I move—

We are asked to approve of this additional expenditure totalling R18,240,290, and this sum includes the sum of R200,000 under Loan Vote J, “Loan to Peri-Urban Areas Health Board for Location of Industry and Development of Border Areas, north-west of Pretoria.” Sir, in giving his answers and reasons in the recent debate for this expenditure, the Minister did not entirely satisfy me, at any rate. For instance, he said that he would not force any industrialists to go to this area but would limit his pressure to expressing a desire that the industry in question should be established in Hammanskraal. Of course, this desire could be strengthened by promises of assistance in other directions. Moreover, he did not make quite clear to us what factors he would take into account with regard to the assistance to be given to prospective industries for this area. I do admit that he said that we had misunderstood him to some degree, on a wider issue which I am not dealing with, and that there had never been any intention of establishing industries in the “Bundu”, which was the expression used, and he also told us that the Tomlinson Report relating to this Hammanskraal area—in fact the whole Tomlinson Report—had now been discarded. Again I must say that some of his reasons did not impress and they do require amplification. I want to impress on the House that confidence is the cornerstone of industry and without confidence industry will not expand, and the hon. the Minister therefore should amplify his reasons for encouraging industries to this area. You see, Mr. Speaker, he told us yesterday that he seeks to give work to 60,000 Africans in the Hammanskraal area. That is a very laudable reason, Mr. Speaker, but I do suggest that industrialists will require more than that. They would not take into account too much, and before I am satisfied that I can vote this money, I require to know among other things whether the Minister in weighing up his decision to help the establishment of industries, of a particular industry in this area, mainly to give employment to 60,000 Africans in the area, has taken into account, in his thoughts, the fact that putting industries there must cause unemployment and losses to other industries close by, such as on the East Rand. In passing I may say that hon. members are aware that the East Rand has this terrific dying mines problem and there is a desperate need there for the establishment of industries. Mr. Chairman, industry in general will definitely want to know whether the hon. the Minister intends to encourage new industries at Hammanskraal by giving them favourable railway rates, the opportunity to pay lower wages and the other things that can be done by people such as the Government with the power to help and direct the siting of industries. I would not like to be thought to be against the decentralization of industries. Under certain circumstances that is essential, but a lot of thought must be given to the reasons for encouraging industries in any particular area.

I have said before that confidence in the future is the whole corner-stone of industry, and, without that confidence in the future, industry will not expand. It is, therefore, essential for the hon. the Minister to assure us that he will allow no unfair competition with established industries, and also that he will not weight the scales in favour of a new industry at Hammanskraal against a new industry, say, on the East Rand, only about 40 miles away, even if such an industry will not be in unfair competition with other industries. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us how his thoughts run on this matter. and I hope he will answer my questions, which I will now recapitulate: (1) Will he encourage industries in the Hammanskraal area at the expense of the East Rand with its dying mines problem? Secondly, will he give inducement to other industries which will result in unfair competition anywhere else in the country? Thirdly, will he confirm to us that he has abandoned the Tomlinson Report, and will he tell us what he is putting in its place, because it is a matter that must be considered by every industrialist who is considering the putting up of a new industry. Lastly, does he not agree that this is the correct stage to interpret his policy correctly by calling it “bringing the reserve boundaries to industry” and not bringing industries to the boundaries of the reserves?

We have before us a Bill which provides in the Schedule an amount to commerce and industries of R 1,700,000, and I want to make it clear that we do not oppose decentralization of industries, but we do oppose any attempt by the Government to decentralize industries if we are not satisfied that it is economic and in the best interest of the country. Now, unfortunately, in our endeavours yesterday to get some clarification from the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, we were not successful. The Minister did not give us sufficient information to satisfy us that this new area will be economic. The hon. the Minister, in the course of his remarks, suggested that I, of all people, should support him because of his recent visit to Pinetown. Sir, I would remind the Minister that the hon. the Prime Minister, a year or 18 months ago, in announcing his policy for the economic development of the country, specifically stated that Durban and Pinetown, although they were contiguous to non-European areas, African areas, would not be regarded as border areas, would not be regarded as areas for border development. I know that the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs has recently suggested that in my constituency, at a place called Hammersdale, which is well known to many members here, there is a proposed area for border development. But here we are dealing with a principle, which is provided for in the Schedule, the principle of the establishment of an industry, of an industrial area, contiguous to a large municipality. It is no good the Minister of Economic Affairs, or the Minister of Finance, suggesting that something similar was done last year in Alexandra Township. That was a totally different problem. That was not the establishment of an industrial area. That was a scheme to provide money for slum clearance. Here we are providing a specific sum of money which is going to be lent to a local authority, and that local authority is going to develop an industrial area. We are not yet satisfied as to the amount to be paid for the ground, the conditions under which industries will be established, to what extent industries will be encouraged there, or to what extent duress will be brought to bear upon proposed industries to establish themselves in that area. We have not been satisfied yet as to what extent only the indigenous people of that reserve will be employed in such industry. These are matters that have to be taken into consideration. We do not know the conditions of the loan, we do not know the proposed interest rate, we do not know whether the conditions which will be offered to new industries will be particularly attractive. Sir, you will appreciate that, in this age, the competitive element is very important, and if special facilities are offered to a particular industry, that industry can get an advantage over other industries. Mr. Speaker, it is all very well for the Minister of Economic Affairs to say that he will not encourage a particular industry or compel a particular industry to go to that area, but an industrialist is in a very difficult position. Take the case of an industrialist from overseas, who visits South Africa for the first time, met by the Department of Information and told about this country, the suggestion being made to him that he should visit the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Economic Affairs. This particular industrialist, let us say, proposed to establish a particular industry of a particular type in South Africa, may be in competition with existing industries. It may have a world-wide reputation, it may have the potentials of developing the economic life of this country. What is the position of that industrialist when he is told by the Minister of Economic Affairs, or the Minister of Finance: You can establish an industry in this country, we will welcome such an industry, we will regard it as beneficial to the country, but we would prefer it to be established in this area north-west of Pretoria. What would that industrialist do? If he is wise, of course, he will weigh up the advantages of keeping in favour with the present Government with all the other advantages, and I suggest that when that industrialist has regard to the market for his product, particularly if a portion of that market includes Government contracts, particularly if that market includes some of the many companies in which the Government are interested …

Order! The hon. member is going very far now. He must come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with the proposal to establish an industrial area, an area for the development of industries north-west of Pretoria, and I submit, Sir, that this is a new principle, and we are asked to vote public funds for the establishment of an industrial area north-west of Pretoria, which, I submit, will have special advantages to be offered by the State, and that these advantages will be offered to privileged individuals who are fortunate enough to get the ear of the Government and are encouraged to establish themselves in that area. For that reason we are not satisfied with the answers given to us by the hon. the Minister during the Committee Stage, and we make our protest at this stage in the hope of eliciting from the hon. the Minister concerned at this stage such details which will persuade us that this is an economic proposition. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that those factors which I have enumerated are factors which are to be taken into consideration by an industrialist coming to this country. They are factors which not only concern industrialists coming to this country, but are factors which are troubling the mind of every other industrialist in the country who has established his industry, who is concerned with its future development, and who is watching with a great deal of trepidation a possible new venture of the Government for Government-encouraged industries north-west of Pretoria. It is this factor which encourages us to make our protest at this stage, and the reason for my intervention in this debate is to get an answer from the hon. the Minister to these questions we have put. But I want to emphasize again that it is not correct to say that we are not in favour of the decentralization of industries. We have good reasons to make our protest, and our purpose is based on sound lines.

The hon. member for

Benoni (Mr. Ross) has stated the case very well indeed for those East Rand towns …

Order! That is not under consideration now.

… which are justified in believing that this loan for the development of border industries to the north-west of Pretoria will adversely affect this area, and the inducements to these new industrial areas, as set out by the hon. the Minister yesterday, are such, that they must create concern to other industrialists who want to open up elsewhere in the country. I am amazed that members of this House, such as the hon. members for Brakpan, Geduld and Nigel …

Order! That has nothing to do with the item under consideration. The hon. member must now confine himself to the area referred to in the item.

I wonder if these members …

Order! If the hon. member does not want to obey my ruling, I will have to ask him to resume his seat.

I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Then the hon. member must confine himself to the item under discussion.

Sir, this loan which is now to be made available to the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board will, I feel, establish a new principle as far as the development of industries in other parts of the country is concerned, and I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he also feels the same concern as I do, and as, I believe, other members do, in this matter. We would like to know from the hon. the Minister just what he visualizes is likely to be the amount of competition that the other areas will be confronted with at the expense of this area north-west of Pretoria. Associating myself with the hon. member for Benoni I do hope that we will get clarity on this matter from the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs.

I want to speak specifically to sub-head 3, this loan to the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board for the location of industry north-west of Pretoria. I want to make it clear that we on this side are the last people to object to any efforts by the Government either to encourage industrial development in this country or to effect that by means of decentralization of industries. But that is not all. The object of industrial development is not simply decentralization as such. A heavy onus rests on this Minister in particular in that our country has limited capital resources and limited human resources and limited industrial resources, and the particular function of this Minister is to see that the resources that we have available for industrial development are put to the most economic use. It is not simply a question of encouraging industrial development; it is a question of encouraging industrial development as economically as possible. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied that this expenditure on the creation of a new (to use the term that the hon. the Minister used some time ago) industrial infrastructure, a new industrial area, is really justified in the present circumstances of South Africa, when we know that, as the result of dying mines, there is a surplus capacity of public services that have been developed and that you already have an infrastructure there …

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect, this is a new policy to develop new industrial areas when there are existing industrial areas where further industrial development can take place without nearly the same expenditure which will be required to develop this new industrial area. I am just asking the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied that he has weighed up the pro’s and con’s correctly, because it is his job amidst competing political claims and competing political ideologies to see that the country’s resources are exploited to the best possible advantage.

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

Yes, Sir. The hon. Minister of Economic Affairs indicated that one of the reasons for this new development is that in terms of Government policy, there are certain industries (he used the term “White industries” and “Black industries”)—these industries will be essentially “Black industries” which will be encouraged there. But after his speech, Sir, I had a look at the industrial census classification, and if “White industries” means any industry that has a majority of White workers, I fail to find any. Going through this classification of industries, my experience was that by and large the proportion of non-White labourers is more or less the same in all industries. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs apparently wants to distinguish between White industries and Black industries. Could he then indicate to this House, because that seems to be the basis on which a considerable measure of future industrial development will be based, what he regards as White industries and what he regards as Black industries.

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill now under consideration. The hon. member must come back to the particular item he wants to discuss.

Yes, Sir, I will drop that particular part of my argument, although I must with respect point out, Mr. Speaker, that I am replying to an argument advanced by the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs.

The hon. Minister also indicated that this will be an area primarily reserved for labour intensive industries. There again we have a word bandied about so easily: Labour intensive industries and industries that are not labour intensive. There again if one analyses industries, one finds that the labour cost in industries does not nearly vary as much. If you take labour cost as a percentage of total industrial costs, there is not such a great variation, and I would like the hon. the Minister to indicate there too what he regards as labour intensive industries on which this new expenditure is to be incurred and …

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

I know for instance that in the past the textile industry has been called a labour intensive industry. Now of course when the textile industries started originally …

Order! Those are arguments which are not under consideration now.

Sir, here an area is to be established for labour intensive industries, and I want to know what labour intensive industries are. I think, Sir, there is some relevancy.

The hon. member can put a question and leave the reply to the hon. the Minister.

I would just like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware that an industry which is labour intensive at one moment may as a result of technological development be an industry which is not labour intensive. Does that then mean that all those industries are shifted back again? Take as an example the textile industry. Through automation of weaving you can increase the number of looms per worker from six to 36. Does that then mean that we have to change our policy and shift those industries back again from those areas? I think, Sir, this Vote also indicates the importance that if we are to embark on a future industrial development of this country which is based on border industries and industries that are not border industries, for the Government to indicate what they regard as the future Bantustan borders of this country. Because I have the Tomlinson Report here before me and that report shows two maps. There is one map of possible border industries, in which this Hammanskraal area is included. Then they show another map of the possible consolidation of the future Bantustans and that excludes the present area of Hammanskraal completely. The first map shows the areas for future border industry development and if that is followed, you find that the whole Transvaal is cut in half by a belt of Black industries …

Order! That is not under consideration now.

Sir, I would just like to indicate that this is not the right way of indicating where the borders of the Bantustans are going to be by way of additional estimates.

Then this is not the right time to discuss the matter.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we are asked to vote R200,000 for the specific purpose of buying farms in this area to establish border industries. Surely we are entitled to question the Minister on the advisability of spending this money to buy the farms in that area?

In this specific area, not in the whole country.

With due respect, Sir, this area is situated near Hammanskraal, and the hon. member for Jeppes is pointing out that in terms of the Government policy …

Order! I know what the hon. member is pointing out.

Mr. Speaker, I do think that this is a new development for which we are asked to vote funds and probably these loans will cost the taxpayer something because I presume that these funds will not be granted on the same basis as commercial funds are granted. It is important for Parliament and the taxpayers to know in what future areas this money is going to be used for development, because we are now dealing with an ad hoc illustration of one particular area, and I am merely trying to point out that in my opinion it is not right to develop your economic policy and your Native policy by way of additional estimates. I think the Government should give us a wider blue-print so that we can judge these estimates in that wider blue-print, and unless we are given that wider blue-print we cannot in all sincerity and honesty judge whether this is proper expenditure and whether it is justifiable expenditure of public money.

Lastly, I would like to come back to this point too and say a few words about the point already mentioned by the hon. member for Benoni and also by the hon. Minister, that what this country requires more than anything else is confidence. As somebody has put it, we have a very good business but what is lacking is management; management does not indicate where we are going. South Africa is a good business, but our management is not indicating which way we are going to develop. Here again we are asked to vote money and we are asked to give a sort of blank cheque, because we do not know how this is going to fit into the larger policy. The whole problem is being tackled on an ad hoc basis. As my hon. friend has pointed out industrialists in other areas do not know what they will have to compete with in future, they do not know on what conditions this money is going to be granted, and under what conditions manufacture is going to take place there. It is this sort of thing that creates uncertainty with industrialists in all the other areas, and after all, the bulk of industries will be in non-border areas and will remain so for a long time to come. Now you create uncertainty.

That is a point that has been made time and again.

Sir, I will conclude by saying that this ad hoc type of development of the Government’s industrial policy, its racial policy, its border policy, is quite the wrong way if you want to restore confidence to this country. If the Government has a new policy, they should give us that policy as a whole and they should not come by way of additional estimates and try and slip in R200,000 for a completely new policy which, with all respect, anyone who votes for this amount does not know what it is all about, because the Government is not taking the country into their confidence as to how this amount fits into the wider industrial policy and the wider racial policy of the Government.

If hon. members of the Opposition say that they do not know what they are voting for, it is nothing but an admission of the fact that they did not take the trouble during the past two or three years to make a study of the Government’s policy as it has clearly been stated in this House, on numerous occasions and as it was clearly stated by way of an exposition by the Prime Minister, with reference to Economic Advisory Board meetings. The development of industries in the border areas has often been explained, and the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) must not tell me, as a sensible person, that he does not know what it is all about.

So many questions have been put, Mr. Speaker, that you would probably call me to order if I attempted to reply to all of them, as I could have done. The first speaker said in the first place that it was a question of confidence in our economy, and the hon. member for Jeppes also said that it was necessary to retain confidence in the economy of the country and that the question of border industries and the question which is now before us were not matters that would instil confidence in our economy. During the past years I have often been in contact with industrialists, people who have come to South Africa from overseas and who wanted to establish industries here. So far I have not found one prospective industrialist who has shown the slightest suspicion of distrust in the economic policy of the Government because of its policy of decentralizing industries and establishing border industries. As a matter of fact this is a policy which is to-day being followed by every country in the world. There are similar projects in every country in Europe. Unlike us they do not have a colour problem, but everywhere they give attention to decentralization, to establishment of what they call “industrial estates” in England and they offer attractions to encourage industries from certain parts of the country to go to other parts.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? In those cases where the hon. the Minister rightly says, a policy of decentralization is followed, as in England and Italy, do all the people know what the conditions are on which they go there to assist with that decentralization? Is that not the big difference between the position there and the position here?

All the industrialists who want to take the trouble to find it out, will be equally au fait with the conditions and the conditions relating to decentralization here in South Africa. In Britain and in France and in all the other countries the Governments have powers as far as decentralization is concerned, which we have never even thought of asking. In Britain, France and other countries the Government can prevent an industrialist from going to certain places, as for example to Paris or London. Hon. members know that. Hon. members ought to know that France, Spain, England, Germany, Italy and Holland are all adopting methods to decentralize, and offer strong attractions; they sometimes resort to forceful means to bring the industry to the labour instead of taking the labour to the industry. Why should that cause a loss of confidence in industry in the case of South Africa, seeing that it is a world-wide practice? I do not know what hon. members are talking about when they say that it is a question of confidence or no confidence in our country. It is a world-wide practice. Even in America attempts are being made to move the industries to the South.

Do they also want to establish Hong Kong industries?

Order! I hope the hon. the Minister is not going to reply to that question.

No, Mr. Speaker, I am not. The declared policy of the Government in regard to the decentralization of industries and the establishment of industries in border areas does not mean, and this has also been clearly stated already, that it is our policy to establish industries, everywhere along the thousands of miles of boundary, but that we want to select special areas. It has already been stated in this House that we have areas in Natal in mind, such as the Empangeni area and perhaps the Newcastle area; we have in mind East London and the Ciskei area; we have in mind the Pretoria North area—certain areas which we are investigating specially because they are favourably situated for industrial development and are situated on the borders of reserves at the same time. The first one with which we are dealing now is the one in Pretoria North, the scheme which was discussed here yesterday in detail. That is one of the first areas which we intend using for border industry development.

Hon. members ask me whether we intend placing people “under duress”; are we going to force industrialists to go there? I repeat what I said yesterday: We do not have the slightest intention of forcing industrialists to go to those areas. Nor have we ever compelled any industrialist. We do not have the power of compulsion, such as they have in England or France. We have no direct power of compulsion. But what we do do, and what I repeated here in reply to a question by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), is this: When prospective industrialists come tous and ask where they should locate their industries, we say: Look, there is an area and here is an area; we prefer you to go to a border area if the industry is a labour intensive industry. We prefer them to remain within the White areas if they are not labour intensive industries; but it is for them to choose. I wonder whether hon. members can give me a single example where we have placed an industrialist “under duress”, under an obligation, to go to the one or other place. There is no such thing as compulsion.

The question of the East Rand arises here. Of course, we shall help the East Rand within certain limits. This area need not harm the East Rand, because the type of industry which we want to encourage to go to the East Rand is different from the type of industry which we want to encourage to go to the border areas. We want industries in the border areas, such as Pretoria North, which can absorb the non-White manpower in that area. We want industries on the East Rand which will absorb the White manpower—two different types of industry. Does the hon. member for Jeppes want to tell me that there is no difference? Throughout the world a difference is made between labour intensive and capital intensive industries.

I said there was not a big difference.

Now he says there is not a big difference. But there is a difference between labour intensive and capital intensive industries. Even the textile industry, or the clothing industry, or the shoe industry, are labour intensive industries. The hon. member knows that quite well. The chemical industry and the steel industry on the contrary are capital intensive industries. It is particularly that type of industry, such as the chemical industry and the mechanical industry, capital intensive industries, which we want to try to keep within the White areas; and the industries that we want to go to the border areas are the labour intensive industries in which semi-skilled and unskilled labour, especially non-White labour, is used on a large scale.

The hon. member asked whether we were making the best use possible of our resources. Of course we are making the best use of our resources—capital resources, labour resources, and raw material resources. The first principle to be observed in every economy is to make the best possible use of your resources. I find it peculiar that hon. members who so often object strongly against what we call migrant labour should object against this as well. They say that migrant labour is uneconomic; that it is wrong. I find it peculiar that those hon. members object to it when we try to eliminate migrant labour as much as possible by letting the non-White live in his area and work in the White area; by eliminating the long distance which migrant labour has to travel, by making the best possible use of his labour by letting the labourer live in his own area, in his own home with his own family. I think by doing that we are making the best use possible of the labour forces at our disposal.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) spoke about the Pinetown area as a border area. Geographically Pinetown is a border area, and geographically it is regarded as a border area because it is surrounded by a whole number of Bantu reserves. But Pinetown is not treated in all respects as a border area. In other words, it will not receive the same benefits which a border area will receive which does not have the same facilities which Pinetown has. Pinetown and Durban have every possible facility as regards railways, electricity, water, etc. No disadvantages attach to locating in Pinetown, but the attraction that we offer is to eliminate the disadvantages which attach to border areas, disadvantages which do not exist in the case of Pinetown.

In what respect does Pinetown differ from Pretoria North?

