloured persons direct representation in this House.

Order! The hon. member is now going too far.

I say that the Prime Minister should move an instruction to enable the House to delete these words. I say that if he would do that he would be making a concession. Sir, I am not prepared to vote for this clause while it has this bar in it and while there is this chance of making this concession. It would be a beginning; it would concede a right of direct representation to Coloured persons in the Cape Province. It does not go as far as I would like but at any rate it would be a change of heart, something which the Tunku, the Prime Minister of Malaya, has asked of the Prime Minister.

Order! The hon. member is again discussing the principle accepted at the second reading.

Well, if I am not allowed to continue discussing the principle I would say that unless the Prime Minister is prepared to give us an assurance that he will move for an instruction to this Committee to allow us to omit those words, I propose to vote against this clause.

Sir, I wish to agree with what the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) has said and I would echo the sentiments expressed by him and say that this clause will be used against South Africa, as it has been used in the past, to indicate that there is discrimination against the Coloured people of this country.

Order! The hon. member is discussing the principle of the Bill now.

With respect, Sir, I would like you to guide me. The clause talks about White voters.

That includes you.

It may not include the hon. member. I believe that once it refers to White voters I am entitled, with respect, to show that the word “ White ” should be deleted.

Order! That principle was accepted at the second reading and I am afraid the hon. member is not entitled to show that.

I want to appeal to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the announcement which he has just made. The Opposition represents a certain number of voters in this House of Assembly, and this clause lays down the qualifications for a member of this House, and merely by walking out of this House when it comes to voting on a clause, such as this one, will not save the skin of the Opposition outside. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition to have the courage of their conviction and either to vote against the clause or to vote in favour of it.

Surely that is out of order.

What has that got to do with the clause?

We are dealing with a Bill in Committee, a Bill which, immediately it is passed, will become law. Because it is beginning to look ridiculous for them to walk out every time we vote on a clause like this, the Leader of the Opposition has availed himself of this opportunity to announce that they will abstain from voting.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you ruled the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) out of order when he tried to draw certain conclusions from this clause and I suggest that the hon. member is out of order.

Order! The hon. member may continue.

The Leader of the Opposition has announced that they will not vote for this clause. We cannot discuss the future composition of the House of Assembly or the principle but this clause lays down the qualifications a person should have in order to become a member of this House of Assembly. We should very much like to know, and the voters should like to know, what the policy of the United Party is in regard to the qualifications a person should have in order to become a member of this House of Assembly under a republic.

Never mind, you will still be able to vote.

Yes, I will be able to vote without having to crawl about in the mud as the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) is continually doing, because any moment from now he will get us and tell us some story or other that he has heard on the street. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I have been personal but the hon. member is the last person who should make interjections. I challenge the Opposition to have the courage to tell the voting public outside whether they are in favour of this House of Assembly being composed of Whites only, or do they stand by their policy which they advocate when they appear in the urban areas, in the liberal-minded areas.

What has that got to do with this clause?

Order! The hon. member may not discuss the policy of the United Party in respect of this clause.

He has already done so, so it does not really matter.

Order, order!

With due respect to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, which I would very much like to observe, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has announced that they will not vote. He was allowed to announce that they will abstain from voting and my argument is that the voters are entitled to know what their policy is in regard to this clause. The principle has already been accepted and we are now dealing with a particular clause.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I should like to have your ruling…

Order! Will the hon. member resume his seat. The hon. member cannot ask the United Party what their policy is in respect of a matter which is a matter of principle.

May I ask the United Party what their attitude is in respect of this clause and why they are not prepared to vote in favour of this clause? May I put that to the Opposition?

No, you cannot.

The Leader of the Opposition has announced that they will not vote for this clause but it was not necessary for them to announce that; they could merely have walked out, but the announcement of the Opposition lends itself to discussion, and this Committee is entitled to know why the United Party will not vote for this clause and why they will walk out. That is what this Committee and the country would like to know.

Like other hon. members I do not feel simply prepared to give a silent vote on this clause. There is one thing with which I heartily agree in what the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) has just said. There is a principle involved here on which we feel that we should register our stand. This clause provides first that a member of this House should be qualified to be registered as a voter for the election of members of the House of Assembly. I think all of us agree that that should be so. We may have and we do have different views as to what the qualifications to be a voter for the election of members of this House ought to be, but I think there are few of us who would not insist that for anybody to be a member of this House he should qualify as a voter for the election of members of this House. The clause provides further that anybody who wishes to be a member of this House should have resided for five years within the limits of the republic. Some of us might think the period should be three years, some of us might think seven years, but I think all of us would agree that it is desirable that any member who comes to this House should have resided for some period within the country. But important though these matters are, neither of them approaches in importance, in view of the present context of South Africa’s political history, the great question of whether there is to be a colour bar on membership of this Parliament or not. I would have been very delighted had it been possible to restrict the discussion by way of an amendment to the question of a colour bar in this House, but unfortunately, for reasons that we all understand, this is not possible. The question before me, as I see it— and I do not attempt to speak for any other member in this House—is simply whether I am prepared to support a clause which embodies a colour bar on membership of this House of Assembly or whether I am not prepared to do so. For us in this corner of the House it is a point of cardinal principle that colour and colour alone should not be a bar to membership of this, the parliament of a multi-racial country. It is for this reason that we propose to vote against the clause.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition advanced a reason why they will not vote for this clause and why they will not again follow the less courageous road, namely, of walking out of this Chamber. Let me say at once that because of the reason advanced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition he is subject to exactly the same qualifications as the Progressive Party. There is no difference as far as that is concerned. The only difference lies in the courage of the Progressive Party and the courage of the hon. member.

You did not listen.

I want to go further and say that the reason advanced by the Leader of the Opposition why they will not vote convinces nobody. The reason advanced by him was that if they voted against this clause and the side on which they voted won, this clause will no longer exist; then there will be no qualifications with which Members of Parliament will have to conform; in other words, then the entire clause falls away. That was the excuse advanced by the hon. member for adopting the attitude which he is adopting but there is nothing to prevent the hon. the Leader of the Opposition from taking this Committee into his confidence and saying: Had the clause read so and so I would have voted for it.

Then I would have been out of order.

No, with all respect, Sir, you allowed the Progressive Party to say how they would have liked the clause to read and you would also have allowed the hon. member to say how the clause ought to have read. But the hon. member does not want your permission to do so, Sir. On the contrary he would be slightly annoyed with you if you gave him the permission because in that case you will be forcing him to take up a stand and the hon. member obviously does not want to do so. He wants to sit on two stools, one in Constantia and the other in Swellendam. That is the difficulty which confronts the hon. member in this regard. I want to say clearly that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition bluffs nobody if he used that as an excuse why they will walk out of the Chamber. The naked truth is that the Leader of the Opposition and his party and the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) dare not take a stand in connection with this matter and that is why they have to come with some excuse, as though that will save them at Swellendam or Bethal-Middelburg or for that matter, Constantia.

Clause 46, as amended by the Joint Committee, put and a division was called.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Messrs. Barnett, Cope, Dr. de Beer, Messrs. Eglin, Lawrence, Dr. Steytler, Mrs. Suzman, Messrs, van Ryneveld and Williams) voted against the clause, as amended, the Chairman declared it agreed to.