I never said that Pretoria was different. I am coming to that in a moment, and I dealt with it last night, if hon. members would only listen. Pretoria North is not much different from Pinetown, but the privileges which are extended to industrialists who settle in Pretoria North or in the new area will be investigated at the time that they establish themselves there; and if there are any disadvantages they will be taken into account. If there are no disadvantages, nothing will be taken into account. If a certain industry wishes to establish itself there it will have to prove to the Permanent Location of Industry Committee that it will be worse off if it establishes itself at Pretoria North, than, say, at Industria in Johannesburg. Only when it can be proved that is the position will it receive certain benefits—otherwise not. And up to to-day it has not yet been proved that it is disadvantageous to settle there.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think, I have replied to all the questions that have been put, without going too far beyond your ruling.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

When I was interrupted last night by the adjournment, I was dealing with the recommendations made by the committee appointed by the Minister to discuss with local authority and Provincial representatives the terms of this particular Bill, persons whose recommendations very largely influenced the trend of the Bill itself. The committee with which I deal in particular was one which represented the Executive Committee of the Cape Province Municipal Association and which met the Minister’s inter-departmental committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Niemand in Cape Town, to discuss this matter. I do not think anyone will question the wisdom of the hon. the Minister in having that investigation made, particularly in view to the calibre of the people concerned, and their expert knowledge of this particular subject. Nor will anybody question the value of the advice which that committee placed at the disposal of the hon. the Minister through his representatives, advice which both the House and the Minister should consider seriously. I would like in passing to touch briefly on one or two of the more important points on which the committee submitted a memorandum, because they have a distinct bearing on the Bill which is before us to-day. I would draw attention to the fact that these recommendations were made in response to questions bearing on the particular subject on which the recommendations were given, and, that they were given only three months ago. So that they are right up to date. First of all the committee in a memorandum submitted referred to the basic background against which the matter had been examined. They say this—

Then the committee gave this very important bit of advice—

I think that is a particular aspect to which we must give serious consideration, more particularly as in the Bill the qualification or the manner or appointment of the members of these various committees has not yet been defined. It is merely stated that they will be appointed either by the Government, or by elections, their qualifications to be decided later. I think the warning there is one which should be carefully considered. The committee went on, after a very thorough discussion with the Government representatives on the other committee, to cover three or four particular aspects which we in turn are dealing with in the Bill before us. Their recommendation to the Minister was—

They then deal with the mode and formation of the types of committees proposed which, as we know, Sir, from the Bill is firstly the advisory or consultative committee, then the management committee and finally the local authority itself. They stated—

They continued to deal with one of the most important matters for which the Bill provides an outline but has not yet filled in the gaps, that is how these local authorities are to be financed. They say this—

That is, of course, what the Bill envisages—

These are all very pertinent questions, Sir, because it will be quite impossible and quite impracticable to deal with them in the set-up envisaged in this Bill, where these new local authorities will be set up in an already existing local authority area. You will have dual control over many of your most important public services. Can you imagine dual control over our water supplies, Sir? Imagine what will happen in this city if there was dual control over the Wemmershoek dam or over the electricity power station. What would happen if there were dual control over our health services? There are no group areas, Sir, where health is concerned. The germs do not stay in one group area. They pass over the border very quickly into another area. It is quite useless for the major municipality to take very extensive health precautionary measures if, scattered about in its area, there are danger spots which, through lack of ability, financial or otherwise, are potentially health danger spots. The committee went on to deal with quite another matter altogether. They touched on a point which is also a most important one, and here the committee was completely unanimous. They were unanimous that it would be disastrous to attempt to create separate authorities in already developed and built-up areas. They say this—

One of the things foreshadowed in our amendment—

These are the recommendations of people who are well qualified, as the hon. the Minister himself has told us, and well experienced in the art of local government, particularly when it comes to local government concerning the non-Whites. The committee touched, in one of the final recommendations in their report, on one most outstanding matter, which I think we should consider seriously. That is the consideration that these bodies, when established, should be controlled by the Central Government. Their recommendation there is—

They are almost using the words that we have used in our amendment—

Where we deal now with community areas, we are simply dealing with group areas under another name—

I think that report, to a very large extent, completely backs up the line that this side of the House has taken in dealing with the Bill as a whole. Because the Bill before us, as you know, touches upon almost every phase of local government activity. I want to say that, as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, the Coloured people are regarded by us as South Africans. In many cases they have a burger’s right to full citizenship, which they enjoy at present in the Cape, a burger’s right in that they have fought for South Africa on many a foreign battlefield, fought to protect the safety of this country. It is the right of every man who has fought for his country to have a share in it. We believe that the Bill before us will produce effects detrimental to the Republic, and that it will not fulfil all the high hopes and promises that have been held out to them and purported to be contained in this Bill. I believe that it will develop an increasing spirit of division between the groups that make up our urban areas—and also our rural areas— a division that must bring about increasing tension and bitterness born of frustration. We believe, Sir, that our common destiny as South Africans is to continue as the Cape Province has done. We have worked together to build up our community areas irrespective of colour. Let the Coloured man, who has a part to play, who has a gift to offer towards the building up of a local community, share together with the rest of us in that process of building up. Do not hive them off into a separate community group. Here in the Cape Province we have a long-tested system of local government. Here the Coloured are subject to exactly the same qualifications as all others, the qualification of ownership, a certain valuation of property or occupation of a property of a certain value. The Coloured man, the Asiatic and the White man have exactly the same municipal franchise, exactly the same municipal vote, and exactly the same right to sit on the Council if he is elected. And some of them are elected in certain areas. We ask that system should be continued. We believe that the other provinces can learn a great deal from us in that particular respect.

I want to touch briefly on a statement made yesterday by the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) in dealing with the numbers of non-Europeans on the voters’ rolls. The hon. member quoted some figures which he stated were the number of voters registered in certain areas. Amongst others he gave the figures in respect of the municipal area of Simonstown. He said there were 171 Coloured voters. I want to tell him, Sir, that his figures are not correct. I have the latest figures here; the municipal voters’ roll. There are 222 Coloured voters on the roll. There are 777 White voters on the roll, there are roughly 12,000 people resident in the municipal area, of whom approximately 1,800 are Native, 8,000 are White, and the rest are Coloured.

I said those were the figures for 1959.

I am giving you the figures for 1962, Sir. These are reliable figures, not designed to mislead the House.

Order! The hon. member cannot say that.

I withdraw the last phrase, Sir. But I trust that the figures that I have given now will remedy the mistaken idea created by the figures, the not-up-to-date figures quoted by the hon. member for Parow.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, my time has nearly run out. My advice to that hon. member is that he continues to take a more accurate and intelligent interest in the welfare of the Coloured people from a practical point of view and not from the very emotional point of view which we had from him last night—a viewpoint that will not help either the White or the Coloured people.

I stand by my own party’s amendment, and I believe that this Bill will have a damaging effect on the human structure of our country as a whole. I believe it will destroy that which has been built up in this Province over many, many years. One of my greatest regrets is, Sir, that a proposal such as this has been placed before us by a Minister who represents one of the Cape constituencies.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) began by submitting that if this Bill is passed the Coloureds will lose their self-respect. I want to ask him whether he thinks that the Coloureds in the Northern Provinces and in Natal will lose their self-respect if this Bill is passed. I also want to ask what he and his party did in the past, before the Coloureds had the right to participate in local government, to rectify that position. His second statement was that “They helped to build the Cape”. Have the Coloureds in the Northern Provinces and in Natal not made their contribution, too, towards, building up those provinces? Has the Indian in Natal not played a great role in building up the wealth which the White man has acquired there? Has he not made himself indispensable in that way? But what did they do to the Indian? The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) is leaving the Chamber. After his speech following upon the introductory remarks of the hon. the Minister,. I should like to show what happened in that province where I contend that the non-Whites also had a share in building up the province. I quote from the late Mr. Strydom’s speech in this House. In 1921 they petitioned the Central Government under the Prime Ministership of the late General Smuts to disfranchise the non-Whites in Natal for all practical purposes. That was vetoed by the Central Government, but they again tried in 1922 after they had had a year to think over the matter, and again it was vetoed. But they were so persistent that in 1924 they again submitted a petition and again it was vetoed, and in 1925 they made their fourth attempt. If the hon. member for South Coast has done anything in the meantime to remove what I say is an injustice, viewed in the light of their arguments, we should very much like to hear from him in this House what he did and what became of his efforts. I say therefore that the Coloureds, these people who from the beginning have had no rights, or who had rights and were subsequently disfranchised, have also made their contribution towards building up those provinces. We need not therefore take any notice of the argument of the hon. member for Simonstown.

He says that we must “do all we can to keep the support of the Coloureds”. I entirely agree with him and I shall show later on that the sole motive behind this whole measure is to try to create a greater spirit of goodwill amongst the non-Whites. I say that this measure is an attempt in that direction, and I propose to outline the background against which many of these measures had their origin. To a large extent it is true, as the hon. member for Simonstown says, that “the Prime Minister’s statement led to this Bill”. But before the Prime Minister’s announcement a Cabinet Committee was appointed to go into this matter, and, as he also stated quite correctly, the National Party in the Cape Province appointed a Committee on which prominent members of this House and of the Provincial Council served, and to a large extent that gave rise to the appointment of this Rossouw Committee, whose terms of reference I shall explain to the hon. member in a moment. Why should we apologize for it Mr. Speaker? It is now argued that this Minister and the members of his Department are dear, good people but that the big boss has now come along and wielded the big stick. That is not the position. This side of the House has long been aware of the fact, and there has been a growing feeling in this country that certain things as far as the Coloureds are concerned should be rectified, and we are prepared to face present-day requirements. Now they want to come along and spoil this growing goodwill by sowing suspicion and belittling these attempts.

I must congratulate the hon. member for Simonstown on the realistic way in which he referred the Minister to the practical problems. I appreciate his attitude in that regard. The attitude that he adopted is considerably better than that adopted by my hon. friends in the benches facing me, the representatives of the Coloureds who have spoken so far. But I should like to come to the defence of the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé), who quoted certain figures here—the only authentic figures available—in regard to the charge levelled at him by the hon. member for Simonstown. These figures were mentioned yesterday evening in respect of a town in my constituency, a town of which we are proud, Hermanus, and that is why I want to react to the hon. member’s remarks. The report indicates that there are about 1,000 potential voters on the municipal voters’ roll, but not one of them has been registered. But since he has touched upon the question of rural local authorities, a question which has nothing to do with this measure, I should like to take him to the adjoining ward. Since he has asked what we propose to do about the rural local authorities, I want to take him to the adjacent rural local authority, the Coloured township of Hawston which falls under the Divisional Council. There the picture is as follows—and these are figures which I obtained to-day; they are not four years old. There 100 per cent of the non-White voters eligible for registration have been registered, every single one, everyone who qualified under the old set-up. But I want to be reasonable. In Hermanus there is no group areas problem, and I say that to the credit of that town council. The people who swayed the sceptre there saw to it that there was no such thing as a group areas problem. In that select area, the Riviera of South Africa, there is no such thing as a Coloured owner in the whole of the municipal area.

How can they vote then?

The hon. member then went on to say, a remark which I appreciate, that “the Minister must go gradually and with circumspection”. There I fully agree with him. One cannot pull off in a motor vehicle in top gear. That is why this Act provides in Section 25bis for what many people say is too elementary, for what they regard as too modest a beginning, but nevertheless the beginning is there and we appreciate it.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) is not in his seat. Before we entered the Chamber I told him that I should like him to be here to listen when I dealt with him. He said yesterday evening that these people were being herded together like compound cattle. Let me give the House a little information. Many prominent people from abroad who have visited this country have gone to look at the new housing schemes which have been erected here for Coloureds, particularly in recent years after this Department began to take shape, and they have had the greatest praise for, and have been so impressed by, what we are doing for the non-Whites that they have told me personally that these houses are better than those occupied by their own poor people in the countries of Europe with the oldest cultures. The hon. member for Outeniqua comes along and belittles this effort, although he knows as a Coloureds’ Representative what this Minister and his Department have done, although he knows of the phenomenal devotion and idealism with which they have tackled this matter, because in order to be able to make a success of this matter one must give these people decent houses so as to induce them voluntarily to leave their present areas rather than forcing them out. That is why we place the emphasis on housing, and I say that to belittle these efforts in the eyes of the world is the most unpatriotic deed of which a member of this House can make himself guilty.

Sabotage. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member need not take notice of those interjections.

The hon. member for Outeniqua quotes the saying of the old Romans, “Beware of the Greeks when they proffer gifts.” By Greeks, of course, he means the Nationallists, but the Coloured will interpret that as a reference to the White man. He gets up in this, the highest legislative body of this country, and, like a modern Caesar, calls out to the Coloureds (because by this time they will have had the news long ago): Timeo Danaos! Who are the Danaans? The people sitting here who have been elected by the majority of the Whites. He says, “They are your enemies; look, there are your enemies”: I repeat that is the most unpatriotic act imaginable. Does he think that will improve relations? I thought that the hon. member, after his experience with the United Party at the last election, and now that he has joined the Coloureds’ Representatives, would develop a little common sense and a new line of thinking, but he has not succeeded in outgrowing his political organizer complex. But I want to warn him and those who think as he does: If a situation develops in this country in which the White man—not the National Party Government—needs the support and the goodwill and the assistance of the Coloured and he has to forfeit that assistance, he and the people who speak as he does will not be blameless. But as far as this measure is concerned, we shall be watching his allies here when this Session is over. Although they are joining the chorus here and shouting “Slavery” and “Oppression”, when they speak on public platforms outside they are going to say to the poor White people, who are not as well off and who do not appreciate these things so well perhaps, “Look what the Government is doing for the Coloureds and look how you are struggling”! We shall be watching.

Mr. Speaker, to my mind this measure contains four main principles. As far as Section 25bis is concerned, the first thing that this measure does is to put the say and participation of the non-Whites in local government on a moral basis. It gives them the same thing throughout the country. I have already pointed out what happens in other provinces and I do not propose to repeat it. The second principle that it contains to my mind is that it lays the foundations for the eventual termination of the unsatisfactory position that various races, on the same voters’ roll, vote for various candidates.

There you have it!

I want to turn now to this report. We have heard the reproach here that there will be no consultation. I think there are many hon. members who have not read this report. They would be well advised to do so because it contains many arguments which they could use against the Minister. I do not know whether they have ever read the terms of reference. In the rapidly changing demographic pattern in this country there is always the danger of the stronger section oppressing the weaker section. There is a tendency therefore on the part of certain Whites and in certain areas to reduce the rights of the non-Whites to purely theoretical rights. This report says in paragraph 35—

In paragraph 22 the Committee says that the Cape Municipal Ordinance opens the door to possible misuses—

This has already been enlarged upon and I do not want to go into these arguments again. I should also like to point out the dangers on the other side. Just as the registration of non-Whites is artificially restricted in certain instances, it may be granted too liberally on the other hand by handing over control over property over which there is not the control required by the Ordinance.

The third principle contained in this measure, in my opinion, is that this Ordinance fits into the pattern of self-determination. But I should like to use the word “ontvoogding” (emancipation) because most of us subscribe to the principle of guardianship over the non-Whites. I submit that not everybody is actuated by noble motives in exercising guardianship. Just as guardianship can be exercised protectively, so it can be exercised oppressively and exploitationally. But in this process of emancipation for which people are clamouring in these modern times, injudicious acceleration of this process may result in throwing the ward to the wolves in a state of immaturity and defencelessness; by delaying it unnecessarily, however, and by erring in the other direction you may cause frustration and an unhealthy relationship between the races. Without trying to determine what lies at the root of the evil, I admit, together with previous speakers, that there is a feeling of frustration amongst the Coloureds, particularly amongst the upper classes, where we have trained people in the past without ensuring that there are employment opportunities for them. If we want to know how frustrated they are, we need only read the works of their young, budding poets. We need only read what Adam Small says—

There is one misconception, however, that must be removed and that is that we as Whites must get away from the idea that guardianship is normally an everlasting situation. It cannot continue ad infinitum. It must be terminated somewhere, but the ward must have faith at all times that the guardianship will come to an end. for otherwise a damper is placed on his ambition and initiative. There must be hope and there must be faith in eventual emancipation, irrespective of when it may happen, otherwise one undermines the urge for maturity.

I want to conclude with this thought and this suggestion to the Minister and his Department, with gratitude for what they are trying to do, by means of this measure, amongst others, to create more goodwill. We cannot ignore or escape from modern world opinion. We cannot pretend that it does not exist. What we can do, and for this we need the co-operation of all right-thinking people, is that while we cannot ignore this process of emancipation and the urge for emancipation, we can sublimate it.

I listened with interest to the hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. de Villiers) and I would like to point out one thing to him, that the qualifications for voting in local authority elections are laid down by the Provincial Councils, and the Provincial Council in his Province is controlled by his own party.

And in Natal?

I do not know whether his party considers these qualifications to be unfair. In addition, he has produced many dire warnings of what our relations with the Coloureds in this country will be unless we all fall in behind the policy of his party. I am going to show him just now just how this Bill is going to work in my area, and then I will ask him whether he still considers that this Bill will be and should be welcomed by all the Coloureds of the country with open arms.

Listening to the speeches on that side of the House brings two thoughts to my mind. The one is that “from him that hath not shall be taken, even that which he hath”. The other thought that comes to my mind is that if there is any danger of the Coloured man thinking that this Bill is for his benefit, he should cogitate over the origin of the phrase Timeo Danaos et dona ferents.

Now I want to get back to what I was really going to say. The principle has of course already been established in our law in regard to group areas, and this Bill is intended to bring in co-ordination of effort to bring successful administration of the present legislation. One can say that the establishment of the new Department of Community Development together with this Bill, if it becomes law, means that the Group Areas Board is provided with a planning section with teeth and with no control over it except the Minister’s whim or caprice. It is now obvious, otherwise this Bill would not have come before the House, that the law as it stands cannot be administered to the satisfaction of the Government and that the Minister in charge of the Bill has been told to take powers, however dictatorial, to enable the law to be administered according to the wild dreams of the Prime Minister. In terms of this Bill all powers are now concentrated in the hands of the Minister and his officials. Section after section in the Bill gives the Minister the right to sidestep the Group Areas Board and leave discussions and decisions to the Minister and his officials. The Board has obviously been an obstacle in the past. This Bill removes it.

Tell us where you get that from.

I am telling you now that I get it from the Bill. Read your Bill. The protection, such as it was, which was given to the people under the Group Areas Act by the Board has now disappeared. There is no question about it. Previous Ministers have stressed ever since this matter became the subject of discussion in the House that the public was fully protected against injustice or whim by the Group Areas Board, which was the complete corner-stone of the protection available to the public. Now this protection, this sole protection, has been removed. It is no wonder, as far as the Board is concerned, that there have been resignations from it and much coming and going to the Minister’s office and out of it. I do not know how anyone can be unmoved to see such powers over the lives of human beings being left in the hands of a Minister, giving him-power to appoint any ad hoc committee he considers fit, a committee of civil servants, to deal with this law which so vitally affects the people. Surely we cannot allow it.

In my area, the East Rand, there are over 12,000 Coloureds and over 7,500 Indians. I want to say what will happen to them under this Bill. They are going to be left to the tender mercies of the Minister and his Department. Some of them have been living in their houses for 50 years, but that does not matter. The protection of the Group Areas Board is being removed and they are being handed over to the Minister and his Department. I will break down these numbers of Coloureds and Indians and then explain what is on the tapis as far as the Minister is concerned. There are 12,000, Coloureds. Of these, 5,522 are in my own town, Benoni, and 1,278 are in Springs. These are recent figures. I must mention Boksburg, because that also comes into this sinister plan. There these are 936. There were 7,936 Indians in the area, of which 3,003 are in Benoni and 1,196 in Springs. In both cases, Coloureds and Asiatics, there are many more persons living in those two municipalities together than in all the other municipalities.

When the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) was speaking, the Minister sneered at him when he suggested that numbers of people could be shifted under this Bill, from where they lived to other areas, at the whim of the Minister with no appeal and no Board to consider the facts. The Minister sneered at him when he said that, but unfortunately under this Bill that will now become the position. On the East Rand it is common knowledge to-day that all the Coloureds are to be transferred to a new area adjoining Boksburg. Benoni, the town I have the honour to represent, and Springs between them have about 6U per cent of the Coloured people, and these Coloured people do not want to leave. Some of them have been there for 50 years. In the present uncertainty, with nobody knowing what the future of these people will be, no municipality can spend money on providing better conditions for them. Nothing can be done to ameliorate the conditions under which they live, and some of these conditions are not too good, but some of them live in very decent houses. Sir, I have told you that there are 20,000 people spread out in half a dozen towns in Benoni, and then the Minister wants this House to say, “Leave that to me; I am going to shift them,” and he wants to shift people who in certain cases have been in that area for 50 to 60 years to places which in some cases are 20 miles away from where they are living now. He says, “Leave this to me and my Department; never mind about the Group Areas Board.” They have obviously been an obstacle in implementing the Government’s policy so they must be removed.

What you are saying now is absolutely untrue.

Sir, if this Bill goes through, we will be back in the Middle Ages. I think the Minister should be thinking hard about what he is going to be asked clause by clause when we come to the Committee Stage.

I say that what you are saying is absolutely untrue.

I wish the hon. the Minister would listen to what I am saying instead of becoming excited. Both Benoni and Springs have enlightened and human municipalities, prepared to help their Coloured people and their Indian people to a better life, to better housing, and to lead them in every possible way in their pursuit of the happiness to which they are entitled; and now the municipalities and the provinces and these people are to be handed over to an all-powerful Minister and his Department. At the present moment any proposal to carry out this iniquitous scheme will have to pass the scrutiny and the deep investigation of the Group Areas Board. We on this side of the House, as you know, have always regarded the protection given by the Group Areas Board as not being sufficient for the individual. I cannot expand on that because you, Sir, would probably tell me to stop. But that is the position now. The final and last protection has been removed, and that will be proved in clause after clause when we come to the Committee Stage. The provinces, as I have said, the municipalities, the people, especially the Coloured people, God’s step-children, are regarded now as nothing but pawns, as numbers to be regarded or disregarded, to be chased hither and thither at the whim or caprice of a Minister and his civil servants. A dormitory town is to be established on the East Rand, and it will not be necessary for this Minister to put the matter to the Group Areas Board if this Bill goes through. Sir, just imagine the cost in human misery, the unnecessary spending of countless millions. I want to ask the Minister now in this House during this debate to answer the question as to whether he is considering the removal of all the East Rand Coloureds to one area or not. He must confirm or deny this. He must tell us whether this matter will come before the Group Areas Board or not.

Who are you?

Did I hear a sheep bleating over there?

He is entitled to ask these questions because he is a member for that area.

In conclusion, I want to say that this Bill is monstrous and only worthy of a follower of Hitler. I support the amendment.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) who has just sat down stated that “this Bill will take us back to the Middle Ages”. But the hon. member for Benoni knows very little about the circumstances prevailing on the East Rand. He does not live there. He does not even know what the boundaries of his constituency are, and I want to say in all seriousness to him to-day that the conditions under which the Coloureds on the East Rand are living are on a par with the conditions of the Middle Ages. All those of us who live on the East Rand and who know the conditions there are grateful for the fact that the Minister has come along with this measure to-day and that he is concerned about these conditions and about the future of these Coloureds. The hon. member for Benoni says that there are Coloureds there who have lived on the East Rand for the past 50 years and that we now want to remove them to some other place. The conditions and the circumstances under which they are living are so appalling that the Coloureds would prefer to move because any other area to which they are moved is bound to be better. Let us be perfectly honest. The Coloureds of the East Rand have always been treated as the step-children of South Africa. These Coloureds are living under the most appalling conditions imaginable but absolutely nothing is being done for them by the town councils of the East Rand, including Springs, Benoni, Germiston, Boksburg and Brakpan—and there are very few Coloureds in my constituency. The responsible leaders of the Coloureds have come along to us and said, “Why are you doing everything for the Natives; what is being done for us who live in your midst and who stand with you?” The hon. member for Benoni has spoken about “dormitory towns”, but are the Whites not living in “dormitory towns” today? Not all the Whites live in the towns in which they work. Take the whole of the East Rand. These people travel from Brakpan to Johannesburg and from Johannesburg to Springs. And go and look at the conditions here in the Cape Peninsula; go and look at the Cape Town station in the morning and see how many people travel to and from the city. This idea of dormitory towns therefore is no new idea. But the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) suggests that we want to place the Coloureds into one kraal. No, that is not what we want to do; we simply want to give the Coloured what is due to him. Mr. Speaker, we all feel proud of this legislation. On 29 May 1950, the then Minister of the Interior, the present Minister of Finance, introduced the first Group Areas Bill in this House. What is the principle that was accepted in this House on that day and that was laid down in that measure? On that occasion the then Minister of the Interior said—

And he went on to add, “If necessary by compulsion”. The year 1950 is still going to become an historic year in the future of the Republic of South Africa, because it was in that year that we placed on our Statute Book one of the firm foundation stones for a White Republic here at the southern tip of Africa. Whether hon. members of the Opposition want to acknowledge it or not, the Group Areas Act ensures the survival of the White race in South Africa but at the same time also ensures racial harmony in this multi-racial country of ours. We find that a greater hullabaloo is being raised outside this House than in the House and that this Bill is being opposed more strenuously outside the House than in this House. We saw what happened here when the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) moved an amendment. His seconder did not even grasp the opportunity to speak, but the local English-language Press is sowing hatred and describing this Group Areas Act as “a monstrous measure, inhuman, immoral and un-Christian”.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member says “Hear, hear!”, but I am going to prove to him that is not correct. It is very unfair and unjust towards the Coloureds to describe this legislation in those terms. Let me say perfectly clearly to-day that the Group Areas Act is the key to success in any multiracial country. I concede at once that many amendments to this Act have already been introduced in this House, but I also agree with the statement made by the Minister; if the Minister feels that an amendment should be made, he has the fullest right to do so because he is a responsible Minister and he realizes that he is dealing here with human beings. He is being fair and just towards them. We are grateful for the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister also instituted a portfolio of Community Development, and in this Bill we find that reference is made to the Minister of Coloured Affairs as well as to the Minister of Community Development. Since the establishment of these portfolios the Minister has had the opportunity of going very thoroughly into the position that obtains here. Not only has he had the opportunity of going into the position, but we know the Minister as a person who grew up in the Cape Province, as a person who is familiar with the circumstances here and with the problems with which we have to contend. He knows the answers and he knows what the solution is, and that is why we are so grateful … [Interjection.] Yes, the Opposition will now come forward again with the cry that we keep on thanking the Minister. They, however, are not prepared to express their gratitude when justice is done towards a less-privileged group, because they do not know what it is to give a lead where a lead is needed. We say to the Minister that we are grateful for what he has done. We are convinced that the Minister will put an end to these chaotic conditions under which Whites and non-Whites are living in the same areas and that he will improve the conditions under which the Coloureds are living to-day and that he will solve this problem to the satisfaction of all races. We know that you can only have racial harmony in a multi-racial country if there is proper territorial separation between the various races. Step by step we have solved the various problems which have confronted us in South Africa. Hon. members must regard the establishment of group areas as a very intricate and a major problem. I just want to remind them that in the year 1950 not one of them believed for a moment that we would be able to solve the housing problem of the non-Whites in South Africa. In that year no fewer than 167,000 houses were needed for the non-Whites, and to-day the position on the Witwatersrand is that houses are standing empty, but in 1950 the same hon. members raised all sorts of objections and said that this problem was too big and that it could not be solved. I want to put this question to-day to those hon. members: How can they or how can anyone of us expect this Government to do more than it is doing to-day? Sir, we place certain laws on the Statute Book, laws which have my full support, but what is the position? Last Friday we had a debate here on the Immorality Act and the repeal of that measure. I say that Act cannot be properly implemented as long as we allow these mixed residential areas in South Africa. Let me say this to the Opposition to-day. Neither the White man nor the non-White has any desire to associate with members of the other race in the social sphere. We have evidence to prove that. Every day we see letters in the newspapers in which people say that they do not want social intercourse between Whites and non-Whites. What is the public opinion in South Africa? Over the past 300 years it has always been the desire of Whites as well as non-Whites that every person should live among his own racial group. I want to make an appeal to-day to hon. members of the Opposition that they should afford the opportunity to the hon. the Minister and his newly established Department and the Group Areas Board to enable every racial group to develop along its own lines, retaining its own culture, its own language and its own religion, so that they too can learn a sense of responsibility. We know the needs of every race, and the various racial groups can only meet their needs if they are allowed to develop in their own area to their own advantage. Let us grant the opportunity to the leaders of the other racial groups to develop in their own area. Can anyone sitting in this House to-day feel proud of the circumstances that prevail in Cape Town at the present time? Can anyone feel proud of the intermingling between Whites and Coloureds? We are told that we are breaking down a system which is 300 years old. I say that it is a rotten system. Neither the Coloured nor the White man is proud of the conditions prevailing here to-day under which there is this intermingling between Whites and non-Whites. This intermingling only results in residential areas degenerating into slums and in lowering the moral level of those people.

Mr. Speaker, we welcome the provision which is now being made in Clause 5 of this Bill whereby it will be possible for group areas to be declared more expeditiously. Here I refer to the Transvaal, and members who represent Transvaal constituencies will agree with me that it is the desire of every Transvaal Town Council to co-operate with the Minister to have these group areas established as soon as it is practicable to do so, because we believe that is the only solution. We believe that is the way in which these people will be able to win back their self-respect. We hear such a great deal about the conditions under which these people are living, but are those conditions known to the people who have so much to say? Time and again we are told by the newspapers that this legislation is “monstrous, inhuman, immoral, and unChristian”, but I want to prophesy here to-day that the present Minister, with his courage and perseverance and knowledge and with the machinery at his disposal, is going to put a stop in the near future to the exploitation of the Coloured by unscrupulous people, by making use of this so-called “monstrous, inhuman, immoral and un-Christian” Group Areas Act. These words should be addressed to those persons who do not want to have the Coloureds separated from the Whites. Who are the people who do not want the Coloureds to be taken away from the areas in which they are living at present? Is it not those capitalists who let these hovels to them? They are the people who object to this Act. But go and ask the Coloured who is living there whether he would like to continue to live under those conditions. He will tell you at once that he would like to clear out, that he would like to be housed under different circumstances. But it is the United Party who want to keep the Coloureds here; it is the capitalists who want to keep them here in order to exploit them. I ask you, Sir, have you ever looked at the conditions under which these Coloureds are living? Can anybody tell me when those houses in which the Coloureds have to live had their last coat of paint and when last any repairs were undertaken? The poor Coloured is exploited to the utmost. I hope and trust that the representatives of the Coloureds will deal with those people and see to it that better conditions are created for the Coloureds. The National Party does not want them to continue to live there. We want to take them away and place them under better conditions. Sir, let us see on which clauses the United Party have attacked the Minister to-day. There is not a single clause in regard to which they have attacked the hon. the Minister; they have all confined themselves so far to the consultative and management committees which are to be instituted for the Coloureds. Every clause contained in this Bill is designed only to introduce efficiency and to facilitate and expedite the administration. I want to say this to the hon. member for Benoni: If there is one thing that we in the Transvaal welcome it is these ad hoc committees which the Minister wants to appoint, because it is soul-deadening to find that one can make no headway; to find that one has to sit and wait without knowing when a decision is going to be taken in the matter. We are grateful, therefore, that the Minister is now going to appoint ad hoc committees which will be able to take steps immediately in those cases where it is urgently necessary perhaps. But hon. members of the Opposition now come along and strenuously object to the fact that management committees and consultative committees are to be instituted at once and that town councils are to follow ultimately. The question has been asked here what powers these consultative committees or management committees are going to have. Here the Minister is giving the Coloureds the same system of control right at the outset that we have in the White areas in the Republic of South Africa. In the Transvaal we find that the Peri-Urban Areas Board has its area committees, and here I want to plead with the hon. the Minister that the first persons serving on these bodies should very definitely be appointed by him. Sir, if you were to ask any responsible person to-day whether he would be prepared to agree to our giving self-government to the Coloureds, whatever the level of self-government may be, he would say “No” unambiguously, but the Minister believes—and here again I want to pay tribute to the Minister’s drive and courage—that by giving the right lead to the Coloured he will eventually also be able to help him to help himself. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, when he establishes these consultative committees, to appoint the members. If we give the vote to those persons immediately and allow them to elect their own representatives, we will never get the right type of person to serve on those committees. We know what jealousy there is amongst these people; that is something that is inherent in all of us, and if we want to make sure that the people whom we are going to consult are the right people, then I feel that initially they should be appointed. We as Whites in South Africa certainly owe it to the Coloured population to extend a sympathetic hand, a hand of goodwill, towards the Coloureds and to assist them actively in their upliftment and progress so that they will be able to have a greater share in the handling of their own affairs. If there is one man who would have been grateful for this legislation, this legislation under which it will be possible to establish consultative committees and management committees and eventually town councils for the Coloureds, it is the late Dr. Malan. This was one of his aspirations when the late Dr. Malan was Prime Minister of South Africa, and if he had been alive to-day I think he would have been very happy to see that the responsibility for this matter has fallen upon the shoulders of the present Minister. We know that the hon. the Minister will help to bring an end to these appalling circumstances under which the Coloureds are living to-day In Cape Town, which has been under United Party control throughout all these years. I ask you, Sir, what did they actually do for the Coloured masses? We are not so concerned about the odd Coloured individual; we are concerned about the Coloured masses in the Republic of South Africa. [Laughter.] The hon. member may laugh and do what he likes but we are perturbed about the conditions under which the Coloureds are living.

You will have me in tears in a moment.

Yes, let the hon. member cry over his actions in the past, because his party never looked after the interests of the less-privileged sections. The National Party is prepared to take steps in the interests of all sections, not in the interest of the individual but in the interests of the masses, and that is why I want to make a serious appeal to-day to all the members of the Opposition. The city councils and the provincial councils are all desirous of co-operating with the Minister to implement the Group Areas Act. I can speak on behalf of the city councils, because until my election I served on the Transvaal Executive Committee; I served on the United Municipal Executive and I want to tell the House to-day that the city councils, wherever they may be, want to co-operate with the Minister to find a solution for this problem of intermingling between White and non-White. I want to ask hon. members of the Opposition not to continue to place obstacles in the Minister’s way in his effort to implement this legislation properly. It is only with this legislation that we can get racial harmony and racial peace in South Africa. Reference has been made here to points of friction. Points of friction will certainly continue to exist as long as the Coloureds and the Whites are on common municipal voters’ rolls. The time may come— and it may be very close—when the Coloureds will perhaps be in the majority in the city council, and then the sparks are going to fly. I am not afraid of that because I know what is going to cause the friction, but I want to give the vote to the Coloured masses in their own areas. I want to give the masses exactly what I demand for myself—not a vote with me but alongside me in his own area. He cannot compete here with me in my area. In his own area he can get whatever he likes but definitely not in my area, and that is the big difference between the National Party and the United Party. We want to give justice to the less-privileged of all groups but we do not want to bluff them as the United Party is doing. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) tried to suggest yesterday that the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) was lying in connection with the figures which he mentioned here. He says that a Coloured person was elected unopposed in Simonstown. Mr. Speaker, if that is not political fraud and hypocrisy, then I do not know what those terms mean. What are they doing? They are stirring up and cultivating racialism. No, let us be honest with one another. What can that poor solitary Coloured achieve on that council? The United Party is misleading the Coloured masses; they are simply giving a few selected posts to their followers. They are now giving seats on the city councils to a few individuals so as to satisfy their demands, but in the Coloured masses they are not interested. The National Party, however, wants to see that justice is done to the masses, and here I want to make an appeal to the United Party.

The Coloureds are satisfied with the present system.

They are not

satisfied. The Coloureds are not satisfied with the prevailing conditions—I can give that assurance to the hon. member. The hon. member will become disillusioned at the next election because I am afraid that not one of them will then be returned to this House.

In recent years, and particularly in the period after Sharpeville, there were significant indications of quite a lot of new thinking within the ranks of the National Party about the future position of the Coloured, and one Government spokesman after another started pleading for what they called “a new deal” for the Coloureds. I do not want to try to make debating points by quoting specific Nationalist newspapers, but this is the type of plea that was made: In a leading article in one of the Government’s most important organs mention was made of the “broad stream of feeling amongst Nationalists in favour of a really new spirit and set-up between White and Coloured. The paper wrote—

The same newspaper said later—

That was the tone and the spirit of one Government commentator after another. Consequently (as a result of it) and as the result of the expressed pleasure emanating from church organizations and bodies such as Sabra, and from Afrikaans writers and thinkers, high expectations were aroused in the mind of the public. People began to hope that the Government had come to its senses and was preparing to accept the Coloured population for what it is, namely a Western minority which is neither a problem or a threat to anyone, but whose fate has been inextricably interwoven and bound up with the large White majority in the country.

The hon. the Minister who is in charge of this Bill was very intimately connected with the circles within his party which pleaded for this new direction, and I must frankly say that when the portfolios of Coloured Affairs and Community Development were entrusted to him, I confidently expected that as the Minister he would give a new lead and become one of those serious-minded Nationalists to whom his official organ referred and for whom the period of alienation between the White and the Coloured was a thing of the oast. If the Minister still has any such intention, this Bill does not give the slightest indication of it, and then the hon. the Minister should know that from the side of the Opposition he will experience only the most formidable opposition to all measures which go to strengthen the colour mania in the country; all measures which create new zones of alienation between the White man and the Coloured man; all measures which even further diminish the civil rights of the Coloureds than has already been done, however, indirectly or in whatever guise it is done; and all measures adopted in terms of the ridiculous concept of states within a state in the sense in which the Government means it.

On whose behalf are you talking now?

I represent more people than the hon. the Minister does in his constituency.

I listened with interest to the long exposition the Minister gave of the provisions of this amending Bill, and I was struck by various things in it. The first thing which impressed me was the totally unsatisfactory nature of the proposals for the Coloureds and the Indians as contained in Clauses 22 and 28 of the Bill. The Coloureds of the Cape have long since passed the stage of political childish games of this sort. Even in the days when I was a newspaperman, more than 20 years ago, I saw the Cape Coloureds in action on the hospital boards, the divisional councils, the City Council and the Provincial Council of the Cape Province, where the Coloureds at that time was represented by their own people, and their representatives were almost without exception distinct assets to those bodies and to the broad community whom they served. But still the hon. the Minister talks in an old-fashioned manner of the need for training these people in the complicated art of local government! Why does the Minister not talk in that way when he offers the tribal Bantu of the Transkei self-government on the highest level? Where is the logic in the Government’s policy? Where is the logic in giving self-government to the tribal Bantu at the highest governmental place, but in the case of a Western community like the Coloureds, who have so much administrative talent and who for years have ruled together with us by way of direct representation in the Provincial Council of the Cape Province, in the Divisional Council, on the hospital board and on the City Council of Cape Town, and who to-day still help to administer the legislative capital of our country together with the Whites, to relegate them to the level of consultative and management committees under the domination of White councils, with functions and a lack of real powers which can only lead to frustration and dissatisfaction and bitterness towards the White man?

What the hon. the Minister is proposing is in the first place unsatisfactory. But it is also unfair. The hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) said last night that this Bill does not take away any existing municipal rights. But the granting of inferior rights in the place of superior rights amounts in the long run to the deprivation of rights, even though it is done in a gradual, almost imperceptible and indirect manner. Therefore I say that this Bill is also unfair. What the Minister is proposing is not only unsatisfactory and unfair but it is also unnecessary. I should be glad if the Minister, in his reply, would answer directly and pertinently to the question as to what is really the necessity for the structure he is trying to introduce here.

If you like, I will reply immediately.

I want to ask him why we cannot continue building on the pattern which already exists in the Cape and which works quite satisfactorily and ought to work quite satisfactorily, namely the large-scale housing and the development of Coloured residential areas, and then the establishment of natural and comprehensive municipalities where Whites and Coloureds have a joint say, on the same basis that we have at present? The hon. member for Parow said last night that the existing system merely causes friction between the various groups. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat continued to embroider on the same pattern. I want to ask hon. members who spoke in that way whether they have considered what they really mean when they say that it causes friction. The hon. member for Parow spoke as if it is the Coloured who causes friction when he exercises his rights. Has the hon. member analysed the basis of this so-called friction they talk about? I want to ask him whether it is not fed and increased and often even created by the sort of spirit the hon. member and his colleagues foster amongst the Whites at their political meetings?

Did you yourself not reveal the same sort of spirit also?

No, Mr. Speaker, they can go back on my tracks. I have always believed that there was no difference between a Black man who incites the Blacks against the Whites and a White man who incites the White people against the Blacks. It is exactly the same thing. I say it is time that we as White people begin to realize that the old spirit will have to disappear if we and our children want to continue living peacefully in South Africa, and that we should not be as obstinate, as slow and as unwilling to change our spirit of superiority towards the Coloured, as the old British jingo was in changing his attitude of superiority towards the Afrikaner. It is no use hon. members always attacking the old British jingoes because they continued to adopt an attitude of superiority towards the Afrikaner whilst they themselves obstinately continue to reveal an attitude of superiority towards the Coloured. Those hon. members—one can analyse all their racial politics—always have a double yardstick for every attitude they adopt. We White people will have to abandon our selfish approach which makes us penalize the Coloured for it every time our prejudices in regard to having contanct with them causes us inconvenience, and makes us interfere with and change these rights. I say again that I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will tell us what is the real reason behind this step he is taking.

Is the real reason that all forms of direct co-operation between the White man and the Coloured must be broken down? Is that the real reason? Is the reason why the Government will not allow Whites and Coloureds to consult with each other directly and to co-operate, even on the level of local government, simply because they differ in colour? Mr. Speaker, this is a matter in regard to which the Government will have to obtain clarity fairly soon. Because if it is a sacred principle of the Government that a White South African should not consult with a Coloured in a responsible capacity at any level, what right has the Government then to violate that same principle on the international level; and how long can the Government still expect the non-White nations of the world to be satisfied to sit in conference with delegates from this Government outside South Africa? It is time that the Government gets clarity in regard to this type of principle, and to see whether it cannot put South Africa’s interests above those of its political party. One thing is very certain, namely that this legislation will not satisfy the Coloured, nor the Indian. It will not impress the world; on the contrary, its effect will be very harmful in the outside world; nor will it make the serious White man feel that he is doing justice to the Coloured and Indian minorities in his midst. I have said that the steps proposed by the Government here are unsatisfactory and unfair, as well as illogical and unnecessary. My final objection is that this measure is completely futile. I listened attentively to the hon. the Minister trying to convince the House, as he also tried to convince the Municipal Association the other day, that the Group Areas Act as it stands and as it is now being amended here has come to stay.

I had the heartiest co-operation from that association.