On Clause 52,

This clause lays down the Oath of Allegiance to the republic. I find the wording somewhat formal and cold. I should have liked the wording as suggested by the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) during the second reading debate. I should like to ask the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) whether he would not help me so that we can formulate a somewhat warmer Oath of Allegiance to the republic. Originally the hon. member for South Coast said he would not accept the republic. Thereafter he said, “ I am going to contract Natal out of the republic”, but since then it is clear that he has become a good little boy. It is quite clear that he has now decided to accept the republic and it is quite clear to me that he will become a good and faithful republican. I wander whether he will assist me. I am sure the hon. the Minister will allow this clause to stand over so that the hon. member for South Coast and I can hold a caucus meeting and see if we can formulate a warmer and more acceptable Oath of Allegiance to the republic. He will become as good a republican as he has always been a good South African and he will vote for this clause; he will take the oath and seeing that he will do so let us make it a warm, good oath. If the hon. member will accompany me I will ask the hon. the Minister to agree to this clause standing over for a while.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 59,

Sir, if one views this constitution from the angle of constitutional science, then it may be held that this clause is the most important clause in the whole Bill. This is the clause which defines the sort of constitution that we are to have. It is laid down here that Parliament shall be the sovereign legislative authority, that Parliament shall have full power to make laws, that no court of law shall be competent to inquire into or to pronounce upon the validity of any Act of Parliament. In short, it is here being laid down that we shall have for the republic a constitution of the totally flexible type, a constitution on the British model. As hon. members will know, this means that we are opting for a type of constitution that is rare in the Western world. The vast majority of the countries of the Western world have constitutions in which the power of Parliament is in some degree restricted and in which, for that reason, some testing right is allowed to the courts. This includes all the nations of the West—and there are a large number-whose constitutions are to a greater or lesser extent of a federal type. It also includes the states with unitary constitutions which have rigid constitutions which limit the power of Parliament to do certain things, which incorporate, for example, Bills of Rights within the constitution which determine and limit the powers of Parliament. Historically, as hon. members know, we never had a rigid constitution in South Africa. We never had a constitution which sought to entrench certain matters, and it was found in the fullness of time that these matters were not in effect effectively entrenched. To-day we have one limited entrenchment only in the constitution that is before us and I do not think any hon. member will dispute the fact that it is not an effective entrenchment but merely a gesture made by the people of South Africa towards each other. That being so, I say again that from the point of view of the construction of this basic law for the Republic of South Africa this clause is in a sense the corner stone. It is for any member of this House, for any voter of this country, to study conditions obtaining in South Africa and in other countries of the West and the constitutional techniques that they adopt in order to ensure good government in their own circumstances within those nations and then to decide whether it is right and wise and whether it is likely to make for safety in the future that South Africa should retain the British type of totally flexible constitution. It is our view on these benches— it has been my view for a long time—that the British type of constitution, admirable though it may be in Britain and under British conditions is quite unsuited for South African conditions, and I would no sooner suggest that the House of Parliament itself at Westminster could be uprooted and carried in its entirety into South African climatic conditions and be suitable here than I would argue that the British constitution can be translated into the multi-racial, developing, dynamic society of South Africa and form the best type of constitution to maintain democracy and to maintain the rights and protect the privileges of the various groups that make up the South African nation. Sir, no matter what may happen in the years that lie ahead, I think all of us must feel some doubt as to how the destiny of our people and our country may be shaped. No matter what may happen, the danger would always be there that in the supreme legislature of South Africa, one racial or sectional group or some combination of racial or sectional groups, may obtain a majority and may use that majority for the purpose of oppressing other sections or of denying rights and privileges to other sections which they should properly have. None of us can deny the possibility that an essentially sectional majority, driven on by appeals to racialism, driven on by that animosity under the surface which so often exists in one human being for another human being whose background is different—that subject to all these temptations, these spurs in the wrong direction, there may be majorities in this Parliament which may infringe the freedom, the liberty and the dignity of the individual human being. I hope that there is no Member of this Parliament, since we all believe in the precepts of Western civilization, who does not regard that individual dignity of the subject as being of the utmost importance in the maintenance of the Western type of state. Hon. members will know that the constitutions of most Western countries provide specifically for the protection of the rights and the freedoms of the individual against the majority in Parliament. They do so, and the usual method is by the incorporation of a Bill of Rights in a rigid constitution. In terms of this Clause before us that becomes impossible. Entrenchments in general become impossible. Protections become impossible. As has been pointed out this afternoon by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition entrenchments in our type of country and in our type of circumstances are very necessary indeed if we are to offer any sense of security to the various peoples and groups that make up our multi-racial population. For us in this party it has always seemed essential that there should be a rigid constitution, not a partially rigid or a would-be rigid constitution as we were given in 1910, but a properly rigid constitution, the whole of which ought to be entrenched, such as for example the American constitution. Parliament should be sovereign within the limits of that constitution but not completely sovereign as this clause envisages. That constitution should embrace a Bill of Rights to protect the individual; it should embrace the composition of the Houses of Parliament so as to ensure that there are checks and balances between the powers of different racial sections, and that constitution should be subject to testing in the courts of the land, as in the case of the American constitution. This being so, and the need for such a protective constitution in our multi-racial society being in our view so essential to good government in South Africa, we would be failing in our duty if we did not state our opposition and vote against this clause.