I think I am correct in saying that at the same time that the hon. the Minister was endeavouring to convince the Municipal Association of the permanency of this complicated structure, based on one thing only, namely the colour of a man’s skin, Col. John Glenn was travelling in outer space around the earth and almost succeeded in destroying our concepts of time and distance as we have always known them. Mr. Speaker, let us face the facts. In certain respects the fault does not lie with the Government’s policy. I will tell you what is wrong. The time is wrong. In 1662 this Government would perhaps have been one of the most successful governments in the world, but it now happens to be 1962, and that is something which neither this Government nor anyone else in the world is able to change. Anyone who thinks that in this second half of the twentieth century he can still build up a legally discriminatory caste system like this, based on a difference of colour alone, between people who culturally, economically, geographically and in all other respects stand together and ought to be together, lives in a very unreal world. When it comes to the territorial segregation of various races and nations, then, whether one is in favour of it or against it, it is something which is practical politics in various parts of the world. But when it comes to small, illogical and unfair separations like those the Government is envisaging here again, and which have become known as petty, degrading apartheid with all the injustice which goes with it, it is only a fool who thinks that there can be anything permanent about it. It may be ten years, it may perhaps be much less, or it may perhaps be a little longer, but of this structure which the hon. the Minister wants to build up here, based as it is on colour politics and nothing else, not a single stone will remain standing; and those local bodies which are hurrying to implement this policy of the Government are wasting their time, wasting the money of their people and wasting their energies, and above all, they are still creating a lot of injustices which will be rued by the White man in the future and which may perhaps prove fatal. I therefore oppose this Bill and support the amendments.

In regard to the Minister’s housing plans for Coloureds and Indians, of which he gave us a resumé, I hope he will continue to devote all his energies to those plans. Every country which calls itself civilized must provide opportunities for employment, for education and for the decent housing of all its citizens. But in regard to this Government’s legal caste structure, which has taken another step forward by means of this Bill, with all the injustice and all the obstacles it brings for the Coloured and the Indian, there will be no end to the opposition to it. And that opposition will be maintained in this Parliament and outside it until the Government realizes that it is in the interest of the White man and his future in South Africa that minority groups like the Coloureds and the Indians should be given not fewer but increased rights, should be granted not less freedom but more, and that there should be an end as soon as possible to the period of alienation between the White man and the Coloured.

I deliberately and intentionally do not want to react to the remarks of the hon. member who has just sat down, and I will tell you why, Sir. At the present moment the hon. member is still negotiating with the official Opposition to get a certain person into the Other Place, and until such time as that transaction has been concluded, I do not think we should take him too seriously. The hon. member who has just sat down is by far the greatest political opportunist we have in South African politics to-day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am there already. I want at the outset to deal with a few statements which have been made by members of the Opposition. The accusation has been levelled at the Minister concerned that he is taking autocratic powers unto himself, that, in the implementation of this legislation, the Minister is deliberatley aiming at destroying all forms of local government in this country. Mr. Speaker, I can only say that hon. members who say that have definitely not read this Bill, or if they have read it, they have not understood it, because one of the most important features of those clauses, when it comes to the implementation of this legislation, is that without exception every one of the clauses concerned provides that the assistance of the Administrator (in other words, the provincial administration concerned) should deliberately be sought. I shall prove that clause by clause. The first is the new Section 25 (3) (a)—

It says very clearly that the Administrator must do that. Then Section 25 (4)—

Once again the Provincial Administrations are recognized. Section 25bis (2) (a)—

Again the Administrator is recognized, in other words, the provincial administrations. Section 25bis (3)—

Once again you recognize the Administrator there. Sir. He is deliberately brought into the picture. When it comes to the implementation of the Act—

Again you recognize the hand of the Administrator here. Then you have Section 43bis (1)—

The Minister may make regulations, in consultation with the Administrator in respect of the duties and powers of local authorities as far as the management committees under a local government are concerned.

Who appoints him?

The hon. member does not even know who appoints an Administrator. Throughout the legislation, in each of the clauses which has a bearing on the implementation of the law, the Provincial Administration and the Administrator are recognized. He is deliberately brought in. Then hon. members opposite come and tell us that the Minister is destroying the system of local authorities and of taking autocratic powers unto himself. That is devoid of all truth and those hon. members who allege that have not even taken the trouble of reading this Bill.

I now want to make a few general remarks on the attitude which the Opposition adopts towards this Bill. It is a fact that when we talk about race relations in respect of the Coloureds, members opposite continually make lavish use of phrases such as “a new approach”, “a change of heart”, “the Coloureds and the Whites must be drawn closer together”. Those are expressions that we have to listen to the whole day. Where do you want a better opportunity to adopt “a new approach” Mr. Speaker, and to have a “change of heart” as far as the Coloureds are concerned, than the opportunity which the implementation of this legislation presents? This important legislation holds out an entire new future to us as far as the pattern of local authorities is concerned, a pattern which will be devoid of all the abuses and anomalies which we have to-day in the functioning of our local authorities particularly in the Cape Province as far as the Coloureds are concerned. Here we have the opportunity, because this legislation deals with the weal and woes which every voter experiences every day of his life. The plane on which local authorities operate is an important plane. On one occasion General Smuts said the following about the functions of local authorities—

One of the most important planes onto which this legislation takes us, is that very plane. Here we have an opportunity for a new approach. And what is the reaction of members opposite? We have fervent pleas for the retention of the existing system, to which I shall return in a moment. This opportunity is not taken, but we have pleas, not for a new approach, but for the retention of the existing system. Let us analyse that party’s attitude. It is a fact that when the Coloured was on the Common Voters’ Roll, the leaders of that party held evening classes, for the Coloureds evening after evening, to teach them to qualify for the voters’ roll.

What has that to do with the Bill?

The hon. member who has such a great deal to say, was one of them. He sat night after night teaching the Coloureds how to sign their name so that they could qualify for the Common Voters’ Roll, so that they could bring out their vote at the polls against their White opponents.

That is a lie.

On a point of order, is the hon. member for Outeniqua allowed to say “that is a lie”?

Did the hon. member say that?

The hon. member alleges that I sat night after night teaching the Coloureds to sign their name. That is an untruth, I do not know anything about it. However, I withdraw the word “lie”.

I repeat that some of the most prominent members of that Party sat in the suburbs just outside Cape Town night after night, conducting classes for the Coloureds so that they could sign their name and thus get on to the Common Voters’ Roll.

The hon. member must return to the Bill.

I am practically there already, Sir. When it comes to the question of the municipal franchise, it is a fact that the party opposite manipulated the Coloured vote on the municipal voters’ roll in an unforgiveable manner. The United Party-strong City Councils manipulate the Coloured vote on the municipal voters’ rolls. They do so under Section 89 of the Municipal Ordinance. They also do so by way of adoit handling of the ward system. The contrast that we see here is this: On the one hand you have evening classes to get the Coloureds on the Common Voters’ Roll …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, when I took part in this debate, I was strictly limited to the Bill and I want to know what that argument of the hon. member has to do with the Bill.

That is not a point of order. The hon. member for Moorreesburg may continue.

Mr. Speaker, here you see the contrast very clearly. In those areas where the number of White opponents of that party is insignificant, they manipulate the Coloured vote in an unforgivable manner, and in those other areas where the number of White opponents is significant, they hold night classes in order to get the Coloured on the Common Voters’ Roll, as they did at that time. To-day we have denials; there are people here who allege that is not the position. I notice, inter alia, from a newspaper report this morning that the Mayor of Cape Town denies that there is manipulation of the Coloured vote. I, therefore, want to produce the evidence of a person who can speak with authority. I do not know what his political affiliations are, but this is a person who is an authority on Coloured housing in the Western Cape to-day; also as far as the workings of the provincial system is concerned this person is really an expert. As I say, I do not know what his political affiliations are, but this person stands out by himself, and because he is an expert, I want to quote what he says about this position which is now denied by members of the Opposition. I want them to listen. This person is Mr. Yeld, the Chairman of the Utility Company of the Urban Housing Association, a person who has done a great deal under this Act, a person who has done a great deal as far as Coloured housing is concerned, a person who is regarded as an expert when it comes to the operation of our present system of local government. Listen to what he says—

He goes on, and I want my hon. friends to listen—

And finally—

Mr. Speaker, the evidence I have produced is not that of a politician, but of a person who has devoted his whole life to this question. That is his evidence, and hon. members opposite come here and want to deny it …

May I ask a question?

No, Mr. Speaker, because the hon. member will in any case only ask a stupid question. By giving you an example, Sir, I want to show you how the present system works. I want to tell you something about an area which I know very well, an area which I have represented for seven years in the Cape Provincial Council, namely, the Goodwood area. There are four municipal wards in that area to-day, and in one of those wards three Coloureds are to-day elected to the Goodwood Town Council. One of those Coloured persons is a Coloured woman, and that Coloured woman, who does not even qualify for the Parliamentary Voters’ Roll, represents the White people in that particular municipal ward. Mr. Speaker, that illustrates the implications of the present system. It creates friction, because the White people are not satisfied with this system. But we are faced with this danger—and this is the system which my hon. friends opposite want us to retain— as a matter of fact, we are not faced with it, because as sure as I am standing here, when the following municipal election takes place, a second ward—the numbers already indicate that—will probably elect three Coloureds as additional members to the Goodwood Town Council, and that will happen in an area which has 58,000 inhabitants. In other words, the position in that council will then be that 50 per cent of the representatives on it will be White and the other 50 per cent Coloured. What is more, if those White persons should dare to differ amongst themselves, then as sure as I am standing here, I foresee the possibility that a Coloured woman will be elected as mayor of that area. That being the position— and I know what the position is there—that area is faced with the fact that as far as the future is concerned, the White municipality will go over into the hands of the Coloureds. During the past 12 or 13 years that has been the strongest point of friction in that area. In the past there have been such quarrels at the meetings of the Town Council of that area with its 58,000 inhabitants, that the police have had to be called in. That is the system which members opposite wish us to retain.

That was after 1948.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I have given you this example to show you what the implications of the present system are, and the position is deteriorating. All the towns roundabout Cape Town are faced with the danger of landing in that position. I want to know this: Can we afford, can we allow for the sake of good relations between White and Coloured in this area, particularly in the Western Cape the present system to deteriorate further and further? We are in the inevitable position where we have to find a solution and that is why the hon. the Minister has introduced this legislation. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, this situation will inevitably deteriorate. That will happen for two reasons in particular. In the first place we cannot in the long run continue to manipulate the Coloured vote. In the long run we shall not achieve success that way. Ultimately it will be numbers that will count against us and I will tell you why. It is not the policy of this side of the House that the Coloured community of South Africa should forever remain undeveloped. Nor do I think is it the wish of members opposite that the Coloured community should forever remain undeveloped. Seeing that the Coloured woman also has the municipal vote to-day, it follows as day follows night, that numbers will ultimately count against us. As these communities develop, it is a fact that the Coloured will ultimately reach a position where he will take control of most of the towns in the Western Cape. We cannot get away from that. Ultimately it will be numbers that will count against us. Something like 90 per cent of the Coloured population is in the Cape Province, practically concentrated in the Western Cape. The numbers that are concentrated here are steadily increasing. In 1951 there were 376,600 Coloureds living in Cape Town and the vicinity. Since 1951 the numbers in and around Cape Town have increased with over 30 per cent, and during the same period the numbers of Whites in the area have increased by only 15 per cent. You will allow me, Sir, to give you the example of a few other towns here in the Western Province, just to show what the position is in regard to numbers. The latest figures which I could obtain in respect of Ashton are th<?se for 1959, and within the municipal area of a little town like Ashton there were only 700 Whites as against 1,000 Coloureds. In Bellville …

They cannot vote.

Mr. Speaker, that is not the point. They cannot vote to-day because their vote is being manipulated. The point is that these Coloured communities cannot remain under-developed communities forever. Ultimately all these people will have to enjoy the municipal franchise. There are 2,000 Whites as against 1,000 Coloureds in the municipal area of Durbanville. There are 660 Whites as against 535 Coloureds in the municipal area of the little town of Frenchhoek. There are approximately 15,000 Whites as against 43,000 Coloureds in the municipal area of Goodwood; and the Coloured vote in the Municipality of Goodwood already constitutes 41 per cent of the number of registered voters. I come to Hopefield … Mr. Speaker the hon. member over there is making a running commentary, but it does not mean anything, in any case …

Order! The Chair will maintain order.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In a town like Hopefield there are 705 Whites in the municipal area as against 2,250 Coloureds. Take Kraaifontein—there are 1,815 Whites as against 2,648 Coloureds in that municipal area. I can go on mentioning numbers of Western Province towns where it is obvious that the general control will ultimately go over into the hands of the Coloureds.

I want to state one thing plainly: The White municipal voters of the Western Province, as far as the future pattern is concerned, are not prepared to allow the control of their towns and cities, towns and cities which they have struggled to build up, to come under the predominant control of the Coloureds. The municipal voter in the Western Province already harbours a justifiable fear that the Coloured will reach a position where he will have the final say, financial and otherwise, in those communities. That fear exists. At various places in their report the Rossouw Commission refer to the fear which exists on the part of the White municipal voters in the Western Province. Mr. Speaker, we should put a stop to that. It is in the interests of sound race relations between the Coloured and the White that we do away with the present system. And where we are dealing with the implementation of the law there is one friendly request in particularly which I want to make to the hon. the Minister. It is this, that in the first instance he should give his attention to this complex from Bellville (South), past Tiervlei as far as Elsie’s River. It is essential that we have a full-fledged municipality for the Coloureds in that area as soon as possible. Certain benefits will flow from such a step and I want to mention them. In the first place, we are going to have endless trouble with the implementation of this law. That is true and nobody will deny it. If the Minister could establish such a full-fledged municipality in this area, practically right from the start, it can serve as a handy experimental area, we will be able to discover all the problems and difficulties in that area. In addition the Cape Western Coloured University is situated in this complex and the product of that University can immediately be utilized in that area to assist in building and creating a new sovereign Coloured community. In addition it will prevent another point of friction coming into existence in the area. Because the fact remains that we are running the risk with the municipal elections in a municipality such as Bellville next year that in that area too three Coloureds will be elected to the municipal council. The numbers indicate that already and that will mean another point of friction in that area. Surely that is the last area in which we want to have friction. In view of the fact that the Cape Western Coloured College is situated in that area, surely that is the last place where we can afford to create an additional point of friction; we want to maintain those good race relations. Fourthly, it will assist us in removing once and for all this point of friction which has existed in the Goodwood area over the past 13 or 14 years.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say this to the hon. the Minister: He is going to encounter many difficulties in the implementation of this law. A gigantic task awaits him, but I want to tell him that eventually he will be praised from two sides. He will be praised from the one side by the Whites because this is a new pattern which will prevent the control over local government in these areas eventually going over into the hands of the Coloureds. And from the other side he will ultimately receive praise from the Coloureds because he is creating a new set-up in which there will be work for brown hands, a set-up where the Coloured will be able to give expression to himself, where he will be able to assist in building a new future for himself and his own sovereign community.

It is fortunately seldom, Sir, that I have had to listen to so fear-ridden a speech as that which I have just listened to from the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais). I would like to say to him immediately that my conception of life in this country is quite different from his. I believe that when it comes to the question of the relationship between the Whites and the Coloureds in South Africa, we cannot do better than to follow what has been the basic concept underlying the policy of that great Afrikaner, General Hertzog, in regard to this matter, namely that it was the duty of the White man in South Africa to keep the goodwill of the Cape Coloured, to help him up and to build him up. He always believed. Sir, that they should find their future in one political system and not upon the basis of division on which this hon. member basis his only hope for the survival of the White man in South Africa. I would like to say that I do not believe that is the case. I have confidence in the White man in South Africa. I believe that by acting on a basis of full justice towards the non-Whites and by keeping the Coloured people, more particularly the Cape Coloured people, as part of the Western way of civilization in South Africa, they can establish for themselves a permanent home in this country of ours. I reject the idea that safety lies in division. The hon. member, perhaps unwittingly, has given away what is probably one of the major causes of us having to debate this Bill here this afternoon. The hon. member has referred to the necessity for goodwill. As I have said, I believe goodwill can be built up in this country only upon the basis of mutual trust and apart from that I believe it can best be built up by providing those persons with whose future you are dealing, an opportunity of having a say in their own future.

Sir, I wish to deal—and it is relevant to this point—with what I regard as one of the most important provisions of this Bill, a provision which, together with other provisions, I believe places greater power in the hands of the hon. the Minister of Community Development than has ever been given to one hon. Minister, by Parliament. He is in effect given power to act in all matters relating to group areas. I do not propose going into that. But I wish to confine myself largely to the provisions of Clause 22 of the Bill. This Clause deals in the first place with consultative and management committees for certain group areas. That is an expansion of Section 25 of the present Act, Act No. 77 of 1957. It passes on to provide for the—

I do not think that the hon. the Minister will deny it when I say that these provisions place the hon. the Minister in the position of being a complete dictator in regard to the question of where local authorities are to be established, what type of local authorities they are to be, the basis on which they will rest. It places him in the position of a complete dictator, as I see it, in regard to the exclusion of certain areas from existing local authorities without the local authority concerned having any right, even so far as I can see, to be heard in connection with the matter. Perhaps, Sir, that may go too far. I would like to deal with these provisions in detail. The provisions in respect of the establishment of consultative and management committees could be used for the good. It is part of the existing law. I say it is utterly wrong, when the Constitution of this country lays down that local authorities are a matter to be dealt with by the Provincial Council, the Government should override the powers of the Provincial Council in this manner, and in effect place in his own hands the functions which were placed in the hands of the various provincial councils by our Constitution. The reason for that was obvious, Sir. It was felt that the local Provincial Council in each of the provinces, being smaller bodies, would be in a far better position to deal with this question of local authorities to the satisfaction of the persons in those provinces. Section 25bis authorizes the Minister to appoint a Committee. It goes on in the operative part and it says that—

And it goes on—and I think that this is putting the Administrators who are responsible people in a most invidious position—

The hon. the Minister here is taking power to sweep aside the provisions of any law, to sweep aside the provisions of any ordinance which may stand in his way in the creation of the local authority which is proposed. He can act in complete defiance of the provincial council which, in respect of this matter in terms of our Constitution, is the body which is charged with the duty of governing local authorities. These powers are vested in the hands of this Minister and the Administrator is a pure cipher. This was supposed to be a responsible position but here the Administrator is obliged to act in accordance with the dictates of the Minister. Laws are swept aside. The section goes even further than that. It also provides that this may be done—

In other words, Sir, the hon. the Minister is taking power unto himself even if in effect the provisions of the Provincial ordinances dealing with the establishment of local authorities have not been complied with in any way, to establish the local authority and to declare that all the various laws which lay down the preparatory steps that should be taken, have in fact been complied with. Sir, this is making a mockery of the Provincial Councils and of the responsibilities which have been vested in them in terms of the laws of this country. Obviously these local authorities carry great responsibility. Here the power is taken out of their hands. it is taken out of the hands of the province, out of the hands of Parliament in effect, because Parliament is here being asked to delegate to the hon. the Minister full power to sweep right across all these provisions which have been the time honoured provisions upon which our whole system of local authority government in this country has rested. There is a provision that areas which are not contiguous may be joined together. I see no very real objection to that. But I do know that there are areas in which it is obvious that there will be great practical difficulties. If you take a city such as Johannesburg, for instance, where there are entirely separate areas which have been set aside for the residence of Coloureds; if the hon. the Minister, in terms of this provision, were to declare those to be separate local authorities, great difficulties would obviously be created. There is one common system of transport. There is a common system of sewerage and water and for all the other requirements. I think the Minister should take us into his confidence as to how he proposes to deal with these matters.

The final provision I want to quote from this clause is this—

We know he acts on the advice of the Minister—

But I want to carry this matter a little further. The carrying out of the powers vested in the Minister by this proposed new Section 25bis will enable the Minister, if he in his discretion thinks that it is desirable to do so, by excluding areas in which Coloureds live from a municipality such as Cape Town and placing them in a separate municipality, without coming to Parliament, to change the whole system of local government as it exists in the Cape Province at present. It will enable the Minister in effect to create a separation of the voters’ rolls in respect of local authorities which in terms of the ordinance at present in force in the Cape, provides that persons with the appropriate qualifications may vote, whether they are White or Coloured. These provisions which vest in the hands of the Minister these fundamental powers, I submit, are provisions which go far beyond what any Parliament should be prepared to vest in the hands of any Minister.

You are seeing ghosts again.

No, it is not a question of seeing ghosts, and I say to the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) that he knows as well as I do that what I am saying here in regard to the powers of the Minister is completely correct, and I repeat that these are powers which Parliament should not be prepared to vest in any Minister. I protest against the fact that this Minister is taking power to sweep aside the opinion of local authorities and of the provincial councils, to direct Administrators to do his will. I say it is utterly wrong, and I say that if the Government in fact intends to bring about the situation which is permissible under the provision I quoted, it is the duty of the Government to bring legislation before this House and before the various provincial councils, and not to do it by this means by taking power to deal with this vital aspect of the life of the country by regulation. I feel certain that it is not the way to get the co-operation of the persons concerned. I feel that the Minister in effect is treating our parliamentary system with contempt, and that is an utterly wrong approach in attempting to find a solution for these problems.

Mr. Speaker, the pattern this debate has followed is one which we have known here for many years ever since we first started dealing with group areas. The attitude of the Opposition now is the same as it has always been, that they are opposed to group areas and any amendment of the Group Areas Act, whether it is good or bad, must be opposed. Group areas is part of the policy of the Government, and as I see it, it is that part of the Government’s policy of separate development which is more positive and grants more benefits than any other part of the Government’s policy of separate development.

Hon. members opposite who are indifferent to the implementation of group areas in regard to which we now want to make certain amendments can talk very easily, because if one can afford it one does not need group areas. Most of the members opposite are in the fortunate position of being able to buy apartheid, and to pay for the place where they want to live, and the day it no longer suits them they can go to another place. But to a large section of the population of South Africa that is not so easy and they must be satisfied with the conditions in which they find themselves.

In the application of group areas, I see the positive direction in so far as the Coloureds are concerned. I do not see in it the provision of group areas for the Whites only. I also see in it the benefits it contains for the non-Whites. To-day we have the position that the Group Areas Act is an accomplished fact, and amendments are now being proposed to that Act which undoubtedly and unequivocally are to the benefit of the Coloured community. But because hon. members opposite in 1950 opposed the Group Areas Act, they still oppose it, irrespective of whether it is to the advantage and in the interests of the Coloureds. They adhere to their attitude and want to deprive the Coloureds of the right to have a say in those areas where only Coloureds live, to give advice there, to govern and to be put into the position where they can eventually have their own local government there.

That can be done in terms of the existing laws.

It cannot be done. I do not think it is necessary to explain it, but we have the position to-day where the Coloured areas are being swamped in the large municipalities. I shall deal with this matter later with reference to certain arguments advanced by the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). The Coloureds in the large municipalities where they are best represented have only a few representatives, and from the very nature of the matter, as the position now is, the Coloureds cannot be put in the position of governing their own communities through their own representatives. That is my reply to the argument of the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker).

I say this legislation is positive because in the first place, group areas in general provide better housing. The hon. member for Peninsula lauded the Government because in the first place it provided better housing for these people. Therefore this is an important, positive step in the progress of the non-Whites and towards enabling them to live a better life. In the second place I say it is positive because it gives our Coloured community— and when I refer to the Coloureds I include also the Indians—an opportunity not always to compete with the Whites. Hon. members will all agree with me that the White man in South Africa through his experience and background is better equipped for business and in any other sphere than the Coloured still is. He is better equipped and has greater experience, enabling him to compete. Therefore it is unjust to force the Coloureds into a position in all respects where they have to compete with the Whites, and as long as we allow the position to remain that the Coloureds have to compete with the Whites we will never give them the opportunity to develop to the stage where he can really be of service to his own people. In this amending Bill I see the opportunity for the Coloured to learn to govern himself and to be of service to his own people. That is why I say that this legislation, more than any other piece of legislation, is positive and in the interests of the Coloured community, those people who are defended by that side of the House, and in regard to which legislation all kinds of remarks are made to the effect that it is so unjust and unreasonable.

But the Minister will not blame me if, when we deal here with legislation and I see something which causes me concern, I also express my opinion in that regard. I want to refer the Minister to Section 38, which provides that Section 10ter will be inserted in the Development Act. Section 10ter provides that transfers of land need not be registered, and it asks that in four separate cases the transfer of land should not be registered, namely in the case where there is a transfer from the State to the Development Board, from the Housing Commission to the Development Board, from the Board to the State, and from the Board to the Housing Commission. In this Section 10ter there is reference to Section 16 of the Registration of Deeds Act. It says: “Notwithstanding Section 16 of the Registration of Deeds Act.” I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to what is provided in Section 16 of the Registration of Deeds Act. It says that except in so far as this or any other Act provides differently, the property of one person can be transferred to another person only by means of a deed of transfer signed or attested by the Registrar and other real rights to immovable property can be transferred from one person to another only by means of a deed of transfer attested by a notary and registered by the Registrar. Now this section of the Deeds Act makes it essential that in all cases where land is transferred a deed of transfer must be registered, signed by the Registrar of Deeds. I want to make this plea. In recent times there has been a tendency to find short cuts for the transfer or the registration of the transfer of land. Mr. Speaker, we are following a dangerous practice. In South Africa we are particularly proud of our system of deeds registration. It is because in every case where somebody buys land it is essential that a separate document be drafted, signed by the Registrar of Deeds, to indicate it is this man’s land which is described in the Act. Now to provide that in four cases of transfer there need merely be an endorsement on the deed of transfer provides an opportunity for creating confusion in regard to our system of registration. The reason advanced in this White Paper submitted to us is that it eliminates heavy costs in regard to the registration of deeds. We know that the transfer of land involves costs, but those costs consist mostly of transfer duties and stamp duties. Transfer duties are 4 per cent, except for the first R 10,000, where it is 3 per cent, and stamp duties are ¾ per cent on amounts over R 10,000, It is quite easy to provide that in such cases transfer duties or stamp duties will not be payable. If that is done, the actual costs of registering transfers will be very low. That is my comment and I would plead for the preservation of our good and sound system of registering deeds of transfer, and the more often we provide for short cuts to be followed, the sooner our system of registration will be harmed.

I now want to deal with the arguments advanced here by hon. members opposite. I have said that it seems to me that they oppose in principle every amendment of the Group Areas Act. I would now like to ask hon. members whether they are opposed to the principle of the Group Areas Act? Can they tell me that they are against the principle of the Group Areas Act? If I remember correctly, the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) said: We are opposed to the principle of group areas and we shall oppose every amendment of the Group Areas Act. Then I want to ask the hon. member when he changed his policy, if he is opposed to the principle of group areas. Because the hon. member in 1950, when this Act was introduced for the first time, said the following. Then an amendment was moved by the then Leader of the United Party and one of the points mentioned in the amendment was the fact that side of the House, the United Party, accepted the principle of group areas, and the hon. member for South Coast himself said, in Col. 7478 of Vo1. 73—

The hon. member for South Coast said in 1950: “We accept the principle of this Bill.” But now the hon. member has said they are opposed to the principle. Evidently since then they have had a volte-facie and their policy in regard to the Group Areas Act has changed completely. Perhaps hon. members opposite, when they get up to speak, will explain to us what their position actually is now, whether they are against the principle of group areas or not, because in 1950 they very clearly said, through their leader, that they were not opposed to the principle of group areas.

The hon. member for South Coast in his speech objected to the fact that the Act did not refer to municipalities. The hon. the Minister clearly stated that the principles contained in the Bill were referred to the Municipal Association, but the hon. member was not satisfied with that. He said that he would be satisfied if the Municipal Association drafted the Bill for us.

I suppose the Minister is now saying, God save me from my friends.

If the Minister says he referred the principles of this Bill to the Municipal Association, surely that ought to satisfy the hon. member. The hon. member also said this Bill would cause friction between the various races, or rather he said that we could expect friction to be caused. With respect, I should like to differ from that hon. member. I want to ask him whether it is not a recognized and accepted fact right throughout the world that where various races with different ideas and ways of life are brought together, friction and clashes ensue, but conflict and friction are eliminated by keeping the different races separate and allowing them to live separately in their own areas. I think if the hon. member reconsiders the matter he will realize that this is so. [Interjections.] It is for that reason that I say that the most important object of the Group Areas Act as such is to eliminate conflict and friction between the various races.

The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) said: “The Government has been forced to bring in amendments” to the Group Areas Act, and he said that it was because this Act was basically so unsound and so badly drafted that the Government is compelled to introduce these amendments. But I think the hon. member will have to swallow his words when he realizes that the amendments proposed in this Bill are not intended to remedy defects in the principal Act, but to supplement the implementation of this positive policy of the Government. The establishment of consultative and management committees and local authorities—are these amendments of the principal Act, or is it a supplementation, a new idea, an extension of the previous Act? It can be nothing else, and therefore I just want to ask the hon. member to admit that his allegations were quite wrong, that the defects in the Act forced the Government to introduce these amendments.

He says: “The amendments will aggravate the anti-South African feeling.” I want to pause to deal with this for a moment, and I want to ask hon. members of this House, particularly in the times in which we live, with all the earnestness at my disposal, to be careful in what we say here. I do not want to expand on it, but we are aware that everything which is said against South Africa and against the policies adopted here, irrespective of whether we agree with it or not, is grasped at by our enemies in the world. To-day we heard one of the hon. members say: “This is a monstrous measure”. To-morrow we will see those words blazoned in big headlines in the Press. If it were true, well and good, but how can hon. members opposite use an expression like that when they realize—they can perhaps say they do not agree with the principle of group areas, but when this Bill seeks to introduce amendments to the implementation of group areas which will give the Coloureds, whom hon. members say they are defending, the opportunity to achieve self-government and to serve the interests of their own people, how can they say it is a monstrous measure? And how can they give the world and the enemies of South Africa the idea that a terrible thing is being done here to suppress certain groups in South Africa? It is a disservice being rendered the country by hon. members opposite who use such reckless expressions. If they believe it and are convinced of it, it is a different matter, but I know they do not, and therefore I make this appeal to them in all seriousness.

The hon. member for Peninsula also said it will alienate the Coloured people even further. If that is so, if it is true that the Coloureds will be alienated still further, that can take place in two ways only, either as the result of ignorance or as the result of incitement, because this Bill—and hon. members know it—is in the interest of the Coloured and not to his detriment.

Not even you believe that.

Hon. members need not squeal now.

Order! The hon. member should not use the word “squeal” (tjank).

Then in future I shall use the word “cry”. This Bill before us, the establishment of advisory and management committees and local authorities, is surely not done simply to please the Government. It is something which the Government has always held out in prospect and which it has announced from time to time as part of its policy, that when these people are ready to take over the control of their own matters, they must do so. The hon. member for Peninsula said that the Coloureds have always voted together with the Whites and there was no trouble, and he referred to the Municipality of Cape Town. It seems to me he is satisfied with that position and wants it to continue, as it is in Cape Town, but the hon. member knows himself that it does not work.

Why not.

He knows as well as I do that it does not work. In the City Council of Cape Town there are six Coloured councillors. They sit there as a small minority group. What is their influence? What do they manage to achieve in the Council for their people? The hon. member objected to the consultative committee, that it would have no powers. Does he want to tell me that these six Coloured councillors in the City Council can achieve more—just six out of 45? And what is being done for them? Nothing has been done for them. The only good that has been done for the Coloureds of Cape Town was done by this Nationalist Government. [Laughter.] The treatment received by those people is just the same as the treatment they received when they were still on the common roll. Here the world is being told that they have the right to sit in the same meetings, but they do not achieve anything for their own people there. I can give evidence that I was there on occasions, together with the Administrator, to hear representations from the City Council of Cape Town, and I saw the smouldering hatred in the eyes of those Coloured representatives towards their fellow-councillors, the Whites.

Absolute nonsense!

Does the hon. member want to tell me there is any love between White and non-White in that Council? There is not. There is no love between them, for the simple reason that they are brought together in order to increase the possibility of conflict. The hon. member knows it as well as I do. He was Mayor of Cape Town and he knows as well as I do what problems they have in regard to their social gatherings. They want to give a social function on some occasion or other, but they are faced with the problem that there are Coloureds in the City Council.

Never.

They are landed with the problem that they themselves do not want to mix with those people socially. They must then evolve methods by which they can invite e.g. only the chairmen of committees, so as to eliminate the Coloureds from social functions. The hon. member knows the details better than I do, but he will not be able to deny that this is a fact. The hon. member now says it works well. It has never worked well in the Cape Town City Council. There is conflict practically every day. They do not want to mix with those people socially, but here they want to tell the world that they would like to co-operate with them.

May I put a question to the hon. member? Will he please now read the remaining portion of the paragraph from which he quoted—just the remaining portion up to the next fullstop, instead of stopping where there is no fullstop in the paragraph?

I shall read it in a moment, if I have enough time.

Be fair, Read it.

I will read it if I have enough time, but I should like to refer the hon. member to a portion of it which, in order to save time, I did not read just now, and that is the wording of the amendment itself in Col. 7454—

May I ask the hon. member now to read the remaining portion of that paragraph?

On a point of order, the hon. member has just sat down and I would like to have your ruling as to whether the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) is making the speech.

Be fair. Read it.

I have nothing to hide. [Interjection.]

Order! The hon. member may continue.

I should now like to deal with the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Coast. The first reason he mentions in his amendment for their not wanting to vote for this Bill at its second reading is because the Bill does not eliminate the injustice, dissatisfaction and losses. Because the Bill does not eliminate the injustice, losses and dissatisfaction, they will not vote for it. Now I ask you, Sir, and those hon. members with all respect whether you or any one of them have ever heard a more negative reason for not wanting to do anything? It amounts to this: I have a general dealer’s business and one section of my business, for example the groceries section, is not economic. Now I call in an expert and he tells me, “Well, in regard to groceries I cannot advise you, but in regard to your accounting section you must buy a machine; there you can improve your system and there will be more productivity and you can employ fewer people and make more profit,” and I than tell him: “No, I will have no improvement in the shop as long as I cannot make the groceries section economic”. That is the attitude adopted by hon. members opposite. They do not come to us and say that the content of this Bill is wrong. They do not tell us that the content of the Bill is bad, except for a few arguments with which I will deal in a moment in regard to the powers granted to the Minister. That they criticize and that is constructive criticism; it is a reason they advance and with which I will deal in a moment. But for the rest, they say that irrespective of the benefits and the sound qualities of the Bill they will not vote for it because it does not amend certain things which they regard as wrong. The second reason mentioned by the hon. member why he will not vote for the second reading is that the ordinary citizen is uncertain about the law and his rights in terms of the law, and in order to expound this reason the hon. member suffered tortures here in order to prove to us how complicated this measure is. Because the measure is complicated, is that a reason for refusing to vote for it? No, if hon. members opposite can tell us that the contents of this Bill are detrimental to human relations in South Africa, we will listen to them, but if they come along with such negative arguments there is no substance in it.

The third argument they advanced—and that argument has some substance; the hon. member for Germiston (District) has just dealt with it—is that here certain powers are being given to the Minister in regard to the establishment of these committees and local authorities, and I should like to deal with that.

I have no objection to that and I do not see how we can have any objection to the Minister obtaining certain powers in terms of this Bill, for this reason: We know that the local authorities as they exist to-day are in the hands of the Provincial Administration, but at the same time we ought to know that the Group Areas Act was passed by this Parliament and its application is handled by the Central Government. Furthermore, we also know that we now have a full Department of Coloured Affairs; we have a Department of Housing, and Housing, Coloured Affairs and Group Areas are so intermingled that it is just impossible to have it operating practically if one separates the services to be rendered in terms of the various Acts. We know that we have problems in regard to the overlapping of functions between the Provincial Administrations and the Central Government, and if we are again going to create the opportunities for further overlapping it will make that problem even more serious than it was before. It is not a case here of the Administrator’s authority being excluded completely. In all these cases, as the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) has indicated, the Administrator is consulted, but the fact of the matter is that various Departments are working together and as I see it, it is essential for the practical working of it that the important channel of operation should come from one source and that the authority should be left in the hands of the Minister. Now what is really wrong with that? The only thing the hon. member for Germiston (District) can raise against it is the fact that the S.A. Act makes provision for it, but the fact that our constitution provides that the local authorities are in the hands of the Provincial Administration—must that stop us from obtaining a better system for the working of our organization in future?

I should now like to deal with the most important amendment in this Bill. We realize in the first instance that the Coloureds are not ripe enough to take over full local self-government, and for that reason it is necessary that we should put the machinery into operation whereby the Coloureds can be trained gradually to run their own affairs. It is essential that we should proceed cautiously with the training of the Coloureds in that direction. Nobody else can give more assistance to the Coloureds in training them for local government than the local authorities themselves, the divisional councils and the municipalities, and therefore we now have this first step in the Bill that a consultative committee can be appointed in the group area concerned. That committee can act in a consultative capacity vis-à-vis the local authority, and the Bill makes it compulsory for the local authority, when handling matters affecting that group, first to consult that Committee. The hon. member for Peninsula asked: “What does that mean?” The hon. member for South Coast said: “It is a talking shop.” Does that hon. member, who now ridicules the consultative committee and calls it a talking shop, want to tell me that the Coloureds in such a group area will be better off without that consultative committee than with it? He knows as well as I do that although this consultative committee has no executive powers, it will mean much to that community to have a mouthpiece through which they can go to the local authority to submit their requirements. The next point is the establishment of the management committee. In the case of the management committee, when they have developed to such an extent that they can form their own management committee, certain powers will be entrusted to the management committee, and within the limits of those powers the management committee can take action and perform important duties on behalf of its own people. The third step—this is the gradual process of development of the Coloureds—is that when they have progressed enough to be given full self-government, then only can the Minister, if he thinks fit, appoint a committee to consider the advisability of establishing such a local administration for the Coloureds. The Minister cannot just make an appointment. A committee will be appointed to consider the possibility of establishing such local government, and only thereafter does he consult the Administrator, and then the Administrator is obliged to establish that local government, and when it is established, the laws of the country will be obeyed.

In conclusion, I want to say this to the Coloureds: Let the enemies of South Africa make a row; let the enemies of the Government make a row, but the machinery of State will continue moving ahead to create opportunities for the Coloureds to serve their own people and to uplift them, next to the Whites, and to develop them so that both the Whites and the Coloureds will be able to serve South Africa to greater advantage.

I do not intend to say much about the speech made by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller), except this: First of all he tried the very old tricks that all of us in this House are used to, and that is the trick of blaming anybody who opposes this Government’s apartheid legislation for the bad Press that we get overseas and for the bad reputation that we have overseas; and then he used the other old trick, and that is to describe any resentment by the non-European people against the policy of apartheid that this Government is implementing, to the work of agitators—never to the measures themselves, never to the basic concepts contained in the measures introduced by this Government, which go counter to the concepts of the Western world on the one hand and certainly have brought no appreciable benefits to the non-Europeans on the other hand. Sir, it is the intrinsic factors contained in the laws introduced by this Government which have resulted, firstly, in the bad reputation of this country overseas, and, secondly, the intensified resentment among the non-Whites in South Africa. I must say one other thing about this speech of the hon. member for Ceres, and that is that he tried at some stage or another to give us the impression that the Bill before the House, apart from being yet another logical step in the carrying out of apartheid, was being introduced for the benefit of the Coloured people themselves. He tried that, and he indicates that he agrees with this interpretation. This, of course, was also done by the hon. the Minister when he introduced the Bill and by various members on the Government side who spoke last night. For instance, the hon. members for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) and Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) told us that this Bill was being introduced for the benefit of the Coloured people; that the Coloured people were unfortunately suffering under the existing system, because despite the fact that they had rights of municipal franchise, in practice, if one looked at the figures, one found that very few Coloureds indeed were on municipal rolls in the Cape Province, and that therefore this was unfair, that this was a form of discrimination, and the Government was going to adjust the situation by grouping Coloureds into their own local authorities and giving them rights there which they would be able to exercise on a much greater scale than they are doing at present under the common franchise system, which obtains in the Cape Province only, of course. The interesting thing about this is that this afternoon we listened to a speech which completely let the cat out of the bag, and that was the speech by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais). He made no effort whatsoever to tell us that the Government was coming along like a good fairy, waving a magic wand and redressing the injustices which the Coloured people in the Cape Province and elsewhere were suffering under the existing system. I would say that he made the most honest speech that has been made on this Bill on the Government’s side up to time of going to Press. I must say that before he spoke I did have my doubts, because after listening for eight years to speeches on Bills introduced by Ministers purporting to be for the good of the non-White people, I am afraid I have found that I have become somewhat cynical. So I did have some doubts, but now of course the doubts have been completely substantiated by the hon. member for Moorreesburg. He made it quite clear to us that the reason for the introduction of this Bill is not to extend rights to the Coloured people but indeed to remove the small existing rights that they have. All the old fears of the swamping of the White voters in the Cape Province by the Coloured voters, all the speeches that we listened to in those long years of argument over the removal of the Coloured voters from the parliamentary Common Roll, were repeated by the hon. member for Moorreesburg, and he made it clear this afternoon that this is what is behind this Bill. Then there was the other fear, of course, that Coloured Councillors might suddenly appear on the councils. There is this other factor that at the present stage, with the Coloured voters, few as they are, dispersed and scattered in the wards throughout the Cape Province, there is very little doubt, except in a few cases, that Coloured Councillors will not be returned to the town councils, but with the implementation of the Group Areas Act, with the grouping together of the Coloured voters into consolidated areas rather than in the scattered areas in which they are living at the present stage, there is a decided danger—I use the word from the point of view of the Nationalist Government—that there will be enough Coloured voters, few though they be when scattered, to send Coloured Councillors to the town councils when they are concentrated into a few areas.

Right.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg says “right” and I am surprised to hear the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) also saying “right”. Last night the hon. member for Parow was at considerable pains to assure us that this whole measure was bing introduced because the poor Coloured voters did not have enough political say in this country. I listened to his speech very carefully. He moved me almost to tears at one stage until my natural cynicism re-asserted itself and I thought that maybe there was something behind this which he had not perhaps revealed. Now I see that he himself is being swept away by the honesty of purpose of the hon. member for Moorreesburg and he agrees that this is the real intention behind this Bill. So, Sir, let us get away from the smooth words of the hon. the Minister when he introduced this Bill and told us all about the wonderful things that the Government was doing for the Coloured people; and apart from the wonderful political thing that he was doing for the Coloured people he pointed out to us what the Government had achieved in the field of housing and so on by providing hundreds of houses for Coloured people.

Can you deny it?