Clause 59 put and a division called.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Mr. Cope, Dr. de Beer, Messrs. Eglin, Lawrence, Dr. Steytler, Mrs. Suzman, Messrs, van Ryneveld and Williams) voted against the clause, the Chairman declared it agreed to.

On Clause 68,

It is quite obvious what our objection is to this clause. Once again this Clause 68 in sub-section (1) makes reference to the Separate Representation of Voters Act, in other words, the Act of 1951 which took away from the Cape Coloured people in the Cape Province the right to be represented on the Common Roll together with Europeans in that province. It is quite obvious that any political party which is opposed to this separate representation for Coloureds, must clearly express itself as opposed to this clause, because it confirms the action of the Government of taking the Coloured people off the Common Roll …

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss the principle now.

Sir, I accept your ruling. I am only saying that because silence on this matter would indicate no opposition to the Separate Representation of Voters Act, the only way to express the views we hold on this matter is to vote against this clause which confirms separate representation for the Coloured people in the Cape Province.

The hon. member for Pinelands has just informed us that his party will vote against this clause because the clause does not provide for Coloured people to sit on provincial councils. I should very much like to know what the attitude of the official Opposition is. The hon. the Leader of the United Party and his entire party have just walked out without telling us why they were walking out. In a moment they will again be asked to vote on this clause and before they walk out I should very much like to know what they are going to do. It is not only this Committee that wants to know what their attitude is, but South Africa wants to know what their attitude is in regard to this matter. An Opposition cannot be so irresponsible as merely to walk out quietly when it suits them, because if everybody were to leave the Chamber and leave it to the Progressive Party to vote against this clause, the clause will fall away. That is why I say the Opposition has a real duty in this House and in this Committee, and a duty towards South Africa to take a stand in this House in regard to clauses on which we divide and vote. They cannot evade that duty by walking out quietly.

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

I have said what I wanted to say, Sir, and I should like the Opposition to tell South Africa what their attitude is in regard to this matter.

This is another one of the series of clauses which are being opposed and on which the House is to be divided for reasons which it is not competent to discuss in this Committee. We are being asked to support opposition to this clause for reasons which would be out of order were they to be advanced. And were we to be successful in that opposition, there would be no provincial councils left at all. Therefore it is quite impossible for us to vote on an issue of this kind. We abstain from voting, if those who wish to make their protest in that way want to divide the Committee on this clause.

Clause 68 put and a division was called.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Messrs. Barnett, Cope, Dr. de Beer, Messrs. Eglin, Lawrence, Dr. Steytler, Mrs. Suzman, Messrs, van Ryneveld and Williams) voted against the clause, the Chairman declared it agreed to.