I would say to the hon. the Minister that he is quite right. The Government has provided a lot of additional houses for Coloured people and for sub-economic groups generally. Nobody is attempting to deny that, but what I do deny is that this has anything to do with racial policy. Surely it is the normal duty of a modern state to provide housing and other amenities for sub-economic and underprivileged groups. What has this got to do with racial policy?

When you were a member of the United Party, what did you do about housing?

Never mind about my ugly Dast; that is not important at the present stage. The point that I am trying to make is that this Governmant must stop this nonsense of claiming that it is the apartheid policy which has resulted in more houses being built for Africans in the townships and in more houses being provided for the Coloureds in the Coloured areas or for the Indians or for that matter for the Whites. It has nothing to do with it. This is normal policy which should be carried out by any Government. The hon. the Minister shakes his head. What does he think Governments do in England, in America or in any normal modern State except to attempt to provide housing and other amenities for under-privileged people? Any Government would do that. It has nothing whatever to do with the carrying out of apartheid.

Having said that, I want to make it quite clear what is my attitude and the attitude of my party as far as this Bill is concerned. We are opposed to the whole principle of the Group Areas Act. I think we have made that quite clear before but I would like to reiterate it. We are opposed to the whole principle embodied in group areas legislation. We do not believe that amending Bills such as the one that is before the House to-day or any other amending Bill for that matter will ever make the Group Areas Act workable or just. No amending Bill will have that effect, and we believe that these laws, both the principal Act but particularly the amending Bills as they come up year after year and this Bill too, add intensely to the growing resentment and the growing insecurity that is suffered by non-Whites. Sir, the Minister and members who spoke yesterday stressed over and over again that this group areas legislation was part and parcel of the apartheid pattern, which is perfectly correct, but they also stressed that the Act was being carried out justly, and I think it was the hon. member for Malmesbury who said yesterday that the present Bill was a continuation of the Government’s policy of granting equal rights to all races in this province, and of asking every group to make sacrifices in the interests of the country as a whole. Well, I must say that if the hon. member really tries to imply that the implementation of the Group Areas Act has entailed sacrifices by every group in this country, he is either very ignorant or very cynical indeed.

Why?

I will tell the hon. member why. For the simple reason that for every single case where any White citizen of this country has had to move his residence or his place of business due to the Group Aeas Act, hundreds upon hundreds of Indians or Coloureds have had to move their houses or their places of business. This is the most lopsided sacrifice the people are being called upon to make. The vast majority of sacrifices under the Group Areas Act have been made not by the White section of this country, but, of course, by the non-Whites.

Now I want to come to the Bill itself. First of all, it contains very many of the unsatisfactory features which have become quite characteristic of the legislation introduced by this Government. To be more specific—this is a point which has been mentioned before but I will mention it quickly in passing—it further whittles away the powers of provincial authorities. It is quite clear from Clause 22 that the Minister takes powers upon himself and he may do what he likes after consultation with the local authorities. He does not have to take their advice. He may consult them and thereafter he may do what he likes. Secondly, this Bill gives the Minister the right to dictate to local authority, and this is contained in Clause 25 bis (iii). Thirdly the Bill undermines the whole principle of elective representation, and it does so under Clause 28 (h), where it takes away powers from elected bodies and gives powers of management to Committees which may very well simply have been appointed by the hon. the Minister. Fourthly, it embodies government by regulation instead of government by legislation. This far-reaching measure has been introduced without proper consultation, not only with the local authorities but without proper consultation with the people who are going to be affected most vitally by this legislation.

I have another important objection to this Clause, and it is an objection which certainly is relevant not only to this particular Bill but has been relevant to other Bills which have been introduced by the Government, such as the Bantu Urban Council Bill, which was also a measure supposedly giving greater rights at that stage to the Africans in the urban townships, and that is that the Bill attempts to set up local authorities without making sure that these can be economically viable and secondly, that the financial autonomy anyway is not handed over to these authorities which will be set up. The whole question of finance has been very cursorily dealt with. Simply establishing a Group Areas Development Fund for this reason is not going to overcome the many financial difficulties which are going to arise when these economically poor local authorities are set up because, as everybody knows, most of the revenue of local authorities derives from business premises which are almost invariably situated in a mixed area. That source of revenue will therefore be cut off from these very poor local authorities which will, of course, be thrown back on their own resources.

There has been a lot of quoting by hon. members on the other side from the Report of the Rossouw Committee, and I want to do a little quoting from this Report, too. I want to quote from three experts, not from three party politicians but from three experts. I think this is an important Report not only because Government members have used it extensively, but because I think it is obvious to everybody that this Act will apply mainly to the Cape Province itself for the simple reason that the franchise is not enjoyed by Coloureds or Indians anywhere else in the Union or by Africans as far as local government is concerned. So although the Bill can be extended to apply to Indians, for instance, in the Wentworth area in Natal or to Noordgesig or Coronation Village in Johannesburg, which is a Coloured area, or perhaps to Lenasia, which is the Johannesburg Indian area, I think the immediate application of this will be to the Coloured areas in the Cape, more particularly since the hon. member for Moorreesburg let the cat out of the bag when he told us what the true objective of the Bill was. That is why I think that the Report of this Committee is important and that is why I want to quote three particular experts as far as this is concerned. First of all I want to quote the Town Clerk of Cape Town who I think is quite an expert; then I would like to quote Dr. Stewart who is the Medical Officer of Health and give the House his views on the setting up of separate authorities and, thirdly, and perhaps most important of all, because this is the man who has to do with all the services that normally should be taken over by this local authority which is going to be set up for the different Coloured areas, I should like to quote the City Engineer, Dr. Morris.

Are those the experts?

Yes, those are the experts.

Experts on the Group Areas Act?

I would say that it is quite likely that the City Engineer of Cape Town knows a little more about these matters than the hon. member for Pretoria-District (Mr. Schoonbee); it is just possible.

Before the business of the House was suspended, I was about to quote from the Rossouw Committee Report on the question of the establishment of separate local government areas for Coloured group areas, page 72. I am going to quote first of all from the Town Clerk’s Report which was submitted on behalf of the City Council of Cape Town, and this bears out very substantially what I have to say about the impossibility of the poorer local authorities, if established, to finance themselves. The Town Clerk’s Report says that the council—

The report goes on to say that the idea of splitting off portions of the Municipality of Cape Town means “a reversal of the policy represented by the City of Cape Town Unification Ordinance No. 19 of 1913. The object of that measure was to provide for the combination and better government of certain municipalities in the Cape Peninsula, or the unification of these municipalities in the interest of more effective, more economical and uniform administration of the whole area Now it is quite clear that the hon. the Minister may consult with the local authority concerned in this matter. It is equally clear from the evidence given by the Town Clerk on behalf of the City Council of Cape Town that City Council or local authority will advise the hon. the Minister against the establishment of separate areas, and it is equally clear that the hon. the Minister will take no notice whatsoever of these opinions and will go ahead and establish these local areas. So I say that consultation with local authorities is completely meaningless. Much more important perhaps are the opinions expressed by two other experts in Cape Town, the one being the Medical Officer of Health, and the other the City Engineer of Cape Town. The Medical Officer of Health says on page 74—

He then goes on to talk about the inhabitants of the Athlone-Lansdowne area enjoying the benefit of an efficient personal and non-personal health service from the City Council, which they will not receive as a separate local authority. He says, and this is very important—

I have to stress this point because it is nonsense to talk about giving persons a function as a separate racial group as if they can carry out their separate function without that having any effect whatever on the rest of an integrated society where those people work and in fact spend most of their lives. The Medical Officer of Health continues by referring to the proposed deviation, that is to say, the separation of the poorer areas for a separate health service, and he says that this will be a costly and retrograde step.

Now there is a long section on page 80 of the report from the City Engineer, and the City Engineer goes into all the sort of services that the local authority must be expected to control, and he mentions water supply, roads, storm-water drainage, sewerage, sewage disposal, cleansing services, and so on, and in every single one of these cases, he comes to the conclusion that it is impossible for a separate area, such as Athlone for example, to attempt to run these services as efficiently, or at least at the same cost, as these services are being run by the Municipality of Cape Town. He stresses the fact that roads for instance form a particularly difficult problem, Athlone is traversed by the main roads which are of vital importance to that whole Cape Town Municipal region. In every case he shows that the communities are interdependent and cannot be separate. He ends with the general observation—

I hope the official Opposition is listening to this too, because I am going to have a good deal to say about race federation in a few minutes. The City Engineer continues in his observations—

I have given this House the benefit of the views of three experts in the City of Cape Town, who are particularly involved in the whole structure of the administration of local authorities and the administration of the sort of services, the only sort of services that I can think of, that the hon. the Minister might be contemplating handing over to those local authorities.

So much for the bad features of the Bill. Now there is one good thing, and one good thing only about this Bill that I can discover, and that is that it pinpoints the fact that so many people throughout the Republic of South Africa are deprived entirely of any say in local government. That is the only good point about this Bill. It draws attention to the pressing need to make some provision for adequate participation in local government by qualified persons of all colours throughout the Republic, and not only in the Cape Province. Now it is quite correct for the hon. the Minister to say that only few people qualify in the Cape Province, and indeed the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) made that point when he pointed out that very few Cape Coloureds had qualified for the municipal franchise under the existing scheme. Of course this is a problem of poverty. The qualifications are there, but it is a question of poverty. Improve their economic opportunities, give them greater educational facilities, give them better opportunities for vocational training, remove job reservation, and so on, and then the hon. members for Moorreesburg and Parow won’t need to complain that there are so few Coloured Voters on the Common Roll. These are the obvious remedies. And the other remedy of course is the extension of the Cape system to the other provinces, plus of course the extension of economic opportunities so that they may qualify for municipal franchise. Now this is a typical example of government policy, their idea of inverted democracy: If some people have rights and the other people don’t have rights, the way to create a democratic situation is to remove the right from those people who have got rights. In other words, so that democratically everybody will be in the same position of not enjoying any rights. I suggest that there is another way, and that is the way of extending democratic rights. Where they are possessed by certain sections of the community, the way to extend democracy is to pass those rights on to the other sections, not to remove those rights from the few people who are enjoying those rights at the present time.

How many people would qualify under the Std. VI qualification?

That is a very interesting observation. I presume the hon. member means that very few would qualify. I don’t care how many would qualify at all. I am only interested in an arbitrary standard which sets qualifications for civilization or for the degree of responsibility that people can carry. That is all that worries me. Std. VI is an arbitrary standard, and I do not care whether it would increase the number or decrease the number. I hope the hon. member is not complaining about there being too few, because the members of the official Opposition are complaining that there would be too many. The hon. member for Durban-North (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) muttered something about standards of civilization. I understand his own party, Sir, is going to adopt as its standard for representation in racial federation, the bright idea of it depending on the amount of taxation paid by people. Well, this is a new one on me that anybody who can pay, becomes immediately civilized! I don’t think the hon. member should start on that note.

Sir, I am talking about the principle of extending the rights which exist, as they do in the Cape Province, where the Coloured people with certain qualifications have certain rights. I want to come to my final point now, and that is that I can’t say that I was particularly surprised when the Government introduced this Bill, because as the hon. Minister pointed out and as other hon. members have pointed out, this is part and parcel of the apartheid policy. It is a continuation of the policy which was laid down in 1948, and which was continued throughout the years with every single Bill that has come before this House, and this is a corner-stone of the whole apartheid policy. I quite appreciate that. It is in keeping with the four-stream policy for Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Bantu. So I am not surprised about it. I disapprove of it, as anybody in this House must surely be aware of by now. But I must say that I am surprised at the official Opposition for fighting this measure on the ground that they do. I can understand them fighting it on the ground— this was always their favourite cry whenever any contentious legislation was proposed— that the autonomy of local authorities should be upheld. “Autonomy” was the great cry. That I could understand. But they oppose it on much wider grounds. I have to vote for their amendment because I cannot move an amendment of my own, but I vote for it too because in fact it is in keeping with what I believe, but it is not in keeping with what the Opposition propound. Because the amendment moved by the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) is that this Bill fails to remove all the inequalities and injustices. Of course it fails, but then of course he should be in favour of repealing the principal Act, which I am in favour of doing. Because it is only by repealing the principal measure that you can remove all these inequalities and injustices. And so when I vote for this amendment, I do not do so because it was put by the hon. member for South Coast, but because it in fact expresses my party’s policy. It does not express the policy of the party of the hon. member, because his party is not in favour of the repeal of the Group Areas Act. And, Sir, the nervous laughter of the hon. members on my right, makes no difference to the facts. [Laughter.]

I was talking about the attitude of the official Opposition and I said that I was surprised because (a) they are not in favour of the repeal of the principal Act, which they must be if the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Coast in fact means anything at all, the first clause of it at any rate, but secondly, so much of this Bill, as far as I could understand it in line with their policies —and I would be very grateful to be informed if I am wrong, and hon. members of the Opposition could let us have two similar views for a change on the meaning of their stand. But I settle for one in the meantime, and I would be grateful if one of them could tell me where this idea of the Government’s policy of local authorities and giving greater rights and autonomy in those areas, covering certain functions and certain services applicable to the groups alone, in the field of local government, differs from their race federation plan. I would like to know. Because as I understand it, once administrative and legislative bodies have been established for those different racial groups, there should be a devolution of power for each of these various racial groups. Take Athlone as a Coloured area. It is going to be a separate local authority, and therefore certain rights must devolve on that separate authority for the Coloureds, and equally if there are separate areas such as Glenasia in Johannesburg or the area for Indians, Wentworth, in Durban. I presume that certain functions then would devolve on the separate areas. Because as far as I understand the race federation plan of the official Opposition, each of those groups will have devolved on it certain powers of self-government, and self-administration. I presume I am right in saying that. It is quite evident that hon. members here are frightened because somebody else might shake his head when somebody else is nodding.

Tell us what is your policy?

My policy is very clear. I want to repeal the Group Areas Act. It is very simple and straightforward. I fight the Nationalists on every point where I find that they are expressing ideas which conflict with my idea of rejecting racial discrimination. But where I find that in the official Opposition I will fight them too. The opposition of my party to this Bill is fundamental, it is a fundamental difference in principle with the Government, and our policy, as has been mentioned over and over again, has as its basis the rejection of racial discrimination, and most important of all, we reject the idea of racial grouping, and this is a Bill which is to introduce racial grouping. As I say, in the local government field it is on even terms exactly with the race federation scheme propounded by the official Opposition. We stand for a non-racial qualified franchise at all levels, the franchise to be determined by provincial authorities in keeping with our basic policy of decentralization. It was laid down at the very outset when my party was originally formed that we base our policy on the idea of decentralization. You will find that in our policy, it is in the Molteno Commission Report, and in the statements made by the Leader of my party, before the General Election. It is a policy of decentralization, but we do lay down that anything that is done as far as the setting of qualifications is concerned should not be on a racial basis. We believe in a qualified franchise, but not on a racial basis. And we are opposed to the very idea of setting up local authorities on a racial basis. And while we recognize that regrouping of local authorities may be necessary in some cases, we believe that this should be done purely and simply on the basis of regional planning, the ordinary normal concept of regional planning as adopted by every civilized country in the world. We do not believe that it should be on the basis of racial planning which is advocated both by the Government and by the official Opposition.

Finally, depriving people of rights in an integrated society and giving them rights in a so-called race group, is a pattern of course which we see repeated now with monotonous regularity in this country, and I believe that this Bill marks the beginning of the doom of the last of the Common Roll system in South Africa. It does not immediately disfranchise people. I agree with the hon. member for Parow who has made that observation. It only disfranchises people where a local authority is actually proclaimed. Then where people enjoyed rights in the wider local authority, they clearly lose those rights and their rights are confined to the immediate smaller local authority. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that it does disfranchise future voters in areas where local authorities have not yet been proclaimed but where management committees have been set up. Those new voters may not be registered in the local authority area for franchise rights. But the older voters, those who are already on the voters’ roll, retain those rights. But nevertheless it is undermining the whole Common Roll system and it spells the doom of the very last of the Common Roll system that has existed in South Africa. It astonishes me that after all the years of experience in this country since 1936, when the first assault was made on the Common Roll system of this country, White people in this country still believe that removing people from the Common Roll is going to relieve racial tension. We have had all the experience in the world to the contrary. Can anybody honestly say in this House that removing people from the Common Roll since 1936 onwards, has led to the disappearance of racial tension in South Africa? We all must admit that the racial position to-day when the very last Common Roll system is now under assault, has never been worse in this country. Sir, this is an absurd solution to our racial problem and it cannot obtain for much longer. How long the present position can last is anybody’s guess, but it is not going to be for a very long time. Of that I am absolutely certain, for the simple reason that South Africa is and has been for a long time irrevocably a multi-racial country with an integrated economy, and we have got to make adjustments to that situation and not try and fly in the face of all the facts that face us at present.

I do not wish to follow the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) very far in all the arguments that she has advanced, but she did say something right at the beginning of her speech to which I should like to respond, when she said that experience had shown in the past that when it came to the development of group areas, it had always been the non-White groups in particular who had been called upon to make sacrifices when people had to be shifted. When she said that I wondered whether she would advance the bright idea of making Houghton available to the Coloureds of the Witwatersrand. That would perhaps have been a very generous gesture on her part to prove how sincere she was in her attitude. But as progressive as she is, she and her supporters will see to it that they remain in Houghton and they will entrench themselves there as people living far away from the real problem of the racial intermingling of people who are forced through economic circumstances to live where they are living. There is a very good reason for the fact that so far it has mostly been the non-Whites who have been shifted, and that is part of our heritage from the old set-up, namely, that as the position is and has been all the years in Cape Town, the non-Whites have been the people who, in years gone by, have been relegated in the pattern of national development, if I may put it that way, to the slum areas of the White cities, and they have had to be satisfied with that. It is obvious, now that we are introducing a new set-up, that those slum areas should be condemned and the people shifted to areas where there are better housing facilities. That is what is really happening. What is clearly indicated is that we should improve the position of those people and that we should provide them with proper housing in areas where they will be able to develop into independent communities.

In considering this Bill there are two factors which, in my opinion, should particularly be taken into account. In the first place we should take into account the fact that the Group Areas Act has already been in operation for some years and certain important developments have already taken place as a result of the application of that Act. The second factor that we have to consider is the important statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister in December 1961 to the Union Board of Coloured Affairs in connection with this very question of developing managerial responsibility amongst the Coloured people. The hon. member for Houghton will agree with me when I say that what she says or what I say, is not important, but that when the Prime Minister, as the most important legislative figure in the country, makes a statement in respect of policy, that is important, and that it is right and proper for us to take that into account because that indicates a definite direction, not only a direction, but a direction that we can follow because we have the machinery to do so.

I want to deal with the first factor which I have mentioned and which deserves our serious consideration, namely the community growth that has already taken place as the very result of the application of the Group Areas Act. I do not want to weary you, Sir, by giving you many figures, but I do want to give a few. In 1951 the Coloured community in the magisterial district of Wynberg amounted to 124,900; according to the latest census figures, that figure was not 124,000 in 1960 but 178,000. For the magisterial district of Bellville the figure in respect of Coloureds was 58,000 in 1951 and in 1960 it had already risen to 104,000. Whereas, for example, the Coloured population for the magisterial district of Cape Town, had only increased by approximately 10,000. We, therefore, find that as the very result of the application of the Group Areas Act, there has been a shifting of population, particularly of the Coloured population which has been concentrated in the Bellville South, Elsies River, and Athlone areas and others. We now have a great concentration of Coloured communities in those areas and the inevitable question arises in what direction local government should develop in those areas. Should local government develop there as an integral part of the adjoining White municipalities or should we rather start by establishing local authorities for the growing non-White towns and cities themselves? Should we follow the example of Simonstown? The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) took grave exception to certain figures which he called out of date and which did not give a true picture of the position. The hon. member for Parow said that in 1959 out of a Coloured population of 2,448 within the municipal area of Simonstown only 171 were registered voters. The hon. member for Simonstown said those figures were out of date and that they did not reflect a true picture. He then gave the latest figures and said that the position in 1962 was completely different. Out of a Coloured population of 3,500 there are 224 registered voters to-day, Mr. Speaker. I wish to point out to the hon. member that they have not made the progress which he thinks they have and that municipal rights have not been extended so phenomenally as he really thinks, because according to his own figures the percentage of registered Coloured voters in comparison with the number of Coloured inhabitants was only 7 per cent in 1959. They have now progressed, according to him, and they have even seen their way clear to appoint a non-White to the municipal council. After all the progress they have made the position in 1962 is that the number of registered Coloured voters constitutes 6 per cent of the Coloured community. They have made the phenomenal progress of converting 7 per cent into 6 per cent. That makes me think that the non-White who is now on the City Council was placed there as compensation for the 1 per cent who have been disenfranchised. In the Athlone area, for example, the City Council of Cape Town lets houses to Coloureds, houses with a total value of R5,000,000 and not one of those people is a registered voter. The question now arises in which direction are we going?

Tell us why.

What direction have we been following? Should we smugly persist in that direction …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

The hon. member is still waiting for an opportunity to square accounts with the Prime Minister.

Tell us how that happened.

The question is whether we should regard the progress that has been made as a convincing reason why we should continue along that road and that those people will receive their fair share. My reply is definitely “no”. The Coloured community can very definitely claim a better position in the life of the Peninsula than a District Six and a Windermere. They are entitled to a better position in the Peninsula than the slums and the old residential areas which they occupied in the White city under the old set-up. As the establishment of group areas takes shape, we shall, in due course, show the Coloured community that where we are giving them separate development we are creating wonderful opportunities for them. When a White community develop and expand they ask for municipal rights, for their own city council and they get it: Parow and Bellville are developing and they are getting it. Why should Athlone and Bellville South develop as Coloured communities and not get local authorities? Why should municipalities not be established where those people can have self-expression and enjoy their rights and privileges? The Coloured is also entitled to become independent and to develop along his own lines. The Coloured should not only be entitled to a seat on odd City Councils which are predominantly White. When you listen to hon. members opposite, Sir, you get the impression that the summum bonum of municipal rights that has been offered to the Coloureds is a seat on a city council here and there, and that they should be highly satisfied with that. Hon. members would also make us believe that they are highly satisfied with that. The question is, what real opportunity have the Coloureds had beyond the few who have served as representatives on the City Councils of Cape Town, and Goodwood and elsewhere? What real opportunities have they had that they can use for their own benefit? How many senior positions have they occupied in the administration of Cape Town? How many senior positions have they occupied in the municipal administration of Goodwood? With reference to the very report from which the hon. member for Houghton quoted so heartily, it is very clear that the only position that has been offered to them and the only opportunity that they have had, has been to sweep the streets of the White city. That is the position which they have occupied. Even the developed and educated Coloured has not had the opportunity of occupying a responsible executive position. That is a handicap to-day when it comes to the development of local government bodies; the fact that old cities such as Cape Town, Simonstown and others did not give these people the opportunity to gain executive experience.

What is the position on the platteland?

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) referred to the development of separate Coloured towns with their own local governments as future “dormitory towns”—sleeping towns, bedroom towns. I want to know from the hon. member in what respect these towns, once they have developed, will differ from “dormitory towns” such as Rondebosch, Parow, Bellville, Sea Point, etc., which are also exclusively residential areas? There will really not be any difference. The hon. member cannot dispose of the matter with such a belittling remark. As a matter of fact schools will be built for the communities in those towns, something which is already being done to-day on a large scale; churches will be built; businesses will come into existence in which the Coloureds will enjoy priority rights; hotels will be built; cinemas will be built; recreational facilities will be established as they are being established to-day; administrative buildings will be constructed; offices will be built for the professional people and Coloured medical practitioners will probably have wonderful opportunities there. Do you not think, Sir, that where there is a community of 100,000 or 300,000 people, those people will avail themselves of those opportunities? Government offices will also be established there. Those towns will therefore not be “dormitory towns” as the hon. member hastily tried to dispose of them. They will be towns in every sense of the word.

Who will pay for it?

The position will, therefore, not be that only a few posts on local bodies or advisory bodies will be available to them, but Coloureds from that community will conduct the affairs of the whole community. Where do they have that opportunity under the old set-up? An hon. member said that there was a Coloured person at one time who, because of his qualifications, could have become mayor of Cape Town. He did not become mayor, however, because the Whites did not allow him to become it. If such a capable person were to come on to the scene during the next few years in Bellville South or Athlone, he will be able to become mayor and he will then be able to use his talents to uplift his own people. That will afford him an opportunity par excellence. There are hundreds of Coloured boys and girls to-day with the Junior and Senior Certificate for whom there are no or very few opportunities of employment. They are asking for those opportunities. At the moment it is only the Department of Coloured Affairs with its relatively small staff, which really offers them any opportunities. As the proposed local communities develop, however, tremendous opportunities will be available to these people. That is why I am convinced that this is the policy, this four-stream policy to which the hon. member for Houghton has referred, which will in the long run afford the real opportunity to the Coloured community to develop into a sovereign and mature community. They will be able to provide their own services and to utilize the working opportunities which will follow.

I now wish to refer to the statement made by the Prime Minister to the Union Council of Coloured Affairs and I want to mention briefly some of the main ideas which he expressed on that occasion. At the very outset he outlined the four-stream policy—the policy of racial grouping, that is to say, separate development of the Whites, the Coloureds, the Bantu and the Asiatics. They should develop in their own spheres and according to their own way of life. He pointed out that it would only be possible to apply this policy in practice if the groups were given an opportunity to develop in their own racial groups. Otherwise it would be impossible for them to develop independently and to have their own form of government. That means—in contra distinction to what the hon. member for South Coast has said—that it is not only houses that will be built, not only sleeping towns, but each group will become a social entity Which will control its own affairs. This independent community will also develop its own independent undertakings. He said that ultimately the Coloureds would guide and manage the Coloured Development Corporation. He went on to say that the Coloureds will be responsible for providing their own services, services such as health, education, etc. It is clear, therefore, that we are not only developing local forms of government for the Coloured communities merely so that they will have the vote in respect of local government and municipal government. The matter goes beyond that. It must provide the Coloureds with the basis on which they can develop in future. There is nothing to stimulate this development properly as long as so few Coloureds have any real administrative experience. That is why the town managements, the municipalities which will in due course come into existence, will have to train people. The development will not take long. I predict that will come about soon—within five years there will be independent municipalities. That will mean that where the Coloured community is given the opportunity of acquiring knowledge in his own sphere, they will at a later stage be in a better position to perform administrative functions on a provincial plane. Those people will in due course be trained to take their place in a higher sphere. The hon. member for Peninsula made a serious statement the other day. He said that the Coloured people have not asked for this set-up or this Bill. He said that the “Coloured people only wanted to be treated as ordinary citizens”. I want him to tell us why the Coloureds want the old set-up. As an undeveloped community, throughout the centuries, they have had to be satisfied with crumbs off the White man’s table. The tables from which those crumbs have fallen, have not always been wonderful tables either. In some cases they have been the tables of people who have looked after their own interests in the first place and not so much after the interests of the non-White races of South Africa. Hon. members opposite are the heirs of a tradition which has offered nothing or very little to the non-Whites. I should like to refresh the memory of the hon. member for South Coast by reading an extract to him from the report of the Native Commission which conducted an inquiry in 1852 into the position of the Natives. That Commission commented on the one hand on the way in which Natal was governed under the old Boer Volksraad and on the other hand under the set-up when Britain had taken over. The Commission remarks as follows in its report—

It did indeed continue unchanged and unfortunately it continued unchanged for too long. That is why we are in the position in which we are to-day. The hon. member for South Coast says this Bill leaves the Coloured people with a feeling of insecurity and uncertainty. That is the very feeling of insecurity and uncertainty which his party with its policy, or lack of policy, has created. The non-White population do not really know where they are being taken. They have a vague idea where the hon. member for Houghton is leading them. As far as the Government is concerned, however, the non-White knows exactly what we want to do with him. They realize that opportunities are to be created and I predict that in spite of every form of agitation, they will grasp that opportunity to make a contribution to the development of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I find the philosophy of the hon. member who just sat down very interesting. One of the extraordinary arguments which has been used by him in favour of this Bill is that if separate areas were developed for the Coloureds and separate councils were established within those areas, the Coloureds would have all the jobs. That is a most interesting attitude for a member on that side of the House to adopt. If he is so interested in providing jobs for the Coloured people, why does he then support the policy of the Government in regard to job reservation? Would it not be easier and quicker, and would it not bring justice more easily, if he were to assist to abolish job reservation? The hon. member for Piketberg (Mr. Treurnicht) proved to the House to the satisfaction at least of some people, that there were a lot of Coloured people who did not use the rights they had and therefore those rights should be taken away. What that hon. member forgets, Sir, is that the machinery already exists for giving them those rights. While I could dwell on the speech of the hon. member for yet some time, there was another speech delivered before his which I found even more interesting. I refer to the speech of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), during one of her rare appearances in this House. What I found very interesting about the hon. member’s speech—apart from the fact that she chose this occasion to make a full-blooded attack on the official Opposition—is that she studiously avoided the implication of what she said, namely that she was against this Bill, against the whole concept of group areas, the concept of groups and against separate residential facilities. She was completely opposed to everything but she studiously avoided all the implications of it. I am not very much surprised at that because she was not talking to this House but to the voters of Musgrave and of Umbilo. I would, however, like to remind the hon. member for Houghton that as far as Musgrave is concerned, the leader of her Party in Natal said during the last general election that there would be separate amenities for the various groups in Musgrave Road. One need not wonder why the pious platitudes which the hon. member and her colleagues in the Party use to express their policy have come to mean nothing at all. But here I would like to leave the hon. member. I only wanted to tell her what her Party feels in Natal. Obviously, she does not know. It is regrettable and unfortunate that on this occasion, where we have an iniquitous Bill like this which affects everybody in the country, and which does cause the injustices which the hon member for Houghton seemed to indicate did not exist, she did not take the opportunity to attack this Bill which she said she was so very much against. After having stipulated the four most important grounds of opposition to this Bill, she spent all her energies to attack the United Party.

The hon. member must now come back to the provisions of the Bill.

I shall do so, Mr. Speaker. This Bill is the worst Bill which any Minister has ever brought before this House. There has been a lot of accusations about members not reading the Bills, but I will tell the hon. Minister and other members opposite what this Bill is about. The hon. Minister said that the purpose of this Bill was to co-ordinate the machinery of the Group Areas Act with that of the Group Areas Development Act. How has he gone about doing that? He has gone about it by emasculating the Group Areas Board.

By emasculating the United Party!

When one hears a remark like that coming from that hon. member, one wonders whether it was only the board that was being emasculated. The only way in which there could be any co-ordination or the extraordinary machinery which has been set up and to make it work, is to do exactly what the hon. Minister is doing. He has taken unto himself every single power there is. If this Bill had only stipulated that the Minister will henceforth have to exercise all the powers, then I should imagine that about 24 of the clauses of the Bill would have fallen away. The Minister is now to exercise the powers and the Board is going to be abolished. It is true that the hon. Minister is taking unto himself autocratic powers, and then not only autocratic powers but every power there was before plus those that were not there before. He is rendering the Board useless and powerless. What is more, he is cloaking the entire machinery in secrecy. The hon. Minister asks for power in this Bill to appoint standing and ad hoc committees to exercise all the powers of the Board. The Minister will be in a position to say who the members of those committees will be. They need not have to be members of the Board and I have no doubt whatever that they will not be members of the Board. They can, therefore, be any of the Minister’s friends; any member of the civil service; they can be different persons in the same area to deal with different cases, etc. The powers of this Board are very important to the individual. While one’s whole life and home and in many cases one’s whole livelihood—this especially with the Indians in Natal, and I would like the hon. member for Houghton to take notice of this—is dependent upon the provisions of this Bill, upon the discretion exercised by the Board, the Minister now comes along and proposes to take all those powers into his own hands and in effect place them in the hands of civil servants. I am surprised that members opposite do not realize that this constitutes a fundamental breach of the rule of law, namely that the executive which has to administer the laws, should not also be the judge of the individual under those laws. This is a very important principle. This Bill, therefore, presents an ugly and foreboding picture. Add to that the cloak of secrecy in which all the machinery is now going to be shrouded and it gives us a glimpse of the future of all races in this country under this Government. This is the “Grondwet” of the Nationalist’s ideology and as far as they are concerned, it has got to work. In order therefore to take no chances with it, the hon. Minister is taking unto himself every conceivable power. It cannot be entrusted to the Board any longer. Persons owning houses or businesses in the affected areas will not be allowed any more to have any notice of decisions. It is a most fantastic situation which the Minister is creating. Under this Bill he can provide that no notification be given at all of a pending decision to proclaim a group area, or to grant any certificates of exemption, or things of that kind. That is in the discretion of the hon. Minister. If I had any doubt at any stage as to what the hon. Minister was getting at here, the last vestige of doubt has now been removed by this possibility. The power the Minister will have under this Bill will not only be to proclaim as he pleases, but to determine without any consideration for anybody, exactly where a person is to live, how he is to live and on what conditions he will be allowed to remain in an area. The Minister will be in a position to do whatever he likes, in whatever area he likes to do it. And that while the person concerned will not even know about it. This is a most scandalous situation.

Terrible!

I do not think that the hon. member for Vereeniging has seen any great implementation of the Group Areas Act in his constituency. At any rate, I doubt whether that is so. When one hears a remark like that, one wonders whether the hon. member who made it has ever been approached on this matter by his own constituents. My own constituents are directly affected by this Bill. I would like the hon. member for Vereeniging to come to Durban (North) to see what is being done there.

Do not do that to Durban (North)!

I want to say again that the approach of the hon. Minister even now is one of great secrecy. Something which has become obvious to me from the many meetings of the Group Areas Board I have attended as a spectator, is that this Government has a master plan for group areas right throughout South Africa. I would like the hon. Minister to tell this House whether he does have such a master plan. If he does not have such a plan, on what basis is he then working? What is the basis of all the operations which are taking place? I believe that there is such a master plan and that this Bill provides him with the only means to implement that master plan.

Another thing which the hon. Minister now wants to do with a view to co-ordinating the machinery of the Group Areas Act with the machinery of the Groups Areas Development Act, is to take control of group areas development in precisely the same way. The Group Areas Board too will suffer a diminution of powers. The hon. Minister can now do what he likes with group areas development as well. It is very interesting to note that it is the Group Areas Development Board which has to decide how the determinations are to be implemented. The Minister, therefore, will have another wide power because we find that his nominees will determine in secret how much a person is to get for his land and what the basic value of his property is going to be. They will also determine what compensation such a person is going to get. This is scandalous. It is scandalous that a person’s whole life has so been placed in the hands of a person employed by the State in the capacity of an administrative officer.

Are you now discussing the principal Act or this amendment Bill?

I am discussing this Bill. I would not be discussing anything but this Bill.

Where in this Bill do we provide for the appointment of valuators? I challenge you to tell the House.

What the hon. Minister seems to forget is that this Bill proposes changes in the principal Act. If the Board is suddenly to disappear, in effect if not in name, its powers will come in the hands of the hon. Minister. The Minister can then just delegate his powers. That is a very simple process of thought.

Do you not know that the Board never determines the value of properties?

Of course, I know that. There is a committee which determines that. The hon. Minister cannot, however, pretend that there is a Group Areas Development Board or a Valuation Board any more. Those bodies do not exist any longer. They exist in name only. There are many people in my constituency who are affected by this Bill. I have not yet met one person who has been given a fair, decent value for his property. What is more, Sir, it is unfortunate that in the areas where these determinations are to take place, the Europeans are of a lower economic strata.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you whether the hon. member is permitted to discuss legislation which has already been approved by this House? I doubt whether he touched this Bill once in his speech so far.

Order! The hon. member must now confine his remarks to the contents of this Bill.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to refer to Clause 47 (a). This clause amends the Act to provide that if a person has made some improvements to his property, other than an alterational extension, the value can be redetermined on application by the owner. Clause 39 (d) also deals with this point, and Clause 47 (c) and (d). The effect these amendments will have will be that it will reduce further the right of the individual —and I regard it as a right—to get compensation. [Interjection.] Not compensation as the Minister wants it, in the discretion of certain State officials, but compensation pure and simple, determined by an independent tribunal. If the Minister has to go to these lengths to deprive people of their property and give them back nothing in return, and in fact to go so far in terms of this Bill and the main Act together that when you have bought a man’s property having forced him to sell, or bought it yourself, at a price much less than the market value, you then say you want 50 per cent of the difference it is scandalous! And this is perpetuated in this Bill. It is that which is referred to in the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). The Minister did not deal with all these injustices which come up in the latter part of the Act relating to diminution of compensation. Another thing, Clause 47 (d)—can the Minister explain what this means? If somehow or other through bad luck or some outside force, like town planning or a zoning scheme, property suddenly increases in value, or rather decreases in value, then it is possible for the Board to re-value the property and back-date it. How are people to know where they stand under this Bill? The Minister has now set up a complete empire and a complete dictatorship and despotism, without which this Act could not be implemented, and with which it will never be implemented.

The Minister has spoken about these local authorities and the necessity for giving to these areas their own local government, but what he did not mention is that the change he makes in this Bill is that whereas before he had to confer with the Administrator of the Province and the Administrator had to consult the local authority, under this Bill he merely has to consult. So we know that consultation in this respect means nothing whatever as far as this Government is concerned. I hope the Minister will come clean about this and tell us why it is that he does not want to consult with the Administrator when his declared object is to keep the whole matter within the framework of the law of the Province. I will tell him why. It is because in one province he will not get the concurrence of the Administrator and the Executive Committee. If there is one area where the Minister is going to have difficulty in implementing his local authority schemes, it is Natal.

It will be implemented there.

I will give you that assurance, that it will be implemented, whether you like it or not. [Interjections.]

With a sjambok.

There you have it, Sir.

Order! The hon. member may continue to discuss the amendments.

The amendment is that he will consult with the Administrator. Goodness knows, I know what the Administrator and the Executive Committee in Natal will say to this nonsense of the Minister. So why bother to consult him? Why bother to put these little things in the Bill? Why not just take the power to act without consulting them? What the Minister has not learnt about that aspect of his Bill which he is going to implement, come what may, he will hear about; about the impossibility of putting one separate local authority in the middle of the whole complex of the Durban local authority. There are those who are qualified to talk of certain aspects of this who will tell the Minister what nonsense he is perpetrating. But the tragedy is not that, but the attitude of the Minister and of the Government which can believe the democracy can ever exist where you force it on somebody in the way in which this is to be done. [Interjection.] The machinery which is necessary to run any modern country cannot be exercised all from one area. There must be a certain devolution of power in these areas. That has been our history. That is why our local authorities are so good and deal with more difficulties than any other local authority in the world, and why we have a clean record in this country in regard to health, etc. The reason why that is done is that there has been this decentralization, this devolution of power, where the local authorities have learnt their responsibilities in the matters which immediately affect them, and that is what the Minister now wants to stop. The Minister dealt at some length with the question of the franchise in these local areas. I am not going to deal with the franchise because I know the Minister will refer only to the Cape in that regard, but I do want to ask the Minister who it is he is going to appoint to these sub-committees of his, what sort of persons does he have in mind, and whether in Natal he can tell us what sort of thing he is going to do, whether he is going to set up within the area of Durban an Indian local authority and a Coloured authority. I know the Minister has a master plan and I hope at this stage the Minister, before we give him all the powers of Parliament, will tell us exactly what his plans are.

It was interesting to listen to the in-fighting that took place a little while ago between the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) and the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. Actually the hon. member for Houghton chastised the official Opposition because they still do not know exactly where they stand in regard to this Bill and the principal Act, but if one listens to the standpoint adopted by her party and also by the official Opposition, one hears expressions such as the following. The hon. member for Houghton said: “I am totally opposed to the whole system of group areas because it is fundamentally wrong.” The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) said earlier, “Our (the United Party’s) view of life in South Africa differs totally from that of the Nationalist Party”. In other words, one infers that both of them are opposed to this Bill in. principle. So, also, the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) said, “We do not like this Bill, nor the principal Act”. It is a well-known fact that the view of the Nationalist Party in regard to this legislation is that we want to promote racial harmony in South Africa by providing the opportunities for all groups to develop separately. But when one has regard to what the attitude of hon. members opposite has been just recently, one finds the following. On 5 December 1951 the following report appeared in the Burger—

I think the hon. member for Houghton knows who this Mr. Butcher is. Then one finds a statement like this—

That was on 6 June 1950—

I presume that this Mr. Boyd also belongs to the party of the hon. member for Houghton.

That was years ago.

Yes, that may be so, but this all happened in Natal, where the hon. member for Durban (North) comes from, who said that they wanted to have nothing to do with this matter. The former Leader of the United Party held a meeting at Ladysmith in Natal, and according to the Natal Mercury a question was put to him in regard to the Group Areas Act—

At that period the Natal Mercury also wrote as follows on the matter, because Durban was one of the first to ask that provision should be made for them to be protected by this Act. The Natal Mercury wrote as follows—

That is what the position was only a few years ago. Now one wonders why the Opposition groups are to-night fighting each other without knowing what attitude they should adopt in regard to this legislation.

The standpoint of the National Party is based on the attempt to achieve race harmony in this country, and it cannot be worded better than the way the late Dr. D. F. Malan put it when addressing a conference of local authorities on the Group Areas Act in Pretoria on 30 November 1951 when he said this—

He also said—

That is precisely what the Government is doing now, to give a group which is, or has been in the past, less privileged, the opportunity itself to bear responsibility, and along the road of responsibility eventually to get to the top. With the exception of the hon. member who spoke just before me, there were few discussions hitherto in this debate on the merits of the Bill in so far as it deals with the functioning of the machinery for delimitating and developing group areas. All we heard were simply the old complaints that this is the usual annual amendment of the Group Areas Act. I want to ask those hon. members whether it is a crime to amend legislation? Does the amendment of legislation not show initiative and energy on the side of the Government, so as to fit in with changed circumstances? Did the party opposite, when they were in power, never amend legislation?

Not the same Act year after year.

The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) says they did not amend the same legislation year after year. I remember that they did in fact from time to time amend legislation, but I think that is the very reason why they are sitting opposite us to-day, because they neglected to amend their legislation often enough. I have in mind one case particularly the Asiatics (Land Tenure) and Representation of Indians Act of 1946, a piece of legislation which neither the Whites nor the Indians wanted. It lay there uselessly and they did not even have the presence of mind to repeal it. That is one of the reasons why they are sitting where they are, because they did not have the initiative to adapt their legislation to the needs of the time. If the official Opposition still abides by the basic idea of separate residential areas, as was stated by their leader and others at one time, surely they must have plans as to how to implement those separate residential areas, and surely on an occasion such as this they must come to the fore with their plans, and not forget about the Group Areas Act and the Development Act. But they hardly said a single word about those amendments here.