I would just like to point out that this clause in effect does embody a colour bar in so far as the provisions of the Electoral Act are concerned and therefore we obviously would have liked to have this amended so as to remove the colour bar inherent in the Electoral Act so far as the election of provincial councillors is concerned. Clearly we are unable to do this because the Electoral Act is not the Act under discussion now, and therefore I simply wish to bring to the attention of the House that we are not unaware of the fact that the colour bar exists in this clause, but because we are precluded from amending the Electoral Act, will not move an amendment against this clause.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 84,

This is another clause which deals with one of the most important constitutional principles with which we are concerned to-day, namely, the powers given to provincial councils. This by itself is naturally a very important and complicated subject and it is not my intention to go into it in detail. However, we do feel that we should not let this opportunity pass without briefly placing on record what we think ought to be the relationship between the provinces and the Central Government.

Since Union there has been a list of matters which has fallen under the provincial councils, matters which have been administered by them. From time to time some people here felt that that list should be made longer and others have felt that it should be made shorter. I think the only responsible attitude to adopt is to say that this is mostly a subject for the experts. Certain matters can more easily be administered by certain concerns than by others, and the attitude of our party as far as the principle is concerned is not so much as to the field which provincial councils may cover but as to what the real power of the provincial council in relation to the Central Government ought to be. This, of course, has been an old bone of contention in the political history of South Africa. The question of federation or union, or the measure of federation which there ought to be within the Union has been one of the greatest points of friction ever since the time of the National Convention.

What is your attitude?

I shall deal with the attitude which we adopted at the first congress of our party. It amounts to this: our attitude is that there should be decentralization of power in favour of the provinces—that is the main point—where the provinces have powers, those powers ought to be protected against interference on the part of the Central Government. I only have the English version of it with me and I will read it to the hon. member—

1. (a) The form, generally, of the government of the province;
2. (b) the effective protection within the provinces of the rights of racial groups;
3. (c) the financial relations between the Central Government and the provinces.

As I have already said, this is not an opportune time to give a lecture on the details. But we do want to place on record that, as far as we are concerned, we believe that the power of the provinces is in grave danger to-day, that the power of the Central Government to interfere with the power of provinces, is far too great, that it ought to be limited and that the provinces ought to be protected against interference on the part of the Central authority. The case we had in Natal a year or three ago, namely, that of Mr. Stander, has proved as nothing else has proved that when it came to a clash between a province and the Central Government the power of a province was extremely weak, as it is at the moment. We believe that it should not be possible for an incident like that to take place. When the opportunity presents itself we should like to change tie constitution in such a way that that will no longer be possible. No suitable amendment, however, can be moved at this stage. We realize that the clause which is before us at the moment does nothing more than to transfer the existing position to the Republic and because of that, we will not oppose it.

There is one small matter to which I wish to refer because it seems that the public outside has the wrong idea about it, and it has also appeared in the Press. I am referring to Clause 84 (1) (c). It says that the province has power over “ education, other than higher education and Bantu education, until Parliament otherwise provides ”. Certain reporters have apparently caught on to this phrase and come to the conclusion that this was a new provision which was being inserted, in other words, that Parliament was taking new powers to infringe on the powers of the provinces. That, of course, is not the position. This phrase has always been in the Act, in the old Act, and I am merely mentioning this because to some extent the public is interested in this. In saying that this phrase has always been there and that it is not wrong, to transfer it to the new constitution, does not mean of course, that I approve of the idea that Parliament should have the right to interfere. I have, however, merely stated the attitude of this party in regard to the principle and I repeat that at this stage we will not vote against the clause.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clauses 69 to 111 put and agreed to.

Before you put Clause 112, Sir, I should like to move—

My reason for doing so is that I wish to move an amendment to Clause 112 which I have not as yet fully considered and I should like to have more time to consider it. That is why I am moving that progress be reported.

I move—

More than two members having objected,

Bill to be read a third time on 7 April.

Order of the Day No. Ill to stand over.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a third time. More than two members having objected, Bill to be read a third time on 10 April.