But as observers we see that there is progress. Houses are being built and group areas are being developed, and we see all this developing as the result of the overhaul year after year of the machinery of the Group Areas Act and the Development Act. In the same way the Government is now introducing legislation to establish a new department because the scope of the activities in terms of these two Acts has increased to such an extent that it now requires a separate Government department to handle the administration of group delimitation and development and to co-ordinate it with the functions of the establishment of communities. Therefore I feel that I want to congratulate the Government on the initiative they reveal and on the fact that they are enterprising enough to introduce legislation of this nature establishing a new department But I further want to congratulate it on the officials who are at the head of that Department. Those officials deserve the thanks not only of this House but also of the country because they work hard, and they get little thanks for it, particularly from the Opposition. To-night we can already see the results of the work of that Department and its officials. During the discussion of this Bill a unique opportunity has been given to the opportunity to make a positive contribution to the process of establishing good order and sound relations between the various population groups, but how tragically the Opposition has failed in their duty! On the contrary, they prefer to take this opportunity to sow suspicion in the minds of the less developed groups in regard to the objects of this legislation. The hon. members who represent the Coloureds in this House …

Where are they now?

The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) said, “It is an ill-considered measure”. He says the Coloureds are not interested in it and do not want it and he alleged that it deprived them of their existing municipal rights. The hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) It means the complete disfranchisement of the Coloured municipal voter”. That is the sort of suspicion they sow. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said it meant taking away the rights of the Coloured municipal voters. I say that hon. members who adopt that attitude in regard to this Bill are acting absolutely irresponsibly. We as the guardians of the less privileged groups owe them a duty. If one exercises our guardianship in such a way as to make suspect well-intentioned attempts to give the less privileged groups the opportunity to go to the top, then one fails in one’s duty as a guardian. I want to say to-night that those representatives who said these things have left the people whom they represent in the lurch shamefully by not on this occasion helping to create new opportunities for them. One cannot help but gain the idea that certain people perhaps believe that the development this Bill will bring about may perhaps result in new competition in certain professions in the Coloured group areas.

But this Bill also deals with the franchise, and because hon. members opposite have failed to do their duty here, this debate has become purely a franchise debate. Let us see what the Opposition offers the Coloureds in regard to the municipal franchise. The attitude is that the present municipal franchise should be retained just as it is now. We believe that just as group areas and their development are essential to eliminate friction, so also is the new system of Government envisaged by the Bill, to give the Coloureds the opportunity to gain experience in the management of their own areas. The question has been raised here from the opposite side whether the present set-up leads to friction. My reply is: Of course, the person who in the present circumstances does not notice the friction is really misinterpreting the whole position. Friction can be found everywhere in the world where there is intermingling in a system of government or at any other level; everywhere where different racial groups who are in different stages of development are thrown together and jointly have to elect representatives for the same governmental bodies there is friction. There one finds friction in some form or another, and to deny the possibility of having friction is to deny the basic facts of human nature. There is also friction in South Africa in those bodies where White and non-White are still represented jointly. I want to ask hon. members opposite at what level was the joint government of White and non-White successful, and where in the world has it been a success?

Through the representation of the Coloureds in this Parliament.

The hon. member does not realize what I am referring to. I am referring to the position in our system of municipal government, where White and non-White appear on the same Voters’ Roll, and there is nothing like that in this House. Why does this friction arise? It arises because the underdog, the person who does not have the great opportunities, feels that an injustice is being done to him. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) yesterday with great self-satisfaction told the hon. member for Parow. (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) that in Simonstown, where there is only a small minority of Coloureds, they have now unanimously elected a Coloured to the City Council. I want to assure the hon. member that this Coloured who will now sit on the Town Council of Simonstown will within a short time feel that an injustice has been done to him and feel frustrated, because he will realize that he cannot achieve anything for his own people.

Friction often arises because the under-dogs really have larger numbers behind them than those who are in power, and therefore there is an urge to get to the top, and that group exerts itself to get to the top. And in regard to the ruling top level, they fear the rise of the other group and apply restrictive measures. We have already heard during this debate what happens under those circumstances, but I should like to quote once more from paragraph 33 of the Rossouw Commission, where it says—

I say that is what happens because the top layer who are in power fear the rise of the bottom layer. That is a necessary result of the system of mixed representation. The Committee goes on to say this—

They made that appear very clearly.

Where is the domination of these non-Whites?

In the Cape Province. That is what the Commission says, that even in the case of councils and councillors who regard the idea of separate management as impracticable and do not at all associate themselves with the idea of Coloureds having their own local government, they would not tolerate the position where the Coloureds get control. The report says further that they were convinced that they would be able to continue controlling the Coloured vote by means of administrative measures and to ensure that the Coloureds would not get a decisive say in local government.

I now ask: Is that right? Can any member of the Opposition say it is right to do that? I do not want to say it is only the Cape Town City Council which does it. It happens in other places, too. But it is the natural consequence of the system we have at the moment, that people are inclined for their own self-protection to adopt such measures which give rise to friction anew.

But I want to come to the consequences of measures such as those described in the passage I have just quoted, and again I want to refer to the report of the Rossouw Committee, para. 24—

The State wants to give the Coloureds home ownership to encourage them to get ahead in life—and perhaps the city council concerned also agrees with that—but then that policy is thwarted nolens volens just because the city council wants to prevent the Coloureds having the major say in that council. In para. 25 they say this—

And para. 26—

One of the hon. members stated to-night that the Minister boasts of the houses which have been built, but that this was not due to the Group Areas Act; it is an elementary right which every member of the community has. I think it is the hon. member for Houghton who said that. Sir, do you see how even that elementary right of every individual is being thwarted as the result of the system we have to-day?

I say that we as guardians should perform our task with a sense of responsibility, and that is why the Government has introduced this Bill which wants to send the municipal government of the separate areas into a new direction; and it is not only we in South Africa who have to struggle with franchise problems. We are reminded to-night of a neighbouring state which is struggling with complicated mathematical formulae which, as one of their leaders said, nobody could understand. One has to be clear-headed when dealing with franchise matters. One cannot set out from the standpoint of making experiments any more. Here we have a section of our community, the Coloureds, who must be brought to the fore and must be uplifted and who are now by means of the Group Areas Act being given the opportunity to develop their own residential areas. That gives us the opportunity to grant to them what we grant to ourselves, namely the right to govern ourselves. By means of this legislation we give the Coloureds the right to self-government, gradually through experience. We are not depriving them of anything. It has been alleged that the Coloured is being deprived of municipal rights, but nothing is being taken away. On the contrary, increasingly greater powers are awaiting the Coloured, and increasingly greater opportunities for self-government.

I should like to remind hon. members of the Opposition of the Northern Provinces. How do they reconcile the position there with their conscience, where the Coloureds hitherto have had no share in the administration of the affairs of the town and the cities? Therefore I want to know from the Opposition how they can morally justify the standpoint they are adopting in connection with this matter? Or are they simply using this opportunity, as it seemed to me to-night, to muster votes for a by-election somewhere in Natal? I think it is too late, for the sake of gaining votes for a by-election, to neglect one’s responsibilities towards those who are one’s wards. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I want to express the hope that in spite of the standpoint which the official Opposition adopted here, they will realize that in the long run we can only ensure progress for our Coloured population by means of their own areas and that we can only give them an opportunity to gain self-respect along the way indicated by the Government in terms of this Bill.

I have found the contribution of the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) to this debate particularly interesting. Because I think the hon. member for Stellenbosch has tried in an honest and genuine way …

On an elevated plane.

Yes, on an elevated plane too, he has tried to do something good for the Coloured. But the hon. member has said certain things which deserve closer investigation. He says that the present set-up, in other words the set-up under which in certain areas the names of certain Coloureds who have the necessary qualifications appear on the municipal voters’ roll, causes friction amongst the Coloureds.

The unequal representation.

That has absolutely nothing to do with it. What does have something to do with it, is the standard of living of the Coloured at the present stage. A Coloured who, unlike his fellow-Coloured who has the necessary qualifications, has not got the vote in municipal elections, will definitely feel frustrated. One can quite understand that. But if the standard of living of the Coloured person can be raised, if he can earn more, if he can own or occupy a house or property which qualifies him for the vote under our municipal electoral laws, then I cannot see for a single moment why that Coloured person should feel frustrated. This is the same argument that the hon. member for Piketberg (Mr. Treurnicht) advanced here. He asked how six or seven Coloureds on the Cape Town City Council could satisfy the demands of the Coloureds. Why then cannot I use the same argument in reply to the hon. member? How can four representatives in this Parliament satisfy the requirements of 1,500,000 Coloureds in South Africa?

How many Coloured voters are there in Richmond?

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) must remain in the Chamber this evening, Because it seems to me that he is going to make some interesting interjections. The trend of the discussion the whole evening has been that the Municipality of Cape Town and a few other municipalities are the niggers in the wood pile. But what about all the municipalities in the rural areas? It is said that the municipality of Cape Town is not looking after the interests of the Coloured voters. Let me put this question to the hon. member; Are United Party members in the majority on the Town Council of Richmond? Are United Party members in the majority on the Town Council of Stellenbosch? Are United Party members in the majority on the Town Council of Roberton? Or of Worcester? What about those Coloureds? If the municipality of Cape Town is responsible for the fact that the Coloured voters are not looked after as far as the municipal vote is concerned, then I say that the rural town councils, where the National Party is in majority, is even more responsible than the municipality of Cape Town. Sir, I would not have mentioned this matter of the municipality of Richmond or the municipality of Stellenbosch or of Robertson or any rural town because I think it is altogether unfair …

What about Port Elizabeth (West)?

I refuse to listen to the hon. member because he knows as well as I do that Port Elizabeth (West) is in no position to have its own municipality. It is part of Port Elizabeth itself. He ought to know that. It is not this particular municipality which is responsible for the present situation. If we could raise the standard of living of the Coloured so that he can comply with the municipal franchise qualifications, then the Coloured would feel no sense of frustration.

Two outstanding facts have come to light in this debate. The first is that the present position of the Coloureds in respect of our local bodies must be changed, firstly, because they will allegedly become a danger. According to the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) and according to the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) the Coloureds are a source of danger. But at the same time they point out to this House how few Coloureds there really are on the municipal voters’ rolls. These are two statements which are irreconcilable.

Why is that the position?

I have told the hon. member why that is so. It is because the standard of living of the Coloureds is not sufficiently high yet to enable them to comply with the municipal franchise qualifications. That is the reason. I know hon. members have tried to suggest that it is the United Party which manipulates the voters’ rolls. Sir, there is not a United Party City Council in Cape Town. There is a United Party Council in the Municipality of Johannesburg, yes, but the City Council of Cape Town is not elected on political lines. The political views of those people are their own concern. If hon. members argue that the City Council of Cape Town is guilty of manipulation, then they must expect me to fling back the same argument at them in respect of the scores of municipalities in which the Nationalists have the majority in the Cape Province. The hon. member for Stellenbosch asks whether the United Party is now throwing overboard its old policy of separate residential areas. The idea contained in this legislation has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of separate residential areas. I shall tell you why. In every city and in every town new townships are being laid out every day, whether for Whites, for Blacks or for Coloureds. Not a single hon. member on the other side can tell me that whenever a separate residential area is established in a particular town, self-government or local government is given to those people. [Interjections.] The point I want to make is this. Take the northern suburbs, for example. Many new residential areas have sprung up there in recent times. Does the hon. the Minister want to tell me that those new areas must immediately be given their own municipalities? No, naturally these areas fall under the municipality in whose area they are established.

They are already in a municipal area.

Precisely. The hon. member for Parow is helping me. What is wrong with that? Why should we give Athlone a separate municipality?

It is occupied by people belonging to a different race.

You are obsessed with the race issue.

Let me say this clearly to the hon. member for Parow …

Order! Hon. members are making far too many interjections. I am allowing them a certain amount of latitude but hon. members are misusing it.

Let me put the position very clearly to the hon. member for Parow. We on this side of the House, and particularly we in the Cape Province who are intensely interested in and intimately acquainted with this problem, have stated repeatedly that the Coloured has never been a danger to the West or to White civilization as we know it. We say that the Coloured must stand by the White man.

We say so too; we do not deny that.

Why does the hon. member want to separate them from us now? The hon. member says that he does not deny that. The hon. member for Parow also says that the Coloured is part and parcel of the Western civilization in South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

I do not care what the hon. member for Marico says. I think it is in the interests of the White man and of White civilization that we should have a great degree of respect for the Coloureds.

You love them too much.

Order! This is not the time to talk about love.

The Coloured, as we know him, forms part of Western civilization. He has shared with us the rights which we as Whites have had in this province. That is why we have been prepared to share the privileges of local government with those Coloureds who have complied with the qualifications laid down in our Provincial Ordinances, because they have never constituted a danger nor will they ever constitute a danger. The hon. member for Piketberg has said himself that there are very few Coloureds who realize the difficulties and the problems of local self-government. If, as the hon. member for Piketberg says, there are so few Coloureds, how then can those people constitute a danger to Western civilization in this country? How can they constitute a danger to the Whites in this province?

Come back to the Bill.

I say to the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) that I am dealing with this Bill, because in this Bill plans are being devised to introduce an entirely new dispensation for the Coloureds, and we on this side of the House stand for the retention of the present set-up.

With which clause are you dealing?

Hon. members on the other side continually talk about differentiation and they say that we must have the Coloureds on our side. But, Mr. Speaker, do you know where we now propose to let the Coloureds start? We now want the Coloureds to start on an even lower rung than that on which we made the Natives start last year.

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

With all due respect, may I just put this to you: The main principle of this Bill is contained in Clause 22, and that is that we want to change the municipal franchise of the Coloured, particularly here in the Cape Province. And that is what I am discussing the whole time. I say that it would be wrong, from the point of view of retaining our Western way of life, to make the Coloureds go back to a lower rung than we were prepared to concede last year to the Natives.

Where?

I shall tell the hon. member where. Formerly we gave the Natives advisory committees in our local authorities. Last year we changed the advisory committees into urban Bantu Councils. According to Clause 22 we are now starting in the first place with consultative committees; they then became management committees and as a third step only, they can be given local self-government. I say that is entirely wrong. We are putting the cart before the horse. Why should the Coloured, who has had all the opportunities of serving on city councils have to start in an advisory capacity only?

Why should he start in a consultative capacity?

Surely the hon. member knows what Clause 22 says. He ought to know. The Coloureds are first given consultative bodies; then they are given management committees and as a third step only they can be given local self-government which is equivalent to the municipality of the White man.

He can start at the third stage.

That I understand perfectly well. There are some municipalities, of course, which already have those people on their councils. And I understand, of course, that there are some places where the Coloureds have no experience of local government. Let me put this to the hon. member for Malmesbury: These Coloureds of Cape Town who have been accustomed to serving on the City Council of Cape Town, who have a share in the government of this City …

How many of them?

That question has been replied to on numerous occasions in this House. At the moment there are something like six on the Council. Does the hon. member want to tell me that it is right that those people should be required now to go back to a rung which is lower than the rung that they have already reached? Naturally, Sir, they will be going to a lower rung. Does the hon. member want to suggest to me that the Coloureds who are going to serve on the Municipality of Athlone, with its annual budget of R10,000 or R12,000 or R100,000 will be bearing the same responsibility that they had when they served on the City Council of Cape Town with its budget running into millions of rand …

What say have they had there?

I say that this is a retrogressive step for the Coloured as far as his development is concerned.

May I ask the hon. member a question: Will he admit that Pinelands’ revenue is smaller than that of Cape Town? Is it humiliating for that reason to serve on the Town Council of Pinelands?

If the hon. member for Malmesbury were to become a Town Councillor of Pinelands, after having been a City Councillor of Cape Town, his responsibility would certainly be much les.

You are talking nonsense.

Does the hon. member for Vereeniging want to suggest to me that his responsibility in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal was greater than his responsibility in this Parliament?

Just as great.

Why were you so anxious to get away from it?

To get away from you.

The Coloured is just as accustomed to this sytem as the White man is. It has worked excellently. It has been no danger to us. How could it be a danger with the handful of Coloureds who had the franchise qualifications? The hon. member for Parow has mentioned another argument which I think also deserves closer investigation—and this is one of the consequences of this legislation. A particular municipal area will now have to be divided into a White area, an Indian area and a Coloured area. The hon. member for Parow himself has said that the rateable property belonging to Coloureds in Parow is valued at about R2,250,000.

I did not speak about Parow at all.

I mean Goodwood. If that Coloured area, out of which the Coloureds of Goodwood have to derive their income, is cut off, it will inevitably affect the income of the Whites, under the present municipal system. If a municipal area which formerly had rateable property to the value of more than R2,250,000 now has to make ends meet without that rateable property, the result will be that in that particular municipal area the rates and taxes in respect of the remaining White group will have to be increased.

That aspect is not under consideration at all under this Bill. The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pointing out to the House what problems will arise if this Bill, as it now reads, is passed by this House.

Yes, but the hon. member is going too far.

May I ask the hon. member a question? I want to ask the hon. member whether it is not a fact that the Coloured councillors at present serving on the Cape Town City Council will be the leaders in these new City Councils whereas to-day they are henchmen?

I would say that is an argument which does hold water, but it will depend on whether that Coloured person will be able to take his place together with the White man; and it will depend on the type of lead that Coloured person himself will be able to give and what respect he can command from the White man for his wisdom and his executive ability. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that you have pointed out to me that I have advanced certain arguments which are not relevant perhaps, because it gives me an opportunity to come back to a matter on which I should like to make one or two observations. The hon. the Minister says that everything will be left to the Coloureds, that eventually they themselves will determine their own future. Mr. Speaker, I say that is not correct. The future of the Coloureds will depend on the kindness of the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs and of Community Development. I should like to refer you to Clause 25bis.

You referred to that a moment ago.

Order! I must point out to hon. members that this is not a place of entertainment. [Laughter.] I do not want hon. members to laugh about it. The hon. member may proceed.

According to Section 25bis … [Interjections.]

Order! If there are any further remarks, I shall order the hon. member concerned to leave the Chamber.

According to Clause 25bis local government can only follow after the appointment of management committees in these non-White areas. But according to sub-section (3)—

That is the condition. And then in line 42—

Not by the consultative committee, Mr. Speaker, not as proposed by the Administrator. Yes, he may consult the Administrator but the type of local authority will be as specified by the hon. the Minister. Hon. members on the other side then come along and say to us, “Oh, but this new control, these new privileges in which the Coloureds will share, will be equivalent to those enjoyed by the Coloureds to-day”. If that is the position, why is it not stated in so many words? Why should it be subject to the approval of the hon. the Minister? Why according to his specifications? Why should the provincial authority only be consulted? Why not say “with the approval of the provincial authority?” I know that the constitutional aspect of this matter was discussed the other day, but we must always remember that the local authorities are the most important bodies when it comes to local government. Why should the hon. the Minister merely consult with the Administrator of the province concerned? The hon. the Minister is not going to suggest to me that he or his Department—although I realize that the Minister is not an inefficient person—know more about local circumstances and local government than the Administrator. This clause gives the hon. the Minister the right to do what he likes. He need not even pay any attention to the wishes of the Coloureds. No, the local authority will be of a type specified by him—

Moreover, according to our South Africa Act, our provincial authorities are charged with the responsibility for local government. The hon. the Minister is going to compel the province concerned—or that is what it amounts to—

The hon. the Minister would simply force the hand of the provincial authority concerned. What becomes of the idea of consultation with the Coloureds then? I admit, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes to the consultative committees, a local authority cannot make a regulation which also affects a Coloured area unless it has consulted that particular consultative committee. But when it comes to the local authority itself, then it is not a question of consultation. No, then the Minister has the power to apply the law as he wants to apply it and not as the people of the local authority concerned want to apply it. I say that is an entirely wrong principle. This Government tells us that eventually the Coloured will fit in beautifully under this umbrella idea. But the handle of that umbrella will always be in the hands of the hon. the Minister of Community Development. It will not be left to the Coloured to develop as far as he wants to develop, which is apparently the ideology of the other side of the House. Here we have a typical example which shows that it will depend on the discretion of the hon. the Minister of Community Development and of Coloured Affairs, it will depend on him to what extent the Coloureds develop. That is the great difference between hon. members on the other side and ourselves. We say that we should treat the Coloured as part and parcel of our Western civilization, that we should take him along with us. That is a problem which hon. members on the other side will have to face sooner or later. Will they always be able to hold that umbrella?

The hon. member must come back to the Bill now.

Would it not be better then to retain the present position? There are no disadvantages attached to the present system. What disadvantages are there? The only disadvantage, according to hon. members on the other side, is that the Coloureds will not be able to manage their own affairs then. Of course the Coloured will still manage his own affairs. To give an example, Sir, surely when a member sits in this House he still manages his affairs outside this House, whether he be a farmer or an advocate or an industrialist or anything else. In this House the farmer also has a say in the affairs of the industrialist and vice versa. When that Coloured sits in the City Council of Cape Town, he has a say in the government of that city, which also includes his residential area, even if his small residential area only comprises one square mile while the balance comprises six or ten square miles: that does not matter at all. He plays his role in the government of the city as a whole, and at the same time he also has a say in those matters which only affect him. The last argument that I want to mention is this.

At 10.25 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned.